Walter MossАрхивная копия от 23 сентября 2020 на Wayback Machine. A history of Russia: Since 1855. Anthem Press, 2004. « During the 1990s, some historians accepted Viktor Suvorov’s argument that Soviet defenses were unprepared for a German attack because Stalin was preparing to attack Germany first and was therefore stressing offensive operations rather than defensive ones. Albert Weeks' recent study argues in a similar fashion. Most scholars, however, including Glantz, Gorodetsky, Ericson, and Uldricks, reject the Suvorov viewpoint.»
Jörg Echternkamp and Stefan Martens, editors. Experience and Memory: The Second World War in Europe. The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the American Historical Association: «The simplifying views of the former Soviet military scout and later GRU (Soviet military intelligence) defector Viktor Suvorov, alias Vladimir Rezun, which some conservative historians support, are not convincingly confirmed by the available data. The core idea is adapted from National Socialist propaganda… Suvorov alias Rezun searches for contradictions, for deviations from the facts, and for the concealment of certain events in the memoirs of Red Army commanders, and constructs a conspiracy theory of sorts from these conclusions. In fact, the only thing proven here is that human memory is fallible and that memoirs can only be consulted as one type of source among various others»
ksu.edu
www-personal.ksu.edu
David R. StoneАрхивная копия от 14 февраля 2012 на Wayback Machine. Soviet Intelligence on Barbarossa: The Limits of Intelligence History // Intelligence and statecraft: the use and limits of intelligence in international society. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2005. "Most serious historians, in Russia and the West, find Suvorov’s methods and conclusions beneath contempt, but the amount of effort devoted to proving them false is truly staggering.// In Russia, for example, the chief Russian military history journal published May 1941 directives from the Ministry of Defense ordering its military districts to draw up «a detailed plan lo defend the stale border» to "cover the mobilization, concentration, and deployment of troops, « along with the defense plans themselves of the Baltic, Western, Kiev, Odessa, and Leningrad Military Districts.1 The publication’s goal was clear and explicit: to refute Suvorov’s notion that Soviet war plans were anything other than defensive.».
«К началу Второй мировой войны Советский Союз имел более одного миллиона отлично подготовленных десантников-парашютистов.» // Виктор Суворов.Ледокол. — Новое время, 1992. — 352 с. — ISBN 5-86606-057-4. Архивировано 5 июня 2010 года.
«К началу Второй мировой войны Советский Союз имел более одного миллиона отлично подготовленных десантников-парашютистов.» // Виктор Суворов.Ледокол. — Новое время, 1992. — 352 с. — ISBN 5-86606-057-4. Архивировано 5 июня 2010 года.
Walter MossАрхивная копия от 23 сентября 2020 на Wayback Machine. A history of Russia: Since 1855. Anthem Press, 2004. « During the 1990s, some historians accepted Viktor Suvorov’s argument that Soviet defenses were unprepared for a German attack because Stalin was preparing to attack Germany first and was therefore stressing offensive operations rather than defensive ones. Albert Weeks' recent study argues in a similar fashion. Most scholars, however, including Glantz, Gorodetsky, Ericson, and Uldricks, reject the Suvorov viewpoint.»
David R. StoneАрхивная копия от 14 февраля 2012 на Wayback Machine. Soviet Intelligence on Barbarossa: The Limits of Intelligence History // Intelligence and statecraft: the use and limits of intelligence in international society. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2005. "Most serious historians, in Russia and the West, find Suvorov’s methods and conclusions beneath contempt, but the amount of effort devoted to proving them false is truly staggering.// In Russia, for example, the chief Russian military history journal published May 1941 directives from the Ministry of Defense ordering its military districts to draw up «a detailed plan lo defend the stale border» to "cover the mobilization, concentration, and deployment of troops, « along with the defense plans themselves of the Baltic, Western, Kiev, Odessa, and Leningrad Military Districts.1 The publication’s goal was clear and explicit: to refute Suvorov’s notion that Soviet war plans were anything other than defensive.».
Colonel David M. Glantz. Fact and Fancy: The Soviet Great Patriotic War, 1941—1945 // Peter B. Lane, Ronald E. Marcello. Warriors and scholars: a modern war reader.University of North Texas Press[англ.], 2005: «Russian emigre whose real name was Alexander Kezun, in his book, Icebreaker, several years ago. Rezun used one document, a document signed by Zhukov on May 15, 1941, when he was serving as Chief of the General Staff. The document is a proposal that he submitted through Minister of Defense Timoshenko to Stalin. The document, which I have seen in the original, proposed that the Red Army launch a preemptive offensive against the Germans, who were obviously mobilizing in eastern Poland. The Suvorov thesis, obviously, is quite comforting for German historians today because it in some way obviates German blame for launching the war in the first place. It has been welcomed by two groups: a small group of German historians and a small group of Russian historians who are willing to blame Stalin for everything bad that has ever occurred in the world. Suvorov’s thesis is indeed a myth. It is built on fragmentary evidence cut out of whole cloth. When it is examined against archival materials that outline the dilapidated state of the Red Army in 1941, it simply does not hold water.»
