Kindle freebie, was £2.25: Second World War: Soviet historian, Victor Suvorov, tells the true story of World War II, revealing that the war was started by the Soviets -- not the Germans - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HotUKDeals, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HotUKDeals app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit
92Expired

Kindle freebie, was £2.25: Second World War: Soviet historian, Victor Suvorov, tells the true story of World War II, revealing that the war was started by the Soviets -- not the Germans

£0.00 @ Amazon
Since its original publication in Russian (entitled Ledokol) in France in 1988, it has been published in an astonishing 87 editions in 18 languages. Soviet historian, Victor Suvorov, tells the true… Read More
Ajibee Avatar
5m, 4d agoFound 5 months, 4 days ago
Since its original publication in Russian (entitled Ledokol) in France in 1988, it has been published in an astonishing 87 editions in 18 languages.

Soviet historian, Victor Suvorov, tells the true story of World War II, revealing that the war was started by the Soviets -- not the Germans. He contends that the Soviet Union's part in starting the war was very much greater and much more sinister than has hitherto been exposed.

The book takes a close look at the origins and development of World War II in Europe, and in particular the background to Hitler's Operation Barbarossa attack against the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941. In spite of rigid Soviet censorship, Suvorov has succeeded in digging up many nuggets of valuable information from publicly available Soviet writings that confirm his central thesis. Icebreaker is based on the author's meticulous scouring of such published sources as memoirs of wartime Soviet military leaders, and histories of individual Soviet divisions, corps, armies, fleets, and air units.
More From Amazon:
×
Get the Hottest Deals Daily
Stay informed. Once a day, we'll send you the deals our members voted as the best.
Failed
Ajibee Avatar
5m, 4d agoFound 5 months, 4 days ago
Options

All Comments

(14) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
#1
Oh please he is a historical reviisionist nutcase
1 Like #2
branstonbear
Oh please he is a historical reviisionist nutcase
Oh please make some effort to substantiate what you say, e.g.:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Suvorov

...is a Russian writer, an amateur historian regularly accused of historical revisionism and a former Soviet military intelligence officer who defected to the United Kingdom. Suvorov made his name writing Icebreaker and several follow-up books on history of World War II.

Sounds like an interesting chap - can't think why anyone, anyone, might seek to traduce a GRU officer who defected to the UK!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icebreaker_(Suvorov)

Suvorov challenges the view that Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime attacked an unsuspecting USSR on June 22, 1941 with a much superior and better prepared force. Instead, Suvorov argues that the Soviet Union was poised to invade Nazi-controlled territories in July 1941.

Suvorov claims that Stalin successfully manipulated Hitler into removing the "buffer zone" (Poland) between Europe and the USSR. Suvorov further argues that Stalin's goal was the export of communism to other countries. Once Hitler 'broke the ice', Soviet victory in the large-scale war that followed would enable the USSR to impose Stalinist regimes on most of Europe. In this theory, Nazi military aggression would ironically form the icebreaker for a communist invasion.

Suvorov is often accused (or praised by historical revisionists) of shifting the blame of World War II on Stalin and thus removing the blame from Hitler.[citation needed] However, the actual content of Icebreaker contains no praise of Hitler or justification of his terror. In his later books, Suvorov insists that Stalin was a true evil genius (although unlucky), while describing Hitler as evil but grossly incompetent.

Sounds like a very plausible thesis to me - the USSR was intent on exporting communism up until its collapse under the weight of its own contradictions in 1990. As for WW2, the USSR likes to play the innocent victim - carefully eliding its part in the invasion and partition of Poland in 1939, with Hitler and the Germans taking the western half and the USSR taking the eastern half.

Edited By: Ajibee on Jan 17, 2017 12:47: Added information.
#3
The banks started ww2 and the rest of wars, they fund both sides.
1 Like #4
cowsindahouse
The banks started ww2 and the rest of wars, they fund both sides.

May I introduce you to fellow HUKDer branstonbear? :)

I think it was actually people that started it - they've been the common factor in every war ever.
#5
Strange that the Soviets were woefully unprepared in material terms for war in the summer of '41 and Stalin had recently carried out huge purges of red army officers, real smart way to prepare for their own attack!
1 Like #6
Interesting theories but weak evidence. The great purge is one of the most damaging facts to it. Plus the winter war showed Stalin his forces this early were barely fit to beat up a small weaker nation at that time. Let alone go head to head with a major military power like Britain or Germany for Europe.

Most critics points to some major flaws as the years have passed, he has bandied this about for decades
1 Like #7
If the main premise of this book is true, why didn't the West take the opportunity to smear the Soviets during the 40+ years of the cold war, especially if the reasons were somehow "sinister"? Wouldn't NATO intelligence services have had plenty of time to dig up enough proof by the late eighties and not miss out on such a golden opportunity to score points over the Communists?
Having said that, I believe it's always good to have an open mind, so even though I won't be reading it myself, I'll reserve judgement for now.
#8
People don't start wars governments do
suspended#9
Women start all the wars, By not having enough sex with their Men, If Men were laid more for FREE then they would be a lot more happier and then who wants to go to war if pussy galore is on tap X)
#10
Glamwampam
Women start all the wars, By not having enough sex with their Men, If Men were laid more for FREE then they would be a lot more happier and then who wants to go to war if pussy galore is on tap X)


I was JUST thinking the same !!! But then my alarm went off and woke me up.
#11
This should not be hot at all really as its flawed and its nothing new. As my eminent friend and historian, Dr Dennis, writes, "Russia was in no position to successfully negotiate a world war in either 1939 or 1941. Even if it is argued that the Nazi-Soviet pact was signed from the Russian perspective in order to gain time for her to boost her military capabilities, Stalin could in no way have been confident enough in his ability to predict the course of events subsequent to the signing of that treaty (not least the amazingly quick defeat of France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, and German domination of Europe)."
#12
Glamwampam
Women start all the wars, By not having enough sex with their Men, If Men were laid more for FREE then they would be a lot more happier and then who wants to go to war if pussy galore is on tap X)
Correct.
#13
Glamwampam
who wants to go to war if pussy galore is on tap X)
Craft ales are not to everyone's taste though!!
#14
matedodgy
This should not be hot at all really as its flawed and its nothing new. As my eminent friend and historian, Dr Dennis, writes, "Russia was in no position to successfully negotiate a world war in either 1939 or 1941. Even if it is argued that the Nazi-Soviet pact was signed from the Russian perspective in order to gain time for her to boost her military capabilities, Stalin could in no way have been confident enough in his ability to predict the course of events subsequent to the signing of that treaty (not least the amazingly quick defeat of France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, and German domination of Europe)."
It seems apt, given your comment, that the book is about a conflict between those who burnt books and those who censored them. Alas, you've omitted to provide a link to details of your eminent historian friend and his comments on this book too :)

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Top of Page
Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!