Talk:Icebreaker (non-fiction book)

Ex-Soviet
The article describes some archive material as "ex-Soviet". Is this the same as "Soviet"? If so I'll remove the "ex-". cagliost (talk) 07:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Absolut war
I reviewed briefly "Absolut war" very interesting book. He confirms that there were several plans of Soviets to attack Germans, but he belives they would have been utter failure. Can we refresh an article a bit using the new book? Cautious 09:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Old talk
And I think the facts from Suvorov's biography should go to his page Viktor Suvorov Gene s 06:36, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Removed:

The prevaling ideology in the USSR at that time was that revolution may survive only when it happens everywhere (Permanent Revolution. Thus Soviet government felt an obligation to instigate the communist revolution in the neighboring countries.
 * "The prevailing..." -- It was not. See Permanent Revolution).
 * "Thus Soviet government..." -- speculation.

Mikkalai 23:38, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I believe it was wrong to remove the piece. It was discussed in the book. If you so wish, you can write that the book speculated about the prevailing ideology. It's wrong to remove it. I put it back.

Gene s 14:22, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * It is wrong to keep false statements as statements of fact, so I removed it again. But I see your point (about the book). I'll try to replace the piece by something more correct after re-reading the book (I have it). Mikkalai 15:23, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * First, I believe the statement is factualy true. I would agree with you if you could provide references. Second, such claim is made in the book (I also have it). If you just remove the statement, the second part about Stalin's reasons for invading Europe makes little sence. I have no objection if you rewrite it. Untill you have time to rewrite it I believe the piece should stay. By the way, you may also want to check out Viktor Suvorov. Your edit the first book is a little ambigous because the first book (afaik) was Aquarium, not Icebreaker. Icebreaker was the firt on the subject. Gene s 17:03, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I've already provided the reference (in fact, you did it yourself): it is Permanent Revolution, so RTFM, dear sir. The statement is false. the theory belongs to Trotsky, ans Stalin was against it. Like I said, I'll reveiew the book and write the opinion of Suvorov expressed there, not as a fact it was presented in the deleted piece. You are right about the "first book", sorry. Mikkalai 18:32, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Your current edition is kind of hard to read, but the content is OK. "RTFM", "nonsence". I don't believe language like that is justified when dealing with a minor disagreement. Gene s 03:53, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * "Nonsense" describes the phrase, not a person, nor your believe in the truth of the phrase. I wouln't call the disagreement minor; I'd call it misinformation. As for RTFM, see RTFM. When you objected me I took labor to recheck and substantiate my claim. The recheck of your belief was one mouse click away. You chose to simply revert me without bothering to do the mouse click at the reference provided (see RTFM, sentence two). Mikkalai 07:37, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * You seem to hold the article Permanent Revolution as the highest authority. You may want for example to RTF Suvorov's opinion on why Stalin suppressed Trotsky theory. So, you RTFBook before saying "nonsence" regarding things you clearly don't fully understand. It's also a really good idea for you to try to watch your language, because the way you use it asks for a confrontation. Gene s 09:18, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I hold that wikipedia should maintain consistency, hence the article Permanent Revolution is supposed to be the highest authority here. If it is wrong or incomplete, then fix it, rather than spread alternative views elsewhere for the confusion of readers. Mikkalai 15:50, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * You seem to entirely miss the concept of a dissenting opinion. The whole point of Suvorov's writing is to express such an opinion. I don't believe it's right to fix the PR article because it expresses the majority opinion. On the other hand, Suvorov page should express his opinions even if they are different from anybody else's.Gene s 09:37, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * You seem to entirely miss the concept of proper attribution. If you are presenting suvorov's opinion, write so. The default perception is that encyclopedia expresses encyclopedia's opinion. Mikkalai 15:50, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, PermRev theory superficially resembles the actual policy of Stalin, but one must be careful with stickers and labels. Quite often things labelled notably differ from what could be inferred from the "linguistic" analysis of the label. "Permanent revolution" is a specific term for specifically trotskyist theory; call it Trotsky's trademark. Of course, Trotsky's heirs will not sue you, like, e.g., VELCRO (TM) trademark holders.... That's nearly all I must want to know on the f subject to state that "The prevaling ideology in the USSR at that time was that revolution may survive only when it happens everywhere" is utter nonsense. "


 * And throwing accusations like that in such words is a demonstration of sheer lack of responsibility and bad attitude. Gene s 09:37, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * ... and picking on attitude rather than on logic and arguments is a good way to win in the dispute, isn't it? Say yes or no, are you still unconvinced that the statement in question is false? (or syaing that someone wrote a false phrase is bad attitude as well?) Mikkalai 15:50, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * At that time" USSR was pretty much alive and kicking; and it was spreading not for the reason to survive, just as Genghis Khan or British Empire didn't struggle for survival when they spread over.
 * It was struggling for survival by spreading over the world. Can't you see the contradiction in your logic? One does not deny the other. Gene s 09:37, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * You are sidestepping the issue: we are talking about the phrase that speaks about an oficial doctrine, not about the underlying motives; the latter ones we may only speculate about, with varying degree of proof. Once more: let's concentrate: (1) do you still stand that Permanent Revolution was prevailing ideology of USSR at these times? or: (2) Do you stand that it was Suvorov's opinion expressed in the book in question? Mikkalai 15:50, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * As for Suvorov's opinion (I've RTFB twice these days), the thickest thread of the book in question is "war as a driving force of proletarian revolution"; purposes of revolution are not discissed there. As for Stalin vs. Trotsky, the book frequently says what Trotsky thought of Stalin and his politics, not vice versa. Mikkalai 17:58, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Then this is how you read it. It's your personal view which is different from mine. What makes you a final instance of truth? I read it differently. And probably you should read some of his other books too. It might open your views a bit wider. Gene s 09:37, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * As for "hard to read" part, you may easily guess English is not among my strong skills, and I am grateful to those who take labor to clean up my clumsy writings. Mikkalai 07:42, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

SSSR was imperalist nation.It didnt strive to expand revolution worldwide,otherwise it would regard eastern european countries equally after"liberating"them in 1945.Ask any Pole or Czech and they will tell you how exploited they felt by Moscow starting from grain import till other things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.112.167.250 (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

To Mikkalai
Are you done re-reading the Icebreaker? Should the piece about the world revolution be restored now or you need more time? --Gene s 16:54, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Did you happen to notice that I put in a piece that says basically the same as the removed piece, but much closer to what Suvorov writes in the book that is the topic of the article?

I not only did reread the book, I also run text search on "&#1058;&#1088;&#1086;&#1094;&#1082;&#1080;&#1081;", "&#1087;&#1077;&#1088;&#1084;&#1072;&#1085;&#1077;&#1085;&#1090;", "&#1088;&#1077;&#1074;&#1086;&#1083;&#1102;&#1094;&#1080;&#1103;", "&#1057;&#1090;&#1072;&#1083;&#1080;&#1085;". And I have all reasons to state that the book is about Stalin's drive to instigate a war as a driving force of "international revolution". But speaking about other revolutions the book says nothing on the matter of survival of the first "proletarian revolution", the core of "PermRev" theory. The book says nothing about whether Suvorov thought "permanent revolution" was state's ideology. If Suvorov says so in some other book, you are welcome to move the phrase into the corresponding article. Mikkalai 17:20, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * OK, so you believe there is a significant difference between the World (or International) Revolution and the Permanent revolution, right? The difference is so big, that using one in place of the other is "nonsence". So, please do explain the essence of this huge difference. It should not be a problem since the difference is so big, right?
 * This issue was not my point. Besides, since a while before, right on this page, you raised doubts as to the authority of wikipedia on this issue, I have desire to present any further arguments in front of you. Mikkalai 04:54, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * This issue is my point about your use of language like 'nonsence'. You called 'nonsence' my statemnet which was essentially different from yours book is about Stalin's drive to instigate a war as a driving force of "international revolution" only in my use of permanent revolution in place of international revolution. And I used PR only because such article existed. Please do provide your justification for using the word 'nonsence'. --Gene s 06:59, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * OK. Now I see. There are two issue. First, I have to apologize for the particular usage of the language. Unfortulately the history log cannot be edited, and a word typed in a haste remains there forever as a monument of stupidity an rudeness.
 * Thank you. Apology accepted, this part is closed. --Gene s 09:54, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * the second isssue is my opinion why the removed statement is false. That is already whitten above, but I can repeat. The term "permanent revolution" is precisely the term, specifically to denote the theory of Trotsky. Even not going into details, in no way it could be the ideology of Stalin 's state. This seemed to me so evident that I used extreme language. The only reasonable way way you could have phrase it is something like "in essence similar to Trotsky's Permrev". But even such phrasing is wrong, see below. Mikkalai 17:08, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't you agree Trotsky was the best expert on the use of the term permanent revolution vs. international revolution, right? Here is one of his works: /Trotsky, Leon. Our Revolution: Essays on Working-class and International Revolution, 1904-1917. Moissaye J. Olgin, comp. H. Holt, 1918./ I agree that the term permanent revolution is usually attributed to Trotsky, but the distinction is not as clear cut as you seem to think. As I said before, I agree that Suvorov did not use the term PermRev in Ledokol. I used the link only because the article existed and the difference between permrev and intrev seemed trivial to me. On the other hand, I think in 'Day M', S. offered a conjecture on why Stalin ordered Trotsy's murder - Trotsky was openly talking about revolutionary expansion while Stalin wanted to keep it secret. And that appeared to me as a proof that the difference between Trotsky's theory and Stalin's plan was not that significant (at least in Suvorov's opinion, and this page is all about his opinions). --Gene s 09:54, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * On you second point. OK, it may not be survival, but expansion. Fine.
 * On the third point. If Stalin (according to Suvorov) believed so, but it was not state ideology, then you are implying that there was state idology which was different from Stalin's point of view. How is it so?
 * Huh? Stalin believed what? And this stated where? Mikkalai 04:54, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * --Gene s 03:58, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Your words: book is about Stalin's drive to instigate a war as a driving force of "international revolution". So, Stalin (according to Suvorov) did not belive in it, but was driven to instigate it? Please do provide any logical explanation for this inconsistency. --Gene s 06:59, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * "international revolution" is not the same as Permanent revolution. PermRev is a specific term with specific meaning, while IntRev (russian: "&#1084;&#1080;&#1088;&#1086;&#1074;&#1072;&#1103; &#1088;&#1077;&#1074;&#1086;&#1083;&#1102;&#1094;&#1080;&#1103;") is simply a (proletarian) revolution in the whole world, without any other specifics. The goal of the IntRev is to "liberate the suffering working brothers", while the goal of PermRev is to sustain a revolution in a particular country. IMO this difference is just as marked as the difference between altruism and egoism. Now, you may say that the goal of InRev might as well be "egoistic". But we are talking about ideology here, i.e., about what is declared in written. We may conclude that Stalin was, say, a power-hungry tyrant, but we cannot claim it was his ideology. Often ideology serves to "cover tracks", so to say. At best, we can speak of "politics", i.e., actions of Stalin. But again, I urge to be careful with words that have a specific, recognized meaning. Otherwise there will be total confusion.
 * Personally, I think if Trotski had a chance to gain power, he would be even worse tyrant than Stalin. For example, his idea of Labor army (oops, the article is missing, or may be the term is known in English under another name?) would bring GULAG much faster and with less hypocrisy. And it is quite possible that this perfectly communist idea of Trotsky uinspired Stalin, but we are using the term labor camp, rather than labor army, despite the fact that GULAG in fact had army-type organization. Mikkalai 17:08, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * It's either Labour Army or Labor Army with the first being a touch more common probably because Brits pay more atention to European history. Yes, I gree that T. would likely have been worse than Stalin. On the other hand, the USSR might not have survived for as long as it did. Who knows. --Gene s 09:54, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

-

i dont understand this theory. dont most people say that the economy of the 'capitalist nations' was brought out of the 'great depression' by the war? didnt the 'great depression' do more to foist 'class consciousness' on the people than war? i dont know.

Removed "Critique" section
The unattributed critique removed. mikka (t) 21:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Critique

 * Any serious study of the operational performance of the German Wehrmacht and the Red Army and Air Force in the initial period of Operation Barbarossa reveals that the Soviet forces were obviously unprepared for basic military operations and were in a peacetime state.

But Suvorov simply says that it is generally true with one small correction: Soviets were utterly, totally, absolutely unprepared for defensive military operations (According to Suvorov, Stalin simply did not believe that Hitler will attack USSR because he could not win such war). Conclusion that unpreparedness for defense is the same as unpreparedness for war, says Suvorov, is flawed. Army was prepared for offensive military operations.

In the following paragraph Suvorov's critics argumentation contradicts not only Suvorov, it contradicts itself:


 * Although Suvorov claims that an attack date of July 8, 1941 had been selected, this is contradicted by the overwhelming mass of evidence. There were no stockpiles of the fuel, ammunition, and other stores held in forward areas as would have been needed if an invasion was about to be mounted.

Yet Red Army stockpiles were decimated in first weeks of war, no one disputes this, right? How can stockpiles be destroyed if they were far away from the border? Bombers of the time had insufficient range to struck, say, Kiev or Moscow. Then how did they manage to destroy stockpiles?
 * Major ground units were dispersed into small garrisons rather than being concentrated at railheads, as they would have been had they been preparing an invasion. Units were not co-located with their own transportation assets, leaving, for example, major artillery units immobile.

USSR is huge. Imagine that army was dispersed roughly according to population density. Then most of it must have had enough time (a few weeks at least) to organize itself before front lines would reach it. It did not happen. Somehow, significant portion of army was destroyed in the first month. How was this possible? _Where_ was the army? Think about it...


 * Air Force aircraft were parked in neat, tightly-packed rows along their airfields rather than dispersed.

Again, this couldn't be relevant if planes are on, say, Moscow airfield. Or Kiev. But it was very relevant because they mostly weren't at Moscow. They were much, much, much closer to Western border. They had to be within ~100 km from border to be reachable for German attack planes. We know that they were reachable, and were destroyed. Then why so much of them were there?
 * This is nonsense. Soviets did lose around 2000 planes in first week of the war, but this was lest than 20% of their total strength. Most of the Red Air Force's strength was, indeed, far away from the border. --Mikoyan21 10:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That seems quite possible, but that's not what I've read over the years. I've more commonly heard that the Red Air Force was really decimated very quickly. Do you have a source backing up the claim that "only" 20% of the air forces were lost in the first week? I don't doubt that this is possible, and I'm inclined to agree with the jist of your point. If you have any source for these numbers that could really contribute to the rebuttle part of this article. I would like to say though that having read Suvorov's book I believe Stalin certainlly planned an eventual war with Germany, just not in 1941. 130.71.241.182 08:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Large removal
I just removed all parts of this that weren't presented either as direct assertions of Suvorov or responses by another historian. The article was reading, to my eyes, something like a debate on the accuracy of Suvorov's thesis; I feel that the shorter version serves better as a useful and encyclopedic source on Suvorov's book. --RobthTalk 03:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Revert
@TTAC. - the restored text is problematic in a number of aspects. Would you be willing to discuss it? If so, I will tell what the problems are. My very best wishes (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

How is it? I'm Honestly Curious I have come across book pages that have criticism part to the page? and the source from Glantz is from that JournalJack90s15 (talk) 19:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure. Here is edit by TTAAC in question. The problems:


 * 1) First paragraph. Icebreaker "is a book which claims that Soviet leader Joseph Stalin used Nazi Germany as an "icebreaker" to start a war in Europe which would allow for the Soviet Union to come in, clean up, and take control of all of Europe." This sounds like nonsense, unsourced, and NOT the claim by Suvorov.
 * 2) Fith para from the top. 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. 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.". This is wrong, not a claim bt Suvorov and WP:OR unsourced since 2016
 * 3) Paragraph that begins from "Although Suvorov claims that an attack date of July 6, 1941 had been selected, this is contradicted by the evidence...". Whole paragraph is WP:OR and completely unsourced.
 * 4) Next paragraph: "According to military historian Mikhail Meltyukhov, this doesn't sound convincing. First, it is hard to believe Zhukov's claim..." and so on. This is a misrepresentation of views by Meltukhov who actually supports Suvorov.
 * 5) Last paragraph. includes "citation needed|date=November 2013" in the end.
 * At first, I thought that was just a recent insertion by a suspicious IP who made no other edits: . Now I checked and can see that the whole thing was first inserted here (note that the user made exactly ZERO references). Then it was deleted by another user, and so on. Overall, this is just a terrible stuff that must be fixed or removed. My very best wishes (talk) 00:42, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * @Jack. Can you please explain why did you make this revert? My very best wishes (talk) 15:41, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Jack90s15 (talk) 19:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I pinged you so WE can all start Discussing this together Jack90s15 (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, I agree that the article needs extensive copy-editing, and many sources (Teddy Uldrick, Chris Bellamy, R Raak, Evan Mawdsley and others are absent. Just start editing, and I'll join you next week.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

statement by that I read that is the The reason Why I reverted


 * MVBW claimed that the text removed by one IP was added by another IP. That is not a legitimate reason for removal: any IP is allowed to edit.


 * Second, that MVBW's statement is false: the content he removed was a result of a collective work of several users, for example, a significant part of the removed fragment was added by me in 2009.


 * By removing properly sourced material under a misleading edit summary, MVBW committed a serious violation


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#TheTimesAreAChanging

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Icebreaker_%28Suvorov%29&type=revision&diff=916483449&oldid=890861013

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Icebreaker_%28Suvorov%29&type=revision&diff=295243443&oldid=286578651

Jack90s15 (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You did not answer my question. I asked about THIS your revert. It includes two parts: (a) your removed my summary (I need to ask you: did you read this book by Suvorov? I did), and (b) you inserted a section entitled "Suvorov's thesis" that was completely unsourced since 2016 and terribly written ("Once Hitler 'broke the ice' ..., etc.). My very best wishes (talk) 16:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


 * OK, I quickly fixed these problems because there was no objections here. My very best wishes (talk) 02:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * @Trekker, may I ask you why in this revert you restored content that was marked as non-sourced since 2016? Also, do you think that expressions like "Hitler broke the ice" was a good wording? What it even means? Can you please explain? My very best wishes (talk) 22:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Historians' views
This is not a page about Suvorov or his views. We have other pages about it, i.e. Soviet offensive plans controversy. This is page about the specific book. So, we should only include here the reviews on the book. The sources currently cited on this page: are they reviews on the book? If not, this should be moved to other pages. My very best wishes (talk) 03:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * there's no need to remove Sourced information that talks about the criticism of the book history other Pages have it since this entire situation is coming off as POV pushing and I dont like
 * statement by
 * MVBW claimed that the text removed by one IP was added by another IP. That is not a legitimate reason for removal: any IP is allowed to edit.
 * Second, that MVBW's statement is false: the content he removed was a result of a collective work of several users, for example, a significant part of the removed fragment was added by me in 2009.
 * By removing properly sourced material under a misleading edit summary, MVBW committed a serious violation
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#TheTimesAreAChanging
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Icebreaker_%28Suvorov%29&type=revision&diff=916483449&oldid=890861013
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Icebreaker_%28Suvorov%29&type=revision&diff=295243443&oldid=286578651

Jack90s15 (talk) 03:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * @Jack90s15..Let me ask you a question. Why do you copy-paste statements by Paul everywhere instead of telling what you think? My very best wishes (talk) 04:11, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As written, this text tells nothing about the book, but everything about views by Suvorov in general. He wrote maybe 20+ different books. This content simply belongs to other pages. My very best wishes (talk) 04:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

It's reviews on the contents of the book that are from academic historians please don't remove Source material that was put here and were verified other Pages have the exact same write-up of the  general idea of the bookJack90s15 (talk) 04:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * there's no need to remove Sourced information that talks about the criticism of the book history other Pages have it since this entire situation is coming off as POV pushing and I dont like
 * statement by
 * MVBW claimed that the text removed by one IP was added by another IP. That is not a legitimate reason for removal: any IP is allowed to edit.
 * Second, that MVBW's statement is false: the content he removed was a result of a collective work of several users, for example, a significant part of the removed fragment was added by me in 2009.
 * By removing properly sourced material under a misleading edit summary, MVBW committed a serious violation
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#TheTimesAreAChanging
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Icebreaker_%28Suvorov%29&type=revision&diff=916483449&oldid=890861013
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Icebreaker_%28Suvorov%29&type=revision&diff=295243443&oldid=286578651

Jack90s15 (talk) 04:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You are not going to convince anyone by copy-pasting same thing over and over again. This is spamming. My very best wishes (talk) 04:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Circumstantial confirmation
Hans-Ulrich Rudel in his book Stuka Pilot mentions that on the opening days of Barbarossa, his job was to bomb Russian Airfields, which he noted were close to the frontier and full of bombers and fighters. I wrote a book report on Stuka Pilot in 1972, and it was apparent from his testimony, that Stalin was making his own plans for an attack on Germany.Oldperson (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Read WP:RS and WP:OR. Wikipedia does not base article content on 'circumstantial confirmation'. And even if it did, I don't think that the writings of a self-serving unreconstruted Nazi would be seen as having any weight in comparison to the many academic historians who have since written on the subject matter. 86.143.227.55 (talk) 19:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Insightful response.Oldperson (talk) 20:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That Hans Rudel is an unreconstructed NAZI is irrelevant to the information that he brings forward, the mere mention of this is a logical fallacy: ad hominem, The use of ad hominem indicates fear and the inability to answer the argument. That Stalin had plans to invade Germany and from there to conquer Europe is not at all related to apologia or mitigation of Hitler.  There were two evil men,  controlling the vast resources of their respective countries, each with their own designs.

Hitler is not redeemed by Stalin's intentions, simultaneously I hold as suspect those that would defend Stalin. Oldperson (talk) 22:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, Hitler is not redeemed by Stalin's intentions, but what is your suggestion for improving this page? My very best wishes (talk) 00:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits
I do not see where the cited source tells that the "central argument of the book" was that Stalin planned to attack Nazi Germany in 1941. Actually, the central claim of the book is that Stalin planned to use Nazi Germany as a proxy (the "Icebreaker") against the West. This is an entirely different and more general claim. Also, it does not say "Hitler falsely claimed". It say what I quoted directly. One needs to be precise here. (clarified below) My very best wishes (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Please stop deliberately misinterpreting the article by Uldricks. He did not state merely that Hitler's claims had been of little interest to historians until 1999 as you are pretending. His argument on page 628 is that it had always been so obvious that Hitler was launching a war of aggression under the pretence that he was preempting an attack (something which was Hitler's standard tactic) that this had attracted little debate. On pages 629-630 he gives multiple examples of historians who concluded that the attack was not a preemptive strike, and notes that none of the standard works on Soviet foreign policy provide any support for Suvorov's views. The article then goes on to note that "The icebreaker thesis has drawn intense criticism from much of the scholarly community" and explains the problems with it in detail. On page 634 it is stated that "It is clear that, contrary to Suvorov and his disciples, Hitler's motives in launching Operation Barbarossa were aggressive, not defensive". Finally, on on page 643 he states that "we know for certain that Hitler did not fear a Soviet attack and that Operation Barbarossa was in no way a preemptive strike. The German assault on the USSR was central to Hitler's conception of race war as the theme of modern history". You are not being precise. You are repeatedly pretending that this source is on the fence on this matter, when the opposite is the case. Nick-D (talk) 09:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note also that Uldricks treats Hitler's and Stalin's motivations separately, on the grounds that it was possible that both of them intended to launch a war of aggression against the other (hence, even given the consensus that Hitler lied about his motivations, it may theoretically have been the case that Stalin was actually planning to attack him, with the Germans being unaware of this). He concludes though that Stalin was probably not intending to conduct such an attack though. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, sure, this source tells the "preemptive strike" claim by Hitler was false, and it has been considered false claim by all historians, until very recently when Suvorov and several others started claiming that it could be indeed a preemptive strike (next phrase on the page). I think that making a direct quotation from the source ("Until fairly recently, historians of World War II paid little attention to Hitler's claims"), as I did, is just another way to tell essentially the same. According to Suvorov, the preemptive strike was just a tactical decision by Hitler, and it does not justify his aggression, does not absolve him of any crimes, and does not make his war "defensive". However, Suvorov does consider both Stalin and Hitler as aggressors and responsible for starting the WWII for a number of reasons, one of which was the signing the secret protocol to the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact.My very best wishes (talk) 15:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Suvorov's claims actually date to the mid-1980s, so are not recent. Nick-D (talk) 07:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

"I think that making a direct quotation from the source ("Until fairly recently, historians of World War II paid little attention to Hitler's claims"), as I did, is just another way to tell essentially the same." Fantastic, then you have no objection to Nick-D's more concise language.GPRamirez5 (talk) 15:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I responded above and would rather leave this page to you guys, at least for now. As a rule of thumb, I do not edit pages where an admin starts accusing me of something I did not do. My very best wishes (talk) 17:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I am contributing as an editor, not an admin (as this is not an admin matter and I am obviously WP:INVOLVED regarding the article's content). Nick-D (talk) 07:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Basis for using "falsely"
I abhor edit warring. There are no winners.So to preclude such I challenge the use of the word "falsely". The word is an emotional adjective. Please quote or justify the use of the word, is it a quote from the source?Oldperson (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It is thoroughly explained here. Are you not reading the rest of the Talk page?GPRamirez5 (talk) 17:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I read the link, again, it does not address the issue, that using the word "falsely" is editorializing. Something that WP is not supposed to do.Oldperson (talk) 17:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

It is not "editorializing" and regardless of your incomprehension, it is the standing consensus. Please respect it.GPRamirez5 (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Oldperson this can not be stated in WP voice as a fact, but rather a majority view that has been disputed by a small minority. In particular, this page (last paragraph) names not only Suvorov, but also Valeri Danilov, Joachim Hoffmann, Mikhail Meltyukhov, and Vladimir Nevezhin as supporters of this minority view. This is the proper way to describe the controversy per WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 18:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with it is well established that Hitler's stated Casus belli was false, and the minority view is a minority enough in this case that the historical consensus should be treated as fact on WP. -Darouet (talk) 18:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, according to version by Nick-D, "Suvorov is one of only a small number of authors to have made such a claim" (consistent with this page), which I read as "minority view". This is also not about Hitler's Casus belli, but about the "preemptive strike" claim in the book by Suvorov (one of many claims in the book). But whatever. My very best wishes (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I mentioned this before. In 1972, while in Officer Training School, I had to choose a book from their library and write a book report. I chose Stuka Pilot by Hans Rudel. I was struck by his observation that as he flew over Soviet Lines, he noticed the sheer numbers of bombers and fighters lined up as if ready to be called into  action. That Rudel was an unreconstructed NAZI is irrelevant, actually an ad hominem, a logical fallacy  used to discredit his observation.  Mentioning this does not make  me or anyone else a Hitler or NAZI sympathizer either, if I had lived in that era I would have wound up Dachau at a minimum or worked and starved to death in one of their tunnels or projects.I am as vehemently anti-Hitler/NAZI as I am anti_Stalin/Communist. But it seems to me that some who are so involved in this debate are either Stalinists or so vehemently anti-NAZI that they are ready to perceive anything but the recognized "party line"as an apologia. To which I say, that truth is being subsumed by other considerations, and damn both sides.Oldperson (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The current wording reflects the source. Please provide a reliable source which states that a significant body of historians believe that Hitler's public justification of his invasion of the USSR was truthful. As per the source and other sources, my understanding is that there is a consensus that Barbarossa was a deliberate act of aggression on Hitler's part. My understanding is also that there is not a consensus on whether Stalin was planning to eventually attack Germany, but the great majority of experts in this field have concluded that no such attack was imminent in mid-1941. Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Nick you are confused by your use of the word falsely. My objection to the word is not that Hitler was truthful. In fact I have no idea what Hitler said about the subject, nor do I care.My objection is to editorializing, but using the word "falsely" which does not occur in the literature. WP is not about opinions or editorializing.Oldperson (talk) 16:01, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The source notes that this claim was part of Hitler's standard tactic of "blaming his victims for the "need" to attack them", and discusses what his actual motivations were. Hence, it supports a summation of this being a false claim. As I understand it, this is not an issue contested by historians. Nick-D (talk) 07:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Once again, yes, according to all historians including Suvorov, Barbarossa was an act of aggression by Hitler; yes, he blamed his victims, etc. However, according to Suvorov, Hitler committed this act of aggression specifically in June 1941 to preempt the strike by the Soviet forces. We do not know if the claim by Hitler that he wanted to preempt the strike was a lie as a matter of fact. This is the matter of the controversy, as currently described on the page, and it should be described this way.My very best wishes (talk) 16:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * My very best wishes, can you name a publication affiliated with an accredited university which supports this thesis?GPRamirez5 (talk) 18:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a number of historians who support this claim. You can ckeck here and also in the last paragraph here.My very best wishes (talk) 18:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I notice the first citation is to pages 2-3 of Albert Week's book, but Weeks doesn't endorse the theory here, he merely describes it.GPRamirez5 (talk) 18:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC) In any case, Weeks' book is from a non-university press, and it isn't clear who, if anyone, has peer-reviewed it.GPRamirez5 (talk) 19:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a complex story. To write something reasonable here, one needs to read this book by Suvorov, many dozen books and articles by his critics and supporters, other books that Suvorov published in response to his critics, etc. Looking at the snippet views of a single random source does not really help here. My very best wishes (talk) 19:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * What you're describing is WP:OR. At Wikipedia you have to cite to a specific secondary source.GPRamirez5 (talk) 00:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If it was Original Research then it would be words. It is not,I've cited WP's own voice below, which has many many RS. Please stop moving the goal posts, your invention of a requirement for a book to be peer reviewed from a University press would reduce WP to a collection of Stubs.Oldperson (talk) 00:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * In WP's own voice Several politicians have also made claims similar to Suvorov's. On August 20, 2004, historian and former Prime Minister of Estonia Mart Laar published an article in The Wall Street Journal titled When Will Russia Say 'Sorry'?. In this article, he said: "The new evidence shows that by encouraging Hitler to start World War II, Stalin hoped to simultaneously ignite a world-wide revolution and conquer all of Europe". Another former statesman to share his views of a purported Soviet aggressive plan is former president of Finland Mauno Koivisto, who wrote: "It seems to be clear the Soviet Union was not ready for defense in the summer of 1941, but it was rather preparing for an assault.... The forces mobilized in the Soviet Union were not positioned for defensive, but for offensive aims." Koivisto concludes: "Hitler's invasion forces didn't outnumber [the Soviets, but were rather outnumbered themselves. The Soviets were unable to organize defenses. The troops were provided with maps that covered territories outside the Soviet Union."[69]] and The Soviet Union made extensive preparations for a future war of aggression during the 1920s and 1930s. Suvorov provides an extensive analysis of Stalin's preparations for war. According to Suvorov, there were supposed to be three Five-Year Plan phases that would prepare the Soviet Union for war. The first one was to be focused on collectivisation, the second focused on industrialisation, and the third phase would emphasize the militarisation of the country. and While Western researchers (two exceptions being Albert L. Weeks[2 and R. C. Raack[50][51][52]) criticised Suvorov's thesis,[53] he has gathered some support among Russian historians, starting in the 1990s. Support in Russia for Suvorov's claim that Stalin had been preparing a strike against Hitler in 1941 began to emerge as some archive materials were declassified. Authors supporting the Stalin 1941 assault thesis are Valeri Danilov,[54] V.A. Nevezhin,[55] Constantine Pleshakov, Mark Solonin[56] and Boris Sokolov.[57] Although the USSR attacked Finland, no documents have been found to date which would indicate 26 November 1939 as the assumed date for the beginning of provocations or 30 November as the date of the planned Soviet assault.[58]}

Apologies for the long post, it appears that the thesis has growing support among Russian historians, and who would know better than a Russian?Oldperson (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That material refers to Stalin's plans and motivations (where, as I understand it, the view of the great majority of historians is that he was seeking to avoid war in 1941, though may have been planning an attack at a much later date). The use of "false" here is in reference to Hitler's lies about his motivation for invading the USSR. Nick-D (talk) 07:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

"Self-defense" by Hitler?
According to the version by Paul, "Therefore, according to Suvorov, the 1941 German invasion of the USSR was just an act of self-defense". Actually, Suvorov did not claim it. I quickly checked the source (article by Uldrick), and nowhere it tells that according to Suvorov, "Hitler acted in self-defense". But even if it would be there, then this is something Uldrick claimed that Suvorov claimed. This needs to be removed or rephrased. Of course if someone can cite Suvorov where he tells such thing, I will self-revert. I did not check any other sources, but simply rearranged and copy-edited the text to remove repeats and make the text more logical and neutral. My very best wishes (talk) 04:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

January 2020 edits
I reverted recent revisions to the article. E.g., re: this edit summary [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Icebreaker_%28Suvorov%29&type=revision&diff=936487528&oldid=936486035 this is a highly repetitive content. Consolidating and making more neutral description], I did not see highly repetitive content. It also appeared that instead of making content more neutral, it was a major rewrite that presented Surov's view as a more mainstream view as the reviews suggest. I also restored the lead to prior status as more neutral; I then replaced "self-defence" with "preemptive strike". --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * What "Suvorov's view" do you mean? Suvorov described a lot of different views and ideas in his book. Most of them are entirely "mainstream". The preemptive strike by Hitler is not main idea of the book, although it indeed became a matter of discussions and controversy. My very best wishes (talk) 02:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Just saying something like "I disagree" [with everything you did] is not an adequate explanation. What specifically do you disagree about? My very best wishes (talk) 03:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note that I did not revert any edits by Paul, but worked with his version to improve it further. My very best wishes (talk) 03:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I fully support your revert. Indeed, for example, this edit removed two important facts: (i) that Suvorov's views did not survived scrutiny (an almost verbatim statement made by a renown author who gave a summary of the current state of our knowledge on that subject, and (ii) that Suvorov's views belong to one extreme of opinia spectrum. Both edits are blatantly non-neutral. Thank you for reverting them. With regard to "self-defence", below is a quote from Uldrick (1999):


 * "It should be noted that the icebreaker thesis actually binds together two distinct propositions: first, that in 1941 Stalin was preparing to launch a war of aggression on central and western Europe in order to spread communism, and second, that Operation Barbarossa was nothing more than a defensive, preemptive response to that threat once the Germans perceived it. Suvorov spends a great deal of energy trying to substantiate the former contention, but he simply assumes the latter supposition to be true."


 * That means both "preemptive" and "self-defence" correctly summarise Uldrick's words, so I suggest to use both terms.


 * Moreover, in his later work (2010) Uldrick is more categorical. He writes:


 * "Musial does not, however, advance the preventive war thesis (promoted by Viktor Suvorov [V. B. Rezun] and others) that the German attack on the USSR in 1941 was a preemptive Nazi strike to prevent an imminent Soviet assault on German-occupied Poland."


 * That gives more weight to the thesis about self-defense.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * In addition, "Suvorov debates" is a quite legitimate term used by some historians. I also plan to add a section about acceptance of Suvorov views by general public, including views expressed by Russian writers Latynina and Solonin (a self-proclaimed historian who has virtually no publicatios in the West). This section will also show a linkage between Suvorov's and Irving's views, and enthusiastic acceptance of Ledokol by German far-right, who are dreaming to put Hitler back into a pantheon of German nation (according to Haslam).


 * I also think that the whole section from Soviet offensive plan controversy article should be moved to here, because the later pays too much attention to Suvorov.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * No, the preemptive-strike and "self-defense" are different. An aggressor (such as Hitler or whoever) can make a preemptive strike a pre-emptive nuclear strike, etc. No one, including Suvorov, calls aggression by Hitler "self-defense". My very best wishes (talk) 22:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Nonsense
This edit. "Icebreaker" in the book means the intention of Stalin to use Nazi Germany as a proxy ("Icebreaker") aginst the Europe. The "proxy" (War by proxy, "Icebreaker", whatever) and preemptive strike are entirely different things, subjects, ideas and elements of the book. Saying that "the Nazi Germany was allocated a role of a proxy (the "Icebreaker") in Stalin's plans, and, accordingly, Operation Barbarossa was a preemptive strike." does not make any sense. Such nonsense was never claimed in the book by Suvorov. Neither such ridiculous claim appears in publications about the book. BTW, did you guys read the book? My very best wishes (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I concur, and would add that the two are not only different, but also present in Suvorov's writings. One needs to differentiate. ChalSeismo (talk) 04:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Lead
Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was "Lead as closer to before non-consensus reverts; the word "proxy" does not appear elsewhere in the article". --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I think "proxy" is some equivalent to Icebreaker. Suvorov argues that not only Stalin planned to conquer Europe, he provoked Hitler's attack of Poland and then France. Many authors agree that, to some extent, Stalin had some offensive plans, but only Suvorov claims that Hitler was de facto a toy in Stalin's hands, a toy that at some moment realized its status and decided to break it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The concept of a "proxy" is not discussed in the body of the article, so it's confusing to mention it in the lead. What you are describing above ("a toy in Stalin's hands") seems to refer to a patsy. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I plan to add that to the "Public acceptance" section, because it relates to the recent attempts to whitewash Hitler using Suvorov's arguments. If you have no objections, I'll do that soon.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, I don't have a problem with that. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Self-citations
I'm not a fan of this addition in the Contents & Points area. It includes self-citations to Suvorov, in addition to much uncited material. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The point was to move this content from the Soviet offensive plans controversy article, because that article is not focus too much about Suvorov. Many authors argued that Soviet Union had, to some extent, plans to attack Germany in more or less distant future. Moreover, that was implicitly assumed even by those time official propaganda ("maloj krov'iu, na chuzhoj territorii"). Suvorov's point was more specific: that Stalin planned to provoke a war and to attack Hitler to conquer Europe, and that Hitler knew about that plan. Therefore, Suvorov should not be a central part of the Soviet offensive plans article, and the content should be moved here. By saying that, I don't mind to reduce the content. However, in my opinion, this article, as well as similar articles devoted to some concrete book, should describe briefly what this book says.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that this content is DUE in the other article. My concern is that it's not suitable on this page in the present form, with the exception of Pipes. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, that section can and should be made shorter, but some references to Icebreaker in the article about Icebreaker are relevant.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that the page should contain info on what the book's contents are. But I don't see that the book should serve as a source about itself. Any interpretation of book's contents should be attributed to a third-party, independent source. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, it is in full accordance with V and NOR when a book is a source for descriptive statements about its content. Independent sources are needed for interpretation of the book, not for purely descriptive statements. At least, many WP articles about books are organized in that way.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, why should an impartial paraphrasing of a book be banned as unsuitable for a Wikipedia article? The proper thing to do is to give a balanced account, giving due weight to what the author thought important and omitting casual remarks. If only other independent sources are acceptable as descriptive of a book, then that argument should be turned on those secondary sources, et ad infinitum. Does it make sense? ChalSeismo (talk) 04:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Date of first publication
I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books about when this book was first published. I thought I would be more likely to find expertise there, but if anyone happens to have access to a French first edition of this book, that would probably also resolve my question. Daask (talk) 18:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)