Customer Reviews

Icebreaker: Who Started the Second World War?

5 star:		(28)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

It is safe to assume that if you have not read Viktor Suvorov's Icebreaker (or, at least, are not familiar with his ideas), you don't understand the last 85 years of the world history.

Viktor Suvorov was trained as a military intelligence officer at the time when soviet military intelligence was the best in the world (probably still is). In the late seventies Suvorov defected to England, where he wrote several books about soviet army and intelligence. By all accounts (friends and enemies alike), Viktor Suvorov possesses encyclopedic knowledge about military theory and history, particularly the history of World War II. His knowledge and analytical ability are astounding.

Published first in the eighties, Icebreaker was the first in Suvorov's series of historical books. By the year 2000, it was translated into 27 languages and published more than 100 times. Icebreaker is a book about communist preparation and execution (however poorly, but not for the lack of trying) of the biggest crime in the history of mankind, World War II. Because of that, in addition to its historical value of showing communist conspiracy as a true cause of WWII, Icebreaker is probably the best, most convincing anti-communist book ever written. Suvorov neither uncovers any secrets, nor does he simply catalogue the crimes. He analyzes communists' own words and innumerable well-known facts to show communism as the darkest, most evil episode in the human history.

Before you start reading this book, however, keep in mind several important things.
First, this relatively small book is an overview of many very complex political, historical, and military events. The most important of the ideas had been expanded by the author in his later books (see below). The sheer number of dogmas and controversies Suvorov takes head on is mind-boggling, and this is why the author must occasionally abbreviate his arguments. As a result, the book may seem cursory to unprepared readers.
Second, Icebreaker was written in Russian and intended for Eastern European readership. In order to be immediately understood, the book does assume certain cultural background, i.e., familiarity with the history and cannibalistic rituals of communist regimes. I am not implying that western readers will not understand the book, to the contrary, I think that an interested western reader will benefit enormously from reading this book.
Third, Icebreaker, when it became available, was an instant tremendous success in the former USSR and all Eastern Block countries. In Eastern Europe Icebreaker became de facto 20th century European history textbook and the basis of common popular understanding of the events leading to WWII and its immediate aftermath. It would be foolish to disregard the opinion of people who actually lived through the events.

Some reviewers accuse Victor Suvorov of being a "Hitler apologist." This preposterous statement was fabricated by the soviet special services for western use. In Russia KGB mostly emphasized Suvorov's disloyalty to the regime and, therefore, his general untrustworthiness and never mentioned "his love of Nazis" as a critical argument. They knew it would never fly in Russia because Russian readers never sensed even a whiff of sympathy toward Nazis in the book. (Majority of people, by the way, doesn't realize how much perception of German fascists in the United States and England differs from that in Europe and Russia). I personally don't see how Suvorov's argument that Stalin killed more people than Hitler (and intended to kill a lot more) makes Hitler a hero. Generations of western intellectuals made careers out of spreading KGB lies, but, unless, of course, you hope to secure a tenured position, there is no need for you to repeat this nonsense. It is shameful. Please, don't do it.

Some reviewers seem to be hung up on BT controversy and such. Icebreaker is full of technical information, and some details may be proven inaccurate by further research. This "bait and switch" trick is used to make people judge the whole book by comparing width of tank treads. Please remember that this book is not about military technology, although it is described in great detail and used often to prove author's position.

There are at least five other successful history books written by Viktor Suvorov where he greatly expands and clarifies some of the main themes of Icebreaker:
1. Day "M": When did WWII begin? (a detailed account of Soviet preparations for the war),
2. The Cleansing (a very convincing explanation for the events known as "senseless decimation of Red Army officer corps before the war"),
3. The Suicide (an interesting exploration of Hitler as military leader and the myth of German readiness for the war in the East),
4. The Last Republic (in depth analysis of the geopolitical plans and intentions of the Soviets between the World Wars),
5. The Shadow of Victory (documents Marshall Zhukov as a monstrous war criminal that he really was).
As of now, I have not been able to find any indication of these books published in English.

Currently there is only one used copy of Icebreaker available for $450, and none of Suvorov's other history books are available in English translation. The content of Icebreaker alone is not sufficient to explain this virtual prohibition of the book, which is a very unusual and extraordinary measure for a modern western society. There is no question that Icebreaker is a controversial book: the whole libraries of western historical analysis of WWII are shown as garbage. Still, this is not enough. The explanation may be that the book gives detailed description of the process used by the professionals to analyze political and historical events using widely available, open-source information: Icebreaker is written as an intelligence report and presents a clear application of the intelligence analytical process. This book may teach you how to think. Now, that is dangerous. Combine it with the powerful anti-communist thrust of this book, and... Oh, well, some things cannot be permitted.

It's a must read. After reading this book you will alwaysquestion official propaganda. I read it a year ago and still shake myhead in disbelief. 50 years from this will be the accepted history ofWWII. But it will take another 50 years to clear the lies we were all told for so long.END

This book might appear rather sensationalistic and some facts might be somewhat "sanitized. Additionally I'm still not convinced that the USSR was preempted by Nazi Germany by only two weeks. Nevertheless, the book provides the only logical explanation to one question: "If USSR did nothing but prepared itself for war for and a half decades preceding 1941 then how come the war began with a series of such horrific disasters?
In my view, the main merit of this book is in its clear illustration of the linkage between the Soviet state ideology and National Military Strategy on one side and the Red Army's equipment choices and training priorities on the other.

It is a peaty that this book is out of print in the States. It is an eye-opener and what is even more important, inspite of its shortcomings it is a real catalist for generating a meaningful debate on true origins of WWII.

In the free-market-world the price for this book speaks for itself. It is not for just someone. Don't spend your money if you still (...) believe that it was the U.S.A. who won the World War II - as American propaganda tells you - while you, as a good citizen, don't dare to question a single statement it makes. Suvorov's book is just about the same thing - what happens if people don't ask questions. It takes courage to learn history - especially your own -- as it does learning any other science.

He wrote another (and better, and a whole) book on the same subject since the Icebreaker (call it Icebreaker II), and I still don't understand why it is not available in English. The book's name is "The Last Republic".

You want to know who is right- Viktor Suvorov and his version of the beginning of World War II or his opponents? Do just like Suvorov does- compare figures. Try to find Suvorov's Icebreaker, and if you are lucky to find one, it probably is here at Amazon.com for 1,078 dollars and 98 cents. Who is there best against him? Mr. Gorodetsky? How much is his revelations about Suvorov's work? 20 dollars? Well, not bad, not bad at all. But only not against Suvorov's fundamental research. 1,078.98 against 20 speaks for itself. You have any more questions? Suvorov has answers for them, for all them in his 5(!) sequels to Icebreaker. But you won't find any of them for any money. They are not even translated into English! And no wonder. Icebreaker was bad enough to scare sh.. out of any of those who still believe in and cherish the myths about WWII and its beginning. Bravo, Mr.Suvorov, and thank you.
*added on June 21 2006*
Suvorov created his Icebreaker not as an exercise of his wit or encyclopeodic knowledge. There were innumerable information gaps in Soviet official version of the beginning of Soviet-German war. Using half truths manipulation and lies Soviet 'historians' created a parody of the war's history. The book was called 'The Great Patriotic War 1941-45' and was 'remasterd' every time a new Party leader was coming to power. In this book for example a reader could learn exact number of all German forces, their location strength etc. But whatever concerns Soviet troops was a total mystery. The official history will give you only the numbers and locations of the troops only next to the German and Romanian border and whatever was behind them is a fog of war. And still is. There has NEVER neither in the Soviet Union nor in modern Russia an official history published where a reader could see a total number of the Red Army at the beginning of the war its strength its units location and movement (if they were moving at that time). If you are as dedicated as Suvorov you can read hundreds of memoirs of Soviets generals and marshals and like a golddigger finding tiny bits of gold in the mountains of mud, you will find all this information about all the units. But again for some reason you will never find this information in one place in official or for that sake unofficial history. And it is not just basic information which is lacking. It is lies where it is possible and manipulation of the universally known information which makes any thinking reader ask a valid question WHY? What is a reason behind all this abvious non sense which Soviet propaganda tried to portray as history? SOviet propaganda lied from the very beginning. For example it is an official doctrine that Germany attacked Soviet Union treacherously without declaration of war. That position Soviet Union declared at the Nurnberg tribunal and because of that the German foreign minister Ribbentrop was hanged. He insisted that he and Germany officially had declared the war and had given to the Soviet side all German grievances and intelligence reports in written form. Soviet Union denied everything. But if you find a copy of official (those days) Soviet newspaper Pravda for 22 of June you will find a statement by Soviet foreign minister (or komissar as he was called in Soviet Union) Molotov that Germany sent him accusations of massive Soviet military build up on German border, intense anti German activity of Soviet agents among other things. If you also open Marshal Zhukov's memoirs find his recollection of the moment when he, Stalin and others saw Molotov come into the Stalin's office and saying that Germans declared war. This is so simple but for some mysterious reason only Suvorov notices such descrepancies in Soviet official mythology. And that is just about official lies. Manipulation is another huge problem. For example that is how propaganda would show the amount of Soviet tanks at any moment in any mentioned unit or on any level of military structure. They would only mention obviously powerful like T 34 or KV. Let's say they talk about some particular mechanized corps (a major Soviet armoured unit at the beginning of the war). They would point exact number of T 34 and KV tanks (which in any mechanized corps would be about 150-200) and then add: "and some other light and old tanks". That's it. What kind of a reader was such 'history' intended for? Is it just manipulation or lying or just a slap in the face? How the tank could be old if it was just 2 or 3 or even 4 years old? And the light tanks were not 'light' at all, they were not just as heavy as KV for example. And you would never find in Soviet literature till 90s the amount of tanks in standard Soviet mechanized corps (by the way, it was about 1000) and the question is WHY? If the tanks were indeed so bad and worse than German tanks why was a NUMBER of them a secret? Just say it: the tanks were trash, so what's the point that we had thousands of them they were burning like matches.. But no, they would say that the tanks were trash but the numbers were still a secret. And indeed if you start to compare German and Soviet armor you will see that yes they ('old' and 'light' tanks) maybe were not the best tanks in the world but definitely not worse than, say, German Pz-I or Pz-II or even Pz-III. So the causes of Soviet disaster of summer and fall of 1941 lie somewhere else and that is what Suvorov is trying to do- to find the answers hidden from the public all this time.And that is what he is doing- researching and analyzing. His theory in its core is very solid and unbeatable. In strictest secrecy for many years step by step Stalin was preparing not just an attack on Germany he was preparing first of all Soviet Union for such an epic war and at the same time he did all his best to make the situation in Europe the worst as possible: when others negotiated peaceful resolution of the conflicts he would demand war when others would demand war he would demand peace. His official policy both foreign and internal sounded very noble and just. But there was also his secret policy which was dirty treacherous and cruel. Officially the Soviet Union was a paradise for all the working people. In reality millions were starved to death or were executed or were working in the labor camps system called GULAG and dying there in unimaginable numbers. The foreign policy was just the same- noble and just for the show, cruel and treacherous in practice usually invisible for the public. For example in 1932 when on one hand he would officially condemn Nazis in Germany but secretly he would order German communists tacitly support Nazis against a democratic government and during the decisive vote in Reichstag Stalin prohibited the communists to come into anti- Nazi allince with social democrats and catapulted Hitler to power. In 1939 he repeated the trick refusing to create anti-Nazi alliance with UK and France signing a pact with Hitler instead allowing him to conquer Poland and whatever he wanted in Western Europe.
The problem of Suvorov's work is that he, being practically alone in his struggle against establishments of historians and officialdom not just in Russia but also everywhere else (except maybe Eastern Europe), tries to convince the reader using sometimes the same tactics as Soviet propaganda- manipulation of the information. Instead of presenting all the evidence about any event or phenomena he is describing as it really is, he would use some of information here when he is trying to convince the reader about this then he would use some of it there when he is trying to convince the reader about that. But when you read all his books (there are 7 of them already and he is finishing the 8th one) you can see the whole picture in its beauty. There are no contradictions in his theory and he is not making up facts. There are certain inaccuracies which do not change the major idea of concept. People would say : ohhh the tank's characteristics are different(usually a little) or quote from this general was not exactly like that it was like this .. Yes it is not decent on his behalf to manipulate to adjust all the pieces of his concept into perfect mosaic. At the same time all vital statistical information that he gives is true and facts that he gives are also true (you can find them in other sources if you research) and let's remember he is fighting alone against very powerful forces on both sides of Atlantic and his goal is to convince millions that official history is trash and the truth is hidden and the only way to find is to research and think.

The simple fact is that Suvorov (or Rezun if you prefer) was originally in the armored forces of the Soviet Union (see "Rasskazy Osvoboditelya" or "The Liberators" as it's known in English) and later in military intelligence. I take that to mean that he is a bright individual with deductive faculties. He bases all of his information on published sources, drawing heavily from memoirs written by generals on both sides both during and after the war (most Soviet sources tend to be post-war because Stalin forbade the keeping of journals, unlike Hitler). They all point to the same thing: the Soviet Union was preparing to attack Nazi Germany. Simple facts, such as the location of units, are not necessarily relevant in and of themselves, until one takes the information in its entirety. As one previous reviewer puts it, the hundreds of seeming contradictions of the situation before the start of Barbarossa only disappear when Suvorov's thesis is put to the test. Logic tells us that when other possibilities have been removed, the only one remaining, however unlikely it may at first seem, must be correct.

I'm not sure who T. Sanders is, but I would not put much faith in his assessment of the war solely on the basis of his absolutely ridiculous assertion that Suvorov "didn't realize" Lenin had been dead for 20 years. Mr. Sanders, in case you didn't know, Suvorov grew up in the Soviet Union and learned more about Lenin than you probably know. I am 100% confident that he knows not only when Lenin died, but how many wreaths were at the funeral. His thesis is not that Lenin was driving the attack on Hitler, but rather, that the aim of the Bolshevik state, from its inception, had been to divide the "bourgeois" nations, lead them to war with one another, and lead a "liberating" war to free the proletariat in the industrialized countries of the West. He also makes mention of Marshal Tukhachevsky's attack on Poland, which happened 20 years before the events he is writing about, to show the expansionist tendencies of Soviet Russia from its very birth.

There have been numerous books by Suvorov on the basic theme of "Icebreaker"(not all of them seem to have yet been translated from Russian), in the following order: "Icebreaker", "Day-M", "The Last Republic", "The Cleansing", and now recently "Suicide". He has also written two novels which are entertaining ("Control" and "The Choice"), which take place in the period but definitely are not meant to be read as historical fiction. In addition, he wrote "The Liberators" and "The Aquarium" about his personal experience in the Soviet Army.

I highly recommend all of his books. I will admit that he may tend to overestimate the effectiveness with which the Soviet Army would have acted in its "first strike" on Germany. When talking about tanks, he does show that yes, Russian tanks were very good (at the inception of "Barbarossa", the Germans were still mainly using the weak Pzkpfw I and II tanks, which often had simple machineguns mounted on the turrets, and only had about 1500 Pzkpfw III and IV models, and none of the advanced model Tiger and Panther tanks) and there were a lot more Russian tanks than German tanks. However, remembering his comment from "The Liberators" that out of three tanks, one was broken and another was being used for spare parts to keep the other two working, his assertions must be countered at times with a reader's skepticism. On the whole, however, he proves his points well and has begun to gain acceptance in historical circles - the Russian historian Eduard Radzinsky (whose "Stalin" I also highly recommend) gives Suvorov credit for his overall theory.

This very professional analysis that is based mainly on the openly available publications, such as periodicals of the time, memoirs of the military leaders (Zhukov, Bargamyan, many others) describes (and proves with mathematical precision, naming accurately the relevant military units, their commanding officers, locations and dates, always pointing out the sources of this information) how the War was prepared and launched. Suvorov is not afraid to challenge the traditional view on that period of history and brings first-rate material to support his position. Undoubtedly, his military training, especially intelligence collection and analysis helped making this book so precise and informative. I have not seen a better analysis of the Second World War beginning period, not better supporting data. This book is a-must for anybody who wants to learn who helped Hitler's climb to power and who "unleashed" him on the world.

The only thing I'd wish added to this book would be a set of maps that show the disposition of the units mentioned, to make it easier to follow the development. But despite this minor lack, it is a very easy and captivating reading. Do yourself a favor - read it.

I read this book for first time about 7 years ago, and now re-read it at least once a year. I continue recommending it to every person interested in history. Reaction on my suggestion is standard: "It cannot be". However, I never met anybody who continued following this point of view after reading. All of us, people from former Soviet Union, have the same "point of pain": June 22, 1941. In every book about that war we first try to find an explanation: why? What's interesting: all of us knew about 80% of facts that Suvorov uses, but... I had pieces of puzzle, and Suvorov helped me to build The Picture. Who can do the same to me? I'm open for any point of view, any hypothesis that can "build the Picture" as "Icebreaker" did. Back in mid-60's the most popular magazin in Russia "Technika-Molodezhi" (Technology for Young) published an excellent series of articles about Russian weapon: pre-war, war, some after-war. Tanks, airplanes, ships, guns, etc. All data Suvorov uses matches those descriptions. I couldn't understand: our weapon was the best in mid-30's, then it was the best in 40's, but just in 1941 it was the worst -- how come? All movies showed us German "Tigers"... in 1941 -- what for? I'm very thankful to Victor Suvorov for opening my eyes, and very disappointed that I cannot recommend his unique books to my American friends who are interested in history of WWII. Unfortunately, my English is not so good to translate Suvorov's books for them...

I think Suvorov's book(s) on the history of WW2 should be called the "Book of the 20th Century" and he himself should be awarded a Nobel Price. Singlehandedly, this man wiped off the camouflage image that was painted over the real picture of how and who started the WW2 and he did that by pioneering a new approach in history studies - studying the obvious.
But the WW2 winners club is not very happy with his findings so it was almost impossible to find his books in English, since the whole Hamish Hamilton edition was quickly destroyed (but tens of millions sold in Russian, German, Polish, French).
I bought my copy several years ago from the estate sale of the late US Marines 4 star general. I paid twenty bucks.
However during past several years the interest for this book literally soared and today this is one of the most sought after books about WW2 history. Today you have to shell out several hundred bucks to enjoy your copy of "Icebreaker" in English.
In my opinion the mere fact that a book on WW2 history achieved such a price frenzy is amazing. Several books were written to smear the author's reputation and discredit his findings (like Gorodetsky's book) - you can buy them for few bucks and make up your own mind. I wish Suvorov's brilliant rebuttal of Gorodetsky's book will be translated into English some day.
If you have not read yet this book I envy you - you are about to read the most interesting, the most brilliantly researched and the most sensational book on the most important event of 20th century and how it was camouflaged into something completely different for after-war public consumption. After this book your level of trust for the "free press", government propaganda and official history will be shattered.
And its a good thing, if you ask me.

I have read Viktor Suvorov's trilogy "Icebreaker, Day-M, and Last Republic" in Lithuanian translation. All of them are thought provoking and offer a challenge to all WWII historians to take another sober look at the facts. Suvorov bases his thesis on publically available sources (mostly Soviet). If his facts are confirmed, and it appears that they easily could be, then they prove that a crazy view of history is being taught younger generations. I find it hard to believe that this book is out of print (in English). They are really worth the few dollars to buy them. Serious western publishers should be interested in publishing them even if it is only for the purpose of making another point of view available to the new generation of historians and politicians. I think it is also relavant to understanding current events as well.

P.S. Since I wrote the above review two other follow on books "Purge" and "Suicide" have been published in Lithuanian. The arguments in support of his thesis are further supported by new evidence that has since been made available. "Purge" is about Stalin's execution of military officers just prior to WWII. Again the interpretation is based upon available sources but the conclusions are just as controversial. In the West Marshal Tuchachevsky is seen as a military genius that if listened to could have saved the USSR. In Suvorov's book he is depicted as a brutal (to civilian populations that never would have followed him in a war to defend the homeland) military incompetant. His absence made it possible for able and less tainted officers like Zhukov to command in WWII. "Suicide" is the last book in the series and repeats a bit from the previous books. All in all amazing reading and encourages one to research the topic on one's own. Also makes me curious to know about the language background of western sholars responsible for the popular view of WWII?. How many of the influential ones could read russian and access russian historical material about the war? How many were not duped by propaganda like the writer Bernard Shaw was when he visited the Ukraine in the 30's and said there was no famine?