חוזרים לסוברוב
כזכור היה וויכוח בנושא התיזות של סובורוב. הוויכוח "קבור" כיום במסך מספר 5 של הפורום הנכבד. במהלך הוויכוח הבטחתי לשאול את הד"ר מתי מייזל על סובורוב, על דעותיו, וכן לגבי טענת מישאולי לגבי הטענה שמתי לא קרא כלל את סובורוב. מתי כאמור בשנת שבתון, מפאת קשיים טכניים מסויימים (פונטים...) מתי ענה לי באנגלית, האיש אגב בקנדה. להלן תשובתו של מתי לגבי אלו ששאלו ושואלים עליו ועל ה"קרב" מול סובורוב. במקרה ותהיינה השגות על דבריו - ואני מקווה שיפתח כאן שירשור יפה - אשמח להעביר אותן למתי ישירות., שוב לאור העובדה כי אנו מתכתבים דרך אוניברסיטת ת"א , השאלות חייבות להיות באנגלית. להלן תשובתו של מתי: אגב בפתיחה הוא ציין את התפעלותו מכך שיש כאלו העוסקים בסובורוב למרות המבולקה בעולם: To your question: It is a very complex issue, too long to discuss in one email ltr. But let me comment briefly on 2 points. First, I deny strongly what, as you write, is said about me. It is certainly not true that I ever admitted not to read "Suvorov"'s books. I never said anything to this effect, and obviously I read his stuff. I read what was published under his name when it was about Soviet espionage, I read what he wrote about "Barbarossa". There are a number of articles and books on this, and I am very familiar with that. Second, "Suvorov" = Mr. Rezun is an unreliable researcher. He also admitted that he did not see many documents that, according to his claim, will prove his thesis. This is one component in his theory, which has all characteristics of a 'conspiracy theory'. He claims that he is denied access to such documents, while he cannot prove that they exist at all. But he defend himself by claiming that the fact that he could not see them is the proof that they exist and are intentionally hidden from him. There are a number of books and articles, well researched and well argued, that show very clearly that: Hitler decided on attack on the USSR long before 22 June 1941; that this was done with no relation to whether there was or not any fear in germany of Soviet attack; that Stalin did not expect the war to come to his country before - at the earliest - spring or summer 1942; that the Red Army was not prepared, by its own terms, for a major offensive; that the Red Army was deployed on its western borders in a defensive - not offensive - position. I can add more to this, but better have a look at 2 books, by David Glantz, who discuss the military side of this problem, and Gaby Gorodetsky who deals with diplomacy. The biographers of Hitler, who present what he knew at the time, show he did not think Stalin would attack, neither that the Red Army was capable of an attack. See Kershaw and Bullock and Evans and Fest and Overy and many more. But "Suvorov" then would argue that they are part of the conspiracy against him and they deny him access to the relevant documents.
כזכור היה וויכוח בנושא התיזות של סובורוב. הוויכוח "קבור" כיום במסך מספר 5 של הפורום הנכבד. במהלך הוויכוח הבטחתי לשאול את הד"ר מתי מייזל על סובורוב, על דעותיו, וכן לגבי טענת מישאולי לגבי הטענה שמתי לא קרא כלל את סובורוב. מתי כאמור בשנת שבתון, מפאת קשיים טכניים מסויימים (פונטים...) מתי ענה לי באנגלית, האיש אגב בקנדה. להלן תשובתו של מתי לגבי אלו ששאלו ושואלים עליו ועל ה"קרב" מול סובורוב. במקרה ותהיינה השגות על דבריו - ואני מקווה שיפתח כאן שירשור יפה - אשמח להעביר אותן למתי ישירות., שוב לאור העובדה כי אנו מתכתבים דרך אוניברסיטת ת"א , השאלות חייבות להיות באנגלית. להלן תשובתו של מתי: אגב בפתיחה הוא ציין את התפעלותו מכך שיש כאלו העוסקים בסובורוב למרות המבולקה בעולם: To your question: It is a very complex issue, too long to discuss in one email ltr. But let me comment briefly on 2 points. First, I deny strongly what, as you write, is said about me. It is certainly not true that I ever admitted not to read "Suvorov"'s books. I never said anything to this effect, and obviously I read his stuff. I read what was published under his name when it was about Soviet espionage, I read what he wrote about "Barbarossa". There are a number of articles and books on this, and I am very familiar with that. Second, "Suvorov" = Mr. Rezun is an unreliable researcher. He also admitted that he did not see many documents that, according to his claim, will prove his thesis. This is one component in his theory, which has all characteristics of a 'conspiracy theory'. He claims that he is denied access to such documents, while he cannot prove that they exist at all. But he defend himself by claiming that the fact that he could not see them is the proof that they exist and are intentionally hidden from him. There are a number of books and articles, well researched and well argued, that show very clearly that: Hitler decided on attack on the USSR long before 22 June 1941; that this was done with no relation to whether there was or not any fear in germany of Soviet attack; that Stalin did not expect the war to come to his country before - at the earliest - spring or summer 1942; that the Red Army was not prepared, by its own terms, for a major offensive; that the Red Army was deployed on its western borders in a defensive - not offensive - position. I can add more to this, but better have a look at 2 books, by David Glantz, who discuss the military side of this problem, and Gaby Gorodetsky who deals with diplomacy. The biographers of Hitler, who present what he knew at the time, show he did not think Stalin would attack, neither that the Red Army was capable of an attack. See Kershaw and Bullock and Evans and Fest and Overy and many more. But "Suvorov" then would argue that they are part of the conspiracy against him and they deny him access to the relevant documents.