Thoughts on the military and military activities of a diverse nature. Free-ranging and eclectic.

Saturday, December 08, 2007

Victor Suvorov II

This is coolbert:

More on the wiki entry for Victor Suvorov.

[Again, my comments in BOLD!]

"Support for Suvorov's claim that Stalin had been preparing a strike against Hitler in 1941 began to emerge, as some archive materials [Soviet archival material] were declassified. Authors to support assault thesis are V.D.Danilov, V.A.Nevezhin, Constantine Pleshakov and B.V. Sokolov [all Russian authors]. As the latter has noted, the absence of documents with the precise date of the planned Soviet invasion can't be an argument in favor of the claim that this invasion was not planned at all.

Critics [of Suvorov] would say - - "where is the smoking gun!!?? We want to see the actual attack order for the invasion of eastern Europe by Soviet forces. NO document, no verification"

"Although the USSR attacked Finland, there are no documents found, which would indicate November 26, 1939 as the previously assumed date for beginning of the provocations or November 30 as the date of the planned Soviet assault."

Dig that!! NO documents can be found in Soviet archives that support the provocations and attack plans that led to the Soviet invasion of Finland - - 1940!! Lack of documentation notwithstanding - - the war did occur!!

Some special comments with regard to archival documents and such.

There is an entire school of historiography that places great stress and weight on the usage of ORIGINAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS. This is the RANKEIAN SCHOOL. Named after the German historian, Leopold von Ranke.

"his·to·ri·og·ra·phy –noun

2. the body of techniques, theories, and principles of historical research and presentation; methods of historical scholarship.
3. the narrative presentation of history based on a critical examination, evaluation, and selection of material from primary and secondary sources and subject to scholarly criteria."

This particular school discounts to a degree memories, recollection, anecdotal accounts of history. Such sources are said to be secondary in the attempt to understand “WHAT OCCURRED”.

The Rankeian School searches for and attempts to find the original source documents concerning historical events. Prefers documentation over
“memories”, “recollections”, “anecdotal accounts”.

[Venice, the Papacy, Prussia were among the topics of Ranke’s historical research. Ranke did have access to voluminous archives that were well maintained, cataloged, and exhaustive in content. In such a situation, the Ranke School of historiography works well!!?? RANKE WAS DEALING WITH AN IDEAL SITUATION THAT IS NOT ALWAYS TO BE FOUND!?]

However, the Ranke methodology is fraught with danger in many circumstances?

Practices as engaged in by governments and governmental functionaries that greatly complicate and distort in many instances histories by those adhering to the Rankeian School methodology!

One such practice is that of “weeding”. The deliberate destruction of documents from archival files that are “felt” to be incriminating, controversial, suspect, contentious, or embarrassing!!

[think of Oliver North and Fawn Hall from modern times!!]

Or, the process by which entire files or folders of files are CONDENSED into a smaller, more digestible package. CONDENSED in a fashion at the whim of the person working with the archives. In such instances, subjectivity rules here over objectivity??!!

[in modern parlance, “spin” would be the operative word when condensing!!??]

And the insertion into files, deliberately and maliciously so [how else could it be looked at], of downright forgeries INTENDED TO MISLEAD researchers.

From the book "Intrepid's Last Case":

"The paper-handlers scavenged for incriminating papers to burn . . . They removed the diary notes of a prime minister . . . They tampered with reports . . . They deleted, they disguised, they distorted in accordance with their own changing rules."

"His [Sir Charles Ellis] new SIS task was to weed, or edit, secret records and to put them 'in order'"

"'I [Ellis] am taking the opportunity to slip a few bits of paper into the files.'" - - C. Ellis.

And here - - according to the historian Norman Stone:

"allegedly critical evidence of the crime consists of forgeries. The British were in occupation of Istanbul for four years after the war and examined all the files of the Ottoman government. They found nothing, and therefore could not try the 100-odd supposed Turkish war ciminals that they were holding. Then, documents turned up allegedly telegrams from the interior ministry to the effect that all Armenians should be wiped out. The signatures turned out to be wrong, there were no back-up copies in the archives and the dating system was misunderstood."

The British - - in the aftermath of World War One, sought incriminating documents that could be used to try suspected Turkish war criminals. NO supporting documents could be found!! When some were found - - were demonstrably forgeries!!

Someone [Turks??] had first - - weeded the files - - and then someone [British??] - - had inserted forgeries!!??

Can you dig it??!!




Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home