>>23578
>>23579
Well the SU spent almost 50 years to make innocent victim out of herself and today's Russia also cultivates that line of the argument (tho now voices can tell otherwise - I assume -, previously they couldn't). Enormous amount of literature presents the events as preparation for defence. So one has to read between the lines and see the data and re-evaluate them. I think Suvorov did that.
I also criticized his handling of the sources above somewhere. For a historian this is a side he/she can attack. But most (if not all) what he wrote is verifiable with research, tho some parts of it will be only available for those who take it seriously (such as professionals) or willing to put it much effort (and go to Russia and tries to look into archives which aren't necessarily available for the public). But this is the case with works of professional historians, frequently can't verify the things they say with online queries (be it duckduckgoing or getting a book from libgen or an older source from archive.org). I also should note, giving precise sources not necessarily mean correct presentation, said historians too on not one occasion refer to a source and write the opposite of it - or worse.

But let me put the summary differently:
One basic goal of communist is Taking Over the World. Of Course!
Stalin was a megalomaniac desired to Take Over the World. Of Course!
They had a doctrine with true attacking spirit.
They built up the army so it can carry out this attack.
They placed the units in a suitable positions to carry out this attack.
They had equipment designed to carry out this attack.
The personnel's training exercises prepared them to carry out this attack.
They prepared the sovietization of Europe.
Then these well known notorious liars say they just wanted to defend themselves - and we believe it because they said so.
I think the intention of Suvorov's book is something like this - I excluded the question of the supposed date of the attack - and he really has a point there.