Talk:Grigoriy Krivosheev

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Irpen, I respect your editing, but disagree in your evaluation of Suvorov's work as a "non-scientific sensationalist analysis" and "Suvorov's crackpot". Given that Suvorov did not ride the state machinery to work for him, his insights and statistical back-up are profound. Many mega-trends do not need detailed analysis, as is said "Large things are visible from afar", and the years of propaganda could never cloud the fact that Russia lost near-all their men and supplies in the first week of the war. This fact is no "crackpot", he broke secretiveness by fingering a naked king, and silencing the thesis of the Suvorov's book as opposed to the line of the state-supported publication does not present a balanced picture. Taking sides before independent historians canvass the problem is presumptuous, especially when the state is known to chronically manipulate scientific reports. I am saying this not to discredit Krivosheev, he has done a very important and probably good research, but to argue for a balanced picture about the controversy where Krivosheev serves to illuminate one side. Barefact 01:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)