Jump to content

Talk:Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Crimes against humanity

[edit]

This article needs a separate section on crimes against humanity submitted by Allied forces in Russia, including Americans in North Russia (terror against civil population in Arhangel region) and Poles (mass extermmination of Russian population in occupied regions). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.165.173.131 (talk) 13:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Untitled

[edit]

Perry Moore's, STAMPING OUT THE VIRUS (Schiffer)details the Allied Intervention in the most detail provided by any book on this subject.

Only the Introduction and the section under the first heading are complete. I think that during my next edit, I can add more to the Allied objectives that specifically relate to the Siberian campaign.

The troop numbers also need to be reworked, because it doesn't seem like those are total North Russia and Siberia numbers.

Mike Grobbel 18:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, those were the numbers. And it shows they were very small. I have a problem with the objectives being failed. The cities of archangel and murmansk weren't occupied? And the depots protected? They were. Only when the small allied forces decided to withdraw does this article say it 'failed'. They withdrew cause it was a meaningless sideshow, not because of the russians. Why can't writers of this see that? RomanYankee(68.227.211.175 14:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
The North Russia Campaign page quotes 15 battalions of British troops, that would be at least 6-7,000 men, possibly up to 15,000 or more depending on the strength of those units. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.80.160.2 (talk • contribs).

Casualties?

[edit]

Are there any known casualties among the allied troops? From reading about it, I get the impression the allied troops (maybe excluding the Japanese) were only on Russian soil as long as there were not near any Soviet forces, having no casualties, no fights, and probably also no real impact on the Russian civil war. I also don't know of any battles between western allies and soviets during the war. Maybe someone who knows more about it can enlighten me and the rest of the world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.127.126.17 (talk) 06:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not correct, we kill some of western occupants. We also sunk some of your vessels (HMS L55, HMS "Cassandra" and several steamships). For example, Red Army and Red Partisans fought against Czechoslovak Legion, several U.S. soldiers and many more Japanese occupants were killed in Siberia. Kekeke 2.60.10.1 (talk) 09:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Commonwealth War Graves Commission could be a good source of information on casualties from the British, Australian and Canadian forces that were deployed. There is a CWGC memorial at Vladivostok, and there were 110 RN and RAF personnel died in the Baltic campaign, for example. I notice the separate article on the North Russia Intervention has a table of casualties of all forces involved in that sector.Cloptonson (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allied objectives?

[edit]

The Allied objectives need to be changed in order to differentiate between the objectives of France and England and those of the US. The July 2nd, 1918 Supreme Allied War Council pretty clearly presents the Allied objectives and the aide-memoire presented to General Knox is a good place to look for the US objectives. Also, there were different objectives in Siberia and Northern Russia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.173 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 7 March 2007


I'd have to say that the reasons also seem to avoid the fact that the Allies (primarily UK/France) were ,in large part, attempting stop the Communists from keeping power in Russia. I know this was discussed during some hearings in congress around 1991 (regarding recovering bodies of POW/KIA's). The US appeared to reluctantly go along with the invasion, however, the war was ending and lack of American public support for an expansion caused Wilson to seek an early exit. I'd recommend those adjustments --Overhere2000 (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arkhangel

[edit]

The name of city is Arkhangelsk. It might be called Arkhangel before by foreigners but link just points to wrong article for now. --Tigga en 11:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

[edit]

I have assessed this as Start Class, as it contains more detail and organization than would be expected of a Stub, and of low importance, as I do not feel that it plays a strong role in the understanding of the history of Canada. Cheers, CP 04:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boiler plate

[edit]

Currently at the foot of this article there is a boilerplate for major conflicts that the US and Russia has taken part in. While it is true that they were both in this war, I feel that this should be removed as leaving it in as only two national boilerplates on this page, if we were to leave it then similar boilerplates for the Various other countries that were in this war should be placed at the end of this as well. Otonabee (talk) 02:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I'm going to go ahead and do it since no one has objected (yet). Anotherclown (talk) 00:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


American bias

[edit]

"This, (the signing of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk), permitted the redeployment of German soldiers to the Western Front, where the British and French armies were awaiting US reinforcements."
This quote, from the 'Russia leaves the war' section, gives the impression that the British and French troops only had to wait for the Americans to arrive and then everything would be hunky-dory.

I also notice that many American sources are used; are these same sources also used in the description entry (which is admittedly, not shown with the article), of the first photograph? i.e. "Soldiers and sailors from many countries are lined up in front of the Allied Headquarters Building.The United States is represented " (my emphasis). IMO, the name of the article says it all - Allied intervention in the Russian civil war
RASAM (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Just want to point out what Petain had to say after the Russian collapse: "I await the Americans and the tanks," as an argument that it isn't just American bias. Recall that the French Army mutinied and refused to go on the offensive.68.171.31.244 (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. Consensus support for move; no evidence that proposed title is ambiguous Born2cycle (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]

Entente intervention in the Russian Civil War → Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War — This was moved not long ago with the justification, "clarify the article since they were 2 alliances in ww1". This strikes me as rather pedantic, and is borne out by the historiography. See here and here and here and here: it seems quite clear "Allied" predominates. There are no sources of a similar standing that refer to it by the "Entente" label. - Biruitorul Talk 07:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Entent is a clearer description of the referred to parties. “Allied” is really all a matter of respective and the current title seems more accurate. I have seen the events equally referred to as the Entent intervention. A quick google books search certainly shows that to be the case. --Labattblueboy (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not that no one calls it an Entente intervention, but if we are to appeal to Google Books, "Allied intervention" +Russia gets 24,500 hits as opposed to 234 hits for "Entente intervention" +Russia. And yes, as I said, if we are to be pedantic about it, I'm sure "Allied" may be "unclear" or "all a matter of perspective", but the fact remains that far more reliable sources use "Allied". Even if that term may be "unclear" to a select few, it is what is generally used to describe the event. - Biruitorul Talk 23:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. In the context of both World Wars, "Allied" refers only to one of the two alliances (even in German, I may add: Alliierte). As Biruitorul says, "Allied" is much more common in this context. Ucucha 12:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Funny you bring up the German article because right in the lede it indicates that the most usual expression for the First World War alliance is the Entente and that 'Allied' applies almost strictly to the Second World War. Employing 'Allied' is taking the construct of the Second World War and applying to WWI. It's convenient but not entirely correct.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiability, not truth: the preponderance of the sources refer to an "Allied intervention". Whether this is strictly accurate does not concern us; they do it, and our task is to reflect what the sources say. - Biruitorul Talk 14:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

24,000 Greeks, not 2,000

[edit]

The Greek Kingdom was involved in their invasion of Asia Minor, but sent 24,000 soldiers into southern Russia, not 2,000 as stated in this article. Take a look at reference #4 on this Wikipedia article: Greeks in Russia and the Soviet Union for proof. There are many other sources; in fact, Greece sent so many troops, and the Crimea was so heavily Greek populated (albeit, a minority among the Russians), that Greece actually requested the right to permanently annex parts of southern Russia rather than allow the Soviets to have it. Following the victory of the Bolsheviks in Russia, and the Greek defeat in the Greco-Turkish War (1919-1923), Greece abandoned this plan. Again: Greece deployed 24,000 troops, not 2,000. --Nikoz78 (talk) 03:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source you cite is a popular article which does not specify its real sources. Please bring a paper or book that cites the original documents where this number comes from. Otherwise this is just a claim by a random journalist.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, there is a source for this number, while the change to "2,000" rests on no other ground that an editor feels that it is "more likely" a number, apparently based on his own intuition, since the Russian number is also unsourced. An Army Corps of two divisions certainly does not number 2,000 men. 24,000 may not be entirely accurate for all I know, ut it sure is a hell of a lot nearer the mark, especially if it comes from a Greek source, which ought to know something more than the random Wikipedia editor. Constantine ✍ 16:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I've found a source from the Greek army magazine: 23,351 men. Constantine ✍ 17:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now that this matter is proven, Greece should be listed higher in the pictures of flags that were involved, and also further down in the article where the main contributers of soldiers are listed. It seems odd that a nation that was so very heavily involved in the war should be listed so low on the lists! --Nikoz78 (talk) 03:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Belligerents

[edit]

It's a little odd that the pro-Soviet republics are included in the belligerents and the pro-independence movements (i.e. newly independent countries) are not, while in reality they played a far larger role in the conflicts (and especially part of the allied intervention) than the Soviet puppet states. I suggest either:

  • removing the local Soviet republics
  • including the newly independent states.

Whatever it may be, the list of pro-Soviet puppet states also seems a little short. H2ppyme (talk) 13:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One must first agree on criteria to define what is a 'puppet state'. For example, the Latvian Provisional govt (K.Ulmanis) was funded and armed by the Germans (Winner) and later backed by the British Navy (Sinclair), whereas the broad masses of Latvians that participated in earlier elections mostly voted for the local socialists who formed Bolshevik-backed Latvian Socialist Soviet Republic (1918). This LSSR was certainly not a puppet state like one with the same name created in 1940 by the Soviets. Brandmajor (talk) 07:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mysterious sentence in intro

[edit]

The intro says

Despite the Allies being able to withdraw in good order after significant defenses against the Red Army, the Bolsheviks were eventually victorious against the White Army

I don't understand this sentence. Why "despite"? Withdrawal of the Allies made victory of the Bolsheviks over the White Army more likely, not less. What does "after significant defenses against the Red Army" mean? AxelBoldt (talk) 06:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... I think it's some mangled remnant of an attempt to POV push something or other.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Absurd?

[edit]

"As per the absurd treaty accords demanded by the new soviet government"

I think that either needs rewording or referencing. Cqexbesd (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Victims of Polish Concentration Camps

[edit]

Where is Poland in "Strength" field of template ? Where is POW-victims ? [1] POW-victims was not few. Halfcookie (talk) 00:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:15, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The lead

[edit]

I do not mind including this content, but there are two problems: (a) something must be already described in the body of the page to be summarized in the lead (and the subject does not appear anywhere in the body of the page), and (b) where it should appear even in the body of page to be in proper context? (which section?). Any reasonable suggestions are welcome. My very best wishes (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical weapons

[edit]
Block evasion by User:HarveyCarter.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The fact that chemical weapons were used by the British in Russia is notable, especially in view of Churchill's later need for Soviet support during World War II. (DonGibson (talk) 22:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Agreed. I dont understand why that one user is trying to remove it. Karl.i.biased (talk) 07:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, you did not respond why it should be in the lead, even though there is nothing about it in the body of the page. Secondly, I do not see how this info can be placed in appropriate context even in the body of the page. My very best wishes (talk) 17:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It belongs in the historians' assessment section, as it did not become public knowledge until 2013 when 6 UK was contemplating intervening in the Syrian Civil War. (DonGibson (talk) 23:09, 23 December 2017 (UTC))[reply]
...it did not become public knowledge until 2013
It didn't become public knowledge in the West, maybe, but it was obviously known to the Russians. It should be mentioned in relation to the Archangel campaign as that's where/when it happened. GPRamirez5 (talk) 00:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was a major reason why Stalin allied with Hitler in 1939 and supplied the fuel the Germans used to blitz the UK in 1940-41. (DonGibson (talk) 00:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC))[reply]
It is still out of context and undue on this page. This could be included on a page about history of Chemical warfare. According to cited sources, such weapons were not used against civilians and were not widely used against Red Army. Please compare with WWI, where they indeed were widely used [2]. DonGibson, you also tell: "It was a major reason why Stalin allied with Hitler in 1939 ...". What?! Where did you read such nonsense? I mean not the fact that he allied with Hitler, but the reason for the alliance.My very best wishes (talk) 02:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the British intervened in the Russian Civil War was a major reason for Stalin deciding to accept Hitler's offer for an alliance, rather than ally with the British and French. The fact that chemical weapons were used on Russian villages would surely have played a part in his decision. The use of chemical weapons in Russia is the most controversial episode of Winston Churchill's life and career, along with the Bengal Famine of 1943. (DonGibson (talk) 15:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Well no. Lenin approved the use of poison gas in 1920 against rebellious peasants inside Russia. There is no evidence whatever that Stalin objected to poison gas in wartime. sept 1920 https://books.google.com/books?id=TzM2DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT59
KRUPSKAYA: He's had a report from General Tukachevsky. LENIN: Is Tukachevsky still being squeamish? KRUPSKAYA: No, the General has burnt the villages in the Tambov region, and exterminated what's left of the bandits with poison gas. LENIN: Good Rjensen (talk) 15:45, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lenin's decision in 1920 was probably in response to the British using chemical weapons in Russia in 1919. (DonGibson (talk) 15:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC))[reply]
"Lenin's decision in 1920 was probably in response...", "It was a major reason why Stalin allied with Hitler in 1939 ...". This is WP:OR on your part and obvious nonsense for anyone familiar with these subjects. One need really good sources here, such as some statistics: how many people died if any, how many villages were bombed if any, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was 1921 and Lenin attacked Russian peasants not the British. see details at Edvard Radzinsky (2011). Stalin. Knopf Doubleday. p. 173. In 1942 Churchill promised Stalin that Britain would use poison gas against Germany if Germany used it against Russia. Stalin was delighted and suggested that Finland be gassed too. March 30, 1942 Stalin to ChurchillI wish to express to you the Soviet Government's gratitude for the assurance that the British Government will look upon any use by the Germans of poison gas against the U.S.S.R. in the same light as if this weapon had been used against Great Britain, [and] that the British Air Force will immediately use against suitable objectives in Germany the large stocks of gas bombs held in England. see Churchill, Hinge of Fate also see https://books.google.com/books?id=BkwEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA101&dq=stalin+finland+%22poison+gas%22+1942&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiHifPVh6PYAhUL92MKHUe3BZoQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=stalin%20finland%20%22poison%20gas%22%201942&f=falseRjensen (talk) 16:25, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, certainly. But it belongs to this page and this page. My very best wishes (talk) 17:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This recent and anti-Bolshevik biography of Lenin notes Britain's use of gas at length. as well as noting Lenin's use. The difference, however, is that the former is part of the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War, and the latter is not.GPRamirez5 (talk) 20:25, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every major army used poison gas extensively. It was not controversial --it was banned later on. Rjensen (talk) 20:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see two problems. First, your source tells that chemical weapons were not used by Allies, but given to White armies. Second, this might be mentioned if it was something significant. However, according to quoted sources, the significance of chemical weapons during the allied intervention was essentially zero. I do not even see any section of the page where this might be logically included. My very best wishes (talk) 03:57, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Using chemical weapons on civilians is certainly significant as it shows Churchill was a war criminal. (86.133.85.126 (talk) 08:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC))[reply]
The British did NOT use poison gas in Iraq. Churchill was discussing non-lethal tear gas. See "Did Britain Use Chemical Weapons in Mandatory Iraq?" by R.M. Douglas, Journal of Modern History (2009) online Historical Period: 1919 to 1921. Abstract: "The article analyzes claims that the British military used chemical weapons in Iraq as a means of colonial control during the 1920s. It is suggested that while the use of chemical agents to quell colonial rebellion had some support in the British military, it faced opposition from British legislators. Emphasis is given to a memo by British war secretary Winston Churchill condoning the use of tear gas bombs against hostile tribes. The author contends that official documents show that these munitions were never actually used by the time Great Britain signed the Washington Disarmament Treaty of January 1922. It is also suggested that Churchill's statements of support for chemical weapons have been mistakenly employed as historical evidence for their actual use in military campaigns." Rjensen (talk) 14:09, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, the entire point of including these claims here and on other pages was to "prove" that Churchill was a war criminal. Frankly, this view is not supported by RS. Removed. My very best wishes (talk) 16:05, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple sources stating that Churchill was a war criminal, mostly based on his actions during World War II (i.e. the bombing of Dresden). However his use of chemical weapons in Russia is verified and should be mentioned. The remaining chemical weapons are still visible in the White Sea today. (DonGibson (talk) 05:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Yes, I know that "115,000 tons of mustard gas and Lewisite and up to 32,000 tons of tabun and sarin may have been dumped into the White Sea, the Barents Sea, and the Kara Sea by the Soviet Government" [3]. But it is not Churchill. Same about all other crimes against humanity in the former USSR.My very best wishes (talk) 20:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is based on a single article in The Telegraph, about an author - NOT a historian - who makes the claim. If you can find academic scholarly sources for this, then that's fine, it can be mentioned somewhere. But right now all you got is just a guy trying to sell some books. Volunteer Marek 05:57, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The Guardian" reported it as well. (DonGibson (talk) 06:06, 26 December 2017 (UTC))[reply]
If the Guardian "report" is just about Giles Milton, then the same point still applies. Volunteer Marek 06:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, hang on a moment:
  • Just a few lines up on this talk page we have a link to Sebestyen's biography of Lenin, which spends about half a page talking about the chemical weapons in question and touches on their delivery, their use, their effectiveness, and contemporary worries that their existence would be revealed. So Milton is not the only person writing about this.
  • The Telegraph article is largely promotional, yeah, but Milton does talk about his sourcing for the chemical weapons stuff in it, and that part a) is useful for us, and b) makes the claim that the weapons existed pretty credible (although none of the people arguing against its inclusion above are contesting that, just whether or not it belongs here). I'm not totally familiar with Milton or his work but I don't think it's so controversial that this book would automatically be disqualified as a source?
I don't think we should dedicate any space in this article (let alone a subheading) to writing about how much Churchill loved gas or drawing lines between this weapons shipment and Molotov-Ribbentrop, but it is a fact that would be of interest to many readers. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 20:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The M -device is what Milton talks about. It's a non-lethal tear gas that leaves a person unable to function for between 4 and 12 hours, then he is ok. It completely disrupts a unit's capabilities for those hours--but it is a tear gas, not a lethal poison. see https://books.google.com/books?id=HTiwCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA82 Tear gas is used by all police forces in 2017 and is not a crimeagainst humanity. Rjensen (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I see - pages 83, 84. That's why it was so inefficent in war conditions. The use of gas was almost never mentioned in books about Russian civil war (hence undue on this page). Gas applied by Russian special forces in a theater in Moscow was much deadlier. Should not someone who ordered using this gas be officially declared a mass murderer? My very best wishes (talk) 23:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
to be a mass murderer someone has to get killed--the M-device in question did not kill its victims--they all recovered after 12 hours or less. Rjensen (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I think your specific argument here is a little questionable, Rjensen, but after digging around for sources and looking at related articles, I do agree that the shipment of gas isn't really worth including here. I see it's already mentioned at Adamsite#Usage and Chemical weapons in World War I#Post-war, which seems appropriate, and it also wouldn't be out of place at Chemical warfare#Interwar years. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 19:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lockhart plot

[edit]

No sure why my edit was reverted. I do not think Kaplan needs to be mentioned essentially as a British agent. It remains disputable even if it was her who shot at Lenin. Here is description of this from a book by Robert Service (historian), where he writes it was not her. And this is not only the book by Service. Simply writing some kind of a propaganda nonsense and telling "hey, this is something controversial" is not a proper summary of the sources and not a good content to be included. My very best wishes (talk) 04:17, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, Robert Service isn't the only reputable historian in the world. Richelson's book- the first citation-is probably more reliable, being published by a university press. The direct association between Kaplan and Savinkov was made by the reputable conservative historian William Henry Chamberlin.GPRamirez5 (talk) 21:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This source is not accessible. Does it tell that connection between British agents and Kaplan was proven? What exactly it tells? My very best wishes (talk) 03:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've just checked and all the links at the end of the Coup Attempts section are accessible. And the majority of them consider the shooting of Lenin to be notable in relation to the Lockhart plot. By the way, My very best wishes, note the correct spelling of Lockhart. CheersGPRamirez5 (talk) 19:16, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I asked about your link above (it requires subscription). But this is easy to check using Google books searches for "Bruce+Lockhart+Kaplan". It leads immediately to books like Encyclopedia of Political Assassinations, and it tells explicitly that "Kaplan had not acted as a part of wider conspiracy", and that the evidence of the plot was "gathered" [read fabricated] by Cheka. If we have/had a page specifically about the plot, this could be included there, not on this more general page. My very best wishes (talk) 01:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Plotting to kill Bolsheviks-- Actually Stalin plotting and succeeded in executing most of the surviving old Bolsheviks in the 1930s--including Trotsky. Rjensen (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the recently included "coup attempts" section [4] probably does not belong to the page. Were the alleged attempted coups anything significant in Russian Civil War? No, they were not. Yes, a couple of alleged spies were arrested. This is all. The alleged British spy involvement has became "significant" only in a few propaganda movies recently produced on Russian TV [5]. My very best wishes (talk) 22:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

China

[edit]

@Pokerplayer513: See WP:SYNTH. Chinese forces were not participating in the civil war. Can you provide a source saying the forces fought against Russian SFSR? ML 911 18:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My Lord, according to the source you deleted and at least seven years of consensus say otherwise. I'm willing to discuss, but overturning consensus and deleting the source completely does not follow WP:BRD. Further "protectors of merchants" is definitely WP:SYNTH, but this page does need a support section under belligerents like in the Syrian Civil War infobox and I'd consider putting China there or possibly changing it back to Beiyang government like it was back in 2012. Until we figure out a solution, I'm reverting the page back to previous consensus. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Pokerplayer513: You are allowed to remove misrepresentation of sources and onus is on the person who restores it. We can't breach WP:V or gain consensus against not breaching it. @Binksternet: recently edited this talk page, maybe he can also suggest if source misrepresentation should be removed right away without waiting for consensus. ML 911 15:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't touched the article – it's not in my usual area of interest. All I did was revert contributions from banned HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

what about Latvia?

[edit]

since it mentions Estonia in the allies section and mentions the Estonian commune and Latvian ssr. shouldn't Latvia be included in the allies list too then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VacoTank (talk • contribs) 03:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't Polish activities be part of this?

[edit]

The Wikipedia article on the Polish–Soviet War (1919–1921) describes Polish occupation of Belarus and West Ukraine during the Russian Civil War. Shouldn't there be some mention of that in this article?

On 2020-02-02 I found the Wikipedia article on Invasion of Russia that mentioned the Polish–Soviet War but NOT the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War. I added the "Allied intervention..." to the "Invasion of Russia" disambiguation page, and I'm asking the reciprocal question here.

Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 02:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Polish Soviet War and Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War are two separate conflicts. Same thing with Romania and Bessarabia. Volunteer Marek 20:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable deletion

[edit]

@Flushing Girl: Can you please help me understand why you deleted

  • Kurilla, Ivan. "Allied Intervention From Russia’s Perspective: Modern-Day Interpretations." Journal of Slavic Military Studies 32.4 (2019): 570–573,

saying, "Removed the work of a pseudo scholar"?

I'm not familiar with Ivan Kurilla nor the Journal of Slavic Military Studies, but a brief web search identified several sources that seemed sensible. He is described as "a profess of History and International Relations at European University, St. Petersburg", and spent June 2002 as a "Regional Exchange Scholar" at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. The abstract begins, "The narrative of the foreign intervention in the Russian Civil War changed its meaning for the Soviet and post-Soviet Russian scholars and ideologues several times. Stalin put all the blame for starting Civil War on the intervention, with emphasis on the British leading role. During Cold War, Soviet propagandists highlighted the role of the US Expeditionary forces. In the 1990s the lifting of ideological control permitted new research of the Civil War and intervention written from multiple points of view to emerge. However, after 2000 increasingly anti-revolutionary and anti-Western policies of the Russian government facilitated the return of the early Soviet narrative into semi-official interpretations". I'm not a professional historian, but I'm not a complete novice, either. All this sounds consistent with what I've come to understand from many other sources.

Accordingly, I'm reverting your deletion. If you think he's a "pseudo scholar", I'd need to see more than I've seen so far.

Thanks for your support of Wikipedia. DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:08, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction in the lede

[edit]

The lede contradicts itself; one part (citing Kenez) admits at least that from a certain point onward, the goal was to defeat the revolution (by ensuring White victory), while another part (citing Mawdsley) still insists there were just some minor 'innocuous' goals, and finally dumb Soviet historians are again criticised for claiming the goal was to defeat the revolution. Perhaps this difference of interpretations - even among Western historians! - should be stated in a neutral way, instead of each sentence presenting a single interpretation as true. In addition, I very much doubt that there is some exception in the NPOV policy that somehow allows the current wordings where the interpretations of Western historians are presented as true and those of Soviet and Russian ones as false as a matter of course. 87.126.21.225 (talk) 08:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuania

[edit]

On 2023-02-03T13:45:38 User:35.21.39.120 added text claiming that the results of the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War included, "White victory in Finland, Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania".

I question the inclusion of Lithuania in this way. The article mentions Finland and Estonia in ways that support the claim for those two countries. It also contains a link to the article on "British campaign in the Baltic (1918–1919)", which documents the claim for Latvia. However, I see nothing to support the claim for Lithuania. Accordingly, I'm removing that country from the list.

If someone cares to cite credible references to support some other change, I might support that; I am not an expert on this conflict. DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense From the Beginning?

[edit]

@Volunteer Marek: Thanks for your edits citing Lincoln E. Flake (19 December 2019). "'Nonsense From the Beginning' — Allied Intervention in Russia's Civil War at 100: Historical Perspectives from Combatant Countries". The Journal of Slavic Military Studies. ISSN 1351-8046. Wikidata Q116739770.

I feel a need to quibble about one point: You wrote, "Overthrowing the Bolsheviks was never a primary aim of the interventions." On this point, the Abstract says, "For most, overthrowing the Bolsheviks and installing a friendly government was never a primary aim."

I think we need to retain the qualifier, "For most", because I believe there is substantial documentation supporting allied support for the Whites against the Reds. I can't find them now, but I've seen documents claiming that at least some Allied leaders, e.g., Churchill and maybe some leaders in France and elsewhere, wanted to restore the previous aristocracy. Somewhere I read that at one point, some British soldiers refused orders to fire on Bolsheviks, were courts martialed and sentenced to die. There was a delay between the sentence and execution, and British public opinion got the Parliament involved, and the sentences were overturned. The things I remember were likely inconsequential and may have been wrong. However, I think it necessary to retain the qualifier, "For most".

Thanks for your contribution to Wikipedia:Prime objective, to give "every single person on the planet .... free access to the sum of all human knowledge." DavidMCEddy (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Stara Marusya: Can you help me understand your edits of 2023-03-08T05:31:44?
In particular, I'm confused by your deletion of <ref name=Flake>, citing Lincoln E. Flake (19 December 2019). "'Nonsense From the Beginning' — Allied Intervention in Russia's Civil War at 100: Historical Perspectives from Combatant Countries". The Journal of Slavic Military Studies. ISSN 1351-8046. Wikidata Q116739770.. This seems to be a reputable source.
You claim you were "Removing content contradicted in body, avoiding repetition". I cannot claim perfect knowledge of everything in the body of the article nor of the literature on this issue, I think it's fair to say that different parties to these events had contradictory objectives that changed over time. For example, Flake clearly states that "In the summer of 1918, Leon Trotsky, the head of the Red Army, welcomed the arrival of British, American and French troops in Murmansk", and your deletion of <ref name=Flake> converted the reference for that statement into, "Cite error: The named reference Flake was invoked but never defined (see the help page)."
Also, do you dispute the last line you deleted: "Overall the extent of allied intervention during the civil war was minuscule and inconsequential.<ref name=Flake/>?
The Wikipedia article on the Russia Civil War says that the Red Army peaked at 5.5 million, while the Whites and Polish peaked at 1 million each. By comparison, the combined "Strength" of the "Allied intervention" was 50,000 - 70,000. That certainly looks "minuscule" to me.
Whether it was "inconsequential" is another question. However, that article by Flake in the The Journal of Slavic Military Studies "is followed by contributions from five leading scholars from combatant nations." That sounds to me like that article and the five that follow it could constitute some of the most credible and authoritative work on this subject. I don't know: This is not my area of expertise.
After reflecting on this as I'm writing, I feel it appropriate to restore a slightly modified version of the last line of the lede, which you deleted, as follows:
'"Overall the extent of allied intervention during the civil war was minuscule and inconsequential", according to Flake (2019).<ref name=Flake><!-- Flake (2019) Nonsense From the Beginning-->{{cite Q|Q116739770}}</ref>'

Regarding Lincoln Flake and the assertion above "This seems to be a reputable source", I have googled the source and the first result is the author's linkedin page, listing his employer as NATO and in an overlapping timeframe as his being editor of the "Journal of Slavic Military Studies". Given this enormous conflict of interests in recording history relating to this part of the world and in the significance of the intervention of these powers, many of whom now constitute NATO members, I suggest that all references to this article be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ideologicalassessment (talk • contribs) 16:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ideologicalassessment: Please excuse the tone of this reply, but it's obvious that you know the truth. I see multiple problems with your truth:
  1. People are being killed and property is being destroyed, because others know a truth that is so different from yours it's worth opposing with massive violence, e.g., in the current Russo-Ukrainian War.
  2. Censoring alternative perspectives increases the gap between people who know different truths, thereby increasing the death and destruction, reducing the chances of a settlement with no winners while increasing the death and destruction to all parties to the conflict except the arms manufacturers, the merchants of death.
  3. The section on Articles on contentious issues in the Wikipedia article on Reliability of Wikipedia cites Feng Shi; Misha Teplitskiy; Eamon Duede; James A. Evans (4 March 2019). "The wisdom of polarized crowds" (PDF). Nature Human Behaviour. 3 (4): 329–336. arXiv:1712.06414. doi:10.1038/S41562-019-0541-6. ISSN 2397-3374. PMID 30971793. Wikidata Q47248083., who say that the best articles in Wikipedia are those with the largest and most diverse group of editors. I think it's entirely appropriate to say that, "Flake, an employee of NATO, claims that ...", and add a note saying that he appears to have a conflict of interest. You also note that he is 'editor of the "The Journal of Slavic Military Studies".' I did NOT find that journal in Wikipedia:Deprecated sources nor "Flake" in the Wikipedia article on "The Journal of Slavic Military Studies".' I'm confused.
I'm fine with wordsmithing, explaining in the text and in notes that certain sources may be contentious. I'm opposed to insulting people who happen to support the perspective offered by Flake: The do not deserve to be written out of Wikipedia because you know the truth, and they don't. I am therefore reverting this latest deletion.
Thanks for your efforts to contribute to Wikipedia:Prime objective, to give "every single person on the planet .... free access to the sum of all human knowledge." DavidMCEddy (talk) 03:27, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re: allied Concerns

[edit]

This section has the following sentence: " Also worrisome to the Allied Powers was the April 1918 landing of a division of German troops in Finland, increasing speculation they might attempt to capture the Murmansk-Petrograd railway, and subsequently the strategic port of Murmansk and possibly Arkhangelsk."

How were Murmansk and Archangel of strategic importance if Russia was no longer in the war.? Firestar47 (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Allied_intervention_in_the_Russian_Civil_War&oldid=1226268984"