Talk:Anton Denikin

WikiProject Military history

(Rated Start-Class)

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Additional information... This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): World War I task force

Old talk

Denikin was born in Włocławek (Russia and now Poland).He wright that messige in your diary.His father was major russiche army in Aleksandrów Kujawski.Family Denikin residense was in Włocławek on Piekarska street.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.136.107.247 (talk • contribs).

"Pogroms were fueled in part by Jewish support of the Bolsheviks and their participation in the Red administration's repressive organizations, such as the Cheka."

The above-quoted text from this article is purely opinion and is unsupported by any sourcing. Any reason why it should not be deleted? I'll remove it for now pending a response.

Adam Holland 14:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

There you are:

... the Jews of Ukraine were disproportionately favorable to Bolshevism and welcoming of the Red Army, and undoubtedly in some towns there were Jewish elements that were something in the nature of a Trojan horse.

Arno J. Mayer The Furies --VMX (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The portion on the pogroms during Denikin's retreat

The paragraph on the pogrom's committed by Denikin's army essentially consisted of an argument for his defense, not an objective history.

   I cut the most POV sentences from it, but it needs a rewrite.  Solzhynetsin, while a brilliant and courageous man, is not objective enough to be the only source.  

I'll look for multiple sources and add what I find (with footnotes)...

Adam Holland 14:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Your version is far from being objective either. Why painting Denikin as a pogroms mastermind and hiding the fact that majority of pogroms was done by Makhno or Petlyura? Your own sources confirm this.

As for Solzhenitsin he was only quoting another research (By Naum Gergel) :

out of an estimated 887 mass pogroms, about 40% were perpetrated by the Ukrainian forces led by Symon Petliura, 25% by the Ukrainian Green Army and various Ukrainian nationalist gangs, 17% by the White Army, especially the forces of Anton Denikin, and 8.5% by the Red Army.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogrom

VMX 21:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, to the best of my recollection, the paragraph that you edited simply pointed out that forces nominally under Denikin's command did not always obey Denikin's orders. As you've have rewritten it, you have made it appear that Denikin authorized, directed, and was in support of the pogroms which were carried out by some of his forces. In fact, Denikin's own account suggests that they were carried out against both his wishes and his orders. If you will review the relevant portions of White versus Red, I believe you will find that Denikin was remarkably candid about what he regarded as his inability/failure to control some of his forces. He is not beyond criticism, but he shouldn't be depicted as something that he was not. I have not altered/edited the article, however, I think that a another rewrite for balance is in order.--24.46.186.240 (talk) 07:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Then why not rewrite it? Most people like me have never read Denikin's memoirs, and it would be nice to see them used here were they are actually relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.68.120.38 (talk) 17:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

With the White Army faring poorly, more interested in taking booty than in fighting the Red Army...

This is hardly an accurate (I would say, rather objective) description of the the White Army at the time of Denikin's resignation (March 1920). The situation in the Crimea was far from being desperate and the White Army's morale and discipline was on the rise. VMX 20:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

"Betrayal by the Allies (Britain, UK, France)"

The paragraph following this is terribly POV and terribly written. For example: "Neither did he feel that he had the right to make any territorial consessions - he felt that his job was merely to preserve Russia and defeat the brutal criminal bolshevik upprisal..." I am very new here however so I am not going to change or delete anything myself. Cheers from a member of the brutal criminal bolshevik upprisal, Greenalien79 (talk) 10:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I've removed this paragraph. Sometimes it is better to have nothing at all than to have something that's total crap. The source seemed sketchy as well. Having said that, I think it would be good to have a paragraph on Denikin's relationship with the Allies, the aid received from them as well as about the break down of that relationship. From what I understand the basic outline in that paragraph is correct - initial aid, followed by abandonment by the allies once they reached some agreement with the Bolsheviks. However we need much better sources for it.radek (talk) 17:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Capture by Germans

Capture by Germans is complete bullshit. He actually lived in America along the entire war.--MathFacts (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Denikin spent the whole war in France, in a German occupation zone. He had enough courage to reject several offers to collaborate with the Nazis. He left France and came to the USA in December 1945. Please, learn history before talking about bullshit.--VMX (talk) 13:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)