|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Old talk
- 2 "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."
- 3 The portion on the pogroms during Denikin's retreat
- 4 With the White Army faring poorly, more interested in taking booty than in fighting the Red Army...
- 5 "Betrayal by the Allies (Britain, USA, France)"
- 6 Capture by Germans
- 7 Questionable claims with unreliable sources.
- 8 Strangely written section
- 9 Antisemite Propaganda removed
- 10 Anton Denikin was Antisemite
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 188.8.131.52 (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.
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.
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.--184.108.40.206 (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 220.127.116.11 (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, USA, 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
- 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)
Questionable claims with unreliable sources.
Denikin's Counterintelligence was characterized by rampant arbitrariness. Prisons were crowded with detains and Volunteer Army soldiers plundered the occupied towns.
Denikin's regime on 24 November 1919 passed a law that determined the internal policy after the expected White victory in the Civil War. Under this law, all those who were involved in activities of the Soviets, who carried out or facilitated its tasks, as well as those who participated "in the Communist Party, which established the power of the Soviets of Workers deputies, is subject to deprivation of all property rights and the death penalty. The death penalty was threatened on all members of the Communist Party numbering more than 300 thousand as well as workers who participated in the nationalization of factories, or contributed to it, or were members of trade unions, peasants who participated in the land reforms, and soldiers of the Red Army.
Both claims seem to be unsubstantiated red propaganda. I have not read any nonbiased english sources that tell about these events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 22:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Strangely written section
There is a whole part in the Exile section that seems to be the work of an editor with an axe to grind. It begins:
"Exactly how "appalled" was Denikin with the endemic anti-Semitism? Historians are well aware that diaries are often written with a view to later publication. In fact, important personages often write several diaries with this in mind. Thus while a diary may not be very reliable, personal observations say much. With this in mind, consider the following:"
These lines in themselves do not use encyclopedic language (quotes on the word appalled; asking the reader a question; asking the reader to "consider the following"; speculating about multiple diaries without evidence that this is relevant to Denikin himself; etc.)
This is all bad enough, but then we find an enormous block of text pulled out of a book by M. Grey. This is neither explained nor placed in context. It's not even clear who is speaking. (Who is this M. Grey? Are these his words? Should we care? Do we need such a big excerpt from his book to get the message?)
There may be some useful material in all this, so I hesitate to just delete it all. For the time being, it stays. I hope someone will take a look at it and do something positive for the article.Nojamus (talk) 16:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Antisemite Propaganda removed
Entire paragraphs with antisemite/nazi propaganda, claiming void phrases and weasel words denying antisemite crimes by Denikin, removed by violate NPOV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)