Links from this article with broken #section links (check):
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- They all link to dead sites —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 00:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Nomenclature (2004 discussion)
Was there such a thing as the "White Army"? There was the Volunteer Army, which fought in southern Russia from 1918 to 1920, and then there were various force in Siberia, and Yudenich's army in Estonia, but can there be said to be a single "White Army"? john 06:17, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- There was not, in a sense that counterbolshevik activities were not coordinated. And there was, as a common term for all these activities.
Similarly, I tried to find the origin of the term (Russian) "White Guard", and it was not so eviden either. Mikkalai 20:23, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
But wouldn't it make more sense to have an article at "Whites (Russian Civil War)" or something, rather than White Army, which implies a single organization? john 18:58, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- The "Whites" title has its own drawbacks. It would make much more sense to have someone knowledgeable to write a non-stubby article. The title will follow.
- As for your wishes, there already is White Russians (Russian Civil War), btw., referred from this article, and equally poor. Mikkalai 03:20, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, a good article on this stuff would be good. But I think this article is a bad idea, as it implies there was something called the "White Army". We should have an article on, say, the Volunteer Army, which was an actual thing. Although there were various White armies, which were vaguely aligned with each other, there was no such thing as the "White Army" on a parallel with the Red Army. john 04:06, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I beg the logic above is faulty. While there was no White Army parallel to Red Army, it doesn't exclude "non-parallel" term. And it was, and pretty much in use. http://www.aviapress.com/viewonekit.htm?OTH-178 Mikkalai 06:58, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Given that that's a translation, I'm dubious. At any rate, of course there were White Armies (which is all one can infer from that title), but there was no "White Army". Why should there be an article on something that didn't exist? There should be an article on the White movement in general, and articles on the individual white armies (like the Volunteer Army), and on various white movements. I don't see why there should be an article on a non-existent "White Army". What could this article tell us that an article on the Whites in general could not? john 07:02, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Please don't play with words. White Army is not a "thing", it is a "notion". The term is used, even if you maintain it doesn't exist. Atheists maintain that God doesn't exist, but they nevertheless can define the term and operate with it. Words don't always match things. Since the term is in use, it is none of our business to prove whether the choice of the word correct or not, you must describe the usage, rather than try to force your understanding. Mikkalai 07:32, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
is it not true that the white army was more antisemitic than the red army if not equally anti semitic? [The preceding comment was aded by 188.8.131.52]
- It's a messy topic since Civil War era pogroms were often perpetuated by independent actors who were loosely allied with different sides at different times. See, e.g., Nikifor Grigoriev, who was responsible for many pogroms and who sided with at least 3 different governments during his career -- and then struck out on his own. Having said that, we have the following statement in History of the Jews in Russia and the Soviet Union:
- In his book 200 Years Together, Alexander Solzhenitsyn provides the following numbers from Nahum Gergel's 1951 study of the pogroms in the Ukraine during 1917-1918: out of estimated 887 mass pogroms, about 40% were perpetrated by the Ukrainian forces led by Symon Petliura, 25% by the Green Army and various nationalist and anarchist gangs, 17% by the White Army, especially forces of Anton Denikin, and 8.5% by the Red Army.
- Solzhenitsyn is not a professional historian and his book was not peer reviewed, so a better source would be nice. Ahasuerus 14:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
This is the view taken by James Lowene (author of Lies my Teachers told me) [The preceding comment was aded by 184.108.40.206]
- That would be James W. Loewen, a sociologist whose book (as far as I know) was not peer reviewed. Ahasuerus 14:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Also is it not true that the U.S. supported them partially because of their antisemitic beliefs? [The preceding comment was aded by 220.127.116.11]
- To quote WP:V:
- The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.
- If there is a reputable source that makes this claim, we can certainly include it. Ahasuerus 14:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
White army - monarchist????
The white army was not monarchist - the official ideology of it was liberalism. (See V.V.Kozhinov, Russia, XX century 1901-1939 http://www.hrono.ru/libris/kozhin20vek.html, this book is a must read for anyone who wishes to understand Russian history). With respect, Ko Soi IX 14:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Most of its officer corps, particularly in the east sector, were vehement monarchists. The deliberate ambiguity of the White movement was to not limit its appeal. I think its safe to assume that if the Whites had won, the Romanov's would have been restored even if only as Constitutional Monarchs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 04:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC).
- Let me repeat again - there might have been some monarchists in the White army, but they were underground, the ideology was that of liberalism. The White army is the child of the same forces that overthrew Romanov's in the first place. Why would they reinstate him after? With respect, Ko Soi IX 17:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- They were hardly underground in the East. Again, the vast majority of the officer corps in Kolchak's army were avowed and open monarchists, the last great assembly in the east proclaimed that the Russian People should repent of the overthrow of the Tsar etc etc. I am not saying that the White Movement was strictly monarchist, however it certainly wasn't openly in support of liberal democracy as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 02:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect to Kozhinov, he is rather biased. I read his book and some of his assumption are rather questionable. The consensus among most academics who studied White movement ideology is that they had a wide range of views including liberal, socialist, conservative and monarchist...many of them especially military men had little ideology at all and were always apolitical. The only ideology that united them, however, was a strong sense of Russian nationalism. It is however true that after defeat in emigration, a conservative nationalist and monarchist ideology of Ivan Ilyin became dominant among White Emigres Fisenko 14:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Kozhinov's point was that, despite whatever ideology was common amongst the white guard, the leadership of the whites was liberal, followed liberal ideas and was anti-monarchist. With respect, Ko Soi IX 01:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Is this not the proper term for a member or advocate of the movement?
- Why is the case that the FIRST PARAGRAPH does not say that
- a member of the "White movement" is called a "White Russian"?
- I direct the reader's attention to the literature on the Protocols of Zion.
For example, Norman Cohn's Warrant for Genocide.
- The author there uses single quotes around the word "White" thus: 'White' Russian,
and has the following discussions in his book: 108, 109, 115, 127, 128-30, 138 et seq., 177, 184, 248-52, 259n.
- From his and other scholars' usage it is these White Russians who are responsible for the claim that Bolshevism (meaning Communism) is a Jewish phenomena.
- Accordingly, we should make this point a part of the article therein.
- If a clarification is needed as to the relation to the more specific White movement (an expression, by the way, never used by these authorities) that's ok by me.
- Yours truly, --Ludvikus 12:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
And a further clarification:
- I believe there is here a fundamental confusion over English language usage.
- (1) When we use, speak, and/or write about Belarus we practically never translate it into White Russian.
- (2) On the other hand, when we use, speak, and/or write about White Russians we practically neven mean the Belarus.
Fair use rationale for Image:Spas KievanRus.jpg
Image:Spas KievanRus.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd like a map of the maximum extension of White-controlled land, perhaps an anachronistic covering the local maximums in different fronts. --126.96.36.199 12:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- Found it myself. --188.8.131.52 13:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Foreign countries, mostly Monarchies, but also America, were funding the Whites. That needs to be brought up here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshNarins (talk • contribs) 17:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- Americans have quite often been closet-case Monarchists. George Bush sr. rescued Kuwait from Iraqi occupation. Roosevelt shook hands with the first King of the KSA. Benjamin Franklin bowed ten times to the French King, though refusing to bow to King George III. I must think that King George III was content with not being savaged by a mob. Obama prefers to shake hands with the premier of Bermuda. (184.108.40.206 (talk) 14:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC))
Agreed. There seems to be little laid down here about the contribution to (and therefore prolonging of) the agonies brought about by the Russian Civil War. Had the Interventionists not invaded another country's sovereign territory then it's safe to assume that the fledgling Soviet Union would not have suffered the famines it had to endure. Parallels with Western powers arrogantly assuming they were right about Iraq in recent years cannot be overlooked... nothing changes, does it? 220.127.116.11 (talk) 01:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, never the Russian Revolution could ever happened without support with money,weapons from Germany.Lenin himself was transported by train, under orders of the last kaiser of Germany.Any worker had nothing with Russian Revolution all things came from the last Kaiser, famous bankers, etc.Revolutions are ever from up,not from the people. The so called "white movement" was separated and weak movements, without no real foreign support.They gave some support, only as a way to decieve and sent to defeat all of white generals.No white movement leader had the capacity to win;the vast majority even didn't had, a will to win.They fought against themselves in Ukraine.Agre22 (talk) 03:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)agre22
These famines were swept under the rug. We must think that the White Movement were out by the 1930s, but it seems that Stalin just came to life and thought Ukraine could do with a famine. Few (if any) members of the politbureau felt the desire to profit of letting the media know of these incidents. The only foreigners allowed in to the Soviet back then were essentially British communists who were ready to be fooled by anything. I believe they were more gullible than the Cambridge 5. (18.104.22.168 (talk) 15:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC))