Talk:Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War

Untitled

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)

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))

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?

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)

Allied objectives?

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)

Arkhangel

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)

Assessment

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)

Boiler plate

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)

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

American bias

"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)

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)

---

Requested move

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)

• 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)
  • 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

• Support - "entente" seems excessivly pedantic here - better to follow usage when no-one is really misled as to what it means.--Kotniski (talk) 09:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Allied here is clearly and unambiguously a reference to the Allies of World War I; This is the common English usage in this context. Andrewa (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

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

The Greek Kingdom was involved in there 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)