Talk:Russian Civil War
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
EXPAND combatants
On the table, U.K, U.S, France and Japan should be added as combatants against the Red Army. Considering thousands of their troops were poured into Russia and ingaged in armed combat. Not to mention the flood of war supplies from them to the Whites (which added another toll on the loss of lives).
-G
- What's wrong with what is written? Surely you recognize that their role in combat was extremely limited, and that they played more of a support role? 128.8.8.88 04:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Problems with this article
This article does not delve very much into the topic. It does not include the failures of the Bolshevik army in the beginning or the massacres committed on both sides. The weaknesses of the White Army subsection should be rewritten. The Red Army, afterall, did have support in the industrial cities but not in the Urals. The Peasants wanted unity, not war. Sandy June 02:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Also...any ideas on the casualties and the strength of both sides of the civil war (or even estimates)? bogdan 04:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- I can't say anything about the numbers but I didn't understand why Reds are referred as the Soviet Union (there wasn't such a country at that time) and why Whites are referred as Russia (there was a collapsed Russian Empire, not the Russia we know today!) in the article. Can someone fix it? Deliogul 16:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
General comments
There is a remark that UK, USA and france participate in the civil war, Any data to sustain? and what whas the extend of this participation in the civil war? Milton 21:47, 5 December 2003 (UTC)
- Reds were fighting with Poland sicne 1919, not April 1920. April 1920 is the date of Polish offensive on Kiev. Therefore, I will change this if noone would object in few days szopen 11:49, 6 December 2003 (UTC)
You have got a little problem in the article between les picture and the text. The text is on the picture. @ + (a french wikipedian) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.127.150.27 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
- Thank you. Mikkalai 21:42, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
- There were some other forces in Russia during the Civil war, but while the "White Faction" tried to drag them in they mainly went in to rescue westerners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jprismon (talk • contribs) 21:43, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
This is an excellent article, but it needs more information about the end of the war. We skip from beginning to aftermath. Brentford 13:49, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I would suggest the book "European Dictatorships 1918-1945" by Stephen J. Lee for a more coherent and complete explanation of the three distinct conflicts and the reasons for the Red victory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.143.249 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 26 March 2005 (UTC)
I will work on cleaning this up when I have more time. There's a lot that could be clarified and expanded upon. Marcus - 13 May, 2005 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.124.196 (talk • contribs) 04:10, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
1920??
I was always taught that the Civil War ended in 1924... Gaidash 06:34, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, in 1922. Mikkalai 15:48, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
Possibly pockets of resistance were still lingering but nothing to challenge the new government. However, Japan still occupied parts of Russia until 1925 and that is what you maybe thinking about. But I don't think they were fighting for the territory and Japana later handed it over after a treaty in 1925 I think.
-G
Foreign intervention
The article states that a number of countries (mostly the allies in WWI) intervened on behalf of the white Russians, but it doesnt say what troops were sent, if the fought, where they faught, why they pulled out ect... I know nothing on this subject so I hope someone else might be able to add something.say1988 03:46, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
- I found a good publication on this subject - Valeri Shambarov's "Byelogvardeischina", http://militera.lib.ru/research/shambarov1/02.html Sorry, in Russian only. - VMX 20:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
- Why was my addition edited out? Unless you can find something factualy wrong with it I suggest that you restore it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.27.159 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- Here are the paragraphs elited by User:Mikkalai:
- Also the Allied intervention was largely an industrial move in order to sell as much equipment as possible, according to varios primary sources, the Brittish, for example, shipped crates of deffective or otherwise broken weapons in order to prolong the war and therefore have more demand for their products. When it was obvios the whites would loose, the allied intervention left the country, further weakening the white movement.
- The Civil War could be argued to have an effect on Russian society even today, as a large amount of Russians either fear or distrust the nations of Western Europe.
- What are the sources for these statements? Ahasuerus 18:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- Previous quote is certainly an overestimation, but there are facts to support this point of view.
- For example, Shambarov writes that Kolchak, instead of Colt machine guns that he ordered (and paid for with gold) got from England obsolete St-Etienne machine guns (not sure about the spelling) which were too heavy, unreliable and suitable for positional warfare only (in trenches).
- British forces began leaving Russian north in august-september 1919 when White forces were as close as possible to overthrowing Bolsheviks; the French did even worse when they fled from Odessa. --VMX 18:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Unity of titles here...
'the old Tsarist Commander-in-Chief' 'almost all of the weapons of the Czarist army' The title of Czar is only used once, and 'Tsar' used much more often. I have studied Russian History, but I don't speak the language, so I'm loathed to change it as I don't know which one is a more accurate translation. --Liss 14:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- It's a question of transliteration, there isn't any substantive difference. The main WP article is under Tsar, so we probably want to change "Czar"ist to "Tsar"ist to avoid redirection. Ahasuerus 16:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Description of Forces
The articles starts by stating that the civil war was fought between "Communist forces known as the Red Army and loosely allied anti-Communist forces known as the White Army".
Would it not be better to describe the Red Army, as a pro-Bolshvik force, and the Whites as an anti-Bolshevik force.
To say that the whites were an anti-Communist force is surely not correct?
Many, if not most, of the White factions were anti-communist, but it had communist elements in it aswell such as the Mensheviks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.179.67.118 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Communists supporting the monarchy? I don't think so. They were more like oportunists. ~ ~ ~ ~ ZealotKommunizma 19:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
-Mensheviks supporting the Tsar? I don't think so. Seriously learn to read. The whites were not all monarchists. Some were yes! The whites is used to collectively describe the forces that loosely allied to fight the Bolsheviks. On the whole the only common factor between the factions of the white forces was a hatred of the Bolsheviks. Some factions were Tsarist, some were Menshevik, SR etc... The point is that while many white factions were anti-communist, it is questionable as to whether you can describe the entire white force as anti-communist when it encompassed Menshevik and SR elements (perhaps described more as socialist than communist, but that is a debate in itself).
Source?
All these facts and figures but no footnotes? The figures might as well have been made up. Can whoever wrote it PLEASE find out where the numbers are from. Thanks! -ColinMacDonald 11:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Breaking the Article up
I for one think that the article tries to do too many things at once, covering the Finnish Civil War, the (relatively half-hearted) Allied Intervention, the Polish-Soviet War, the Lithuanian-Polish War, etc, under the same banner as the "Main Event" In Russia. Now, I can understand the need, nay, the necessity of tying everything together into the big picture. However, lumping everything together as a "Bolshevik Victory" for an article that apparently tries to cover the various other conflicts raging as expansions of the RCW, several of which did not go to the Red Army's favor (Finland, Poland, etc.)
However, the Bolsheviks DID win the main event in Russia, regardless of how the brushfire wars went, and we cannot very well say "Bolshevik Victory except in Finland, Baltics, Poland, etc."
So I propose we break the conflict down into smaller pieces, and detail them there, with the needed redirects in the respective sections. Thankfully, the sites for these smaller pieces are already largely on this site, if less then-complete. We just need to fill out the blacks. What say you? ELV
- Agree. This article is way too long.Biophys 17:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Black Army?
Is it correct to put Black Army in the "opposition" list? After all, for the majority of the duration of the war, the anarchists fought alongside the Red Army. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.244.207 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
weakness of the whites and NPOV
This section was not NPOV. I will make the following changes:
1. Remove the words "worse still"...
2. Part of the reason the allies did not recognize Kolchaks government might have been its uncertain future, but I have never read it anywhere, and there is no reference to any source, so I will remove it. I will instead add two other reasons: dislike of the autocratic character of Kolchaks rule and fear of a new united Russian empire with colonial interests. I have references for both of them (US General William Graves and Richard Pipes respectively.)
3. The open hostility between Pilsudski and Denikin was mutual, not only from Pilsudskis side, since the whites refused to recognize Polish independence. And was it really the Bolsheviks who attacked Poland? The wikipedia article on Pilsudski suggests that Poland was the aggressor.
4. Semenov certainly killed many opponents without trials, but I think the torture and rapes should be mentioned as well. Source: William Graves of the American intervention force.
If anyone disagree about these changes, feel free to discuss it here.
(83.255.2.92)
Poland was the aggressor - where exactly does it suggest it? Was Petlura an aggressor? Xx236 12:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Red vs. White
The opening paragraph is inaccurate. The struggle between the reds and whites claimed up to 2 million lives, while the violence that engulfed Russia left at least 20 million dead. I strongly recommend V.V.Kozhinov's book Russia, XX century 1901-1939 http://www.hrono.ru/libris/kozhin20vek.html. As soon as I have more time I will try to improve the article. With respect, Ko Soi IX 14:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
extremely rapid economic growth in the 1930s
Eventually industrial, certainly not the agricultural one. Xx236 12:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Casualties?
Could someone please give the number of casualties in the war infobox? Thanks, 124.7.43.124 08:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Other foreign forces
Who were the leaders of the American and especially Japanese forces? --HanzoHattori 10:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
A couple of comments
First, I think this article has a serious gap: it represents this war as a fight of "whites" and "reds", whereas a majority of victims were peasants killed in numerous rebellions (primarily against "reds", see "Harvest of sorrow"). We probably need an article about Peasant war in Russia.
Second, this article does not say that a significant part of Civil War was basically a colonial war, when Red Army occupied republics that were independent at this time. First, bolsheviks declared the right of nations on self-deteremination to consolidate their power in Moscow, but then concured these nations. They repeated this trick many times: "land to peasants!" - and later confiscated their land; "factories to workers!" - and brutally repressed strickers and sent workers who were late to work to Gulag; "peace to peoples" - and brought Civil War, occupation of Baltic States and Europe, Korean war, Afganistan war, etc.). Biophys 17:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Whatever you want, but please don't engage in original research. Whatever you think it was, you have to provide opinions from books, not your own. `'Míkka 00:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- I strongly agree.Biophys 16:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Combatants list should NOT be removed
There is no excuse for doing that. If you find it too long to be there, you can make it like in "world war 1" and "world war 2" articles - create a separate article for the participants of Russian Civil War and link to it from the participants box, then do the same with leaders, etc. There is no excuse for removing it completely, so it was restored. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 96.225.112.144 (talk)
- The combatant box is useless, meaningless and confusing for such a complex set of events as Russian Civil War. To begin with, there were more than two sides. `'Míkka 23:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- If you find it confusing then please do your best to make it less confusing. I, for instance, don't find it confusing at all. In fact I find it useful and necessary as all other articles of similar subjects do have it. AS for more than 2 sides - sure, there is an option called "combatant3". If you absolutely feel like adding a third side is necessary, do so. Do not reverse other's contributions though.
- B-Class Russia articles
- Unknown-importance Russia articles
- Unknown-importance B-Class Russia articles
- WikiProject Russia articles with no associated task force
- WikiProject Russia articles
- Mid-importance Russia articles
- Mid-importance B-Class Russia articles
- Start-Class military history articles
- Start-Class World War I articles
- World War I task force articles
- WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
- B-Class Soviet Union articles
- Unknown-importance Soviet Union articles
- WikiProject Soviet Union articles
- Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates