Talk:Russian Civil War

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) The white army sustained around 1 million causalities.

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

my school books say it started in June/July 1918 an ended in November 1920. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nukedoom (talk • contribs) 02:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

For end of civil war can be accepted date in august/september 1922, when Russian Red Army destroyed last organized bigger resistance - general Ungern army in Mongolia and executed Ungern.--94.112.202.109 (talk) 21:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

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).

"Anti-Communist" is a fair description if only because the Mensheviks and Right Social Revolutionaries were never in a position to command authority. They were very much like Salvador Allende in Chile. Before the coup of 1973 there some calls by Trotskyist groups to arm the workers and build a revolutionary party. Allende refused to turn to this pattern of organizing revolutionary armed force, and so he was easily overthrown by Pinochet. Similarly, the Menskeviks and Rights SRs were helpless against the rabid hostility shown towards them by the White officers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.247.164.139 (talk) 03:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

• When address reasons and you mention Graves and Pipes above, are you not still referring to "opinions" or "judgments" rather than facts? I would submit that any author's "reasons" reflect their personal views. If you want to cite "reasons" more accurately you should find a pivotal personage in the events themselves who cites "reasons" - then they would be closer to facts.Федоров (talk) 06:50, 21 July 2009 (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)

Box says 9000 for the communists, yet claims 300 000 for the "whites", now im not saying 300 000 dead on whites isnt possible, but if they lost this much im pretty sure the communist side lost similar number or actually much more, so why put anything there if theres no worthwhile information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.231.217.247 (talk) 03:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Reds losted 1 000 000-1 200 000 soldiers, commissars and other military personal. And during whole war, more then 3 millions Red Army soldiers deserted. White Army losted near 1 million soldiers, generals and other personal and also had big desertation and defecting to soviet ranks.--94.112.202.109 (talk) 21:37, 7 November 2009 (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, but don't delete it outright. I, for instance, don't find it confusing at all. In fact I find it useful and necessary, since all other articles about similar subjects have it. As for the issue of more than 2 sides - sure, there is an option called "combatant3". If you absolutely feel like adding a third side is necessary, do so. I don't think that a third side is necessary at the moment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.172.185.7 (talk)

Detailed desriptions and lists belong to text of the article. Infoboxes are for overview, not for piling details into it. "Combatant 3" is not enough either. You seem to simply don't understand what a mess was this war. And the creator of this box content did no know what he was doing. It is all the more dangerous if you find it useful: it conveys wrong perception. At the moment I don't see an easy way how to fix it, but leaving it in this shape is a disservice. `'Míkka 15:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Three sides would be best: 1.Reds and their allies 2. Others including nationalists, anarchists, SRs and Central Powers 3. Whites, Cossacks and Allied Intervention. Second section should clearly indicate that sides listed there are not allied to each other neither to Reds or Whites. Also nationalists fought both Reds and Whites so it is incorrect to list them with Whites and there were many other groups that fought both.

List of Battles shouldn't be removed either, you used to be able to pick a war and then scim along the battles until you found one you like, now you have to know the name of the battle if it happens to be not mentioned in the article. Sixshooter500 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.139.146 (talk) 02:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Turkey?

Turkey wasn't a part of Allies and didn't intervene in Russia during the civil war. What the hell? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slntssssn (talk • contribs) 15:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The Ottoman Empire captured Baku from independent Azerbaidjan in spring 1918. The Turkish Republic intervened in Armenia in 1920. Jacob Haller 04:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ottoman army fought against Imperial Russia (Whites). Take a look at this: Battle_of_Baku —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slntssssn (talk • contribs) 10:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

In the russian wikipedia: Combats 1917-1918 the Central Powers, Austria-Hungary, Turkey, German Empire → Центральные державы (1917-1918): Германия, Османская империя, Австро-Венгрия Doncsecz 29 October 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 18:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you know Russian at all? I'm still waiting for an English source showing that Ottoman Empire (or any other member of Central Powers) fought against Bolsheviks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slntssssn (talk • contribs) 19:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Try E._H._Carrs history of the Soviet Union. He writes a lot about the interactions between bolshevik Russia and Germany. I think he has a few pages about Turkeys participation in the fighting in Russia as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.208.30.83 (talk) 16:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Problems with current article structure

Unnecessary interleaving

The article unnecessarily contains three sections that interleave the chronology: "Overview", "Geography and chronology" and "Course of events". Please keep in mind that per wikipedia:Summary style this article is itself a broad overview of the huge topic with major details covered in separate articles. Therefore I suggest that there should be only wo of them: "Overview" and "Course of events".

Suggestions, please. `'Míkka>t 16:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Course of Events periodization

History is naturally periodized by major events/turning points. Surely Happy New Years are rarely among them. In Russia, war campaigns are punctuated by Spring, because Russian Winter prevens from strategic moves. The Russian wikipedia article has a more realistic periodization.

Suggestions, please. `'Míkka>t 16:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Additional summary sections

IMO this main article must have at least two more overview sections:

• "Combatants" (and I'd suggest to severely trim this ugly list from the infobox)
• "Major fronts and theatres"

Suggestions, please. `'Míkka>t 16:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Combatants

In "combatants" section independist movements are separated, whereas intervents and whites are united. But as for the Tatar independist movement, the most of them allied with White Czechs (i.e. intervents, as they are marked), but not with Kolchak, i.e. white movement. So, may be would be better to unite intervents with independists or separate them to other column. --Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 13:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. According to Richard Pipes, the allies feared that a united Russia could become a future enemy. UK gave protection to Georgia for instance, and the French involvement in Ukraine was also supportive of the Ukrainian indepence. The central powers also mainly supported independist movements (or at least their own puppet government versions of them), rather than the whites.83.255.11.13 (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

"According to Richard Pipes, the allies feared that a united Russia could become a future enemy. UK gave protection to Georgia for instance, and the French involvement in Ukraine was also supportive of the Ukrainian indepence."

Richard Pipes is not the best source. Better documented discussions can be found in Peter Kenez, THE CIVIL WAR IN SOUTH RUSSIA (two volumes), or John Reshetar, THE UKRAINIAN REVOLUTION, among others. The independence movements in places like Georgia and Ukraine were just a reality which the French and British forces had presented to them from the onset. The Allies tried to consolidate an anti-Bolshevik movement which could lay aside other conflicts until later, but they were confronted from the start with war between Georgians, Ukrainians amd the Russian White forces. The soldiers in the British and French armies only took this as one more source of disillusionment at a time when they were sick of war already. The British and French commands couldn't wish these conflicts away, and they certainly did not create them. If the Whites had been politically more astute they might have allowed independence to former parts of the Old Empire, built an effective coalition against the Bolsheviks, and then later rebuilt a Russian empire much as Stalin did. The Whites did have such political acumen and they created a crisis behind the front all on their own without needing any conspiring by the British and French. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.247.164.139 (talk) 02:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Red-soldiers.jpg

Image:Red-soldiers.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 09:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Organisation of theatres

I think that the navigation of the different theatres of the war needs a lot more work, or a general timeline. Here is how I would do it:

• October Revolution
• Southern theatre:
  • Kaledin's revolt
  • Kornilov's ice march
  • Volunteer Army, Denikin
  • Crimea, Vrangel.
  • ROVS
• South-Western theatre:
  • Treaty of Brest-Litovsk
  • Makhnovshina
  • Allied Intervention, Odessa, loss of Bessarbia (incl. Drozdovsky's march)
  • Ukrainian War of Independence (UNR, Rada, Directory, Petlyura)
  • Ukrainian-Soviet War
  • Collapse of Odessa
  • Polish-Soviet War
• North-Western (Baltic) Theatre
  • Latvian War of Independence
  • Yudenich's offensive
• Northern Theatre
  • Whatever conflict there was with Finland
  • Miller's operations
• Eastern (Ural) theatre
  • Czechoslovakian legion
  • Kolchak's offensive
  • Dutov and Ural Cossacks (not quite sure where to put them)
• Central Asian Theatre
  • Annikov's operations
  • Frunze's operations
  • Bukhara, Khiva, and Turkmenistan etc.
• Caucasus Theatre
  • Intial revolution, Baku Comissars, Turkey's invasion.
  • Northern Caucasus (Chechnya Dagestan etc.)
  • Transcaucasian republics, their individual wars
  • 11 Army's decisive end to that mess
• Baikal (Siberian) theatre
  • Kolchak's flight to Irkutsk.
  • Mongolian Civil War, Ungern
  • Partisanshina and Semyonov's Atamanshina
• Far Eastern theatre
  • Japanese Occupation
  • Far Eastern Republic
  • Deterikhs and Zemskaya Rat; fall of Vladivostok
  • Pepelyayevshchina
• Green Army, uprisings, aftermath.

Now that is a long list, however in order to make wikipedia properly navigable this needs to be done. --Kuban Cossack 20:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That looks like a ton of work. Ostap 05:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have linked the Polish–Soviet War article above. Xx236 (talk) 06:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Treaty of Brest-Litovsk Xx236 (talk) 06:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

had permanent effects on the development of the Soviet Union

Soviet POV.Xx236 (talk) 07:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Terror Estimates

I noticed that Richard Overy's estimate of 250,000 killed in the Red Terror is invoked, although the estimate of 140,000 given in Leggett, THE CHEKA, is probably more reliable. It's even possible that W. Bruce Lincoln's estimate of 100,000 might be correct (RED VICTORY), although I'm more confident with Leggett. Now I also notice that someone has cited Peter Kenez for an estimate of 100,000 Jews killed in pogroms. If you go back and check what Kenez is saying, he tosses this out as a lower bound when discussing Pipes's assertion that White Terror was relatively inconsequential. Kenez has more to say about these issues in THE CIVIL WAR IN SOUTH RUSSIA, 1919-1920. But this passage tended to read as if it were an attempt to cite the highest possible estimates for Red Terror and the lowest possible for White Terror. Not good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.247.164.139 (talk) 03:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC) Why do we need Western estimates of internal Russian matters? Only Russian historians are able to do the research. Xx236 (talk) 06:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

A guy called Bisher wrote a book about the White Terror quite recently, though the girl at the bookshop informed me that it costs £85...This is when inter-library loans come in useful, I guess...Colin4C (talk) 09:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The Red Terror continued quite long - emigrants were persecuted after WWII. Xx236 (talk) 10:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

And some of the Baltic Germans who participated in the White Terror and pogroms against the Jews in the Baltic provinces/states during the Civil War later joined the Nazi party and continued the Terror against Jews (and adding ethnic Slavs to the list of those to be persecuted and destroyed) where they left off when Adolf invaded Russia in 1941. According to some historians the sanguinary "Baltikum" was the making of the infant Nazi party. Colin4C (talk) 10:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

pogroms against the Jews in the Baltic provinces/states - which article in this Wikipedia informs about it?Xx236 (talk) 10:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

None as far as I can see. This article: Freikorps in the Baltic, studiously avoids mentioning the topic or the link between the Freikorps and the Nazis. However a recently published book entitled "The Bloody White Baron" by James Palmer about the demented, anti-Semitic, Baltic German, White general Baron Ungern-Sternberg alludes to the subject. Colin4C (talk) 11:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

In the context of an article of the Russian Civil War the phrases "Red Terror" and "White Terror" should refer strictly to events in the context of that civil war. Opening up a bag of worms by running around looking for other examples of terror in later eras doesn't add anything to the questions on the civil war itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.247.134.32 (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Jörg Baberowski

Jörg Baberowski has written a number of texts about Soviet terror.Xx236 (talk) 10:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Green army?

This article describes the Green army as Ukrainian nationalist. The Green army had nothing to do with Ukrainian nationalism as can be seen on the Wikipedia article on the Green army, which states correctly that the Green army was a peasant army like the clubmen of the civil war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.51.143 (talk) 15:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Animal Farm

Animal Farm is a novel by George Orwell, and is one of the most satirical allegories of Soviet totalitarianism. Published in 1945, the book reflects events leading up to and during the Stalin era before World War II including Russian Civil War. Bobanni (talk) 08:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia was not Part of Allied Intervention

I think Estonia should be moved to the last column of belligerents section of the infobox. Estonia was fighting for its independence from Russian Empire just like Ukraine and Latvia. I'm not sure Estonia was even with the Allies in WWI or participated in WWI (as an independent state) for that matter. Zealander (talk) 04:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right, but Allied forces helped the Estonish troops to defeat the army of White Russian general P. R. Bermont-Avalov

Which makes it even more confusing to have Estonia in the same column as the White Russians. I think Finland and the Baltic states should be moved to the column for independence movement armies. (Possibly the allied intervention should be moved to that column as well)

Agreed. Of all former pieces of Russian Empire only Poland tried to grab more (even if claiming its good old days' historical lands). therefore Baltic states & Finland must be moved to the right. - 7-bubёn >t 17:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I would personally leave them in the middle section, just as a separate category. No way they should be on the same side with the United Baltic Duchy - it fought against both Estonia and Latvia. H2ppyme (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

White Army propaghanda poster anti-semitic?

I don't really see how this poster appeals to anti-semitism. There are no Jewish symbols depicted, and the text does not mention anything about Jews. It seems to me that describing the poster as anti-semitic is really just weasel-wording. Can this be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brackfalker (talk • contribs) 05:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

And why do you wonder? Trotsky was a Jew, and there is a semitic symbol on his chest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Алексей03 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

NPOV in the choice of images in article

Although the White poster featuring Trotsky is indeed anti-Semitic (despite the comment made by someone above), I think the images in this article are NPOV: there are two images of Bolsheviks being executed/having been executed by Whites and two Bolshevik propaganda posters that are not offensive (or are less offensive) to our/modern sensibilities (e.g. one of the slaying the capitalist dragon by Trotsky, but in a field of American style stars, and one gallant Red cavalrymen). The White poster was offensive to many then and is to us "moderns", and may have even been offensive to certain Whites (not all of whom approved of pogroms and anti-Semitism, as certain pre-Revolution conservatives proved despite the Black Hundreds and the existence of many extremists on the right). I would not suggest removing the Trotsky image, because White anti-Semitism was one of their propaganda tools (and produced vicious atrocities), but I would suggest adding one of the following. I was thinking especially about the first, which presents the Whites in an idealised manner such as that of the current image of the Red Cavalry: http://mina.ru/posters/white_guard/11.jpg. This next one is also interesting: http://mina.ru/posters/white_guard/9.jpg - "For a United Russia" and against the Bolshevik Red Dragon - a nice counterpiece to the Bolshevik Trotsky piece referencing the same iconography; also of interest is http://mina.ru/posters/white_guard/12.jpg, which references British interventionist support; or http://mina.ru/posters/white_guard/7.jpg - "This is how they resolve the workers' problems", with a Red goliath laying waste to factories. Also, perhaps one photo of Bolshevik executions for balance, however these aren't quite as easy to find on google! Most of the hits on the first few pages of Google Images that were returned for my search for "Bolshevik atrocities" seemed to be from far right sites or images of Nazi propaganda - which certainly doesn't mean that these atrocities did not occur (they did) or that they were not documented in photographs (they were). It'll just take some digging to get reliable images from respectable sites. 99.240.139.189 (talk) 04:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

OK - it seems someone took down the Trotsky Slaying the Capitalist Dragon image, which, while decreasing the perception of pro-Soviet POV, does not take away from the fact that there are still two photos of White atrocities and one Anti-Semitic poster compared to an idealised Red poster of stylised knight/cavalrymen. To right the balance would the person who made the last revision consider adding one of the White posters mentioned above - for example the one referencing Western intervention is of especial historical influence (I cannot do it myself because I haven't taken the time to set up a formal wiki account yet, my bad!).

As an aside - I just noted that the problem with the pro-Soviet Trotsky image was that its origin could not be varified, the Red Goliath image's source can be verified: http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/dgkeysearchdetail.cfm?trg=1&strucID=173140&imageID=416725&word=col%5Fid%3A195&s=1&notword=&d=&c=&f=&k=0&lWord=&lField=&sScope=images&sLevel=&sLabel=Posters%20of%20the%20Russian%20Civil%20War%2C%201918%2D1922&total=213&num=120&imgs=20&pNum=&pos=138

The White Recruiting poster is noted to be in public domain on suite.101.com but apparently Wiki has blacklisted this site 99.240.139.189 (talk) 03:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Black Army

If the article is correct, shouldn't the black army appear on both sides? because they fought against the Bolsheviks after 1920? --Matthewdavies (talk) 14:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

In the "Civilian Casualties" section, it says "At least 2 million left South America permanently". I don't understand - where does South America come into it??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.1.99 (talk) 03:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)