Talk:Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War

message: This article needs a separate section on crimes against humanity submitted by Allied forces in Russia, including Americans in North Russia (terror against civil population in Arhangel region) and Poles (mass extermmination of Russian population in occupied regions).   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.165.173.131 (talk) 13:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Crimes against humanity

message: 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)
replies: text: That's not correct, we kill some of western occupants. We also sunk some of your vessels (HMS L55, HMS "Cassandra" and several steamships). For example, Red Army and Red Partisans fought against Czechoslovak Legion, several U.S. soldiers and many more Japanese occupants were killed in Siberia. Kekeke 2.60.10.1 (talk) 09:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The Commonwealth War Graves Commission could be a good source of information on casualties from the British, Australian and Canadian forces that were deployed. There is a CWGC memorial at Vladivostok, and there were 110 RN and RAF personnel died in the Baltic campaign, for example. I notice the separate article on the North Russia Intervention has a table of casualties of all forces involved in that sector.Cloptonson (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Casualties?

message: 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)
thread_title: Allied objectives?

message: 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)
thread_title: Arkhangel

message: 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)
thread_title: Assessment

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

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: American bias

message: The Greek Kingdom was involved in their 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)
replies: text: On the other hand, there is a source for this number, while the change to "2,000" rests on no other ground that an editor feels that it is "more likely" a number, apparently based on his own intuition, since the Russian number is also unsourced. An Army Corps of two divisions certainly does not number 2,000 men. 24,000 may not be entirely accurate for all I know, ut it sure is a hell of a lot nearer the mark, especially if it comes from a Greek source, which ought to know something more than the random Wikipedia editor. Constantine   ✍  16:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

text: And I've found a source from the Greek army magazine: 23,351 men. Constantine   ✍  17:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  24,000 Greeks, not 2,000 

message: It's a little odd that the pro-Soviet republics are included in the belligerents and the pro-independence movements (i.e. newly independent countries) are not, while in reality they played a far larger role in the conflicts (and especially part of the allied intervention) than the Soviet puppet states. I suggest either:
*removing the local Soviet republics
*including the newly independent states.
Whatever it may be, the list of pro-Soviet puppet states also seems a little short. H2ppyme (talk) 13:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Belligerents

message: The intro says
:Despite the Allies being able to withdraw in good order after significant defenses against the Red Army, the Bolsheviks were eventually victorious against the White Army
I don't understand this sentence. Why "despite"? Withdrawal of the Allies made victory of the Bolsheviks over the White Army more likely, not less. What does "after significant defenses against the Red Army" mean? AxelBoldt (talk) 06:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah... I think it's some mangled remnant of an attempt to  POV push something or other.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mysterious sentence in intro 

message: "As per the absurd treaty accords demanded by the new soviet government"
I think that either needs rewording or  referencing.  Cqexbesd (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absurd? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080309004203/http://www.sansimera.gr:80/archive/articles/show.php?id=382&feature=Campaign_at_Ukraine to http://www.sansimera.gr/archive/articles/show.php?id=382&feature=Campaign_at_Ukraine
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Where is Poland in "Strength" field of template ? Where is POW-victims ?  POW-victims was not few. Halfcookie (talk) 00:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian Victims of Polish Concentration Camps 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.rafmuseum.org/milestones-of-flight/british_military/1918_2.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130524135102/http://orbat.com/site/history/historical/uk/ops1919-39.html to http://orbat.com/site/history/historical/uk/ops1919-39.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090402050131/http://members.fortunecity.com/behindthelines/transcas.htm to http://members.fortunecity.com/behindthelines/transcas.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706184019/http://www.isitt.ca/research/books/from-victoria-to-vladivostok/ to http://www.isitt.ca/research/books/from-victoria-to-vladivostok
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706184137/http://www.isitt.ca/research/journal-articles/mutiny-from-victoria-to-vladivostok-december-1918-chr-article/ to http://www.isitt.ca/research/journal-articles/mutiny-from-victoria-to-vladivostok-december-1918-chr-article
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:15, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I do not mind including this content, but there are two problems: (a) something must be already described in the body of the page to be summarized in the lead (and the subject does not appear anywhere in the body of the page), and (b) where it should appear even in the body of page to be in proper context? (which section?). Any reasonable suggestions are welcome. My very best wishes (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: The lead

message: No sure why my edit was reverted. I do not think Kaplan needs to be mentioned essentially as a British agent. It remains disputable even if it was her who shot at Lenin. Here is description of this from a book by Robert Service (historian), where he writes it was not her. And this is not only the book by Service. Simply writing some kind of a propaganda nonsense and telling "hey, this is something controversial" is  not a proper summary of the sources and not a good content to be included. My very best wishes (talk) 04:17, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Alas, Robert Service isn't the only reputable historian in the world. Richelson's book- the first citation-is probably more reliable, being published by a university press. The direct association between Kaplan and Savinkov was made by the reputable conservative historian William Henry Chamberlin.GPRamirez5 (talk) 21:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: This source is not accessible. Does it tell that connection between British agents and Kaplan was proven? What exactly it tells? My very best wishes (talk) 03:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked about  your link above (it requires subscription). But this is easy to check using Google books searches for "Bruce+Lockhart+Kaplan". It leads immediately to books like Encyclopedia of Political Assassinations, and it tells explicitly that "Kaplan had not acted as a part of wider conspiracy", and that the evidence of the plot was "gathered" [read fabricated] by Cheka. If we have/had a page specifically about the plot, this could be included there, not on this more general page. My very best wishes (talk) 01:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

text: Plotting to kill Bolsheviks-- Actually Stalin plotting and succeeded in executing most of the surviving old Bolsheviks in the 1930s--including Trotsky.  Rjensen (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the recently included "coup attempts" section  probably does not belong to the page. Were the alleged attempted coups anything significant in Russian Civil War? No, they were not. Yes, a couple of alleged spies were arrested. This is all. The alleged British spy involvement has became "significant" only in a few propaganda movies recently produced on Russian TV . My very best wishes (talk) 22:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Lockhart plot

message: See WP:SYNTH. Chinese forces were not participating in the civil war. Can you provide a source saying the forces fought against Russian SFSR? ML 911 18:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: My Lord, according to the source you deleted and at least seven years of consensus say otherwise. I'm willing to discuss, but overturning consensus and deleting the source completely does not follow WP:BRD. Further "protectors of merchants" is definitely WP:SYNTH, but this page does need a support section under belligerents like in the Syrian Civil War infobox and I'd consider putting China there or possibly changing it back to Beiyang government like it was back in 2012. Until we figure out a solution, I'm reverting the page back to previous consensus. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 22:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are allowed to remove misrepresentation of sources and onus is on the person who restores it. We can't breach WP:V or gain consensus against not breaching it.  recently edited this talk page, maybe he can also suggest if source misrepresentation should be removed right away without waiting for consensus. ML 911 15:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't touched the article – it's not in my usual area of interest. All I did was revert contributions from banned HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 17:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: China

message: since it mentions Estonia in the allies section and mentions the Estonian commune and Latvian ssr. shouldn't Latvia be included in the allies list too then?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by VacoTank (talk • contribs) 03:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  what about Latvia?  

message: The Wikipedia article on the Polish–Soviet War (1919–1921) describes Polish occupation of Belarus and West Ukraine during the Russian Civil War.  Shouldn't there be some mention of that in this article?  
On 2020-02-02 I found the Wikipedia article on Invasion of Russia that mentioned the Polish–Soviet War but NOT the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War.  I added the "Allied intervention..." to the "Invasion of Russia" disambiguation page, and I'm asking the reciprocal question here.  
Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 02:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Polish Soviet War and Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War are two separate conflicts. Same thing with Romania and Bessarabia. Volunteer Marek  20:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't Polish activities be part of this?   

message: Can you please help me understand why you deleted
* Kurilla, Ivan. "Allied Intervention From Russia’s Perspective: Modern-Day Interpretations." Journal of Slavic Military Studies 32.4 (2019): 570–573, 
saying, "Removed the work of a pseudo scholar"?  
I'm not familiar with Ivan Kurilla nor the Journal of Slavic Military Studies, but a brief web search identified several sources that seemed sensible.  He is described as "a profess of History and International Relations at European University, St. Petersburg", and spent June 2002 as a "Regional Exchange Scholar" at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.  The abstract begins, "The narrative of the foreign intervention in the Russian Civil War changed its meaning for the Soviet and post-Soviet Russian scholars and ideologues several times. Stalin put all the blame for starting Civil War on the intervention, with emphasis on the British leading role. During Cold War, Soviet propagandists highlighted the role of the US Expeditionary forces. In the 1990s the lifting of ideological control permitted new research of the Civil War and intervention written from multiple points of view to emerge. However, after 2000 increasingly anti-revolutionary and anti-Western policies of the Russian government facilitated the return of the early Soviet narrative into semi-official interpretations".  I'm not a professional historian, but I'm not a complete novice, either.  All this sounds consistent with what I've come to understand from many other sources.  
Accordingly, I'm reverting your deletion.  If you think he's a "pseudo scholar", I'd need to see more than I've seen so far.
Thanks for your support of Wikipedia.  DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:08, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The lede contradicts itself; one part (citing Kenez) admits at least that from a certain point onward, the goal was to defeat the revolution (by ensuring White victory), while another part (citing Mawdsley) still insists there were just some minor 'innocuous' goals, and finally dumb Soviet historians are again criticised for claiming the goal was to defeat the revolution. Perhaps this difference of interpretations - even among Western historians! - should be stated in a neutral way, instead of each sentence presenting a single interpretation as true. In addition, I very much doubt that there is some exception in the NPOV policy that somehow allows the current wordings where the interpretations of Western historians are presented as true and those of Soviet and Russian ones as false as a matter of course. 87.126.21.225 (talk) 08:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction in the lede 

message: On 2023-02-03T13:45:38 User:35.21.39.120 added text claiming that the results of the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War included, "White victory in Finland, Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania".  
I question the inclusion of Lithuania in this way.  The article mentions Finland and Estonia in ways that support the claim for those two countries.  It also contains a link to the article on "British campaign in the Baltic (1918–1919)", which documents the claim for Latvia. However, I see nothing to support the claim for Lithuania.  Accordingly, I'm removing that country from the list.  
If someone cares to cite credible references to support some other change, I might support that;  I am not an expert on this conflict.  DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lithuania 

message: This section has the following sentence: " Also worrisome to the Allied Powers was the April 1918 landing of a division of German troops in Finland, increasing speculation they might attempt to capture the Murmansk-Petrograd railway, and subsequently the strategic port of Murmansk and possibly Arkhangelsk."
How were Murmansk and Archangel of strategic importance if Russia was no longer in the war.? Firestar47 (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: allied Concerns