Talk:American Expeditionary Force, North Russia

Untitled
The Polar Bear Expedition is an element of the "International Invasion" described in Sections 6, 6.1 and 6.2, therefore I would propose that the information contained in Section 6 be removed from this article.

Some of the Section 6 subject matter is already covered in North Russia Campaign and Czech Legion and the balance should be covered in the yet-to-be-started article North Russian Relief Force.

Mike Grobbel 01:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead and merge the articles--I didn't even know your North Russia Campaign section existed--that is why I added the British section. Thanks for letting me know--I will add a link to the North Russia Campaign page here--I just kindly request that all the information remain--i.e. if it isn't in the North Russia Campaign page already, don't delete it. Thanks. Travb 15:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like bias again which wikipedia usually does. Umm, the Allies weren't pushed into the sea rather the 'bolos' as they were called were repeatedly defeated and since this was being done with token forces as well as under british command and an expedition to tackle the eastern front against the germans. (68.228.14.176 23:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC))

I think it is fair to say that Allied forces were not pushed into the sea. However, it should be noted that the weight of arms and most especially numbers was starting to turn in the Bolsheviks favor, though the Allied forces had not yet really felt the crunch of it.

I don't think it matters about weight of arms. The allies weren't there to really fight the russians. The russians still had the weight of arms and numbers there but to no avail until the allies just left. YankeeRoman(24.75.194.50 21:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC))

I'm bothered by the sentiment of the section on the withdrawal. The same essential points that I think were important were described. But this sentence in particular: "They would ask their officers for the reason they were fighting in Russia and would not receive a specific answer other than they must fight to survive and avoid being pushed into the Arctic Ocean by the Bolshevik army." It makes it sound as if American soldiers were being forced by their commanders to stand and fight. Not to mention "not ... a specific answer"? The answer given sounds pretty specific to me.

I don't think it properly emphasized that after the armistice American and Allied forces did not go to any lengths to engage the Bolsheviks. As far as they were concerned the war was over. It was only out of a desire to penalize Allied forces -who I suspect the Bolsheviks were already looking ahead to their being future enemies- that the Bolsheviks insisted on prosecuting their fight; even though ports were frozen and Allied forces would have withdrawn if they could!

Russian historians might respond that all the Bolsheviks knew, and all they needed to know was that these were foreign invaders in their lands. I don't agree. I think it unlikely the Red Russians were unaware of the Expeditionary Force's issues; at the very least, because allied commanders must have communicated these issues as part of the cross-front dialogues that are a normal part of war.

One might also say that legally they were still in a state of war as Russia was not a signatory of the Armistice. As such the Reds were not legally obligated to cease fire. That may be. However, one would have hoped that at least some fair deference should have been given as the Armisitice effectively nullified those yet unfulfilled objectives that were the basis for the Expedition being there in the first place.

(Edit) Something else I noticed in one of the related articles. Apparently Trotsky, under orders of Lenin, coordinated a large attack on Armistice Day. My first thought was that that was rough. Thinking on it though it occurs to me the purpose of the attack may have been crueler still. I think Lenin's hope was to catch the Allied soldiers by surprise, taking advantage of guard let down in the hope of peace. Although this is not strictly against the rules and conventions on warfare, there is something dirty and wrong about this. Leaders who claim to hope for peace should not use others hopes for peace to spring ambushes. 68.48.160.243 00:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Posters who claim to hope for removal of bias should not use others' hopes for removal of bias to push their own bias.

Also, why the hell are the dead Red soldiers needed there? Trophies? It's not like a picture of a random dead bolshevik killed in a random minor engagement makes any point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.179.107 (talk) 22:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Vfw-logo2.jpg
The image Image:Vfw-logo2.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --05:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)