Talk:Russian Civil War/Archive 1

Slight Technicality
I know there are a lot of more contentiousand important issues being fought out here, but one small issue:

Kolchak was executed, not killed in action. So someone should replace the "KIA" symbol with this:.

75.37.2.123 (talk) 08:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

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 Special:Contributions/ (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 Special:Contributions/ (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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thorbins (talk • contribs) 12:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

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 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 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)

The infobox is extremely large, could it be simplified?
Could the infobox be simplified by lumping the "local nationalists" section of the "anti-communist" forces into a single link titled Local nationalist forces in the Russian Civil War? The section under the White Movement that speaks of a provisional White government could be removed as it is part of the White Movement.--R-41 (talk) 17:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The Pro-independence movements in Russian Civil War article already exists. You are free to edit the infobox around it, leaving perhaps three major armies (Poland, Finland, and Estonia, each of which deployed an army of over 85,000 troops). Only, White movement, Cossacks, and Allied intervention should be altered under the same guideline, leaving no sub-armies to the two former and mentioning the three most significant Allied armies. Jaan Pärn.18:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Stalin's role
Could anyone explain why Stalin is listed as one of the major soviet commanders? He is not even mentioned in the rest of the article and I've never found any mention of his role in the war in other sources.150.244.23.54 (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, removed

Start and end dates

 * The Russian Civil War article in Encyclopaedia Britannica begins with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, the Volunteer Army's campaign in the Kuban steppes, and the Allied Intervention. The article leaves no question about the end of the war either: "The Red Army eventually battered Wrangel’s forces, whose rearguards held out long enough to ensure the evacuation of 150,000 soldiers and civilians by sea from the Crimea. This ended the Russian Civil War in November 1920." Encyclopedia Americana's 'Civil War' chapter in the 'Russian Revolution and Civil War' essentially states the same, just in less detail.

The Russian Revolution was not a war itself but a coup, neither was its follow-on Kerensky–Krasnov uprising. The following three months were politically restless, with the Bolsheviks consolidating power in some regions and nationalist states declared in the others. However, the Ice March, the first military campaign in the war, started only three months after the revolution.

Regarding the end date of the war, elements of the Ukrainian and basmachi insurgencies lasted even into World War II. However, the defeat of Wrangel effectevely ended the White campaign, the backbone of the anti-Bolshevik war. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Highly obnoxious infobox
Info boxes should be small, concise hits of "information at a glance" that aids casual users surfing in to find key information fast. The three-screens-long-and-counting Complete History Of The Russian Civil War In Outline Form With Flag Logos here is a new high in overbearing, overdone obnoxiousness. The layout of the article is crap because the penile-implanted info box here eats half the article's length, forcing graphics to the left. It should be pared back by 80%, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 05:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I generally agree. I don't think there are more than two things we can do to improve that, because the column that elongates the infobox is the White one, and shortening others will not shorten the infobox. First of all, in the 'White movement' subsection, 'Belligerents' section, the detailed list of governments should go and only White movement be left. Second, the White commanders list should include only Kolchak and Denikin as the commanders-in-chief during the time when the White armies posed a real threat to the Soviet Russia. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 07:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I suggest shortened infobox like that, can be probably improved somewhat still. In my opinion Central Powers as 3rd faction is quite pointless. Main factions were Reds and Whites and I don't think there are enough participants who fought against both to justify using 3rd side. Pretty sure there was no significant fighting between Central Powers and White Movement. Also I dont really like that image collage, I would prefer having single image there as that also contributes to huge length of infobox.--Staberinde (talk) 19:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am otherwise with you regarding the size and organisation of the infobox but I don't get your point against having the Central Powers separately. If you check the article, you will see that pro-German armies fought against the 'White' powers in the following campaigns (listed from the north to the south) the Estonian War of Independence, the Latvian War of Independence, and the Lithuanian War of Independence, and the Ottoman and Azeri armies in the Battle of Baku. I also don't understand on what grounds you separate Ober Ost from Germany and erase the Baltische Landeswehr and the Freikorps in the Baltic, which are even mentioned in the text, and insert the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which is not? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I would also ask why you decide to include Kamenev and Vacietis who are not mentioned in the text, and to emit Tukhacevsky, Makhno, and Mannerheim whose part is described? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, firstly having 3rd faction makes infobox longer because that 3rd column is created by making 2 other columns smaller, so that "Vladimir Lenin" among leaders requires 2 lines etc. Secondly, Russian Civil War and all related conflicts are far too complicated affair to cover all little details in single infobox. It needs to be either simplified or otherwise you may as well delete infobox. Landeswehr/Freikorps + Bermontians (who could be also counted as "whites" btw) are hardly notable enough on their own in grand scale of Russian Civil War to justify separate column in infobox. Should we put Lithuania into Soviet column due Polish–Lithuanian War? Or how should we depict German Caucasus Expedition or Georgian–Armenian War? Or various events of Ukrainian War of Independence? Maybe West Ukrainian People's Republic also into Soviet camp? We already have Makhno and all pro-indepence movements in same column with White Russians which is hardly particularly accurate either. Other points: 1) Separate Ober-Ost is indeed unneccessary (removed it) 2) Freikorps in the Baltic is already included just not under Central-Powers because that alliance had effectively ceased to exist by that moment(I guess this is arguable) 3) Austria-Hungary is already in current version, so it wasnt "inserted" 4) Kamenev and Vacietis were Commanders-in-Chief. If we include front commander like Tukhacevsky then why not Frunze, Gittis, Nadeshniy, Jegorov etc.? 5) Mannerheim and Makhno dodn't rly cut it in overall importance(also which side Makhno should be, or both?) --Staberinde (talk) 21:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The Central Powers and later pro-German and pro-Ottoman armies were involved in military conflicts with the Allies and the independence movements during a substantial part of the war, which is also depicted in the article. This cannot be said about any White or independence movement (except for the Mahknovists, who are conveniently shown as switching side). The pro-German armies are considered 'white' by only the Soviet or superficial historians. After all, they were a foreign power directly opposed to the Russian Empire, the Entente, and the independence movements.
 * In more detail, there is one objective criteria of 'cutting it' or not - whether it is notable enough to make it to the text or not. We do not really need to discuss armies, commanders, and events that do not cross that line (until they do). And vice versa, if it has made it to the main body of the text, we need to give serious arguments to why leave it out of the infobox and instead, represent something that did not cut it even to the article text. I think that will answer many of your questions.
 * For instance, Vacietis and Kamenev may have been nominally Commanders-in-Chief but you surely know they did not plan strategic operations independently but took orders from Trotsky. This is why they are not mentioned in the main body of the article. Vice versa, Mannerheim and Makhno did not have to coordinate their operations with anybody. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 22:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

With Central Powers I guess first it should be settled if German-Austrian offensive February-March 1918 which forced Soviets to sign Brest-Litovsk should be regarded as part of Russian Civil War or not? I personally would prefer considering it separate (also would allow removing Austria-Hungary). Then this is settled we can move on. Speaking of individuals, okay lets try taking article's text as basis, I guess we are going to insert Mikhail Alekseyev, Mikhail Artemyevich Muravyov, Dunsterville, Vladimir Kappel, Konstantin Mamontov, Grigory Semyonov, Anatoly Pepelyayev etc all to infobox? I mean, they are all mentioned in article so I guess they are all similarly important? Oh, and Wilhelm II into central-powers column instead of those little importance Hoffmann and von der Goltz? I also like how Mannerheim's role is described in article: ''The Finnish general Mannerheim planned a Finnish intervention to help the whites in Russia capture Petrograd. He did not, however, gain the necessary support for the endeavor.'' On other hand we don't have Pilsudski in text, so obviously he (and therefore whole Polish-Soviet conflict) must be of little importance, right?--Staberinde (talk) 16:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I would not consider the Central Powers February-March 1918 offensive as part of the Civil War either, so as far as I am considered, we can remove the Austro-Hungarian Empire from the infobox. However, this does not mean the pro-German armies can be considered as 'White'.
 * Taking the article's text as the basis for the commanders list does not mean we have to include every commander in the text but it means we have to pick our commanders from the text. If we feel an important commander is missing from the text, we can include him in the appropriate statement (e.g., 'The Red Army commanded by Vacietis went on offensive Red Sword' or 'Kamenev designed an operation to capture Tsaritsyn from the Cossack army'). Otherwise the reader is left bewildered on what the commander did to make it to the infobox, and our choice may well be regarded as biased. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, then with that offensive with its 50 divisions out of way what do we actually have left as pro-german forces: Freikorps+Landeswehr (20,000 for about 3 month period), Bermontians (50,000 for about 4-6 months) and retreating Ober-Ost forces (overall size big but actual combat participation minimal). Also we have Ottoman force in battle of Baku (14,000). All in all we won't reach even 100,000 troop mark, and at no point over 50,000 mark as those forces didn't exist simultaneously. Other columns in infobox even count casualties over million. Are we going to include 3rd side that probably wouldn't even have 10,000 casualties? We actually already have that situation if you check casualty sections in current infobox. It just doesn't make sense to me. What even constitutes Central-Powers at this point? Alliance had collapsed with end of war, Germany and Turkey were doing their own little actions with no coordination. As I said, there already are various smaller conflicts that cant be accurately depicted in infobox (Polish-Lithuanian, Polish-Ukrainian, Georgian–Armenian, Whites-Mountain Republic). I would treat German-Ottoman actions just like those. Also I believe that Landeswehr spent most of its existence fighting for Ulmanis Latvia, not against it.--Staberinde (talk) 17:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * About commanders, I don't think this article is good enough to be considered as good basis for this but its not that important matter so let it be Tukhatsevsky then. Still I don't see why should we include Mannerheim though as Finland's role outside its borders was very limited.--Staberinde (talk) 17:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am actually quite happy with the infobox as you have it now. Just a sidenote that Makhno is mentioned only once as a Soviet ally while he is mentioned several times as independent or anti-bolshevik, so he should first of all be listed in the anti-Soviet side. Also, as we discussed, the 'Central Powers' title should go and be split into 'Pro-German armies' and 'Ottoman Empire'.  --Jaan Pärn (talk) 23:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Makhno makes more sense to me in Soviet side. I am definitely not an expert, but as far as I understand Makhno's most important part in war was disrupting Denikin's supply lines then latter tried to attack Moscow. Also Red side seems to be the one Makhno himself preferred and we could say that there was even some sort of alliance between Soviets and Makhno for some times. Just then war was basically over Soviets went "thanks for all the hard work but we dont need you anymore". I don't think there was ever any kind of alliance or serious consideration to form one between Makhno and White forces. So in my opinion he is more suited to Soviet side of infobox.--Staberinde (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Also I still think that image collage should be replaced with single image but no idea what that image should be.--Staberinde (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. How about this, this, or this? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I quite liked first one with cavalry but it seems to me that as its in Russian wikipedia and not in commons it can't be used in English wikipedia, or at least I don't know how. So I went with second one and put new infobox also into article. Seems to be around 2 - 2,5 times shorter then old one :) --Staberinde (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Independence of Finland, Poland etc
"A number of independent countries – Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland – emerged from the war."

How come, for example Poland, "emerged from the [Russian Civil] war" if Poland declared its independence in 1918 and in 1920 was already at full scale war against Bolshevik Russia (Polish-Soviet War of 1920)? This statement doesn't have historical truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.176.147.59 (talk) 01:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's right. This sentence is false. These states did not "emerge" from the war nor as a result of the war. They emerged as a result of the revolution. Sentence deleted. - Altenmann >t 02:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is quite simple. The Russian Revolution was the start of the Civil War wherefore countries like Poland became independent as a result of it. They had to prove their capacity in the Civil War immediately and the Soviet-Polish War and other independence wars were part of the Civil War. Perhaps you will find it interesting that virtually no nation states have become independent without participation in a civil war during the last two centuries. -- Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It is actually quite complex. There is certainly a case for "result of the Civil War", but also for saying it was a result of the Bolshevik surrender in the First World War (as most first gained independence at Brest-Litovsk), or simply a result of the Revolution. And I'm sure I could find sources for all three positions. Perhaps it would be better to be more ambiguous and write "emerged during the war" rather than "from the war"?  cwmacdougall 11:12 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Post hoc non est propter hoc. The republics declared their independence during the Russian Revolution or the Brest-Litovsk treaty but this did not establish them as sovereign countries. Their independence wars did. Note that simultaneously, Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan "gained independence at Brest-Litovsk" but regardless of that, failed to "emerge from the Russian Civil War". Your emerged-during-the-war-proposal seems to separate the independence wars from the Civil War while they were actually an essential part of the latter. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Well that's partly the point. I'm not sure that either the Polish nor the Finish wars should be described as part of the "Russian Civil War".  But anyway, no I'm not saying they are separate, just avoiding an unnecessary statement of connection.  "Emerge from" (as a result of) is debatable; "emerged during" is clearly fact.  cwmacdougall 13:44 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If you suggest to remove the Polish-Soviet War, the Finnish Civil War, the Estonian War of Independence, the Latvian War of Independence, and the Lithuanian Wars of Independence from this article, then please present the sources that separate these wars from the Civil War. If you don't suggest that, then "emerged from" is correct. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

No, you can believe the Polish and Finish Wars were sufficiently related to the main Civil War events without believing that their independence resulted from the Civil War. It happened at the same time yes, but not necessarily because of it; they would probably have become independent anyway, certainly after Brest Litovsk. There is no need to oversimplify things. Post hoc non est propter hoc. cwmacdougall 14:17 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Were the Polish, Finnish, and other independence wars part of the Civil War? If yes, then "emerged from" is correct. If no, then please provide sources. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

We are spending too much time on a minor point, but no it is not correct. "Confirmed by" or "emerged during" would be better. cwmacdougall 14:54 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you are mixing up the declaration and establishment of a country. Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kuban People's Republic, Don Republic, and numerous other states emerged during the war but not from it, as opposed to Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, should I ask, do you think any country in the history of the world emerged from a war or were they all established peacefully, with some of them established 'during' a war and others randomly 'confirmed' by one? Because as a parallel to what you are trying to say, you should argue the result in the Yugoslav Wars infobox is wrong because the 'New countries independent' (Slovene and Croatian independence declarations, as you understand the establishment of countries) were the cause of the civil war not the result of it. Actually, the infobox is correct, because Slovenia and Croatia did emerge from the war (not just 'during' or 'confirmed by' it) as new independent countries, exactly as the former Russian Imperial provinces did. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you are unnecessarily over-simplifying a complex subject. My own view is that Finland emerged from the Revolution and Poland from Brest-Litovsk, with both having their independence confirmed over the next few years. But yes I think sources would support other interpretations as well as these. Just say they "emerged during" and there is no problem.    cwmacdougall 17:06 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I really don't think you understand what you are suggesting on the historical situation there. The Republic of Finland was declared on 6 February 1917 whereas the Reds expelled its government from the capital and seized major cities two months later, bringing about the civil war. What would you regard as an accurate description of how Finland emerged, 'confirmed by', 'during', or 'from' the war? The same question goes about Poland. Itsy independence was declared on 11 November 1918 whereas Soviet Russia attacked it a week later, seized half of the country and made it to the outskirts of the capital. One can hardly argue Poland was established as an independent country at that time, as 'confirmed by the war' would suggest, or that the establishment merely coincided with the Civil War, as would 'during the war' propose. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am still waiting for an answer to my question - can you name any country in the history of the world that emerged 'from' a war or do you think that is a wrong expression per se? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe instead of arguing between "emerged from" and "emerged during", whole sentence could be simply reworded? Something like: "A number of countries – Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland – gained independence." (wording probably has room for improvement).--Staberinde (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Fine with me too. cwmacdougall 20:19 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I am late to the discussion. You seem to be confusing two issues here: independence as a state and independence from Bolshevism. Also you are forgetting Asia. There were several more independent states before the Soviet Union was finalized. May be it is splitting hairs, but formally there were more of them during 1922-1927. I fixed the article text accordingly. - Altenmann >t 23:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * If you really want to be technical, remember Tannu-Tuva, "independent" until 1944. cwmacdougall 23:52 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The article needs a major restructuring. First of all the war has at least three major phases. Those are the revolution and withdrawal of Russia from the World War I; the post-war intervention of Allied forces and anti-Bolshevik struggle, wars for independence in number of the post-Imperial Russian regions; and final stages of securing the Soviet regime. Second of all the article almost completely omits Ukrainian national liberation movement concentrating too much on a dubious and controversial figures such as Nestor Makhno who often cooperated with Bolsheviks and about some "green armies" information about which is poor and very scarce. There are only few sentences about Basmachi movement. The article also mentions nothing about the key role of Red Guards formations in the first years of war as well as the Latvian Riflemen and there is a little or no information about the Russian Constituent Assembly and proclamation of the Russian Democratic Federative Republic in 1918. Yet there is a vast information about the Czechoslovak Legions which according to the article supported the Committee of Members of the Constituent Assembly. The article fails to emphasize the reason for the national liberation movements and does not provide clear distinction between them and other uprisings. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The article is structured chronologically until the Brest-Litovsk Treaty when it continues geographically and chronologically. The Allied and pro-German intervention and the national movements are not really a phase of the war because they went on simultaneously with the rest of the counter-bolshevist war and was coordinated with the White movement. Therefore, I cannot really imagine how we could separate these campaigns from the White movement. The Ukrainian national movement, the Red Guards, and the Latvian Riflemen are mentioned several times but you are welcome to add information to the relevant paragraphs. Care to explain what you mean by emphasising 'the reason for the national liberation movements'? Also, what other distinction can be made between them and other uprisings, which are clearly linked to the relevant national groups?--Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Photograph depicting dead from white or red armies?
A photograph used in this article, showing soldiers from one force above the dead of another, describes those slain as Czech legionaries. I am not able to find, however, a reliable source to describe this photo.

This file is sometimes described as depicting slain Bolsheviks:
 * http://nortvoods.net/rrs/siberia/siberia-d.htm
 * http://militaryanalysis.blogspot.com/2009_10_01_archive.html
 * http://www.dipity.com/tuttleroache/Russian-Revolution_1/ (in the timeline)
 * http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/08/rip-standard-poors-aaa-rating-of-us.html
 * http://www.czechlegion.com/TheCzechLegion/Photo3.html#1 (in the slideshow)
 * http://paulinescookbook.wordpress.com/page/18/
 * http://www.warchat.org/tag/leberation-war/

And is other times described as depicting slain Czechs:
 * http://nortvoods.net/rrs/siberia/czecharmy.htm

And both descriptions are noted here:
 * http://www.warandtactics.com/smf/russian-civil-war/russian-civil-war-images/

Can we find a scholarly source that will help us to identify the shooters, and the dead, so that what we write is verifiable? Who took this photo?

For a scholarly piece on a different piece of media from the period, which sheds light on the ways in which understanding these works can be a challenge, this is helpful - http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/113496

Thanks! -Darouet (talk) 05:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Photograph shows slain Czech or Bolshevik soldiers?
As I noted above, it's not clear whether soldiers slain in are Czechs or Bolsheviks. Unless someone can find more material, I'm changing this to reflect what most sources say. Please help if you can find more information about who the dead are. -Darouet (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Some more links to other RCW pages
I saw the following pages by others ways, maybe you could link it in this article in the 1918 step : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazan_Operation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capturing_Kazan_by_White_Army http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izhevsk-Votkinsk_Uprising — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andatiep (talk • contribs) 14:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk page edit by Charles Essie on October 12, 2013‎
The change he made to this page was eliminated by my removal of three copies of the article erroneously placed on the talk page. This section is here so he, or other editors, can evaluate what to do about that edit.

Charles Essie removed the following text from one copy of the article which was erroneously on this talk page:

He did not also remove it from the article. This may have been, effectively, a request to remove it from the article. The change he made to this page was eliminated by removal of three copies of the article erroneously placed on the talk page.Makyen (talk) 04:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Part of the Russian Revolution?
The Russian Civil War is described here as occuring after the Russian Revolution, but wasn't the Russian Civil War simply the third phase of the Russian Revolution (after the February Revolution and the October Revolution). Charles Essie (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The wikiarticle of the revolution does not agree. Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I started a discussion their about that very issue. Charles Essie (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I commented there. To sum up: I think the articles should remain separate. 83.83.1.229 (talk) 22:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Update of infobox
Seeing the classifications of the infobox, stating that the Greens were only a factor until 1919, I am seriously doubting the up to datedness of this article, as strange as it may seem. Aside from the perpetual peasant involvement in the war, be it organized or rather disorganized, the Tambov rebellion for example occurred in 1920. Moreover, I also think that this article relies extremely heavily on Figes and Mawdsley; I see for example that Vladimir Brovkin is mentioned in the reading list, is it not possible to include some of his views a bit more? He has nice theoretical views that elaborate on the already mentioned theories which can be touched upon. Others could be Mark von Hagen or perhaps William Rosenberg? Just some suggestions. 83.83.1.229 (talk) 22:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Russian Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061004110408/http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=282 to http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=282

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✔️ -- The Voidwalker  Discuss 22:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

"Brief Timeline" section
It gives a completely skewed picture. I would suggest to delete it right away and later create a reasonable one. -M.Altenmann >t 22:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC) If we give timeline we should also add human lives losses which amounted to about 10 millions according to estimate from Wikipedia Russian language page. And the point being is that Russian revolution didn't achieve anything especially considering later dissolution of Soviet Union. It probably worth mentioning that personal ambitions always hiding under pretense of public good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:302:D146:4BC0:4432:F9DF:916F:D2C0 (talk) 10:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Duration
Many Western historians cite the end of the war as 1920 or 1921, while Russian historians cite the date as 1922 or 1923. Others give this date as 1924,1925, or 1926. All these dates are wrong! If you think about it, the Basmachi rebellion ended in 1934, with unconfirmed raids taking place as late as 1938. My belief is that it ended in 1934. DemocraticSocialism (talk) 23:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * An encyclopedia is not about beliefs but established facts. You have replaced the dates cited from Mawdsley with alternative history. Not only is that questionable, it is inconsistent with the article as the opening paragraph states November 1917 – October 1922 as the duration and the main body of text starts with the October Revolution and ends with October 1922 as well. Please stop your personal crusade. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * User DemocraticSocialism has for some reason decided to continue the discussion at my personal talk page. I can only reply that Smele places the end of the war at June 1926. However, this article should be expanded to span to the same date. In addition, the lead section should be changed accordingly. But why should we take Smele as the ultimate source ahead of Mawdsley? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There are no "established facts" here - it's all a matter of interpretation. Nonetheless, we should follow what major authorities say, not come up with our own numbers. More importantly! The article currently says that the Civil War started in 1916, which seems actually incorrect. 162.218.76.82 (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with as well as . We write/edit as per sources. And sources for the most part cite ether October 1922 (Japanese withdrawal from Siberia) or June 1923 (Red takeover of the Ayano-Maysky District in the Far East where the Whites were still resisting). I would suggest June 1923. So the date should be changed accordingly. No sources cite the end of the Bascmachi rebellion as the end of the Russian civil war and we should not make edits based on our personal opinions. Finally, the start of the civil war is overwhelmingly cited to be the October 1917 revolution, so the start date also needs to be changed from 1916 as well. EkoGraf (talk) 03:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Made attempt at compromise. Cited both October 1922 and June 1923 as end dates (since both are cited as the final endings of the Russian Civil War), while noting in small brackets that an anti-Soviet revolt continued in Central Asia until 1934. EkoGraf (talk) 04:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Duration Date Change
Someone has changed the duration portion of Russian Civil War to say it ended in the 1930s. Irregardless of one editor's personal opinion the overwhelming historical consensus states that the war ended in 1922. Someone please return the duration date to end 1922, which reflects the consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.82.2.94 (talk) 02:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree, I also already stated what I had on the matter in the above discussion. EkoGraf (talk) 03:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland
Does historiography consider these as part of Russian Civil War? E.g. Finland had its own internal civil war after secession, Poland was attacked by Red Army, etc. But was it really Russian civil war? The common feature of these lands is that they were late colonial annexations, with established non-Russian culture and often statehood. -M.Altenmann >t 21:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes it was. Both sides in the Finnish Civil War were aided by the Allies and the Reds. Estonia was helped by the Freikorps who, in turn, helped the Whites. The Polish-Soviet War occurred during the civil war! DemocraticSocialism (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What nonsense. Estonia never helped by the Freikorps. Estonia fought the Freikorps. However, the main point here is although Poland, Estonia and Latvia can be considered colonial annexations, they were never independent to start with. No one questioned the legality of the annexations so they were legal parts of the Russian Empire. Thus their wars of independence were part of the civil war of the Russian Empire. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 01:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's right, Estonia did fight them! My mistake.--User:DemocraticSocialism 8 March 2017

Obnoxious infobox revisited
An effort was made in 2012 to stop the infobox from being a me-too list of every possible person and faction that anyone could remember and cram into it. 4-5 commanders per belligerent side will suffice. If you are not happy with the consensus made back in that day, please justify why and who should be listed. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 01:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, though I feel at the least General Nikolai Yudenich could be seen as roughly equal to Deniken and Wrangel as one of the principle leaders of the White Movement. Viktor Pepelyayev was Kolchak's right hand, serving as Prime Minister, Interior Minister, and Police Chief in his government. On the Bolshevik side, Lev Kamenev and Yakov Sverdlov served as Heads of State of the Russian SFSR as Chairmen of the Central Executive Committee of the All-Russian Congress of Soviets. Salociin (talk) 04:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. From what I have read, Yudenich was only geographically isolated but in his documents still regarded Denikin as the commander in chief. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * User:DemocraticSocialism, it would be much appreciated if you would present your arguments before blindly reverting. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Dear Jaan Pärn, I got your message! Alright, if you want me to explain why I just undid your revision, I shall now explain why I did so. You see, I feel that every infobox on a war should include EVERY combatant that had even a small part in said war, so anyone(and everyone) reading the article can have the privilege of getting the most complete information on the subject. That's actually one of the main reasons I joined Wikipedia. I feel I am justified in doing this because even though I am 16 years old and don't have any credentials (like you), I have read numerous history books, so I am quite knowledgeable of the subject of the Russian Civil War (much like yourself, I'm sure). So there you have it. That's my reason and justification. I hope you found this informative and that you will continue to work with me to make Wikipedia a better place. Please write back! From, DemocraticSocialism —Preceding undated comment added 15:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Obviously this is counterproductive to the objective of an infobox to, well, convey information, i.e. to be a concise overview of the factions etc. All involved groups cannot merit listing, otherwise we have exactly this, an obnoxiously long and useless infobox. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The purpose of an infobox is to provide the reader with an 'at a glance' summary of the content, not to turn it into a long and convoluted replica of the information in the lead and body. Please read WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I will just add that I agree with Jaan and Iryna. Infobox is a most basic overview, details belong to article text and subarticles.--Staberinde (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree per Jaan, Iryna and Staberinde. EkoGraf (talk) 00:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Dear Jaan, Iryna Harpy, Staberinde, and EkoGraf,
 * Wikipedia's an encyclopedia, and an encyclopedia's supposed to show detailed information on a particular subject. If someone uses your "at-a-glance" infobox for a research paper, he/she wouldn't have the complete information! So, on that hypothetical person's behalf, I will continue to make sure that this infobox is COMPLETE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DemocraticSocialism (talk • contribs) 16:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you read WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE that Irina so nicely linked earlier? Also here, another thing for you to read: WP:CONSENSUS. In short, it is accepted wikipedia guideline that infobox is a short summary, that does not contain all details. It as also accepted practice that decisions are based by talkpage consensus, and clearly you are here alone with your opinion, while 4 other editors support using infobox as directed by guideline.--Staberinde (talk) 12:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Dear everyone who opposed my efforts. After Staberinde pointed out that I could be reported, I have made the decision to stop opposing the "consensus". I officially declare the " Infobox War" (As I like to call it) over. I therefore accept defeat. However, should another advocate a long infobox like I proposed, I will automatically back him/her. Otherwise, I won't resist this decision (at least on this page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by DemocraticSocialism (talk • contribs) 01:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks like we have a new fighter in the Infobox War. User:CapLiber, have you even visited this talk page? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Awful formatting
There is a large white space at the top of this article before the contents box because of an image (that may or may not be important or pertinent). This formatting makes the article very difficult to read particularly with the huge infobox (as discussed above). 86.156.57.7 (talk) 22:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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/20101205201225/http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUScivilwar.htm to http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUScivilwar.htm

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) 04:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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/20061004110408/http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=282 to http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=282

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) 17:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Black Army in infobox
As it stands the infobox states that the Black Army was on the same side as the White movement against the Bolsheviks after 1920. Unless I am missing something blatantly obvious, this wasn't the case. When did the anarchists ever unite with the Whites? They just became an additional enemy of the Bolsheviks in the conflict after the Whites had been pretty much defeated. Claíomh Solais (talk) 16:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

10 December 2017
The completely bloated infobox which is supposed to represent a summary of information about the subject, takes up one-half of the width of a standard monitor due to insufficient and erroneous formatting. This is not what Summary style is supposed to mean. Please help us trim the commentaries and dates packed into slots with Collapsible lists which don't and cannot work in so little space. The width of the infobox is now increased by Staberinde to 420px (!) but it is still not enough for this mountain of superfluous detail. The infoboxes have their own standard width per policy. Please respect that. We can also start a request for comment from other Wikipedians who access articles from their own devices which might require standardized infobox treatment. Thanks,  Poeticbent  talk 20:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * While I can understand frustration about ever growing infoboxes in wikipedia, you cant take wide infobox and then simply remove all collapsing and make it thinner. Result looks just horribly bad. You need to do some more fundamental rearranging for it to look passable. For more thinner infobox variants it would be better to look at some older examples like this or this.--Staberinde (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The below example looks very good to me. Can we bring it back?  Poeticbent  talk 21:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_Civil_War&oldid=678125769
 * I would be okay with that.--Staberinde (talk) 18:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅.  Poeticbent  talk 20:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)