![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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 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.
I was always taught that the Civil War ended in 1924... Gaidash 06:34, 21 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
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)
'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)
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)
-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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
Eventually industrial, certainly not the agricultural one. Xx236 12:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
Who were the leaders of the American and especially Japanese forces? -- HanzoHattori 10:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
There is no excuse for doing that. If you find it too long to be there, you can make it like in "world war 1" and "world war 2" articles - create a separate article for the participants of Russian Civil War and link to it from the participants box, then do the same with leaders, etc. There is no excuse for removing it completely, so it was restored. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 96.225.112.144 ( talk)
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 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)
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)
The article unnecessarily contains three sections that interleave the chronology: "Overview", "Geography and chronology" and "Course of events". Please keep in mind that per wikipedia:Summary style this article is itself a broad overview of the huge topic with major details covered in separate articles. Therefore I suggest that there should be only wo of them: "Overview" and "Course of events".
Suggestions, please. `' Míkka >t 16:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
IMO this main article must have at least two more overview sections:
Suggestions, please. `' Míkka >t 16:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
Image:Red-soldiers.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 09:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
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:
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)
Soviet POV. Xx236 ( talk) 07:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
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)
The Red Terror continued quite long - emigrants were persecuted after WWII. Xx236 ( talk) 10:18, 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)
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 has written a number of texts about Soviet terror. Xx236 ( talk) 10:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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)
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¬word=&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)
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)
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)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:TrotskySlayingtheDragon1918.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 16:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC) |
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)
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)
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)
Russian Civil War | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Part of World War I and the Revolutions of 1917–23 | |||||||||
![]() Red Army detachment during the civil war | |||||||||
| |||||||||
Belligerents | |||||||||
![]() |
Including
Including
Allied Intervention Pro-German armies Other factions
| ||||||||
Commanders and leaders | |||||||||
![]() |
![]() | ||||||||
Strength | |||||||||
3,000,000 [2] | 2,400,000 White Russians, 255,000 in Allied intervention. | ||||||||
Casualties and losses | |||||||||
1,212,824 casualties Records are incomplete. [2] | At least 1,500,000 |
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
And is other times described as depicting slain Czechs:
And both descriptions are noted here:
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)
As I noted above, it's not clear whether soldiers slain in this image 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)
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)
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:
[[Category:Russian Revolution]]
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)
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)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Russian Civil War. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
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)
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 Wikipedia: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)