Russian Civil War Thread

Hi, I'm new to this site and hope you can help.
I am very interested in finding out information with regards to the platoon and company make-up of both opposing Russian sides during the Russian Civil War, after WW1.  I would be very grateful for as much guidance as possible.

Marco

Marco1964 wrote:Hi, I'm new to this site and hope you can help.
I am very interested in finding out information with regards to the platoon and company make-up of both opposing Russian sides during the Russian Civil War, after WW1. I would be very grateful for as much guidance as possible.

Marco

What kind of platoon and companies? There were many different compositions for some types as it was just a hodgepodge of forces thrown together until the Red Army got off the ground. The Whites never had a real composition commanality.

Hi Vladimir,

At the moment, it's more for the infantry composition on platoon and company level. I think, deep down, I had a sneaking suspicion that many of the forces, at that time, were just thrown together. But anything to go on would just be fantastic Also, information on cavalry and artillery would be of use as well.
Another period I am looking at is the Baltic campaigns of 1919 - which I'm also finding very interesting.

Marco

Marco1964 wrote:Hi Vladimir,

At the moment, it's more for the infantry composition on platoon and company level. I think, deep down, I had a sneaking suspicion that many of the forces, at that time, were just thrown together. But anything to go on would just be fantastic Also, information on cavalry and artillery would be of use as well.
Another period I am looking at is the Baltic campaigns of 1919 - which I'm also finding very interesting.

Marco

I doubt if I can find White forces composition, you do best just to look at Imperial Russian makeup of WWI. I will see what I can find for the early days of the Red Army which should give you the best picture.

Many thanks for that Vladimir - it will be very helpful. I will follow up on the Imperial Russian make-up for WW1.

Cheers, Marco

This source has alot of good information about the early Red Army including artillery, cavalry units... in Russian

http://lib.rus.ec/b/72982/read

Thanks for the link to that particular site. I managed to get it translated (phew!) and you're right, it is an excellent source for great information about the early Red Army. The illustration plates are wonderful as well - infact fantastic. I am always fascinated by old military photos and there were certainly a lot of really intersting ones. Are there any other archives, that you know of, which have photos from this period?

Marco1964 wrote:Thanks for the link to that particular site. I managed to get it translated (phew!) and you're right, it is an excellent source for great information about the early Red Army. The illustration plates are wonderful as well - infact fantastic. I am always fascinated by old military photos and there were certainly a lot of really intersting ones. Are there any other archives, that you know of, which have photos from this period?

That photos have period from 1918 to 1922. Look at that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Civil_War
Here you can see some information about that Civil War and pictures of soldiers

Pirate wrote:

Marco1964 wrote:Thanks for the link to that particular site. I managed to get it translated (phew!) and you're right, it is an excellent source for great information about the early Red Army. The illustration plates are wonderful as well - infact fantastic. I am always fascinated by old military photos and there were certainly a lot of really intersting ones. Are there any other archives, that you know of, which have photos from this period?

That photos have period from 1918 to 1922. Look at that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Civil_War
Here you can see some information about that Civil War and pictures of soldiers

Hello Pirate,

Many thanks for the link It certainly has a great deal of information and photo references which will be extremely useful.

Cheers,

Marco

Just see these videos

http://www.mediafire.com/file/lzfjfhzkhdj/Russian_Revolution.rmvb
http://www.mediafire.com/file/dmnvfmz4jzw/Russian_Revolution-01.rmvb

The positions of the Allied expeditionary forces and of the White Armies in European Russia, 1919



Numbers of allied soldiers who were present in the indicated regions of Russia:

• 600 French and British troops landed in Arkhangelsk

• A number of British troops in Vladivostok.

• 23,351 Greeks, who withdrew after three months (part of I Army Corps under Maj. Gen. Konstantinos Nider, comprising 2nd and 13th Infantry Divisions, in the Crimea, and around Odessa and Kherson)

• 13,000 Americans (in the Arkhangelsk and Vladivostok regions)

• 11,500 Estonians in northwestern Russia

• 2,500 Italians (in the Arkhangelsk region and Siberia)

• 2,300 Chinese (in the Vladivostok region)

• 150 Australians (mostly in the Arkhangelsk regions)

• A number of Romanian troops in Bessarabia.

• 15,000 Japanese soldiers in the Eastern region

• 4,192 Canadians in Vladivostok, 600 Canadians in Arkhangelsk

As we all know that Churchill had a tremendous hatred towards Russians. In fact on his command the UK dropped 50,000 chemical bombs on Russia.

In two months at the end of the First World War, between August and September 1918, Churchill authorised the M Device - shells with chemical tips - to be dropped over villages and military posts held by the Bolsheviks in northern Russia.

Thousands of innocents civilians were killed across Northern Russia.


My question is why did Russia never avenge this war crime?

jhelb wrote:As we all know that Churchill had a tremendous hatred towards Russians. In fact on his command the UK dropped 50,000 chemical bombs on Russia.

In two months at the end of the First World War, between August and September 1918, Churchill authorised the M Device - shells with chemical tips - to be dropped over villages and military posts held by the  Bolsheviks in northern Russia.

Thousands of innocents civilians were killed across Northern Russia.


My question is why did Russia never avenge this war crime?

When could Russia take revenge? The USSR was busy trying to get even out of Brest-Litovsk during the attempted Revolution through Europe (Aka Soviet-Polish War of late 1919-1921) on a side note, the USSR is a great part of the Great Britain's decolonization woes (be the help to Turkey or after WW2/GPW its aid to the African nations in need of liberation).

Furthermore, just look at the UK now...just a sad island clinging hard to stolen money and derelict political system...

KoTeMoRe wrote:Furthermore, just look at the UK now...just a sad island clinging hard to stolen money and derelict political system...

Good point. But note that with this stolen money they are punching above their weight the world over. Also, they have one of the best Intelligence Service in the world that will allow them to create trouble globally in the near future. Russia is on top of this list.Make no mistake about it.

jhelb wrote:As we all know that Churchill had a tremendous hatred towards Russians. In fact on his command the UK dropped 50,000 chemical bombs on Russia.

In two months at the end of the First World War, between August and September 1918, Churchill authorised the M Device - shells with chemical tips - to be dropped over villages and military posts held by the  Bolsheviks in northern Russia.

Thousands of innocents civilians were killed across Northern Russia.


My question is why did Russia never avenge this war crime?

For those who do not know the story, this is one take

Churchill hoped that he would be able to use the top secret "M Device", an exploding shell that released a highly toxic gas derived from arsenic. Foulkes called it "the most effective chemical weapon ever devised". The scientist, John Haldane, later described the impact of this new weapon: "The pain in the head is described as like that caused when fresh water gets into the nose when bathing, but infinitely more severe... accompanied by the most appalling mental distress and misery." Foulkes argued that the strategy should be "the discharge of gas on a stupendous scale". This was to be followed by "a British attack, bypassing the trenches filled with suffocating and dying men". However, the war came to an end in November, 1918, before this strategy could be deployed.

After the First World War Churchill was appointed as Minister of War and Air by David Lloyd George. In May 1919, Churchill gave orders for the British troops to use chemical weapons during the campaign to subdue Afghanistan. When the India Office objected to the policy, Churchill replied: "The objections of the India Office to the use of gas against natives are unreasonable. Gas is a more merciful weapon than high explosive shell and compels an enemy to accept a decision with less loss of life than any other agency of war. The moral effect is also very great. There can be no conceivable reason why it should not be resorted to."

Winston Churchill now took the controversial decision to use the stockpiles of M Device (diphenylaminechloroarsine) against the Red Army who were involved in fighting against invading forces hostile to the Russian Revolution. He was supported in this by Sir Keith Price, the head of the chemical warfare, at Porton Down. He declared it to be the "right medicine for the Bolshevist" and the terrain would enable it to "drift along very nicely". Price agreed with Churchill that the use of chemical weapons would lead to a rapid collapse of the Bolshevik government in Russia: "I believe if you got home only once with the Gas you would find no more Bolshies this side of Vologda."

In the greatest secrecy, 50,000 M Devices were shipped to Archangel, along with the weaponry required to fire them. Churchill sent a message to Major-General William Ironside: "Fullest use is now to be made of gas shell with your forces, or supplied by us to White Russian forces." He told Ironside that this "thermogenerator of arsenical dust that would penetrate all known types of protective mask". Churchill added that he would very much like the "Bolsheviks" to have it. Churchill also arranged for 10,000 respirators for the British troops and twenty-five specialist gas officers to use the equipment.

Some one leaked this information and Churchill was forced to answer questions on the subject in the House of Commons on 29th May 1919. Churchill insisted that it was the Red Army who was using chemical warfare: "I do not understand why, if they use poison gas, they should object to having it used against them. It is a very right and proper thing to employ poison gas against them." His statement was untrue. There is no evidence of Bolshevik forces using gas against British troops and it was Churchill himself who had authorised its initial use some six weeks earlier.

On 27th August, 1919, British Airco DH.9 bombers dropped these gas bombs on the Russian village of Emtsa. According to one source: "Bolsheviks soldiers fled as the green gas spread. Those who could not escape, vomited blood before losing consciousness." Other villages targeted included Chunova, Vikhtova, Pocha, Chorga, Tavoigor and Zapolki. During this period 506 gas bombs were dropped on the Russians.

Lieutenant Donald Grantham interviewed Bolshevik prisoners about these attacks. One man named Boctroff said the soldiers "did not know what the cloud was and ran into it and some were overpowered in the cloud and died there; the others staggered about for a short time and then fell down and died". Boctroff claimed that twenty-five of his comrades had been killed during the attack. Boctroff was able to avoid the main "gas cloud" but he was very ill for 24 hours and suffered from "giddiness in head, running from ears, bled from nose and cough with blood, eyes watered and difficulty in breathing."

Major-General William Ironside told David Lloyd George that he was convinced that even after these gas attacks his troops would not be able to advance very far. He also warned that the White Army had experienced a series of mutinies (there were some in the British forces too). Lloyd George agreed that Ironside should withdraw his troops. This was completed by October. The remaining chemical weapons were considered to be too dangerous to be sent back to Britain and therefore it was decided to dump them into the White Sea.

http://spartacus-educational.com/spartacus-blogURL5.html

jhelb wrote:As we all know that Churchill had a tremendous hatred towards Russians. In fact on his command the UK dropped 50,000 chemical bombs on Russia.

In two months at the end of the First World War, between August and September 1918, Churchill authorised the M Device - shells with chemical tips - to be dropped over villages and military posts held by the  Bolsheviks in northern Russia.

Thousands of innocents civilians were killed across Northern Russia.


My question is why did Russia never avenge this war crime?

The bolsheviks were soon about to use poison gas against russian peasants themselves. Not to mention murdering scores by more "conventional" means. Nobody in the bolshevik leadership cared one jot about the lives of innocent russians. They were a bunch of murderers themselves.

Amusing that the Bolsheviks are still considered a murderous regime even today, yet the sins of the British and Germans and Japanese and Americans are forgotten... it is a very powerful thing to write history... shame it is so badly misused in the west to colour everything...

Cucumber Khan wrote:

jhelb wrote:As we all know that Churchill had a tremendous hatred towards Russians. In fact on his command the UK dropped 50,000 chemical bombs on Russia.

In two months at the end of the First World War, between August and September 1918, Churchill authorised the M Device - shells with chemical tips - to be dropped over villages and military posts held by the  Bolsheviks in northern Russia.

Thousands of innocents civilians were killed across Northern Russia.


My question is why did Russia never avenge this war crime?

The bolsheviks were soon about to use poison gas against russian peasants themselves. Not to mention murdering scores by more "conventional" means. Nobody in the bolshevik leadership cared one jot about the lives of innocent russians. They were a bunch of murderers themselves.

It's funny because the Tambov Rebellion had it been quelled by the Tsarist authorities would have meant the whole population displaced and killed not "thousands" and Northern Russia? Tambov is Northern Russia now? And it is also funny because the guys who rebelled against the Bolo's were Bolo's themselves. Nevermind the fact that it became very clear that the War Communism measures were ultimately the only fit ones to actually stay independent, something the said peasants, like always, saw less relevant than their local economy. Personally, being Albanian and having had my own area suffer from out of touch, archaic Village elders back in the Ottoman times I couldn't agree more with dekulakisation and the process of generally having a self-counscient population. While the Tambov rebellion was a far more grey matter than Bolo's bad, Anto's good, the crux is that the underpinnings of that crisis were the fact that the Russuian peasantry was burden to the level of development of the whole nation. And the fact that kulaks tried time and again to break the equality line by holding back grain, currency and manpower is yet to be disproved by any historian. The fact that the westerners don't like to talk about the real issue peasantry posed to most of them during the 18th-19th modernisation period (and for some like Italy, Portugal or even Bavaria well into the 20th century) is a telltale that the peasant problem has always been a burden.

At the end the violence and monstruosity of the Bolo's was a distinctive feature of how the federal-local economical interest dispute plaid out everywhere (hint think about the US). A full scale civil war will all the state of the art inputs you had then.

GarryB wrote:Amusing that the Bolsheviks are still considered a murderous regime even today, yet the sins of the British and Germans and Japanese and Americans are forgotten... it is a very powerful thing to write history... shame it is so badly misused in the west to colour everything...

To say that the Bolsheviks were murderers does not mean denying that the foreign occupiers also were.

Svyatoslavich wrote:

GarryB wrote:Amusing that the Bolsheviks are still considered a murderous regime even today, yet the sins of the British and Germans and Japanese and Americans are forgotten... it is a very powerful thing to write history... shame it is so badly misused in the west to colour everything...

To say that the Bolsheviks were murderers does not mean denying that the foreign occupiers also were.

true, true

To say that the Bolsheviks were murderers does not mean denying that the foreign occupiers also were.

And to say the commies did very bad things is not to say they didn't do very good things too... but the funny thing is that the western record of history is that all communists in Russia were as brutal as Stalin and never did anything good, while the west was a force for good and always did good things. though sometime they did very bad things for the best of reasons... like murdering millions of Vietnamese to save them from communism, when in fact their problem was actually colonialism via Europe.

To say that the Bolsheviks were murderers does not mean denying that the foreign occupiers also were.

When history is written by the people who started using chemical weapons against civilian populations in a civil war, who now whine and complain because they think the current Russian regime might be implementing British tactics again which makes them evil and us the victims is disgusting.

Do they no think for a moment using chemical weapons on them might have led them to do some of the bad things they did... SS tells us that Stalin and Lenin invented using chemical weapons to kill, but it seems they learned hard lessons from the British... and those chemical weapons they dumped into the sea are not biodegradable either... going to be someone elses problem eventually...

They say when you say something often enough it becomes true, but the boy who cried wolf teaches me to now think the very worst of the west and to assume everything it says in regard to the Soviets and the Russians to be lies.

Had they been even just a little bit honest things would be different... but fuck them.

Turkmens against the Russian Empire: Colonization, Revolution, Civil War

BASMACHIS VS BOLSHEVIKS. Civil war in Central Asia

Yakut uprisings 1918-1930