Battle for Russia 1918

I figured this would be the best forum to start this thread. The forum is war in Russia, so I guess the Allied North Russian expedition is fair game. This thread is for the sake of discussing this forgotten part in American and British history, but is tought to schoolcjildren in Russia.

CvM (JW)

Ill answer any questions if you have any,

 

Actualy it is quite a good topic for this forum. While not directly part of the second world war, it did play a major part in Russian distrust of the West.

CvM; do you happen to know the strategic situation in Russia? Was it Vietnam style warfare in the sense that battle lines were pretty loose, or was the front well defined throughout the campaign?

 

I believe my great grandfather fought in this, in the Polish Blue army. I'm just starting to learn about this war though, so I"m not completely up on the details. I know he went to fight in WWI but was then called to poland to defend against the russians.

 

They - Brittish and French - landed on different coasts in the north and sounth of Russia.

I think in Archangelsk and on the Crim.

 

I am aware of the expedition in Archangel but did not know there was one in the Crimea.

 

The Crimean War was from 1853-1856. But I still think that the attack on Archangelsk was around the same time.

Oh, here is a website about the war:
http://www.hargreave-mawson.demon.co.uk/cwrs1.html

I couldn't find anything about the attack on Archangelsk.

 

What was the reason for the landings? Was it to support the White Russians? Was it to topple the Bolshevik regime since they wanted a peace treaty with Germany?

 

Wow, i see there is a lot of misinformation about this subject here. First off, Albert, This happened in the fall of 1918, the Americans, brits, and frogs, landed in Archangel, there mission was to guard the supplies that the allies had given to the CZar's army from the Bolsheviks. It was also an attempt to keep germans on the eastern front, so they couldnt be used in the New German offensive in the west.

Also, Doc Raider, your grandfather fought in a different war. He fought the Russo-Polish war of 1919-1920, this was an attempt by Lenin to grab some more land.

DasReich, this wasnt really a Vietnam style warfare, but it wasnt a large front line war either. It was a war of strategic strong points, like shenkurst.

If you want to learn about this and other small american wars i suggest reading The Savage Wars of Peace. I beleive it is by Max Smith, but i could be wrong.

Any other questions?

CvM

 

Could you give me a website where I can verify this information.

 

Yup, I don't claim much knowledge on WWI. But at least I was warm.

 

Albert, i get a website later, im at a public computer now so im not permitted to go to the webaddress i have.

Not worry, im not lying and i will get the url to you.

CvM

 

I'm not saying that you are lying, but I just want to know if it is true.

 

yes, trust but verify

 

Also there were landings in Vladivostok made by British, French, Canadian, American and Japanesse forces. It is very amazing that Lenin's regime could bear all this support against him. But the things is that after the armistice Great Britain and France were exhausted by war and didn't want to get involved in another conflict. That is why the White Army didn't get all the support it needed to beat Trotsky's Red Army.

 

Very true, but had the armies of Archangel has only 3 divisions, it is likely that Moscow wouldve fallen.

So much for Barbarossa eh?


CvM

 

Carl,

I have a feeling that the communists won because the white generals did not attack at the same time but separately and communists beat them one at a time.Like Israel and Arabs. The white generals had, I think, enough men to beat the communists??

Any idea on that?

PS. By the way Finland got its independence because the communists did not want to fight the Finns at the time as well, and, they thought the communists in Finland would win the civil war and join the USSR so it would lead to the same end result anyway.Thanx to God we had Mannerheim to lead the white Finnish troops to victory...!!!

[ 21. November 2002, 03:17 AM: Message edited by: Kai-Petri ]

 

Although rather late in the day to reply to such an old thread - I was at Kew, P.R.O a few years ago researching my paternal grandfather as he served in WW1 Royal Artillery in Sigs branch. However he (for some reason) was posted to Royal Corps of Sigs untit despatched to Archangel.

One thing that casught my eye in the unit war diary was a reference to orders by the C in C British Forces in N Russia during the evacuation. He instructed the attached air elements drop chemical weapons (mustard gas) on all equipment left behind so the 'Reds' could not use it.

Also I think it was Churchill who made a speech in 1917 stating that 'This Bolshevik baby should be strangled in its cradle.' So presumably he would have been an enthusiastic proponent of this whole operation.

[ 15. December 2002, 04:19 PM: Message edited by: RSM123 ]

 

Ill have to check my resources to see if the mustard gas was actually used. However i do remember such ideas were put into consideration.

CvM

 

On Churchill and communism:

"Churchill alone - foresaw the threat of Communism. At a public meeting he said:-

"of all the tyrannies in history, the Bolshevik tyranny is the worst, the most destructive, the most degrading; the atrocities committed under Lenin and Trotsky were incomparably more hideous, on a larger scale, and more numerous than for any which the Kaiser is responsible"

Soon after this speech he was scandalised that the British government sent back to Russia half a million Russian soldiers taken by the Germans - all trained men - who would be forced to join the armies of Lenin and Trotsky - fighting against our small British forces who were attempting to keep open the lines of supplies and so reinforce the anti-Bolsheviks. He wrote to the Prime Minister . . .

"This is one of the capital blunders in the history of the world".

Had Churchill's view prevailed the Bolsheviks could have been beaten and Russia would never have suffered under communism.
His views were ridiculed in both Parliament and the press.

Churchill was alarmed at the harsh terms of The Treaty of Versailles. He was scorned in the press for saying so.

He was proved right.

http://www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/1919Txt.html
------------

Only after Germany agreed to the armistance did any of the Allies show any interest in internal Russian politics - and Churchill was fighting the rest of the British leadership the whole time. American troops in particular had orders to simply remain in ports and guard supply depots. British and French troops did eventually give some material support and intelligence to White forces, but again the Allied leadership was extremely divided. There certainly was no significant fighting between Allied troops and Russians. Even Japan, which lost more troops than all of the other interveners put together, knew that it lacked U.S. support for territorial expansion and therefore made no serious effort to make permanent territorial gains. Japan even surrendered northern Sakhalin Island in 1924, although Stalin was sure to permanently annex southern Sakhalin Island in 1945.

From 1918 on, Soviet propagandists skillfully exploited the raw fact of Allied presence on Russian soil. But the facts evince only the feeblest intent to crusade against Communism. Allied forces first landed at Trotsky's invitation. Fighting started because of Trotsky's unprovoked attack upon Czech forces en route to Vladivostok. The scale of Allied operations was trivial, as their combat losses show. The British in particular provided military equipment to the Whites, but soon abandoned their Russian friends to their fate

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/muchado.htm

----------

1919 British forces intervening in the Russian Civil War Mustard gas – artillery.
1919: The British use adamsite, a toxic vapor, against the Bolsheviks in Russian Civil War.

Well, which is it...

Adamsite is a type of White Cross gas. It acts initially as a normal tear gas but the effects are more long-lasting. This yellowish solid material produces coughing of a more violent nature, followed by a strong, severe, and blinding headache within a few minutes. Violent spasms and pains in the chest cause serious difficulty in breathing, and nausea and vomiting begin. The gas stays in the air for only about ten minutes, and is thus considered non-persistent. The effects, however, last for hours to days and are extremely unpleasant.