Russia: No CFE treaty for you!

[Patroklos]

35 million seems to be more than an adequae figure for Russians civilians killed from 1913-89.

Especially if you believe in the Ukranian figures given above.

[ErikM]

Originally posted by Heresson
I can only tell that on the formerly Polish grounds annexed by USSR, Poles were being systematically deported (it's zsylka in Polish) to inner USSR. The goal was complete clearing of this grunds of Poles. Started with the ones with higher education (not counting those killed at once), later were others. My grandma was deportated as well. Some were let out after the war, many still live somewhere there, especially in Kazakhstan. I don't have to add that the conditions weren't good. My grandma suffered from this up to her death.

Heresson I am not trying to defend mass deportations or anything but they were not uncommon elsewhere. Poland has relocated millions of Germans from territories she gained after WW2. Granted, many of them fled on their own while Poles largely had nowhere to flee. Not just Poland - every East European country did a fair bit of ethnical cleansing after WW2.

Even oh-so-democratic Americans herded their Japanese minority into concentration camps after Pearl Harbor. About 200,000 Japanese-Americans were put into these camps iirc. They were not housed in 5-star hotels, either.

It all sounds horrible from the point of view of modern sensibilities but things were not pleasant back then. Every country is suscpicious of parts of population that are likely to side with the enemy in the upcoming war or to start ethnic troubles. Nobody wants fifth column. Poland did not want any German-majority regions to prevent any sort of "reunification with the Greater Germany" movement in the future. Similarly, Stalin thought that Polish were "unreliable" which was not entirely unwarranted. Sure, it was horrible but it was not too different from other countries' actions in the same time period.

[ErikM]

Originally posted by Saras
Serb, you really are a revisionist stalinist apologist. At least 200 thousand LITHUANIANS ALONE were deported, and about 1/2 of them died. So by your figures they comprise 1/3 of total killed. Nice.

Come to think about it, Saras, your numbers actually support Serb's claims.

Let's try to do a ballpark estimate.

What was Lithuanian population in 1930s? I don't have exact numbers, probably somewhere between 2 and 3 mln. Let's be conservative and assume 2mln. population. 100,000 dead imples then 1:20 casualties ratio.

Lithuanians always claimed that they suffered disproportionally hard during Stalin's era. But let's say that the same 1:20 ratio applies elsewhere in the former USSR as well. Let's take ~200mln. as USSR pre-war population (which overestimates Soviet population quite a bit). This means ~10mln. casualties as an upper bound for Stalin victims.

That's still an enormous number of casualties but nowhere near 60mln or even 35mln.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by ErikM
But I equally distrust Robert Conquest's "The Harvest of Sorrows" and other mainstream western press on the subject.

Well what sources without a pro-Soviet bias do you trust because stringing together a set of assumptions to arrive at a number isn't a wise thing to do. Which strangely seem to be the way the posts are going in this thread.

[ErikM]

Well what sources without a pro-Soviet bias do you trust because stringing together a set of assumptions to arrive at a number isn't a wise thing to do. Which strangely seem to be the way the posts are going in this thread.

I'd say that a diligent, unbiased research on Soviet era casualties is yet to be done. Only after Soviet era archives are completely opened and all this information is processed can we expect a more or less accurate number.

Prior to Gorbachev era, Stalin's regime casualties were underplayed both in the Western press and in the USSR. During 80s, they were exaggerated both in the West and in Russia. BTW, the claim that Soviet historians were somehow interested in underestimating casualties is incorrect. 60mln. casualties is not the highest estimate that I've heard. Iirc V. Korotich (editor of the popular Soviet magazine Ogonyok with a "liberal" bias) claimed 100mln. casualties at some point.

During 90s large part of Soviet archives were opened and some research based on real documents (and not on demographic projections) was done (and this work is still largely in progress). But in the light of this new evidence it became apparent that perestroika-era numbers were grossly exaggeratted.

You are right that demographic-projection studies are basically no good. It's "what you assume is what you get" kind of thing. If one uses optimistic estimates for population increase rates, one can get 40mln. "excess deaths". If one uses pessimistic estimates, you can get zero casualties. It's a huge error margin. But before archives were open it was the only type of research possible.

[Patroklos]

Come to think about it, Saras, your numbers actually support Serb's claims.

Let's try to do a ballpark estimate.

What was Lithuanian population in 1930s? I don't have exact numbers, probably somewhere between 2 and 3 mln. Let's be conservative and assume 2mln. population. 100,000 dead imples then 1:20 casualties ratio.

Lithuanians always claimed that they suffered disproportionally hard during Stalin's era. But let's say that the same 1:20 ratio applies elsewhere in the former USSR as well. Let's take ~200mln. as USSR pre-war population (which overestimates Soviet population quite a bit). This means ~10mln. casualties as an upper bound for Stalin victims.

That is an extreme set of assumptions there. There is NO reason to assume that Stalin's (who only rules for part of Soviet history) repression was blanket nation wide. Some areas were higher and some lower. And once again the pre 1930's was no walk in the park for Soviet citizens. Lithuania might have lost 1:20 of their population (using questionable numbers) but they also missed out on a good decade of Soviet civic kindness.

I think 2 million is a very low population figure for Lithuania, especially if we are talking about pre-WWII.

[ErikM]

Originally posted by Patroklos
That is an extreme set of assumptions there. There is NO reason to assume that Stalin's (who only rules for part of Soviet history) repression was blanket nation wide. Some areas were higher and some lower. And once again the pre 1930's was no walk in the park for Soviet citizens. Lithuania might have lost 1:20 of their population (using questionable numbers) but they also missed out on a good decade of Soviet civic kindness.

I think 2 million is a very low population figure for Lithuania, especially if we are talking about pre-WWII.

They are only extreme in a sense that they are likely to exaggerate Soviet casualties. Lithuania and other Baltic states were among the areas that suffered the worst from repressions.

If Lithuania's population was higher than 2 million, then the casualty ratio was lower than 1:20. I only used this number to provide a semi-reasonable upper bound.

And let's part with "Stalin ruled for only part of Soviet history" argument. Most of Soviet civilian casualties fall into collectivization period, Stalin's purges and mass deportations of late 30s, and of course WW2.

While there were some political prisoners and executions after Stalin, their number is in hundreds, maybe thousands. It is possible that the total number of executions in a post-Stalin USSR was lower than in the US during the same period.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by ErikM

Heresson I am not trying to defend mass deportations or anything but they were not uncommon elsewhere. Poland has relocated millions of Germans from territories she gained after WW2. Granted, many of them fled on their own while Poles largely had nowhere to flee. Not just Poland - every East European country did a fair bit of ethnical cleansing after WW2.

Nobody wants fifth column. Poland did not want any German-majority regions to prevent any sort of "reunification with the Greater Germany" movement in the future. Similarly, Stalin thought that Polish were "unreliable" which was not entirely unwarranted. Sure, it was horrible but it was not too different from other countries' actions in the same time period.

I find it quite unreasonable to blaim Poland for what happened after ww2 on its territory. Poland was under Soviet occupation, and the communists that ruled controlled by Moscow. It weren't Poles that ordered the action - Americans, Soviets and British were (the case of Czechia is pretty different). You can blaim Poles, Jews, Russians etc who participated in acts of violence towards Germans after the war, but not quite Polish state, simply because the legal gouverment (which, abandoned by its allies, stayed in London) was not responsible what was happening there.
And this gouverment, as I mentioned many times, was hesitant when it comes to this matter. Arciszewski wasn't sure if Lower Silesia should be added to Poland, because He didn't see any possibility of assimilation of almost clearly German region with Poland.
Also, while Germany posed some threat, and didn't approve its post-war boarders up to 1990, when it finally did, Poland was hardly any threat and Moscow-controlled Polish gouverment was hardly revisionistic

[Ned]

It seems the Europeans long ago resettled displaced persons and have substantially agreed to the realignment of borders. Yet, the very same Europeans keep the Palestinian refugee problem and the border issue of Israel to the forefront of their complaints against Israel rather than press the Arab world to accept the status quo after so many years. Rather than learn lessons from their own experience, it seems they either have learned nothing, are major hypocrites, are major anti-Semites, or perhpaps all of the above.

[Heresson]

Again, you're compairing Arabs to nazi Germans, and those who do not agree, You call antisemites.
That's not nice.

[ErikM]

Originally posted by Heresson
I find it quite unreasonable to blaim Poland for what happened after ww2 on its territory. Poland was under Soviet occupation, and the communists that ruled controlled by Moscow. It weren't Poles that ordered the action - Americans, Soviets and British were (the case of Czechia is pretty different). You can blaim Poles, Jews, Russians etc who participated in acts of violence towards Germans after the war, but not quite Polish state, simply because the legal gouverment (which, abandoned by its allies, stayed in London) was not responsible what was happening there.
And this gouverment, as I mentioned many times, was hesitant when it comes to this matter. Arciszewski wasn't sure if Lower Silesia should be added to Poland, because He didn't see any possibility of assimilation of almost clearly German region with Poland.

1. It was not my intention to blame either Polish citizens or Polish government. Rather, I wanted to point out that mass deportations happened not just in USSR, but in other countries as well. On the larger scale, even. Iirc, about 8 mln ethnic germans were forcefully rellocated after WW2 from Silesia, Eastern Prussia, Moravia, etc.

2. This being said, it is not correct to put the blame squarely on Allied governments. Poland western borders negotiotions were conducted on Potsdam conference and are described in great detail in (among others) Churchill's "Second Warld War". According to Churchill, Stalin's position on these negotiotions was essentially to legalize the status quo. Stalin claimed that by the time Potsdam conference took place, Poles de facto occupied territories later transferred to Poland from Germany and basically asked allies to legalize this outcome de jure.

If anything, Churchill accused Stalin as being pro-Polish on these negotiations. Himself, Sir Whinston thought that "Poland wants too much".

[W. Churchill, Second World War, vol. 6, last two chapters]

3. So mass deportations de facto started before Allied negotiations took place. Polish government-in-exile indeed cannot be hold accountable for this, but this government did not really control the situation in Poland - it was a government in name only.

Poland was hardly any threat and Moscow-controlled Polish gouverment was hardly revisionistic

I don't quite understand this sentiment. Are you saying that Poles were exemplary, loyal Soviet citizens, showing no sign of dissent whatsoever? Maybe you should come back to Mama Russia then, eh?

Originally posted by Ned
It seems the Europeans long ago resettled displaced persons and have substantially agreed to the realignment of borders. Yet, the very same Europeans keep the Palestinian refugee problem and the border issue of Israel to the forefront of their complaints against Israel rather than press the Arab world to accept the status quo after so many years. Rather than learn lessons from their own experience, it seems they either have learned nothing, are major hypocrites, are major anti-Semites, or perhpaps all of the above.

Just add Americans to your list of alleged hypocrites and I might agree with you
Israeli/Palestinian problem does not belong in this thread, though.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by ErikM

1. It was not my intention to blame either Polish citizens or Polish government. Rather, I wanted to point out that mass deportations happened not just in USSR, but in other countries as well. On the larger scale, even. Iirc, about 8 mln ethnic germans were forcefully rellocated after WW2 from Silesia, Eastern Prussia, Moravia, etc.

This number is heavily exagerrated. Most of them escaped earlier, fearing Soviet army. And often, they didn't want to stay.
Also, I think You've written it pretty different earlier. Outside USSR? Yes, but in link with it,

2. This being said, it is not correct to put the blame squarely on Allied governments. Poland western borders negotiotions were conducted on Potsdam conference and are described in great detail in (among others) Churchill's "Second Warld War". According to Churchill, Stalin's position on these negotiotions was essentially to legalize the status quo. Stalin claimed that by the time Potsdam conference took place, Poles de facto occupied territories later transferred to Poland from Germany and basically asked allies to legalize this outcome de jure.

You know the same well as I do, that it's not right. It was not Poland who occupied this land, but USSR.

If anything, Churchill accused Stalin as being pro-Polish on these negotiations. Himself, Sir Whinston thought that "Poland wants too much".

It's not quite what Poland wanted, but what Stalin wanted for her.

3. So mass deportations de facto started before Allied negotiations took place. Polish government-in-exile indeed cannot be hold accountable for this, but this government did not really control the situation in Poland - it was a government in name only.

It was the legal gouverment. It was Stalin's pressure on the Allies, and their lack of effort to support their Polish ally, to make it gouverment without real power. This gouverment still had enough power to control the underground army, underground education system etc. I remind You that it was Polish guerilla to liberate Vilnius and, partially, Lwow, and start uprising in Warsaw. The problem was that Soviets were generallly hostile to it and destroyed independant Polish political movements on grounds "liberated" by them.

I don't quite understand this sentiment. Are you saying that Poles were exemplary, loyal Soviet citizens, showing no sign of dissent whatsoever? Maybe you should come back to Mama Russia then, eh?

Not quite Poles, but Polish communists - yes. Before ww1, Polish communists claimed that Poles have to resign of independance. During Polish-soviet war, they supported Soviets. After the war, they supported Soviet claims to eastern territories...

[ErikM]

Originally posted by Heresson
This number is heavily exagerrated. Most of them escaped earlier, fearing Soviet army.

It could easily be that this number is exaggerated. It's the same type of shoddy reasearch I have written about earlier in response to Soviet civilian casualties issue.

You know the same well as I do, that it's not right. It was not Poland who occupied this land, but USSR.

Let's keep the facts straight...

44- Spring 45 - USSR liberates territories occupied by Nazi Germany in Eastern Europe. Some German civilians flee before approaching Soviet Army.

Spring/Summer 45 - population of these regions move to former German lands to work the fields etc (as pretty much everything in their native regions is destroyed). More Germans flee/are driven out in response to violence against Germans from the population.

[I do not blame Poles for these acts of violence, btw. Understandably, Germans were not exactly the most beloved people on earth these days].

Potsdam conference - establishes new borders in Eastern Europe. Stalin insisted that these new borders have to established based on the status quo, ie. it would be crazy to forcefully relocate Polish who physically occupied these lands earlier. Stalin point of view prevails.

It was Stalin's pressure on the Allies, and their lack of effort to support their Polish ally, to make it gouverment without real power.

What I want to point out is that without Stalin's participation, Poland would likely end up with much smaller post-WW2 territory. Maybe it's ironic, but Stalin was the only person on Potsdam conference who actually had some concern for Polish. As I said earlier, Churchill thought that "Polish want too much" and Truman spent most of his time worrying how to break news of nuclear weapons to Stalin like a teenage girl going to her Prom dance.

True, Stalin probably wanted more lands for Poland because he planned on Poland being a Soviet ally in the post-WW2 Europe. But other allies largely had no concern for Poland at all.

[CharlesBHoff]

In 1918 America sent marine to fight the Soviet Force in Northeastern Russia around Archangle. They aim was to overthrow the newly form Soviet Union. This force was there untril around 1923-25 fighting than secert war against the Soviet Union. They where finaly ridden out of Soviet Union. We didnot get back the dead bodies untril 1934 when we finally recognite the Soviet Union as than legimate government even them there where evil people in America who didnot like the Soviet Union and plot evil deeds against.

[Serb]

Originally posted by CharlesBHoff
In 1918 America sent marine to fight the Soviet Force in Northeastern Russia around Archangle. They aim was to overthrow the newly form Soviet Union. This force was there untril around 1923-25 fighting than secert war against the Soviet Union. They where finaly ridden out of Soviet Union. We didnot get back the dead bodies untril 1934 when we finally recognite the Soviet Union as than legimate government even them there where evil people in America who didnot like the Soviet Union and plot evil deeds against.

In 1918-1919 at Northern part of Russia landed 29 000 British and 6 000 American soldiers. They occupied and plundered Murmansk, Kem, Onega and Archangelsk. First concentration camps on Russian land were created not by Lenin or Stalin as many seems to believe, they were created by Americans. Between 1918-1919, intervents thrown 52 000 people (every sixth inhabitant of those lands) in such camps. Prisoners worked 18-20 hours per day, no drugs, no doctors, hunger, 4 000 among them were shot after trial, how many shot without a trial or died because of terrible conditions is unknown.
In August 1918 9 000 American soldiers landed at Russian Far East, in Vladivostok previosly captured by Japanese. Only in Amur Oblast (region), during anti-partisan punishing raid, American forces burned 25 villages to the ground.
American forced were finally driven out from Northern part of Russia at summer 1919, from Russian Far East, at April 1920.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Serb

In 1918-1919 in Northeastern part of Russia landed 29 000 British and 6 000 American soldiers. They occupied and plundered Murmansk, Kem, Onega and Archangelsk. First concentration camps on Russian land were created not by Lenin or Stalin as many seems to believe, they were created by Americans.

I call Bullshit. The Anglo-American-French Force (American-Japanese in Vladivostok) were there to support the White Russian forces, not establish "concentration camps". I would like to see evdideance that the Entente did establish such camps.

Incidently, there had long been camps in Siberia (the Tsar liked to send people out to "count Trees"), that's where the 100,000 Czech Legion came from Siberia...they'd escaped from the camps there.

Between 1918-1919, intervents thrown 52 000 people (every sixth inhabitant of Northeastern part of Russia) in such camps. Prisoners worked 18-20 hours per day, no drugs, no doctors, hunger, 4 000 among them shot after trial, how many shot without a trial or died because of terrible conditions is unknown.
In August 1918 9 000 American soldiers landed at Russian Far East, in Vladivostok previosly captured by Japanese. Only in Amur Oblast (region), during anti-partisan punishing raid, American forces burned 25 villages to the ground.
American forced were finally driven out from Northeastern part of Russia at summer 1919, from Russian Far East, at April 1920.

"Driven out" my fat white Texan hiney. We packed up and left because the War was over and we had a change of administration back home.

[David Floyd]

Maybe it's ironic, but Stalin was the only person on Potsdam conference who actually had some concern for Polish.

I call more bullshit. Stalin was primarily and exclusively concerned for the interests of the Soviet Union, as he saw them, and those interests did not include a free Poland.

The British were really the only ones with any concern for the Polish, but those concerns were overridden by British interests and the current political situation. Neither Britain nor the United States was going to risk alienating the Soviets over Poland - the US wanted Soviet participation against Japan, and both the US and British (especially the British, who were breaking up entire regiments and divisions by the end of the war to provide replacements for others) were extremely concerned with casualties. The end of the war was not in question, even without the Soviet Union, and the interest of the Allies was to minimize casualties.

Poland got screwed because all of the major powers were concerned, first and foremost (and, in Stalin's case, exclusively) with their own national interests. But don't try to tell me Stalin was interested in a free and independent Poland

Oh, and if Stalin was so interested in the fate of the Poles, then explain Katyn Forest.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Lonestar


I call Bullshit. The Anglo-American-French Force (American-Japanese in Vladivostok) were there to support the White Russian forces, not establish "concentration camps".

American forces were in Siberia for looting and for capturing it.
Senator Poindexter (sp?) "New York Times", June 8 1918:
" Russia is just a geography definition now, and never be anything else again. Her power of unity, organization and resurrection is gone forever. The nation is no longer exist".

Senator Sherman to congress, June 20 1918:
"We have to use the opportunity and capture Siberia. Siberia - it's a grain feild and feild for domestic animals as valuable as its mineral resources".

From Woodrow Wilson's note to state secretary Robert Lancing, November 20 1918:
"Russia must be devided to at least five parts: Finland, Baltic provinces, European Russia, Ukraine and Siberia"

I would like to see evdideance that the Entente did establish such camps.

Incidently, there had long been camps in Siberia (the Tsar liked to send people out to "count Trees"), that's where the 100,000 Czech Legion came from Siberia...they'd escaped from the camps there.

Just a single example. One of the survivors of such capms, doctor Marshavin wrote in his memoirs:
"Beaten, half-dead because of hunger, we were convoyed by British and Americans. They thrown us in 30 sq. meters chamber where already 50 peoples were held. They feed us very bad, many died because of starvation. We were forced to work hard. The workday started at 05:00 at last till 23:00. They used small groups (4 man per group) of prisoners instead of horses to move carts loaded by timber. There was no medical help at all. Because of cold, beating, starvation and 18-20 hours workday, 15-20 peoples die daily."

"Driven out" my fat white Texan hiney. We packed up and left because the War was over and we had a change of administration back home.

You apeared in Russia, when war between Russia and Germany was already over. Germany and Russia signed Brest's peace treaty at March 1918, a week later first British-American soldiers landed at Murmansk.
The only way to make Americans leave some place they occupy, is to kick their arses. Otherwise they will never leave, simple as that.
Your forces were driven out, actually you ran from Russia with tails between your legs.

[Lonestar]

I completley disagree with the "concentration camp" and "asses kicked" remarks, I find it more likely we were using Prision camps the Tsarist Regime had already built...or perhaps camps we had captured from red forces.

As for asses kicked...I find it more likely that with the war in Germany over and a new adminstration in the States (and, with an half-assed commmitment to begin with), we said "f--k it" and went home. We didn't run home with our tails between our legs, in fact, we haven't done that ever.

[David Floyd]

American forces were in Siberia for looting and for capturing it.
Senator Poindexter (sp?) "New York Times", June 8 1918:
" Russia is just a geography definition now, and never be anything else again. Her power of unity, organization and resurrection is gone forever. The nation is no longer exist".

Hmmm. Disturbingly similar to your justification for the invasion of Poland. Well, what's good for the goose, right?

[David Floyd]

Serb, as for your claims of American invasion forces...

The forces involved were small - elements of the 85th (Michigan National Guard) Division, and a division built around 2 regiments of the 8th Infantry Division and 2 regiments from the Philippines. A force of US Marines were also, IIRC, involved.

The 8th Division, commanded by Major General William Graves, had the mission of maintaining itself as an independent command, separate from any international force, and to assist in the withdrawal of 40,000 Czechs who had fought in Russia against Germany and A-H. The 8th Division (as well as the 85th) was also entrusted with protected supplies and other non-combat duties.

The 8th Division withdrew from Russia in 1920 (although US Marines remained behind on an island off Vladivostok until 1922, charged with protecting American property, etc.), after having fulfilled its mission, not as a result of military defeat. In fact, to my knowledge, neither the 8th or 85th Divisions were involved in any significant combat against Bolshevik forces at any time. Certainly, there were very few battle casualties (although the 85th did suffer from an influenza epidemic, so don't pull out those casualty numbers).

Further, the US did not even recognize the Bolshevik government, nor did any other nation in the world. The troops were there at the request of the White Russians, and, as you pointed out with regards to Poland in 1939, if you don't recognize that a government exists, then it isn't really an invasion, right?

Finally, if you want to point fingers, point at the British and other Allied powers. They openly supported the White Russians and actively engaged in suppressing Bolshevism in Russia. The US forces did not - they were there as part of an international coalition in the case of the 85th Division, and as an independent command in the case of the 8th Division, and both were charged with what amounted to non-combat duties, and the evacuation of 40,000 Czechs.

Save your bullshit for another thread, Serb.

[Serb]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Hmmm. Disturbingly similar to your justification for the invasion of Poland. Well, what's good for the goose, right?

Exactly, the only difference is that you concidered such aproach to be Ok, more than 20 years earlier than Soviets did.

[David Floyd]

So, then, this entire line of debate is irrelevant, because you don't see anything wrong with the US "intervention", right?

And by the way, just because the US thinks something is OK doesn't mean that I do. I wouldn't have sent troops to Russia in either a combat OR a non-combat role. Of course, I wouldn't have sent them to Europe to begin with, either

[David Floyd]

And by the way, that quote from Senator Poindexter sounds much like a Russian translation. Try finding a verbatim quote next time

[Serb]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Serb, as for your claims of American invasion forces...

The forces involved were small - elements of the 85th (Michigan National Guard) Division, and a division built around 2 regiments of the 8th Infantry Division and 2 regiments from the Philippines. A force of US Marines were also, IIRC, involved.

The 8th Division, commanded by Major General William Graves, had the mission of maintaining itself as an independent command, separate from any international force, and to assist in the withdrawal of 40,000 Czechs who had fought in Russia against Germany and A-H. The 8th Division (as well as the 85th) was also entrusted with protected supplies and other non-combat duties.

The 8th Division withdrew from Russia in 1920 (although US Marines remained behind on an island off Vladivostok until 1922, charged with protecting American property, etc.), after having fulfilled its mission, not as a result of military defeat. In fact, to my knowledge, neither the 8th or 85th Divisions were involved in any significant combat against Bolshevik forces at any time. Certainly, there were very few battle casualties (although the 85th did suffer from an influenza epidemic, so don't pull out those casualty numbers).

Further, the US did not even recognize the Bolshevik government, nor did any other nation in the world. The troops were there at the request of the White Russians, and, as you pointed out with regards to Poland in 1939, if you don't recognize that a government exists, then it isn't really an invasion, right?

Finally, if you want to point fingers, point at the British and other Allied powers. They openly supported the White Russians and actively engaged in suppressing Bolshevism in Russia. The US forces did not - they were there as part of an international coalition in the case of the 85th Division, and as an independent command in the case of the 8th Division, and both were charged with what amounted to non-combat duties, and the evacuation of 40,000 Czechs.

Save your bullshit for another thread, Serb.

Non-combat duties, my ass.
You've come here to plunder.
Your forces completely cleanesed occupied territories from any valuable goods. The material damage done by your forces operated in Archangelsk alone, was above 4 million pound sterlings.

At Autamn of 1918 at Northern part of Russia, American forces made an attempt to gain control over territories at south of town Shenkursk, however at January 24, Soviet forces counter-attacked, captured Shenkursk and cut American retreat route. On next day, Americans left all their heavy equipment and ran (with tails between their legs of course) to the north throught forests.
At April 1919, during offence of Finnish Olonetz's volonteer army, British-American forces made a new attempt to advace deeper in Russian territory and to gain full control over Murmansk's road. However at June they were defeated again.
At Far East American intervents were constantly under partisan's attacks.
So, save your BS for another thread. It's your growing casuality rate and whining of your liberal pussies (as always when someone is start to kicking your shining, freedom-loving, greedy imperialistic asses) at home, what forced you to retreat and abandon your plans towards Siberia.

[Serb]

Originally posted by David Floyd
So, then, this entire line of debate is irrelevant, because you don't see anything wrong with the US "intervention", right?

And by the way, just because the US thinks something is OK doesn't mean that I do. I wouldn't have sent troops to Russia in either a combat OR a non-combat role. Of course, I wouldn't have sent them to Europe to begin with, either

I see something wrong with American intervention.
I see something wrong with America to begin with.
And I see something VERY wrong with American hypocricy.

p.s. Aside 1939, Poindexter, Churchill and others were wrong about Russia. It was not dead, the nation still existed and Soviets kicked thier foreign, invading asses, while kicking asses of Whites.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Lonestar
I completley disagree with the "concentration camp" and "asses kicked" remarks, I find it more likely we were using Prision camps the Tsarist Regime had already built...or perhaps camps we had captured from red forces.

As for asses kicked...I find it more likely that with the war in Germany over and a new adminstration in the States (and, with an half-assed commmitment to begin with), we said "f--k it" and went home. We didn't run home with our tails between our legs, in fact, we haven't done that ever .

Yeah... right...

[David Floyd]

At Autamn of 1918 at Northern part of Russia, American forces made an attempt to gain control over territories at south of town Shenkursk, however at January 24, Soviet forces counter-attacked, captured Shenkursk and cut American retreat route. On next day, Americans left all their heavy equipment and ran (with tails between their legs of course) to the north throught forests.
At April 1919, during offence of Finnish Olonetz's volonteer army, British-American forces made a new attempt to advace deeper in Russian territory and to gain full control over Murmansk's road. However at June they were defeated again.

Well let's see. You must be referring to the 85th Division, which was stationed at Archangelsk, not Murmansk. I am about 99% certain that the entire division, or anything close to it, did not attack anywhere near Murmansk. Now, I don't know where the "Murmansk Road" was (and I doubt that's the name for it anyway) but I DO know where Murmansk is, I DO know where Archangelsk is, and I DO know where the 85th Division was stationed (hint: not in Murmansk).

That said, it's entirely possible that there were a few US troops mixed in with British and other allied forces.

However, that doesn't really negate my point. I'm sure that US forces, at some point, participated in combat in Russia. This combat, however, was not very extensive, and relative to the rest of the international powers, even less extensive.

Now, let me see some unbiased documentation detailing these skirmishes, and I want said documentation to include numbers of US troops involved.

So, save your BS for another thread. It's your growing casuality rate and whining of your liberal pussies (as always when someone is start to kicking your shining, freedom-loving, greedy imperialistic asses) at home, what forced you to retreat and abandon your plans towards Siberia.

First of all, the US took 120,000+ combat deaths in WW1, which was approximately 18 times more than the entire US contingent in Russia. Casualties from combat were virtually non-existent, ESPECIALLY when viewed in light of WW1.

That said, you would be correct in saying that large scale US intervention would have been unpopular at home. While a case can be made that elements of the US government WANTED large scale intervention, large scale intervention was politically impossible. Same for large scale combat.

As for "liberal pussies", it was the "liberal pussies" who fought WW1, and sent troops to Russia to begin with. You know, Woodrow Wilson and all that?

Come on Serb. If you want to point fingers, point them at the Japanese and British. The Japanese supplied BY FAR the most troops, and the British supplied BY FAR the most money. Hell, even the French - a French general was in charge of the expeditionary force in Siberia, IIRC.

Relative to the other powers, US intervention was on a very low scale, and participation of US forces in serious combat was on an even lower scale (yes, I'm sure Bolshevik partisans - terrorists? - and US troops had a few firefights).

But we haven't even gotten to the interesting part yet.

I see something wrong with American intervention.

So you see something wrong with the American intervention in Russia, but you DON'T see anything wrong with the Soviet invasion of Poland? Or, for that matter, Finland? Hell, if you want to claim that Poland didn't have a government, you can't say the same for Finland. And in any case, my counterargument is simply:

1)The Whites, who controlled the only Russian government recognized by ANY NATION IN THE WORLD, asked for assistance,
2)If the Whites weren't the legitimate government, then there WAS no legitimate government, and by that argument, the entire Allied intervention was just as valid as the Soviet invasion of Poland.

Much as you'd like to, Serb, you can't have it both ways.

[David Floyd]

Serb, by the way, it's simply undeniable that the main US contingent, the 8th Division, was originally sent to Russia for the singular purpose of evacuating the Czech Legion, not for the purpose of "plunder 'n conquest" - although, for the record, the Czech Legion was doing a pretty good job on its own of taking over the Trans-Siberian Railroad

[Serb]

Originally posted by David Floyd

So you see something wrong with the American intervention in Russia, but you DON'T see anything wrong with the Soviet invasion of Poland? Or, for that matter, Finland? Hell, if you want to claim that Poland didn't have a government, you can't say the same for Finland. And in any case, my counterargument is simply:

Who said I don't see anything wrong with Soviet invasion of Poland or Finland?
I see something wrong there, but much less than with foreign intervention in Russian civil war.
Soviets obviuosly backstabed Poland (the country they considered their enemy number 1 in 30's) to return the lands Poles stole from Soviets in 1920-1921. It doesn't look very honest, but who cares about honor in politic? Politic is dirty game and Soviets weren't an exception ( and US of A, UK or France too).

1)The Whites, who controlled the only Russian government recognized by ANY NATION IN THE WORLD, asked for assistance,

What government?
You mean one of the leaders of gangs of Whites asked you too came here in Russia to plunder it? You mean Kolchak or anyone else send an invitation to American forces like:
"Hey Woody, could you please send some of your boys to steal something from here, to put some redasses in concentration camps and to finally devide Russia to at least five parts. Just think about it, we will have five small Russias, instead of one big.
p.s. and you can take Trans-Siberian railroad and Siberia, we don't need it anyway"

2)If the Whites weren't the legitimate government, then there WAS no legitimate government, and by that argument, the entire Allied intervention was just as valid as the Soviet invasion of Poland.

You forget that Soviets invaded to return the lands that Poles stole from them in 1921. Which American lands Russians stolen? When the hell Siberia was an American land?