Russia: No CFE treaty for you!

[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 Bull****. 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 bull****. 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 Bull****. 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 bull**** 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 bull**** 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?