Alleged usage of chemical weapons in Russia by the British

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
Locked
David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

#226

Post by David Thompson » 16 Oct 2007, 20:58

For readers interested in learning more on the issue of whether the bolshevik government was the successor sovereign to the Russian Provisional Government of 1917 or a new state, see the wikipedia overviews at:

Russian Provisional Government
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Pr ... Government
Russian Constituent Assembly election, 1917
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Co ... on%2C_1917
Russian Constituent Assembly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Co ... t_Assembly
October Revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Revolution

See also the Soviet theory of state power, as contrasted with that of the Provisional Government of 1917, in:

(1) The Bolsheviks Must Assume Power: A Letter to the Central Committee and the Petrograd And Moscow Committees Of The R.S.D.L.P.(B.)
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/w ... sep/14.htm
The Bolsheviks, having obtained a majority in the Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies of both capitals, can and must take state power into their own hands.

They can because the active majority of revolutionary elements in the two chief cities is large enough to carry the people with it, to overcome the opponent’s resistance, to smash him, and to gain and retain power. For the Bolsheviks, by immediately proposing a democratic peace, by immediately giving the land to the peasants and by reestablishing the democratic institutions and liberties which have been mangled and shattered by Kerensky, will form a government which nobody will be able to overthrow.


The majority of the people are on our side. This was proved by the long and painful course of events from May 6 to August 31 and to September 12.[2] The majority gained in the Soviets of the metropolitan cities resulted from the people coming over to our side. The wavering of the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks and the increase in the number of internationalists within their ranks prove the same thing.

The Democratic Conference represents not a majority of the revolutionary people, but only the compromising upper strata of the petty bourgeoisie. We must not be deceived by the election figures: elections prove nothing. Compare the elections to the city councils of Petrograd and Moscow with the elections to the Soviets. Compare the elections in Moscow with the Moscow strike of August 12. Those are objective facts regarding that majority of revolutionary elements that are leading the people.

The Democratic Conference is deceiving the peasants; it is giving them neither peace nor land.

A Bolshevik government alone will satisfy the demands of the peasants.
(2) Reply To Questions From Peasants
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/w ... ov/05b.htm
In reply to numerous questions from peasants, be it known that all power in the country henceforth belongs wholly to the Soviets of Workers’, Soldiers’ and Peasants’ Deputies. The workers’ revolution has won in Petrograd and Moscow and is winning everywhere else in Russia. The Workers’ and Peasants’ Government ensures the alliance of the mass of the peasants, the poor peasants, the majority of the peasants, with the workers against the landowners, against the capitalists.

Hence the Soviets of Peasants’ Deputies, primarily the uyezd and then the gubernia Soviets, are from now on, pending the convocation of the Constituent Assembly, vested with full governmental authority in their localities. Landed proprietorship has been abolished by the Second All-Russia Congress of Soviets. A decree on land has already been issued by the present Provisional Workers’ and Peasants’ Government. In conformity with this decree all landed estates pass over wholly to the Soviets of Peasants’ Deputies.

The volost land committees must at once take over the administration of all landed estates, instituting the strictest accounting, maintaining perfect order and safeguarding with utmost strictness the former property of the landowners, which henceforth is the property of the whole people and which the people themselves must therefore protect.

All rulings of the volost land committees issued with the approval of the uyezd Soviets of peasants’ Deputies have the force of law and must be carried out unconditionally and without delay.

The Workers’ and Peasants’ Government appointed by the Second All-Russia. Congress of Soviets has been named the Council of People’s Commissars.

The Council of People’s Commissars calls upon the peasants to take all power into their own hands in their respective localities. The workers give their full, undivided, all-round support to the peasants, are getting the production of machines and implements started, and ask the peasants to help by delivering grain.


V. Ulyanov (Lenin),
Chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars
Petrograd. November 5, 1917
(3) Theses On The Constituent Assembly
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/w ... ec/11a.htm
1. The demand for the convocation of a Constituent Assembly was a perfectly legitimate part of the programme of revolutionary Social-Democracy, because in a bourgeois republic the Constituent Assembly represents the highest form of democracy and because, in setting up a Pre-parliament, the imperialist republic headed by Kerensky was preparing to rig the elections and violate democracy in a number of ways.

2. While demanding the convocation of a Constituent Assembly, revolutionary Social-Democracy has ever since the beginning of the Revolution of 1917 repeatedly emphasised that a republic of Soviets is a higher form of democracy than the usual bourgeois republic with a Constituent Assembly.

3. For the transition from the bourgeois to the socialist system, for the dictatorship of the proletariat, the Republic of Soviets (of Workers’, Soldiers’ and Peasants’ Deputies) is not only a higher type of democratic institution (as compared with the usual bourgeois republic crowned by a Constituent Assembly), but is the only form capable of securing the most painless transition to socialism.

4. The convocation of the Constituent Assembly in our revolution on the basis of lists submitted in the middle of October 1917 is taking place under conditions which preclude the possibility of the elections to this Constituent Assembly faithfully expressing the will of the people in general and of the working people in particular.

5. Firstly, proportional representation results in a faithful expression of the will of the people only when the party lists correspond to the real division of the people according to the party groupings reflected in those lists. In our case, however, as is well known, the party which from May to October had the largest number of followers among the people, and especially among the peasants—the Socialist-Revolutionary Party—came out with united election lists for the Constituent Assembly in the middle of October 1917, but split in November 1917, after the elections and before the Assembly met.

For this reason, there is not, nor can there be, even a formal correspondence between the will of the mass of the electors and the composition of the elected Constituent Assembly.

6. Secondly, a still more important, not a formal nor legal, but a socio-economic, class source of the discrepancy between the will of the people, and especially the will of the working classes, on the one hand, and the composition of the Constituent Assembly, on the other, is due to the elections to the Constituent Assembly having taken place at a time when the overwhelming majority of tile people could not yet know the full scope and significance of the October, Soviet, proletarian-peasant revolution, which began on October 25, 1917, i.e., after the lists of candidates for the Constituent Assembly had been submitted.

7. The October Revolution is passing through successive stages of development before our very eyes, winning power for the Soviets and wresting political rule from the bourgeoisie and transferring it to the proletariat and poor peasantry.

8. It began with the victory of October 24-25 in the capital, when the Second All-Russia Congress of Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies, the vanguard of the proletarians and of the most politically active section of the peasants, gave a majority to the Bo!shevik Party and put it in power.

9. Then, in the course of November and December, the revolution spread to the entire army and peasants, this being expressed first of all in the deposition of the old leading bodies (army committees, gubernia peasant committees, the Central Executive Committee of the All-Russia Soviet of Peasants’ Deputies, etc.)—which expressed the superseded, compromising phase of the revolution, its bourgeois, and not proletarian, phase, and which were therefore inevitably bound to disappear under the pressure of the deeper and broader masses of the people—and in the election of new leading bodies in their place.

10. This mighty movement of the exploited people for the reconstruction of the leading bodies of their organisations has not ended even now, in the middle of December 1917, and the Railwaymen’s Congress, which is still in session, represents one of its stages.

11. Consequently, the grouping of the class forces in Russia in the course of their class struggle is in fact assuming, in November and December 1917, a form differing in principle from the one that the party lists of candidates for the Constituent Assembly compiled in the middle of October 1917 could have reflected.

12. Recent events in the Ukraine (partly also in Finland and Byelorussia, as well as in the Caucasus) point similarly to a regrouping of class forces which is taking place in the process of the struggle between the bourgeois nationalism of the Ukrainian Bada, the Finnish Diet, etc., on the one hand, and Soviet power, the proletarian-peasant revolution in each of these national republics, on the other.

13. Lastly, the civil war which was started by the Cadet-Kaledin counter-revolutionary revolt against the Soviet authorities, against the workers’ and peasants’ government, has finally brought the class struggle to a head and has destroyed every chance of setting in a formally democratic way the very acute problems with which history has confronted the peoples of Russia, and in the first place her working class and peasants.

14. Only the complete victory of the workers and peasants over the bourgeois and landowner revolt (as expressed in the Cadet-Kaledin movement), only the ruthless military suppression of this revolt of the slave-owners can really safeguard the proletarian-peasant revolution. The course of events and the development of the class struggle in the revolution have resulted in the slogan "All Power to the Constituent Assembly!"—which disregards the gains of the workers’ and peasants’ revolution, which disregards Soviet power, which disregards the decisions of the Second All-Russia Congress of Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies, of the Second All-Russia Congress of Peasants’ Deputies, etc.—becoming in fact the slogan of the Cadets and the Kaledinites and of their helpers. The entire people are now fully aware that the Constituent Assembly, if it parted ways with Soviet power, would inevitably be doomed to political extinction.

15. One of the particularly acute problems of national life is the problem of peace. A really revolutionary struggle for peace began in Russia only after the victory of the October 25 Revolution, and the first fruits of this victory were the publication of the secret treaties, the conclusion of an armistice, and the beginning of open negotiations for a general peace without annexations and indemnities.

Only now are the broad sections of the people actually receiving a chance fully and openly to observe the policy of revolutionary struggle for peace and to study its results.

At the time of the elections to the Constituent Assembly the mass of the people had no such chance.


It is clear that the discrepancy between the composition of the elected Constituent Assembly and the actual will of the people on the question of terminating the war is inevitable from this point of view too.

16. The result of all the above-mentioned circumstances taken together is that the Constituent Assembly, summoned on the basis of the election lists of the parties existing prior to the proletarian-peasant revolution under the rule of the bourgeoisie, must inevitably clash with the will and interests of the working and exploited classes which on October 25 began the socialist revolution against the bourgeoisie. Naturally, the interests of this revolution stand higher than the formal rights of the Constituent Assembly, even if those formal rights were not undermined by the absence in the law on the Constituent Assembly of a provision recognising the right of the people to recall their deputies and hold new elections at any moment.

17. Every direct or indirect attempt to consider the question of the Constituent Assembly from a formal, legal point of view, within the framework of ordinary bourgeois democracy and disregarding the class struggle and civil war, would be a betrayal of the proletariat’s cause, and the adoption of the bourgeois standpoint. The revolutionary Social-Democrats are duty bound to warn all and sundry against this error, into which a few Bolshevik leaders, who have been unable to appreciate the significance of the October uprising and the tasks of the dictatorship of the proletariat, have strayed.

18. The only chance of securing a painless solution to the crisis which has arisen owing to the divergence between the elections to the Constituent Assembly, on the one hand, and the will of the people and the interests of the working and exploited classes, on the other, is for the people to exercise as broadly and as rapidly as possible the right to elect the members of the Constituent Assembly anew, and for the Constituent Assembly to accept the law of the Central Executive Committee on these new elections, to proclaim that it unreservedly recognises Soviet power, the Soviet revolution, and its policy on the questions of peace, the land and workers’ control, and to resolutely join the camp of the enemies of the Cadet-Kaledin counter-revolution.

19. Unless these conditions are fulfilled, the crisis in connection with the Constituent Assembly can be settled only in a revolutionary way, by Soviet power adopting the most energetic, speedy, firm and determined revolutionary measures against the Cadet-Kaledin counter-revolution, no matter behind what slogans and institutions (even participation in the Constituent Assembly) this counter-revolution may hide. Any attempt to tie the hands of Soviet power in this struggle would be tantamount to aiding counterrevolution.
Last edited by David Thompson on 16 Oct 2007, 21:31, edited 1 time in total.

Sergey
Banned
Posts: 931
Joined: 05 May 2006, 15:23
Location: Moscow

#227

Post by Sergey » 16 Oct 2007, 21:26

David Thompson wrote:For readers interested in learning more on the issue of whether the bolshevik government was the successor sovereign to the Russian Provisional Government of 1917, see the wikipedia overviews at:

Russian Provisional Government
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Pr ... Government
Russian Constituent Assembly election, 1917
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Co ... on%2C_1917
Russian Constituent Assembly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Co ... t_Assembly
October Revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Revolution
Thank you mr.Thompson. I would like to highlight some quotes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Revolution
The October Revolution in Russia, also known as the Bolshevik Revolution, is a coup d'état traditionally dated to October 24, 1917 (November 7, N.S.).
...
Initially, the event was referred to as the October uprising ... With time, the term October Revolution came into use, the event seen as of major importance.
...
the revolt in Petrograd was bloodless...
...
Later official accounts of the revolution from the Soviet Union would depict the events in October as being far more dramatic than they actually had been. (See firsthand account by British General Knox). Official films made much later showed a huge storming of the Winter Palace and fierce fighting, but in reality the Bolshevik insurgents faced little or no opposition and were practically able to just walk into the building and take it over.
...
The Second Congress of Soviets consisted of 650 elected delegates; 390 were Bolshevik and nearly a hundred were Left Socialist-Revolutionaries, who also supported the overthrow of the Kerensky Government.
It should be noted that the prime minister Kerensky himself belonged to Socialist-Revolutionaries party.


User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

#228

Post by phylo_roadking » 16 Oct 2007, 21:53

Sergey, the British were free by the absence of the rules of war to do as they did. Exactly the case David and I are talking about. IF there had been a "war" as defined by Hague - and between Contracting Powers - then they wouldnt have been free to shoot prisoners - i.e. they'd have been legally "POWs" and protected. Here they could be killed BECAUSE they weren't protected.

It may not be right - but it wasn't a Hague-defined "war crime".

As seen in other threads, this absence of protection also applied on other ocasions during the 20th century

More evidence supporting David and I, thanks for that.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

#229

Post by David Thompson » 17 Oct 2007, 02:56

Sergey -- You wrote: (1)
Thank you mr.Thompson. I would like to highlight some quotes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Revolution
The October Revolution in Russia, also known as the Bolshevik Revolution, is a coup d'état traditionally dated to October 24, 1917 (November 7, N.S.).
...
Initially, the event was referred to as the October uprising ... With time, the term October Revolution came into use, the event seen as of major importance.
...
the revolt in Petrograd was bloodless...
...
Later official accounts of the revolution from the Soviet Union would depict the events in October as being far more dramatic than they actually had been. (See firsthand account by British General Knox). Official films made much later showed a huge storming of the Winter Palace and fierce fighting, but in reality the Bolshevik insurgents faced little or no opposition and were practically able to just walk into the building and take it over.
...
The Second Congress of Soviets consisted of 650 elected delegates; 390 were Bolshevik and nearly a hundred were Left Socialist-Revolutionaries, who also supported the overthrow of the Kerensky Government.
It should be noted that the prime minister Kerensky himself belonged to Socialist-Revolutionaries party.
Given that the issue is whether or not the USSR was a new state, as opposed to the legimate successor of the Russian Provisional government of 1917, so what?


(2)
Sunday, July 27th. Up at 8 oc. At 9-30 a.m. 8 Ruskies (revolters) including two sergeants get shot on the edge of the wood. Our chaps escort some B. over to dig their graves. The diggers got the wind up thinking they are digging their own graves… After dinner have a sleep for a couple of hours and after tea I and Jacks go down to the rifle range and do a bit of shooting. Go to pictures at 8 oc.
So Russian POWs were executed - just another war crime.
Or just another piece of poster agitprop. How do you know this is a war crime? Since you give no sources for the applicable war crimes law, how can our readers confirm your characterization? Did you assume, without bothering to prove it, that the captives were legal belligerents? If so, based on what? And what, if anything, does this have to do with the topic we're discussing -- the use of poison gas in 1919?

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

#230

Post by phylo_roadking » 17 Oct 2007, 03:21

David, that passage would indicate to me regular soldiers of a High Contracting Power acting in a combat zone where the Hague Rules on Land Warfare were not in place to protect captives. The British Army actually wasn't in the habit of summary battlefield executions of legitimate and protected opponents. So logic says they were NOT protected. Like the Norway 1940 situation.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

#231

Post by David Thompson » 17 Oct 2007, 03:44

phylo -- I'm starting at an earlier stage than your analysis. I'd like Sergey to explain how the diary entry establishes a war crime at all, without reference to whether or not the 1907 Hague IV convention applied to the Russian civil war. The diary entry does not say whether or not there was a trial, nor does it suggest that the captives were uniformed POWs. These are prerequisites for a claim of war crimes.

I am starting to think that the most useful purpose of this thread is for the exposure of logical fallacies, since there hasn't been any shortage of them here. The all-too-obvious cultural gap may be more the result of an educational shortfall than anything else.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

#232

Post by phylo_roadking » 17 Oct 2007, 04:25

I think as stated a few posts up this page that there's too much of an intentional blindness to even the most simple and obvious of counter arguements. There's BEEN a lot of education for Sergey here in this thread alone - and it doesn't seem to be being taken on board, no matter how simple and elemental.

Sergey
Banned
Posts: 931
Joined: 05 May 2006, 15:23
Location: Moscow

#233

Post by Sergey » 17 Oct 2007, 05:36

David Thompson wrote:phylo -- I'm starting at an earlier stage than your analysis. I'd like Sergey to explain how the diary entry establishes a war crime at all, without reference to whether or not the 1907 Hague IV convention applied to the Russian civil war. The diary entry does not say whether or not there was a trial, nor does it suggest that the captives were uniformed POWs. These are prerequisites for a claim of war crimes.

I am starting to think that the most useful purpose of this thread is for the exposure of logical fallacies, since there hasn't been any shortage of them here. The all-too-obvious cultural gap may be more the result of an educational shortfall than anything else.
You are quite right mr.Thompson, the diary doesn't contain sufficient information about causes why namely 8 Russians (including two sergeants) were shot by the British. So I corrected my previous post inserting a word 'allegedly'.

As captured Bolsheviks dug the graves then likely the execuded were revolters White Russian allies of the British.

I quoted the diary to demonstrate our friend Phylo_roadking that military campaign in the Russian North was indeed a war with battles, significant number of killed, executed soldiers and so on.

Mr.Thompson, you quoted mr.Lenin and his vews were indeed radical but rival Socialist-Revolutionary Party was also radical party that widely used terror.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist- ... nary_Party
Terrorism, both political and agrarian, was central to the PSR's strategy for revolution. The "SR Combat Organization", responsible for assassinating government officials, was led by Gershuni and operated separately from the party so as not to jeopardize its political actions. SRCO agents assassinated two Ministers of the Interior, Dmitry Sipyagin and V. K. von Plehve, Grand Duke Sergei Aleksandrovich, the Governor of Ufa N. M. Bogdanovich, and many other high ranking officials.
Provisional government was revolutionary government led by Socialist-Revolutioner Kerensky. For example it ordered to arrest the former tsar Nikolay the 2d and his family. Namely the Provisional government sent the royal family to the remote Siberian city of Tobolsk (btw, I have been to the city).

So what has happened 7 November 1917 in Petrograd? A government led by a representative of Socialist-Revolutionary Party (mr.Kerensky) was substituted by the coalition government led by mr.Lenin that included Bolsheviks and representatives of Socialist-Revolutionary Party.

User avatar
Penn44
Banned
Posts: 4214
Joined: 26 Jun 2003, 07:25
Location: US

#234

Post by Penn44 » 17 Oct 2007, 08:17

The above short history of the Russian Revolution and the parties involved is not establishing a war crime.

Penn44

.

Sergey
Banned
Posts: 931
Joined: 05 May 2006, 15:23
Location: Moscow

#235

Post by Sergey » 17 Oct 2007, 13:15

David Thompson wrote:Sergey -- You wrote: (1)
Thank you mr.Thompson. I would like to highlight some quotes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Revolution
The October Revolution in Russia, also known as the Bolshevik Revolution, is a coup d'état traditionally dated to October 24, 1917 (November 7, N.S.).
...
Initially, the event was referred to as the October uprising ... With time, the term October Revolution came into use, the event seen as of major importance.
...
the revolt in Petrograd was bloodless...
...
Later official accounts of the revolution from the Soviet Union would depict the events in October as being far more dramatic than they actually had been. (See firsthand account by British General Knox). Official films made much later showed a huge storming of the Winter Palace and fierce fighting, but in reality the Bolshevik insurgents faced little or no opposition and were practically able to just walk into the building and take it over.
...
The Second Congress of Soviets consisted of 650 elected delegates; 390 were Bolshevik and nearly a hundred were Left Socialist-Revolutionaries, who also supported the overthrow of the Kerensky Government.
It should be noted that the prime minister Kerensky himself belonged to Socialist-Revolutionaries party.
Given that the issue is whether or not the USSR was a new state, as opposed to the legimate successor of the Russian Provisional government of 1917, so what?
Mr.Thompson, governments and states are different matters. A state can not be a successor of a government.

I see it this way:

Before March 1917 there was a state - Russian empire with imperial government. It ceased to exist and Russian republic emerged with revolutionary Provisional republican government. In November 1917 new revolutionary republican government was established but Russian republic continued its existence. In 1922 the Soviet union (a union of soviet republics) was established. It was a new state where Russian republic was a member of the union.

New state was not created 7 November 1917. It is my main point.

As for changes in political course then it is not something special. For example After WW2 new British Labour government nationalised (that would be unthinkable with Conservative government) big parts of British industry including railways, British bank and so on. Relatively recently Conservative government privatised British railways (and it was full fiasko).

Socialist-Revolutionaries were strongly for 'revolutionary war with German imperialism' and the majority of Bolsheviks were also for the war. But Lenin understood that continuation of the war would lead to the catastrophe. He insisted on unfair, unilateral peace and it appeared that mr.Lenin was right.

So I believe that changes (even significant) in political course are not sufficient ground to demand confirmation of previously signed international treaties from a new government.

Sergey
Banned
Posts: 931
Joined: 05 May 2006, 15:23
Location: Moscow

#236

Post by Sergey » 17 Oct 2007, 13:33

Penn44 wrote:The above short history of the Russian Revolution and the parties involved is not establishing a war crime.

Penn44

.
Sir, As I understand our friend mr.Thompson agreed that the Hague 1907 convention was in force for Russian republic at least until 7 November 1917. Apparently mr.Thompson believes that after this date (7 November 1917) the convention was not in force for Russia. So he tries to explain his point.

Personally I think that the convention was in force for Russia at least until 1922 then the Soviet union was created.

Regards!

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

#237

Post by phylo_roadking » 17 Oct 2007, 15:38

Apparently mr.Thompson believes that after this date (7 November 1917) the convention was not in force for Russia. So he tries to explain his point
....and has successed admirably. Demolishing ALL your arguments, along with myself, repeatedly.

The action in Northern Russia was not a "war" with the British - not all actions that include battles, shootings, bombings, executions etc are wars. Lenin threatened war but did NOT declare it in the correct way to make the Hague Convention apply - as indicated in the words of the Convention itself. So I'm afraid even the actions of V.I. Lenin contradict you, Sergey.

Sergey
Banned
Posts: 931
Joined: 05 May 2006, 15:23
Location: Moscow

#238

Post by Sergey » 17 Oct 2007, 18:21

http://www.guardian.co.uk/fromthearchiv ... 65,00.html
There are two courses open to us. One is to rescue our men. The other course is to vapour about rescuing men, and to use their predicament as a politician's excuse for military adventures, the end being a long and desperate war against Bolshevik Russia.

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

#239

Post by phylo_roadking » 17 Oct 2007, 19:27

Er....- thats a newspaper opinion column from a paper in a FREE Press, HARDLY a government statement - unlike Pravda. And read exactly what it says - Bring The Boys Back Home from a "Military adventure" in North Russia....or we COULD end up in a war.

In OTHER words - not even the jingoistic British press thought it was a war. YET. Thanks for that AGAIN Sergey! Even MORE proof it wasn't a war. Why do you keep on doing that???

Sergey
Banned
Posts: 931
Joined: 05 May 2006, 15:23
Location: Moscow

#240

Post by Sergey » 18 Oct 2007, 13:53

If it was not a war then why...

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-fr ... 946195D6CF
May 18.- British sink Bolshevist destroyer in Gulf of Finland.
...
June 18.- British submarine sinks Bolshevist cruiser Oleg off Kronstadt
Such actions are acts of war anyway.

http://www.naval-history.net/WW1AreaBaltic1919.htm
WAR IN RUSSIAN BOLSHEVIK WATERS

1919
...
July

Arctic Waters

3rd - British minesweeper 'FANDANGO' (1918, 290t, 1-6pdr). In operations on the Dvina River, 'Fandango', sister ship of 'Sword Dance' lost a few days before, is also mined and sunk.
...
September
...
Arctic Waters

16th - British monitors 'M-25' and 'M-27' (both 1915, 540t, 1-9.2in). By now the Allies have decided to withdraw from northern Russia. As the evacuation gets underway, 'M-25' and 'M-27' of the White Sea Squadron have to be abandoned when the Dvina River water level falls. They are blown up to prevent capture by the Bolsheviks.
...
SUMMARY OF BRITISH LOSSES

In April 1918, seven submarines had to be scuttled. Between December 1918 and September 1919 - just nine months - British losses amounted to:

1 light cruiser
2 destroyers
2 small monitors
1 submarine
4 minesweepers
3 coastal motor boats

Locked

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”