Reasons for Allied intervention in Russian civil war

Discussions on all aspects of the USSR, from the Russian Civil War till the end of the Great Patriotic War and the war against Japan. Hosted by Art.
User avatar
Steen Ammentorp
Member
Posts: 3269
Joined: 13 Mar 2002, 13:48
Location: Denmark
Contact:

Reasons for Allied intervention in Russian civil war

#1

Post by Steen Ammentorp » 12 Sep 2005, 20:58

Split from this thread http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=85366
Karman wrote: As for the motives of the Allied intervention during the Civil War. They were simple and geopolitical to wit: extermination of Russia as a world power in Europe. Though the genocide was not officially proclaimed but it followed as the consequence of the implementation of the plan.
Hi Karmen,

Though this may sound a bit harsh I find your statements absurd to say the least and completely unfounded in reality. While I have no problem accepting that the Allied intervention was founded in nationalistic and egotistical reasons I have never encountered this master plan that you picture here. Could you please elaborate on this?

Kind Regards
Steen Ammentorp
The Generals of World War II

User avatar
RCW Mark
Member
Posts: 396
Joined: 08 Oct 2004, 21:04
Location: New Zealand

#2

Post by RCW Mark » 13 Sep 2005, 09:31

The statement is rubbish as applied to the greater Allied Powers. The French (the one I have read up on the most) sent troops primarily to try and recoup the money they had invested in Russia -- which the Bolsheviks cancelled outright. If Lenin had agreed to pay back French investors for nationalised property, the French would probably have left it at that. They would still have set up their "cordon sanitaire" (of Poland, Romania, Latvia, Estonia) to prevent the spread of Bolshevism, but intervention itself would have gone.

Anyway, the statement is also at odds with the Allies' insistence on following the "White" line of a single, unified Russia, shorn only of Poland and Finland. If the Allies had been interested in trying to break up Russia they would have backed all the separatist movements, especially the Ukraine. Instead they poured money and supplies into Kolchak, Denikin and Judenich, all of whom were setting out to restore the Russian Empire to its maximum extent possible. If anything the main Allies actively set out to restore Russia to its previous size and position. It was only after the failure of the Whites that they set out to trim it -- but that was an anti-Bolshevik policy, not an anti-Russian one.

On the contrast, the Japanese did set out to actively and deliberately cause the maximum damage possible to Russia. The Poles didn't do so quite as actively, but seem to have been quite happy for Russia to be cut up into little pieces. It is noticeable that these powers backed parties that were opposed to both the main Reds and the main Whites (and therefore were quite at odds with the other Western powers).

To lump all the "interventionists" together as one unified blob is an old Soviet fable. Any statement that treats them as one unit is basically automatically wrong, so different were their aims and methods.

One should also bear in mind that immediately following the Civil War the Americans sent an enormous amount of supplies to Russia to feed its population, in the grip of a war-induced famine. The US Red Cross saved millions from death -- so much for the Allies wanting to kill off Russia. Stalin's reward to them was to write it out of Russia's history books, so that nowadays I don't imagine many even know that it happened.

Mark


Karman
Member
Posts: 744
Joined: 23 Aug 2004, 11:39
Location: Russia

Re: Reasons for Allied intervention in Russian civil war

#3

Post by Karman » 13 Sep 2005, 11:50

Steen Ammentorp wrote:Split from this thread http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=85366
Karman wrote: As for the motives of the Allied intervention during the Civil War. They were simple and geopolitical to wit: extermination of Russia as a world power in Europe. Though the genocide was not officially proclaimed but it followed as the consequence of the implementation of the plan.
Hi Karmen,

Though this may sound a bit harsh I find your statements absurd to say the least and completely unfounded in reality. While I have no problem accepting that the Allied intervention was founded in nationalistic and egotistical reasons I have never encountered this master plan that you picture here. Could you please elaborate on this?

Kind Regards
Steen Ammentorp
The Generals of World War II
Hi Steen Ammentrop:
First, there is no problem in sounding harsh. A good portion of harsh gingers up the conversation imho.
As for the plans of Allies with regard to Russia and her future after the WW1. I would not dare to claim that they had always been the same and meant partition and conquer of the country. First it was a fair play to a reasonable extent when all players were selfish and egoistic. Though even in the beginning of the WW1 I think that the interference of the Wetern Allies into Russian domestic problems and support of "democratic polititians" and members of the State Duma was not loyal to their Monarchic Ally.

Moreover I would not say that the plans of Entente were the same and constituted a unified position towards the subject. The interests of all countries involved were different and varied in the course of time depending on strenghtenning or weakenning of positions of other players.

Officially the Brest-Litovsk Peace Treaty signed by Bolsheviks proved their betrayal of the Allien interests and thus excluded themselves from the Entente. But on December 3, 1917 according to the verbatim of the Military Committee in London the decision on organization of separation of Southern Russia was taken. The British Ambassador in Russia Beukenen received the instruction to finance separatist movements in Ukrain and among Cossacks.

I understand that my understanding of Russian territory and your one may not match. For me both Ukraine, Georgia and Baltic States were part of the Russian State. For you they could had the right for political self-determination even before that was approved by a legitimate Russian govt. That is why I want to point out that Cossacks were and are ethnic Russians and in addition to them the proposed Southern State should had included a huge part of Russian lands.

France recognized the unauthorized by the central Russian Govt the Ukrainian State proclaimed by a Rada in December 1917 already when Bolsheviks did not sign any peace treaty with Germans yet. So the plans on partition of the Russian State started to get implemented.

Anyway I would like to discuss in this thread the Allien plans to organize separatist puppet states on the territory enhabited by ethnic Russians.

The first Allied forces landed on the Russian territory in December 1917. Those were Japanese who occupied Vladivostok. Then Britts landed in Murmansk, then Archangelsk was captured. Japanese intentions were always clear and straight to wit: they planned to occupy the whole Siberia till the Urals. Neither French nor British nor American governemnts were ready to give such a prize to Japan but they did not have force to resist. And British govermnent recognized the Japanese rights on occupation of Siberia. As Sir William Wiseman advised to American colonel Hause (spell?). Only President Wilson opposed the occupatuion of Siberia by Japan.

The farther in, the deeper. In July 1918 Americans decided to start the intervention into Russia together with Japanese. According to their agreements the intervention corpses of both countries should be limited to 7,000 people each. In the end of July British foreign minister Lord Balfur (?) asked president Willson to permit the Japanese to increase their military involvance into Siberia ten times. Lloyd George appointed Charls Eliot the supreme British commissar in Siberia.

Britts organized a separatrist puppet government in Archangelsk and tried to capture the territory in the range outlined by Archangelsk, Vologda and Viatka westablishing control over the Northern Urals and two warm-water-seaports (Archangelsk nd Murmansk). Britts started to mint own currency on that territory.
Japanese increased their military contingent ten times and reached 70,000 people to colonize Siberia.

And all those actions including capturing of ports and seizure of territories, transportation of military troops were performed on the basis of approval of local unauthorized puppet governments established and picked up by mighty "Allies".

The book I refer to is: Utkin A.I. "Pervaya Mirovaya Voyna". Moscow Algoritm 2001.

Regards
Last edited by Karman on 13 Sep 2005, 14:33, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Steen Ammentorp
Member
Posts: 3269
Joined: 13 Mar 2002, 13:48
Location: Denmark
Contact:

#4

Post by Steen Ammentorp » 13 Sep 2005, 17:56

An off topic post by Molobo and several follow-ups on that post were removed. This thread is about the Allied intervention in RCW. Stay on topic!! Further off topic posts will be removed without notification.

/Steen Ammentorp

Molobo
Banned
Posts: 629
Joined: 14 Feb 2005, 15:20
Location: Poland

#5

Post by Molobo » 13 Sep 2005, 18:06

Anyway I would like to discuss in this thread the Allien plans to organize separatist puppet states on the territory enhabited by ethnic Russians.
Could you provide a map of distribution of ethnic groups both in Russian Empire and in Russia, including the percantages of where Russian population was in majority ?

Karman
Member
Posts: 744
Joined: 23 Aug 2004, 11:39
Location: Russia

#6

Post by Karman » 13 Sep 2005, 18:19

Molobo wrote:
Anyway I would like to discuss in this thread the Allien plans to organize separatist puppet states on the territory enhabited by ethnic Russians.
Could you provide a map of distribution of ethnic groups both in Russian Empire and in Russia, including the percantages of where Russian population was in majority ?
Molobo: do you know the principle of determination of an ethnic Russian under the Tsarist Government? Under Tsars anybody who confessed the Russian orthodoxy and identified himself with the Russian language was considered and was Russian in reality. This is just to start. To continue any discussion in this regard with you I would like you to clarify two things:
1. What do you mean using the word "Russian"
2. What difference do you see between the Russian Empire and Russia?

As for the information I provided I repeat both: the Cossack land the separation of which was planned by the Allies and The Northern Russia occupied by Britts as well as Siberia were the regions enhabited by Russians.
I do not mention in this thread either the donnation of Baku (Azeri) to Turkish State performed by Britts or foundation of the Ukrainian State or Baltic States or any other actions that do not deal with "ethnic" Russians.

Nik Cornish
Member
Posts: 12
Joined: 08 Jun 2004, 21:59
Location: UK

#7

Post by Nik Cornish » 13 Sep 2005, 18:25

Fascinating thread gentlemen!

The British intervention was based on such a complex mess of confused "intelligence" reports from the Brits in Russia to the government back home which was then filtered through the various ministries and committees. Add to that those priveliged to speak directly to senior officials and get their report in quickly and
On the topic of reports the officers who went out to Russia in early 1919 were a fairly hopeless lot and most were sent home that year as being inadequate for the job. It is unsurprising that a conspiracy appeared likely. The British government had no real idea what was going on and ended up playing off its own agents against one another because no one had any idea what was going on and the information was usually out of date by the time it was acted upon. People like Bruce Lockhart in Moscow, Knox finally in Siberia etc all sent their narrow picture back to London as the "real thing". Add to that the speed of events in Russia, such as our buying of banks and other financial dealings and no wonder it was a shambles.
There are still kilos of papers in the archives in London which aren't accessible - mention Russia and intervention and they all think you are after Tsar escapes to Riviera or Romanov treasure stories.
Part of the problem was that no-one believed or understood that the Bolsheviks were a new type of political force and the old style diplomats such as Buchanan and Paleologue and politicians couldn't cope with such a group let alone deal with them. The conferences at Brest Litovsk are a reasonable example of the confusion the Bolsheviks were capable of generating.

Karman
Member
Posts: 744
Joined: 23 Aug 2004, 11:39
Location: Russia

#8

Post by Karman » 13 Sep 2005, 18:41

Nik Cornish wrote: Part of the problem was that no-one believed or understood that the Bolsheviks were a new type of political force and the old style diplomats such as Buchanan and Paleologue and politicians couldn't cope with such a group let alone deal with them. The conferences at Brest Litovsk are a reasonable example of the confusion the Bolsheviks were capable of generating.
Do you agree that the bolsheviks were a new type of political force? Were they? Yes sometimes they acted very excentric when suggested to distribute the revolutionary propaganda for German forces as the clause of the peace talks or when they just picked up a worker in the street when noticed that there were no workers in the delegation of a proletariat state in Brest-Litovsk but in general they were rather sophisticated. Trozkiy worked for mass media that made him a star but the German Army made the ultimate decision.
What was really great about them: they learnt and changed really fast.

Molobo
Banned
Posts: 629
Joined: 14 Feb 2005, 15:20
Location: Poland

#9

Post by Molobo » 13 Sep 2005, 19:29

2. What difference do you see between the Russian Empire and Russia?
The same difference as between British Empire and Britain.
do you know the principle of determination of an ethnic Russian under the Tsarist Government?
I am not interested in Tsarist propaganda.What I would like to see is map of distribution of ethnic Russians in Russian Empire to see if your claims about partition of Russia and ethnic Russians are correct.

Nik Cornish
Member
Posts: 12
Joined: 08 Jun 2004, 21:59
Location: UK

#10

Post by Nik Cornish » 13 Sep 2005, 19:32

I meant new in the sense that the Bolsheviks were sophisticated in a way that did not follow "old world", pre 1914 diplomatic methods and didn't wear the standard diplomatic dress either. Certainly Hoffmann and the German Army made the ultimate decision by advancing into western Russia because the negotiations were going nowhere and Austria-Hungary was even more desperate for food than Germany. However, this is going off the topic of Allied Intervention.
If I remember correctly the British government was unaware of Kaledin's suicide and the change of regime there when they finally decided to pay the Don gov't the money to keep fighting the Central Powers. The round figure for support to Denikin and Krasnov was roughly £100.000.000. ($500.000.000 at 1919 exchange rates). But much of the equipment was past its best before date plus there were endless debates with the various representatives of "Russian governments" in Paris and elsewhere from Jassy to Iceland who declared that this stuff had been paid for by the Provisional Government or the Tsarist Government and was therefore Russian anyway. What did Baratov do with the gold he shipped out?

I look forward to someone doing research on the collapse(?) of the KUK in the Ukraine during late 1918 and the condition of the German units there.

User avatar
Steen Ammentorp
Member
Posts: 3269
Joined: 13 Mar 2002, 13:48
Location: Denmark
Contact:

#11

Post by Steen Ammentorp » 13 Sep 2005, 20:42

Ki Karman,

Thank you for your elaborated post and I think a bit more reasonable points of view, though I don't agree with all of them, which would also have been sad for the discussion.

First of all I think that our differences are rooted in a different way to approach and interpret the subject. I get the feeling that you choose to interpret every event and motive from a point of view that they originated out of an ulterior motive to harm the historic Russia and its rightful place in the world. By the historic Russia I mean in all its different shapes and names through history. I find this a very narrow minded point of view.

To me the Allied intervention in Russia much more complicated than this and that their decisions were based different geopolitical as well as internal reasons. I would like divide the intervention into two periods before and after the 11th November 1918. Before that date it is my opinion that the main goal for the French and English intervention was find somebody that would continue fighting the Germans in one way or the other and that at that time they did not care about Russia as a state. So eager were they in this that they set up or supported numerous contra-revolutionary governments without having actually investigated their popular support or viability. So rather than see their support for contra-revolutionary governments and different new states as a plan to demolish Russia I see it as an attempt to secure the continually existence of an Eastern Front or at least to tie down German forces in the East.

I don't think that the point that they started this support before the signature in Brest-Litovsk bears any creditability. I think it would rather naïve to think that the French and British should sit idle when one of the clear goals of the Bolsheviks was to obtain peace. If you were to prove this point I think you have to show that they (France & Britain) had clear plans for supporting the creating numerous new states at the expense of Russia already during the Kerensky government. To my knowledge there were none.

The fact that the Western Allies meddled in Russian internal affairs and supported democratic politicians prior to or at the beginning of WWI I don't see this as evidence that they wanted to unstabilize Russia. Actually I see it the other way around that they wanted reforms that would secure a more stable and stronger Russia to fight the Germans. Admittedly this may have been against the wish of Tsar.

I now turn to the period after 11th November 1918. By now the Allied had lost the excuse of wanting to maintain an Eastern Front against the Germans so were their continually present in Russia and support for contra-revolutionary governments an effort to demolish the Russian Empire? I think not! I think that you underestimate the impact the Bolshevik revolution had upon the governments in Western Europe. Watching the effects in Germany and the agitation about the "World Revolution" made the governments fear the Bolsheviks in a previously unknown way (Or perhaps not). They were disrupting the "natural order" of things. So I see the post 1918 intervention as an effort by France and Britain as an effort to contaminate this "disease" and that the newly created states should be seen as puffer states. The aim wasn't to demolish the Russian state just preventing the revolution spreading, blight this meant weakening the new Soviet state.

Actually this had been seen before – in 1789. The French revolution caused a similar shock and disrupted the "natural order" and the Revolutionary Wars should IMO be seen as an attempt to restore the order rather than aimed at France as a nation. So I see a parallel here.

I am fully aware that this does not present all the agendas of the intervening powers. Japan followed a clearly imperialistic policy directly on the expense of Russia. USA perhaps wanted the new states created at the expense of the 1914 Russia based on the principle of people's self governance. A principle that I find idealistic but hard to disagree with and I don't find that is aimed at the Russian state. Under this principle Russia will always be Russia and you can not demolish it into smaller bits.

[edit]minor typos[/edit]

Kind Regards
Steen Ammentorp
The Generals of World War II

Karman
Member
Posts: 744
Joined: 23 Aug 2004, 11:39
Location: Russia

#12

Post by Karman » 14 Sep 2005, 08:23

Molobo wrote:
2. What difference do you see between the Russian Empire and Russia?
The same difference as between British Empire and Britain.
do you know the principle of determination of an ethnic Russian under the Tsarist Government?
I am not interested in Tsarist propaganda.What I would like to see is map of distribution of ethnic Russians in Russian Empire to see if your claims about partition of Russia and ethnic Russians are correct.
Did you find an island to which all Russians should be sent to make you happy?
As for the Tsarist propaganda. Get su proves first. And second this principle was used for the first Russian census in 1897

As for the Russia and Russian Empire. To match your picture the present Russia should adjoin the North Kazakhstan (Cossack land where Russians constitute the majority of the population) and Eastern and South Eastern Ukraine including Crimea.
That is it. But again it has nothing to do with the topic.
Last edited by Karman on 14 Sep 2005, 13:34, edited 1 time in total.

Karman
Member
Posts: 744
Joined: 23 Aug 2004, 11:39
Location: Russia

#13

Post by Karman » 14 Sep 2005, 10:48

Hi Steen Ammentorp:

Actually I agree with you almost in all points. I am far from saying that all the Allied actions in Russia or about Russia were subject to extermination of her presence in the World. The only thing I think the situation was even more complicated than you pictured it. I absolutely agree with you that till the defeat of Germany in WW1 the Western Allies were aimed at galvanizing any forces who could had fornmed the Eastern Front. Given that the most intelligent Russian militaries and polititians got the understanding that the Russian Tsarist Army ceased to exist after the failure of the Summer offensive we may presume that the foreign observers got the same understanding at the same time. When Kolchak came to St-Petersburg in 1917 the first person he visited was Plekhanov. They discussed the possibility of the socialist ideology that could had formed the ideological basis for the army to continue fighting. Kerenskiy's antics had the same objective. The Russian Army was better equipped and armored than in any other period of the war but soldiers did not want to fight. So Kerenskiy thought that the socialist and "patriotic" frills could had cheered the soldiers up. Under this circumstances this is practical that the Allies tried to unite any capable forces on the territorial principles and sponsor the mobilization of different regions and nationalities under the banners of independence and freedom .

Interesting but (according to French captain Sadul) some bolsheviks believed that following the peace talks with Germans and watching their pecularities and results the Russian nation will get the will to fight when they got the understanding that Germans meant to annihilate and ban the Russian State. That was seen as some kind of convulsive therapy by some decision makers from the very beginning. And true bolsheviks managed to draft a huge number of officers calling them to fight against German invaders.

Actually Allien Governments did have to listen to a huge lot of divergent testimonies of their advisers from Russia. Most of them were 100% sure that the bolshevik regime will collapse the next day and offered strange people as the only and true candidates to save the world. Most of local governments the Alliens formed meant to be the core for expansion of the "true democratic power" over the whole territory of Russia.

But it is also true that the moment came when the Allien Powers got the understanding that Russia ceased to exist. That it was gone and would never revive. And then they started both pursuing for their own share in the heritage and obstructing other claimants. Some of them sooner some later. They also got the understanding that any variant of Russia that may revive (either Red or White) gonna be hostile to the democratic and socialist Western Powers. Their both idealistic and cartesian and progressist believes did not allow them to support any plans of reconstruction of the Tsarist Russia but a democratic only. Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich wrote that he as well as other Romanovs could not express their support of the White Case not to razz the Allies. Denikin always expressed too much of liberal slogans as the Allies told him that most of his stuff are too conservative and reactionary. Lloyd George concluded that bolsheviks will not get the resources from the Allies and Denikin will not get Moscow. So the country meant to be partitionned.

Were their practices efficient? I think they were not and the WW2 proved it. Russia under Tsar Nikolai was a good, gentle and honorable Ally. And in the WW2 neither buffer states nor the idea of "Minor Entente" stopped Germany.

Regards.

P.S. Returning to the initial post. Well sure it was some kind of eristic simplification on one hand. On the other hand it is true that some uncompromising anti-bolsheviks believe (and say) that the position of Krasnov, Semenov and Shkuro was the position of the true Whites and the position of Denikin was the compromise with Bolshevism. There are people who call the collaboration of Russians with Germans the continuation of the civil war.

Karman
Member
Posts: 744
Joined: 23 Aug 2004, 11:39
Location: Russia

#14

Post by Karman » 14 Sep 2005, 13:13

Nik Cornish wrote: What did Baratov do with the gold he shipped out?

I look forward to someone doing research on the collapse(?) of the KUK in the Ukraine during late 1918 and the condition of the German units there.
I have heard of two Baratovs during the Civil War. The second was one of 26 Baku Commissars and was executed together with other 25. The first was a famous Cossack general who fought in the Caucasian Front.

Unfortunately I do not know of any of Baratovs who dealt with the gold (famous Tsar's Gold I believe). The famous Tsar's and Kolchak;s gold is still the target for many of treasures hunters. Some of the gold is kept in banks of France, USA, UK and Japan. These are the gold the Tsar's Gvt paid for the armement that was not supplied. The discussed amount includes (with interest): $80 billion in japanese banks, $23 billion in American banks, $50 billion in an American Bank, $50 billion in French Banks.
According to Pinkerton Agency Russian Federation may claim for the return of the Tsar's Gold in the amount of $100 billion and the real estate that belonged to the TSarist Russa abroad in the amount of $300 billion. So far the controversies with the French Gvt were settled. Russia paid the debts on Tsarist bonds to private persons and for the French property confiscated by bolsheviks and also waived the right for the Tsar's gold stored in France in 1997. Most of the gold stored in those banks were the security deposit against the supplies of ammo which was not performed. The gold in Japan has another story.

In 1917 Tsar ordered to transport the State gold reserve to the East of the country to Kazan. There it was captured by Kolchak. As they say Kolchak paid a part of that gold to the Allies covering the expenses for supplies. Some gold a Kochak's general Rosanov passed to Japanese. Also one part of the Russian gold reserve was stolen by general Semenov and passed to japanese through general Pavel Petrov and Semenov's liason officer Klok.

As for the rest of the "Kolchak's Gold" (about on third) . General Pepeliaev ordered to transport the gold from Tobolsk to Tomsk along the rivers Irtysh and Ob on the steamer "Permiak". The gold disappeared somewhere in the middle of nowhere. They say that pursuant to the early winter the steamer was frozen in the river. Officers dug it down somewhere. This gold has not been found. I read an article that it has been discovered recently by a hunter in Khanty-Mansiysk taiga.
The point about that story is that before the coup performed by Kolchak the Siberian Gvtp produced some medals and orders of that gold as awards for some officers. When Kolchak performed the coup those decorations were banned and stored together with other gold (the one that was lost). Kolchak reintroduced the old Tsarist orders. The description of the Siberian orders and medals was discovered in CHK archives. But they never appeared in the market. So people believe that the lost Kolchak's gold is still the prize to hunt.

You also mentionned about the Tsar escaped to Rivera.

Interesting but this story got the new life in modern times especially after the heads of the Russian Orthodox Chirch rejected to recognize the relics from Ekaterinburg as the remains of the last Tsar and his family and when Patriarch did not appear on the funerals. Prince Golitzin member of the investigation committee rejected to sign the memo with the results of the committee and claimed that it was signed by the Chair (Nemzov) only. So the story that Princess Anastasia and the Heir Alexei survived (were not executed). This version is distributed by Professor Sirotkin ( a very popular person in both media and official circles, professor of Prinston. Cambridge and Sorbonne) . He claims that Princess Anastasia is still alive. She lived in Georgia under the name of Natalia Bilikhodze till year 200 and then moved to Baltic States. Sirotkin also referred to the book of Griannik "Zaveshanie Nikolaya II" as a reliable book (I read it) . The author proved that Nikolai was not executed by bolsheviks but moved to Sukhumi (Georgia) where he lived till the 50th. The author provided pictures, measurements and comparisons I do not understand. Sirotkin also referred to some evidences given to Sokolov investigation committee proving that Tsar and his family were not executed in July, 1918.

Regards,
P.S. What is KUK?

Nik Cornish
Member
Posts: 12
Joined: 08 Jun 2004, 21:59
Location: UK

#15

Post by Nik Cornish » 14 Sep 2005, 14:20

KUK is the Austro-Hungarian army - Kaiser und Koenig.

My remarks about the gold and the Tsar on the Riviera were simply a joke. The Tsarist gold and the Romanov's possible escape from Siberia seem to be topics that the archive in Kew, London believe everyone who researches World War One and the Russian Civil War are interested in.

What you wrote about the gold deposits overseas is fascinating, nor have I heard the theory of some of the Romanovs going to Georgia.

The Baratov I meant was the Cossack general. It is believed, source escapes me sorry, that he left Russia in 1919 for Ceylon and then the UK with gold (£60,000,0000 seems familiar) to pay for munitions for Denikin and got diverted from his mission.

If the Russian government has settled with the French does this mean the Brits get the rights to the Lena goldfield? Or the banks we bought in 1918? No my family didn't have shares in them!!

A Muscovite friend of mine had a relative who was an officer with the Siberian river flotilla during 1918-20 so must ask him about the "Permiak".

Jolly good English btw

Post Reply

Return to “The Soviet Union at War 1917-1945”