Talk:White Terror (Russia)

Extreme anti-white bias

This article is nothing more than a SHAMELESS PIECE OF PRO-SOVIET PROPAGANDA based almost exclusively on sources that are pro-Soviet and anti-White (either willingly or, in some cases, perhaps unwillingly). In particular, the "Kolchakists on trial" paper REALLY takes the cake, being a transcript of one of them commie show trials where the defendant is always guilty no matter what (the key phrase in that rag being "Almost all the material for the prosecution was taken from declarations by the defendants themselves" -- those "declarations" no doubt having been obtained under torture or under threat of death, as was common practice under the Bolshies). Besides this, almost all other sources cited in this article are clearly biased toward the Red side: e.g. the Serge and Marik books are openly pro-Communist, and the two Yandex entries are taken from the Large Soviet Encyclopedia, which was published in the Soviet Union under the communist regime and therefore representing only the Red POV. In fact, any source that was officially published in the Soviet territory from 1917 to 1985 (such as Kondufor) can only represent the Soviet POV (due to Communist Party censorship of the media) and therefore AUTOMATICALLY violates BOTH WP:RS and WP:NPOV. According to Wikipedia policy, such sources are UNACCEPTABLE and must be red

67.169.177.176 (talk) 06:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Good. 188.242.189.143 (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, while Tsvetkov is admittedly an unbiased and reliable source, the article uses only cherry-picked and out-of-context quotes from that particular source in order to prove its thesis, and ignores those parts that contradict it. It is true that Tsvetkov does quote Kornilov as authorizing the shootings of Red prisoners and saying "The more terror, the better"; but right after that he quotes Kornilov saying "We do not make war against the wounded". Also, other quotes from this source do not bear out the article: for instance, Tsvetkov discusses at some length an incident where some Red artillerymen whom Kornilov's forces took prisoner were given a fair trial by military tribunal and ACQUITTED because they were "serving [the Reds] under duress and [also] intentionally laid their fire inaccurately" (they were allowed to enlist in the Volunteer Army and reportedly fought well against the Reds). And while Tsvetkov mentions Kornilov's forces executing a civilian who was allied with the Reds, he makes clear that the civilian in question was executed not so much for his political beliefs as for raping the local rich people's wives and daughters. In fact, Tsvetkov makes it clear that many of the "white terror" murders (other than the shootings of prisoners) were in fact reprisals rather than officially sanctioned repressive measures, and that the shootings of prisoners were often dictated by military necessity.

67.169.177.176 (talk) 06:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, the article quotes Hartmann as recounting "a particularly brutal massacre", but in fact that particular source says nothing of the sort -- instead, it discusses at some length a property dispute having to do with the Sovs' nationalization policy which ended up in the British courts. Therefore, this source is irrelevant to the article, and the claim that was falsely attributed to it must be removed as well. 67.169.177.176 (talk) 06:07, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

What's the matter kid? The Red Terror page is also based on biased source that are fiercely Anti-Red and Pro-White, may I remind you. So why are you so upset anyway, are you upset that Reds have retaliated in kind? 188.25.37.242 (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

This article is a sad joke; it's not like it is even necessary to exaggerate the history of the various anti-Bolshevik forces' crimes to have an intelligent article, but the sources here are heavily to absurdly pro-Bolshevik and give absolutely hysterical accounts. The numbers and anecdotes cited are complete fabrications for the most part, and this article is in dire need of attention from some expert with sources at hand who is not an ideological fanatic. The immediate anonymous user above me serves as a perfect illustration of why this article needs attention; this is more of a retaliation for articles about communist atrocities (where Wikipedia articles present some false "balance" about views), rather than an article that has real historical or factual merit. InformedContent (talk) 04:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this article is biased and includes some wrong information. I added two tags on the top in the hope that someone will clean this up. The article should be also copyedited as it contains many Runglish phrases, for example "Bands of Kornilov’s officers left behind more than 500 dead in a Don village in early 1918.[8]"...--Kürbis (✔) 09:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing in the article that violates NPOV or RS. The article contains the highest quality sources: A. Litvin, P. Golub, I. Ratkovsky, and others are the world's leading experts about this topic, and they cannot be characterized as unreliable. Litvin has been a professor in Kazan and is the author of hundreds of scientific books and articles. Ratkovsky is a professor in Leningrad and did his doctoral thesis about the topic. Golub is a leading historian about the Russian revolution and is the author of many scientific books and articles. Understandably, we do not have sources of comparable quality in the English language, as Russian history is not of interest to westerners the way it is to people in Russia.

To InformedContent/67.169.177.176 (same person?): you do not understand historical research very well. A historian does not ignore a source just because it is biased. A historian has to gather information from all sources and evaluate accordingly. And the authors I named above decided that their sources are trustworthy. Much of our information from the Mongols comes from strongly anti-Mongol sources by Chinese, Arab, and other historians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.167.249 (talk) 08:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The bald phrase "Historians emphasize that the White terror was premeditated and systematic", especially when lacking a reference to the much worse Red Terror, shows the bias of the article. It needs more work to be fair and balanced; the warning tags are needed. cwmacdougall 15:48, 18 October 2012

What kind of research have you done on this topic for you to make the false statement about "much worse Red Terror"? Do you speak Russian? If not, then how can you make an informed opinion about this topic? That you are making these misinformed remarks about a "much worse Red Terror" and "bias of the article" is unhelpful

We have this fact in an article by a leading Russian historian that the White Terror was infinitely more violent than the measures taken by the Soviet forces to maintain peace and security. Yet, you make the absolutely unsourced claim that the "Red Terror" was much worse.

Evgeni Losev in his book "Mironov" shows the monstrous cruelty of the "decossackization" statistics by the Reds in the Don, with more than 1000 shot...Recall at least that in the period of the Krasnov's rule on the Don, more than 45 thousand were shot and hanged. The total number of the executions was more than half of the entire Krasnov army. A recent book estimates that Krasnov's forces shot 25 thousand... But this is still 25 times the measures taken by the Reds.

There is an abundance of scholarship on this topic

A leading Russian scholar summarizes Kolchak's record: Only in the province of Ekaterinburg, more than 25 thousand people were shot under Kolchak. Kolchak's representative for suppressing the peasantry, General Rozanov, issued orders for mass executions and taking of hostages. One of the most noteworthy decisions on 27 March 1919 called for the shooting of every tenth participant involved in any form with the resistance...

The leading expert about the White Terror, P. Golub, completely refutes the propaganda that has influenced a lot of the misinformed remarks above. He writes in an article published by the journal Dialog (#8, August 2003): In 1923, SP Melgunov, one of the most active instigators of the civil war and an apologist of Kolchak and other military dictators, published in Berlin the pamphlet "Red Terror in Russia - 1918-1923" He asks, "Where and when in the acts of government policies and even the press of the anti-Soviet camp will you find a theoretical justification of terror as a system of power?"......[He is] unaware of the monstrous cruelty of Kolchak's "Law of Rebellion" of 23 March 1919 commanding harsh methods to deal with the Siberian partisans, or his order of 14 May 1919 calling for the shooting without trial of soldiers who refused to fight? He knew of course, but told the big lie that the White reign of terror was not a systematic nature.

This article also proves: "White apologists often say that the White Terror was just the excesses of individuals aggrieved by the Bolsheviks, while the Red Terror was a deliberate policy of the Bolsheviks in general and above all Lenin . This is a lie. It has already been demonstrated that it's impossible to reduce the White Terror to individuals."[1] 75.51.167.249 (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

An anonymous IP above blurted out this misinformed remark:

"In fact, any source that was officially published in the Soviet territory from 1917 to 1985 (such as Kondufor) can only represent the Soviet POV (due to Communist Party censorship of the media) and therefore AUTOMATICALLY violates BOTH WP:RS and WP:NPOV"

Y.Y. Kondufor served as director of the Institute of History of Ukraine's Academy of Sciences, and his sources are absolutely reliable. His work represents perhaps the best possible scholarship on the subject: he was the editor of a 10-volume history of the Ukraine, which is the most comprehensive and highest quality source available on the region. If you have a better source that contradicts Kondufor's work, then present it here so that it can be evaluated.

There was no monolithic "Soviet POV". Russian historians have not been in unanimous agreement about every single subject of history. They debate about and have debated about many different issues. The Soviet encyclopedia summarizes a debate among Russian scholars: "Many aspects of the history of the Peasant War of the early 17th century are still considered debatable by Soviet historiography, including the chronological limits of the war, its historical importance, and the social composition of the rebels."

Another debate among Russian scholars:

To this day debate continues among Soviet scholars on a number of very important questions, such as the socioeconomic preconditions, the time when the transition to absolutism occurred, and its class nature. Thus, on the question of the reasons for the transition to absolutism in Russia, some historians consider it to have been connected with a sharpening of the class struggle of the broad popular masses against the class of feudalists; others see absolutism in Russia as the result of a struggle within the ruling class between the feudal aristocracy (the boyars) and the nobility (the dvorianstvo). There is also no unanimity of opinion on the question of the social nature of Russian absolutism. While the view current among scholars is that absolutism in Russia reflected the interests not only of the aristocracy but of the rising bourgeoisie as well, some historians regard the origin and essence of Russian absolutism as purely feudal in character. A number of other questions connected with the problem of Russian absolutism are also resolved in divergent ways.

Furthermore, the data found in Soviet-era sources are cited and accepted by present-day Russian scholars. Thus, Soviet-era scholarship such as in this book (p.172) established that Kolchak's regime engaged in a reign of terror that included the killing of more than 25,000 people in the Ekaterinburg region. This book (p.133) by present-day Russian scholars also established that Kolchak's regime murdered approximately 25,000 people in the Ekaterinburg region. Based on this, Soviet-era research on the White Terror is reliable. It's noteworthy that while the anonymous IP moans about "clearly biased" sources, he fails to consider that the bulk of this article is based on recent Russian scholarship that is relatively even-handed towards the Soviet and White sides. The sources chiefly consist of: А. Литвин. Красный и белый террор 1918—1922. — М.: Эксмо, 2004 (A. Litvin, Red and White Terror of 1918-1922); И. С. Ратьковский. Красный террор и деятельность ВЧК в 1918 году. СПб.: Изд-во С.-Петерб. ун-та, 2006 (I.S. Ratkovsky, "Red Terror and the Cheka activities in the year 1918"; and П. А. Голуб. Белый террор в России (1918—1920 гг.). М.: Патриот, 2006 (P.A. Golub. White Terror in Russia in 1918-1920). I have done a lot of research on this topic, and there is nothing in English that is comparable to the quality of these Russian scholars' work. Yet, the anonymous cherrypicks and complains about Victor Serge, who was actually anti-Soviet and wrote rather even-handed works of history about the Revolution. This book published by Indiana University recommends readers to refer to Victor Serge: "Debates over the Civil War's impact on Soviet history may never be resolved, but the reader may wish to become familiar with some of the more thoughtful and thought-provoking works assessing the Civil War. See; Walter Laqueur, The Fate of the Revolution: Interpretations of Soviet History (London, 1967); Victor Serge, Year One of the Russian Revolution (Chicago, 1972)" - so Serge's work is reliable. 75.51.167.249 (talk) 03:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The earlier commentator is obviously right in saying that any Soviet source "automatically violates BOTH WP:RS and WP:NPOV". There may have been some good historical work done in the Communist period, but it can not be accepted on an issue like this as an unbiased source without independent verification. Similarly, Victor Serge though he wrote in the West was a Bolshevik in the Civil War, so is hardly unbiased. Western histories need to be consulted and much more work needs to be done before the tags can be removed. cwmacdougall 14:38, 20 October 2012

I like how you almost completely disregard the facts above and still cling on to this strange idea that a source cannot be used because it allegedly contains biases that you do not like. Wikipedia shouldn't be censored, and all reliable sources should be considered. Books published by Nauka and Russia's Academy of Sciences are absolutely reliable sources. That's why virtually every English-speaking scholar relies on Russian primary sources and Russian secondary sources like books published by Soviet Academy of Sciences for their information.

I already explained above that we do not have sources in the English language of comparable quality to Litvin, Ratkovsky, and Golub. All that I've located is White Terror: Cossack Warlords of the Trans-Siberian , which is too narrow for this article's scope.

I also showed above that Serge is a reliable source. Professor Koenker specifically directs her readers to refer to Victor Serge's work: "Debates over the Civil War's impact on Soviet history may never be resolved, but the reader may wish to become familiar with some of the more thoughtful and thought-provoking works assessing the Civil War. See; Walter Laqueur, The Fate of the Revolution: Interpretations of Soviet History (London, 1967); Victor Serge, Year One of the Russian Revolution (Chicago, 1972)" - so Serge's work is reliable.

Did you actually read the article before commenting on it? Western histories ARE consulted in this article: Professor Arno Mayer and Walter Lacquer.75.51.167.249 (talk) 21:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

To take a comparable example, we now know that the Nazi reports on Katyn were essentially correct, but we would not use a Nazi source for a Katyn article, at least not without further investigation and support. It is wrong to use Communist sources for alleged White Army activities. The tags must stay until further work is done. cwmacdougall 21:55, 20 October 2012

I really shouldn't have to repeat myself: the data found in Soviet-era sources are cited and accepted by present-day Russian scholars. Thus, Soviet-era scholarship such as in this book (p.172) established that Kolchak's regime engaged in a reign of terror that included the killing of more than 25,000 people in the Ekaterinburg region. This book (p.133) by present-day Russian scholars also established that Kolchak's regime murdered approximately 25,000 people in the Ekaterinburg region. Based on this, Soviet-era research on the White Terror is reliable. 75.51.167.249 (talk) 21:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Likening the Russians to the Nazis shouldn't be dignified with any kind of response. 75.51.167.249 (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, if you have reliable sources that contradict or refute the data cited in this article, then show them. What your argument basically boils down to it, "I don't like Communists. Communists are biased. Biased sources are not reliable" - which is NOT the way to approach history. ALL sources must be looked at and evaluated. And scholars have determined that what you derisively call "Communist sources" are reliable. By the way, there are not "Communist sources" cited in this article, but rather scholarly sources published by Russia's academy of sciences and works by current-day Russian professors - the best possible sources on this topic. (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The attempted quotation by Mr 75.51.167.249 of the appalling defence of Red Terror by Russian "Historian" Yu. I. Korbalev shows very clearly why this anonymous author's editing can not be trusted, why the entire article needs rewriting and why it requires tags until this happens. cwmacdougall 3:42, 22 October 2012

Your characterization of a scholar's work as "appalling" is out of place on this web site - it's quite contradictory that you're accusing the contributors of this article as being biased. Prof. Korablev's opinion is a scholarly, mainstream view one: note that it is cited in an article by an American-based scholar writing for the scholarly journal Russian Review. Korablev was a professor of history who specialized in the history of the Russian Revolution. He wrote many articles for scholarly journals and Russia's Academy of Sciences published many of his books. He is as reliable as it gets for this topic. This source identifies here identifies Korablev as "Doctor of Historical Sciences, professor". He's identified elsewhere "Deputy Director of the Institute of the History of Russia's Academy of Sciences in 1971-1974" . So his work is going to stay in the article..

You have not provided any convincing details as to why this article is flawed and "biased". When all of your objections were refuted above, you have shown hardly any consideration of the arguments that are opposed to yours. Instead, you continue to cling on to this unfounded view that this article is biased. 75.51.171.155 (talk) 05:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Mr. cwmacdougall, can you explain why that quotation cannot stay in this article? I am willing to work with your about your concerns with the article, but you have not contributed anything substantive about the article. All that was done with the insertion of the quote was to show the opinion of a Russian scholar about this subject. The article does not endorse his views or present them as facts. His statement is presented in the most neutral way possible. The article does NOT state that "White terror targeted the majority of the people." Rather, all it does it point out that a particular Yu. Korablev claims that "White terror targeted the majority of the people." What exactly is your problem with the insertion of the quote? 75.51.171.155 (talk) 06:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

A defence of Red Terror has no more place in a Wikipedia article on White Terror than a defence of killing Jews would do in an article on the Holocaust, whether or not you claim the "historian" is well qualified. It is as clear a violation of WP:NPOV as I can imagine. Your failure to see this raises rather grave doubts about all your work here. cwmacdougall 8:07, 22 October 2012

Mr.cwmacdougall, likening the Russian government to the crimes of the Nazis is unacceptable. This is the second time you've done this, and I would request you would stop with these fallacious arguments because they don't hold water. Korablev's work meets RS criteria in every possible way. Just because you don't like what he argues doesn't mean you can remove it. 75.51.171.155 (talk) 08:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Well I could find dozens of respectable sources saying that the Communists were as bad as the Nazis (e.g., including China, killing more people), and I am sure if I set my mind to it I could find respectable sources saying that almost anything was justifiable to stop the hell of Communism, so White Terror was defensible. But I don't think either would be appropriate on Wikipedia. Take NPOV seriously, and there will be something to discuss. cwmacdougall 8:46, 22 October 2012

Mr.cwmacdougall, you falsely said above without any source that there was a "much worse Red Terror" despite all the data cited in this article. In making your points, you make fallacious comparisons between the Russian government's history and Nazi genocide. Your insistence that "any Soviet source" cannot be used is completely at odds with basic standards of research and suffers from a mentality of censorship. If we were to use your rule that Soviet-era research cannot be used, then that would prevent the use of the vast majority of scholarly works on Russian history. You falsely depict this article as being based on "Communist sources" even though the bulk of this article's content is based on the works of current-day Russian scholars Litvin, Ratkovsky, Tsvetkov, and also the American Arno Mayer. If you're going to say that there are "doubts about all your work here", then based on what I just described, I am going to say that it looks like you are POV-pushing and that you are not very knowledgeable about this subject - otherwise you wouldn't say stuff like "much Red Terror" and insist that "Communist sources" cannot be used. I have been very civil towards you and repeatedly asked you to explain what's wrong with the article, but all you've done is express your own personal opinions about the subject of this article and questioning my good faith. 75.51.171.155 (talk) 08:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Mr.cwmacdougall, the French so-called Reign of Terror article cites Historian Albert Mathiez and his opinions:

Historian Albert Mathiez argues that the authority of the Committee of Public Safety was based on the necessities of war, as those in power realized that deviating from the will of the people was a temporary emergency response measure in order to secure the ideals of the Republic. According to Mathiez, they “touched only with trepidation and reluctance the regime established by the Constituent Assembly” so as not to interfere with the early accomplishments of the Revolution

His pro-revolutionary stance is similar to Prof. Korbalev's pro-Soviet stance. Both of the sources are reliable, and there's no reason why their opinions cannot be quoted. Notably, Korbalev's quote appears in an American scholarly journal Russian Review There's been no attempts to censor the Reign of Terror article out of pro-revolutionary views, so I don't see why your dislike of pro-Soviet opinions should dictate the contents of this page.. 75.51.171.155 (talk) 09:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC

Biased unreliable article needs complete rewrite

As discussed above, the anonymous unregistered author of most of this article very clearly violates WP:RS and WP:NPOV. When checked many of the sources turn out to be misquoted. Many are by Communists writing under conditions of political censorship. Some are by active participants on the Red side with their own axes to grind. The author has revealed his own bias by attempting to insert a defence of Red vs White terrorism. He repeatedly refused to accept warning tags. But I wonder if tags are sufficient; perhaps the best course is to delete it and start fresh. cwmacdougall 3:24, 23 October 2012

You're just repeating the same baseless objections as above. This article will not be censored in order to conform to your personal preferences. You've alleged above that sources have been misquoted. Which sources have been misquoted? Why have you failed to provide examples and details to go along with your objections? And why do you refuse to consider the facts that have been meticulously described above? 75.51.171.155 (talk) 07:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Mr. cwmacdougall, you've made the remarkable allegation that this article is based on "Communists writing under conditions of political censorship". Who are these "Communists" that you speak of? And what is this "political censorship" you are referring to? Can you provide any evidence that the specific works cited in this article are the products of "political censorship"?75.51.171.155 (talk) 07:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Mr. cwmacdougall, you again make a personal attack and question my good faith, accusing me of having a "bias". But if anything, you are the one who has made biased remarks: you've likened the Russian government's policies with those of the Nazis, talked about a "hell of Communism", and you seek to impose censorship on this article by insisting that "Communist sources" cannot be used in this article. What's worse is that you misrepresent the people involved with the sources in this article with the label "Communist". Your objections were refuted above, and here you are making the exact same points that you did earlier. So, I have nothing more to say to you because it is clear that you are not interested in a constructive discussion about how this article can be improved, but are instead seeking to impose your own personal views on the direction of this article. 75.51.171.155 (talk) 07:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Read the above criticisms. It is clear that you are often using Soviet sources written under conditions of political censorship or partisan Bolshevik sources; neither can not be trusted for such a political subject. There are examples of you misquoting authors. And the quotation from a later author defending Red Terror has no place at all; it is not at all the same as the French Revolution Terror article example (which is not well written, but at least balanced). You must treat NPOV seriously. If you persist in your repeated biased editing I will delete all the text. cwmacdougall 9:18, 23 October 2012

Again, what are these "Soviet sources" that you are talking about? Note that anything published by Russia's Academy of Sciences or anything written by a Russian scholar meets Wikipedia RS guidelines. Please give concrete examples oh how a source in this article was the product of censorship. To repeat, Korablev meets all RS criteria: he was a professor of history and worked with Russia's Academy of Sciences, which published many of his books. Above all, he is cited in an American scholarly journal. This article does not endorse Korablev's opinion as facts without any attribution, but only presents his beliefs. Wikipedia is not censored and is not subordinate to your personal political beliefs. Your threat to "delete all the text" is absolutely uncalled for. Instead of actually making your own contributions to the article, you persist in making false remarks in order to get in the way of the progress of this article. This indicates to me that you are not very knowledgeable about this article's subject. I myself have done years of research about Russian history, and I will not be lectured about what is "biased" by someone without comparable qualifications. EverlastingGaze (talk) 23:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

cwmacdougall, if you were knowledgeable about Russian history or even basic standards of historical research, you would have understood by now that all English-language works on Russian history rely on primary and secondary sources published in Russia for their information. Wikipedia's rules clearly state that "material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable." - Russia's Academy of Sciences is therefore a reliable source. Korablev was a professor of history and an expert on this topic. Above all you are deleting material even though it clearly meets Wikipedia's rule about how Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like. So, please address these facts instead of continuing to ignore them and imposing your own POV.

Historians do not ignore and dismiss sources simply because they are biased. And nothing in Wikipedia's rules dictate that a scholar with a bias cannot be cited. What's most irritating with your edits is that you insist on removing content that has been attributed and specifically identified as the opinion of a scholar who represents the views of a lot of historians. Until you actually address my refutations, I am not going to entertain your concerns, which are not based on any scholar's views or even Wikipedia's own guidelines.

So, I came across this article explaining the great research done by Soviet-era scholars on early forms of religion:

Soviet ethnographers, archaeologists, philosophers, and historians have published more than 800 studies on early forms of religion. A lot of hitherto unknown materials on the religious beliefs and rites of numerous peoples of the USSR have been collected and analyzed. Soviet experts in religion have especially excelled in their studies of shamanism

While this article in a scholarly journal praises Soviet-era research for making a lot of positive contributions, it is all rubbish according to you because it is associated with those "Communists".

Specifically about the Revolution, it is explained by this scholarly book that Soviet-era scholarship is reliable. But according to your reasoning, all of this "Communist" material is just rubbish.

Western historians are latecomers to the social history field, but Soviet historians have already produced a large scholarly literature on the subject. Many of the Soviet works are valuable and solidly researched, and they are bound to be extensively cited as Western scholarship develops. This is a welcome change, since in the past the paths of Western and Soviet scholarship rarely crossed and both sides suffered as a result.

That same Western scholarly book agrees with Russian historians:

It is fair to conclude, as do Gaponenko et al. in their recent synoptic history of the Soviet working class, that the revolution merely removed the very top administrative stratum from the state bureaucracy...EverlastingGaze (talk) 23:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

factual accuracy

What in this article is not factually accurate? Darkness Shines (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at the first few comments above in the "Extreme anti-white bias" section for examples of factually inaccuracy. Certainly it violates NPOV as shown most obviously in the desire of the anonymous editor 75.51.171.155 to insert a pro-Red Terror quotation. That clear bias leads one to expect that there would be many more examples of factual inaccuracy. I think the article needs a thorough review and rewrite from a neutral standpoint, checking all sources, removing sections based on biased and unreliable sources, and perhaps starting afresh; until then, warning tags are needed. cwmacdougall 1:43, 24 October 2012

The comments above are absolute nonsense and have already been comprehensively refuted. In particular, the source does not contain what the anonymous IP alleged it does. There is nothing in this article that is factually inaccurate. For reasons that I'll keep to myself, cwmacdougall is getting in the way of the on-going progress of this article. Interesting to note that he has not replied to any of my lengthy rebuttals. EverlastingGaze (talk) 02:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Gaze, I suggest you learn to use the "Show Preview" button and write one final concise rebuttal rather than multiple lengthy rambling comments; they are more likely to be properly considered in that case. I have only "got in the way" of two points: the article must for the time being have the warning tags and the biased pro-Red terror quote has no place. As for the rest, write from a NPOV and you will not have trouble from me. When I have more time, I will try to look at the article in more detail. cwmacdougall 8:31, 27 October 2012

• I'm warning everyone that edit-warring on this article will not be tolerated. EverlastingGaze, stick to the content - no implied bashing. Also, when editing the article, use edit summaries. I know it's not required, but it would be helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

There is not a "pro-Red terror" quote in the article - your interpretation amounts to OR. The quote will stay because it is the opinion of a prominent Russian historian and is representative of a large number of scholars about the conflict. You have not provided any reason based on RS or NPOV why Prof Korablev's observation cannot stay.EverlastingGaze (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I am pleased to see that the pro-Red Terror quote was removed by another editor, but I am surprised this has to be explained to you. The quote essentially says that Red Terror was OK as it was for the benefit of the "people", while White Terror was not as it was for the benefit of the "Exploiters". The quote is of a Soviet Historian who wrote under conditions of political censorship (you don't give the date of the original quote, only of the secondary source, but like most or all of his books it does appear to pre-date the fall of Communism); he is hardly neutral. It is clearly defending Red Terror, and your use of it clearly violates NPOV and shows your own lack of understanding of NPOV. cwmacdougall 22:31, 27 October 2012

The use of Victor Serge as a source was discussed above. I agree that this man is a good and vivid writer who could be useful in adding colour to an article about the Red side, but he was a Bolshevik propagandist during and after the Civil War, and not an academic historian. Therefore he is not a reliable source for factual information, and I have deleted the quotation that used him as a source. cwmacdougall 12:31, 2 November October 2012

Moreover Victor Serge was not in any way "anti-Soviet" as you (Everlasting Gaze=75.51.167.249?) suggested above. Yes he was anti-Stalin, but he was certainly pro-Soviet in the Civil War. I started by deleting supposedly factual and not terribly important items which turn out to have as their only source this Bolshevik propagandist, before planning to move on to the clearly more difficult issue of apparently respectable Soviet historians. But you refuse even to concede that there is a bias problem with Bolshevik propagandists. How will you respond to more complex issues, and how do I respond to such rubbish without a reversion war? cwmacdougall 15:25, 3 November 2012

Korablev and other Russian historians provide a valid, reasonable, and popular argument that the Russian Government employed security measures in order to preserve the gains made by the revolutionary movement and combat the foreign and domestic adversaries of the country. I mentioned Korablev's credentials above: he was a prominent scholar with Russian academic institutions and his works were published by the Russian academic press Nauka. NPOV policy explicitly state that biased opinions are allowed in articles - just because an opinion is biased doesn't mean it cannot be inserted: Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with attribution. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and cannot be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre." Opinions must still be verifiable and appropriately cited.[2] . Thus, cwmacdougall, your actions are in violation of NPOV.

cwmacdougall, your edit of deleting what Victor Serge said is unacceptable. I showed above that Serge is a reliable source. Professor Koenker in a university-published book specifically directs her readers to refer to Victor Serge's work: "Debates over the Civil War's impact on Soviet history may never be resolved, but the reader may wish to become familiar with some of the more thoughtful and thought-provoking works assessing the Civil War. See; Walter Laqueur, The Fate of the Revolution: Interpretations of Soviet History (London, 1967); Victor Serge, Year One of the Russian Revolution (Chicago, 1972)"[3] . You cannot delete information just because you don't like it. Because if you're only objecting to "biased" material, then you would have removed the quotation of General Graves, who certainly had strongly held opinions. You are also wrong in your description of Serge as a Bolshevik: he was actually a Socialist Revolutionary and later became an anarchist. He then returned to Russia in 1919 and supported the Russian government, but then he changed his views. He then became dissatisfied with life in the new Russia, and he emigrated.EverlastingGaze (talk) 02:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

More unhelpful edits by cwmcdougall

• This edit with the summary "The Soviet sources only support a claim about Soviet historians, not historians in general."[4].

This indicates to me that you are not familiar with the contents of the article or the sources. NONE of the cited sources were published in the Soviet period. Please, carefully familiarize yourself with the content before rushing to make edits based on false information. The cited sources are:

Красный террор и деятельность ВЧК в 1918 году. Изд-во С.-Петербургского унив, 2006 [Red Terror and the Activities of the Cheka in 1918. University of S. Petersburg Publishing House. 2006]

Красный и белый террор в России: 1918-1922 гг. Яуза, 2004 [Red and White Terror in Russia, 1918-1922. Yauza. 2004.]

• This edit with the summary: Deleted section: the two examples are about Polish and Ukrainian nationalist terror, not White Terror [5]

Again, this indicates to me that you are not familiar with the details of this topic. Note that the term "White Terror" DID NOT originate during the Russian revolution and is not specifically defined as mass killings carried out by the forces of the White Army leaders Kolchak and Denikin. The term "White Terror" has been used in many conflicts, particularly in France beginning with the Great French Revolution the late 18th century and many other conflicts in the 19th century: Royalists were so impressed by this coalition that they took few pains to distinguish between old revolutionaries and Bonapartists when they unleashed White Terror after Bonaparte's second fall.p.15 Therefore, your definition of White Terror as being specifically limited to the White Guards' repressions in 1918-1920 is ahistorical and out of touch with mainstream historiography.

The definition of White Terror for the Russian revolution of 1917-1921 is fairly broad, and involved most anti-Soviet units and foreign interventionists, including the White armies of Denikin+Kolchak, the short-lived SR regimes like Komuch, and foreign interventionists like Poland and the the Czechoslovaks. The Ukrainian separatists of Petlyura and the so-called Central Rada were practitioners of White Terror, as this historian describes.

(p.30): "On the same day, December 26, 1917, far from Petrograd, the chairman of the Kiev Soviet Leonid Pyatakov was arrested and taken to an unknown destination. The arrest and search of Pyatakov's home resulted in the beating of his brother. In January 1918, Pyatakov's body with signs of torture was found near Kiev...Later, in the fall of 1918, Soviet newspapers identified Pyatakov as one of the first victims of White Terror..." - this means that Leonid Pyatakov was one of the first victims of White Terror, and his killers were from the Ukrainian separatist side of Petlyura and so-called "Central Rada"

The same source provides its definition of White Terror: (p.95) "White Terror is a conditional term that includes events taking place at various stages of the White Movement and the petit-bourgeois democracy. It includes the terror of the White Finns, Czechs, White Poles, Germans, as they apply to large areas of Russia. The White Terror includes categories of individual terror and counter-revolutionary measures, that is, any action of suspected terrorism against the Soviet regime in the Soviet Republic. The first information of the White Terror about the mass White Terror can be logically said to be around April-June 1918. This period was characterized as the beginning of a new front stage of the Civil War, and therefore, as a new round of mutual bitterness. Above all in this period was the bloody suppression of the socialist revolution in Finland and its coverage in the Soviet press."

Therefore, cwmcdougall, your edits, which in fact amount to mass deletions, are not justified. EverlastingGaze (talk) 02:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Hopelessly Biased Propaganda

Mr Gaze is refusing to accept even the most minor obvious edits to "his" precious article, while writing long tedious ineffective defences. Briefly I made the following reasonable changes:

1 - The contentious opening references to what "historians emphasize" is based solely on the arguments of three Soviet "historians"; there is no evidence it is believed by reputable historians elsewhere, so the claim should only be "some Soviet historians argue".

2 - Victor Serge was never an academic historian and he was a Bolshevik propagandist. He is obviously not an acceptable source. It is like citing Goebbels in an article on Churchill.

3 - Communists may think of "White" as being all their opponents, but Whites certainly don't, nor is that the generally accepted usage. The article should be restricted to terror by the White Army and occasionally actions by their allies. The Czech legions acted independently, and sometimes against the Whites (betraying Kolchak to the Reds for example). The Poles and the Ukrainian nationalists were certainly not in any way White forces, even by analogy with French Revolution usage.

So far I have only done the most obvious simple edits. If we have to argue like this on every little point then it is best to delete everything and start fresh. cwmacdougall 7:40, 4 November 2012

Would you cut it out? Please, consider and take the time address the facts above and leave your personal opinions out of the discussion - this is not a message board. I have provided extensive evidence from established scholarship to make my case, whereas you have done nothing close to that. TO repeat what I said above:

1. The cited sources ARE NOT "Soviet historians"!!! I have said this several times already! The books Красный террор и деятельность ВЧК в 1918 году [Red Terror and the Activities of the Cheka in 1918. University of S. Petersburg Publishing House. 2006] and Красный и белый террор в России [Red and White Terror in Russia, 1918-1922. Yauza. 2004.] were NOT published in Soviet-era Russia, and the authors of these works are currently professors at Russian universities!![6] [7] So your change to the article calling them "Soviet historians" is false.

2. Victor Serge is a reliable source - Professor Diane Koenker said so. I trust her opinion more than I trust yours:

"Debates over the Civil War's impact on Soviet history may never be resolved, but the reader may wish to become familiar with some of the more thoughtful and thought-provoking works assessing the Civil War. See; Walter Laqueur, The Fate of the Revolution: Interpretations of Soviet History (London, 1967); Victor Serge, Year One of the Russian Revolution (Chicago, 1972)" Who compared Serge to Goebbels? Sounds like original research on your part.

3. Do you have any source at all to back up your claims?! The source I cited defines White Terror in 1917-1921 as anti-Soviet violence carried out by the Kolchak+Denikin regimes, the short-lived SR regimes in 1918, Ukrainian separatists, and the foreign interventionists e.g. Czechoslovaks and Poles. White Terror is NOT defined as actions solely by the Kolchak+Denikin regimes.

It's incorrect to describe your edits as "the most minor obvious edits" - you've deleted thousands of characters worth of sourced content, which is not constructive.

EverlastingGaze (talk) 10:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you think you could learn to use the "Save Preview" button and finish your note before saving? Would make it much easier to follow you. I think I have been clear. But if we have to argue at such length over such minor edits on such minor points of a biased propagandistic poorly sourced article that requires wholesale re-editing, then it is indeed best to start fresh. cwmacdougall 13:10, 4 November 2012

Briefly re your points:

1. Dates of first publication on your sources would help readers tell which are Soviet and which Russian. I have changed the reference to "some Russian historians" in response to your point.

2. Victor Serge is indeed "thoughtful and thought-provoking" but he was still a Bolshevik propagandist and therefore not a reliable source for facts.

3. Logically "White Terror" can not include terror by anti-White forces, such as the Poles, the Anarchists, and the Ukrainian Nationalists, any more than their actions could be described as "Red Terror" just because it was anti-White. There were more than two forces at play in the Civil War.

cwmacdougall 21:38, 4 November 2012

Your use of the term "Bolshevik propagandist" against Victor Serge shows your own personal opinion and also a lack of familiarity with the facts: Serge was always anarchist-leaning and was a member of the SR Party in the years before the revolution. The book that's cited in the article was not even published in Soviet Russia - so how can it be propaganda? After returning to Russia in 1919, he quickly showed his differences with the government e.g. the Kronstadt rebellion of 1921, and he later emigrated. You say that Serge cannot be used for facts, which, again, is false. Many scholars specifically refer to Victor Serge for their facts about particular events, and Serge is cited in many Wikipedia articles: "Over the next two years, Moscow also endured a rash of anarchist violence. Victor Serge reports that, in the summer of 1918, the Black Guardsmen who had survived the Cheka raids of the preceding months, contemplated the armed seizure of the capital, but Aleksey Borovoi and Daniil Novomirskii talked them out of it." p.188

Your opinion about the definition of White Terror is not very interesting. I cited a scholarly book above that specifically says that the Ukrainian separatist "Central Rada" regime practiced White Terror, as did the White Army leaders, the short-lived SR regimes like Komuch, and foreign interventionists like the Czechoslovaks and Polish:

(p.30): "On the same day, December 26, 1917, far from Petrograd, the chairman of the Kiev Soviet Leonid Pyatakov was arrested and taken to an unknown destination. The arrest and search of Pyatakov's home resulted in the beating of his brother. In January 1918, Pyatakov's body with signs of torture was found near Kiev...Later, in the fall of 1918, Soviet newspapers identified Pyatakov as one of the first victims of White Terror..." - this means that Leonid Pyatakov was one of the first victims of White Terror, and his killers were from the Ukrainian separatist side of Petlyura and so-called "Central Rada"[8]

(p.95) "White Terror is a conditional term that includes events taking place at various stages of the White Movement and the petit-bourgeois democracy. It includes the terror of the White Finns, Czechs, White Poles, Germans, as they apply to large areas of Russia. The White Terror includes categories of individual terror and counter-revolutionary measures, that is, any action of suspected terrorism against the Soviet regime in the Soviet Republic. The first information of the White Terror about the mass White Terror can be logically said to be around April-June 1918. This period was characterized as the beginning of a new front stage of the Civil War, and therefore, as a new round of mutual bitterness. Above all in this period was the bloody suppression of the socialist revolution in Finland and its coverage in the Soviet press."

EverlastingGaze (talk) 09:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Mr Gaze, can you not accept any amendments to this article? You do not own it, and it needs a thousand amendments to be remotely acceptable on neutral point of view and reliable source grounds. I have only just begun. cwmacdougall 11:02, 5 November 2012

Your edits are not based on any sources or even Wikipedia's rules on NPOV and RS. All you have done to this article is make massive deletions on the basis of your own personal opinions, which is unacceptable. At the least, your remarks found in your edit summaries must be based on some kind of scholarship on the topic. EverlastingGaze (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Victor Serge's work is confirmed in many other sources, which discuss the terror of Krasnov's regime in the Don at length. The orders of Krasnov's regime that Serge cites in his work are confirmed by many other sources. The original quotations in Russian["приказываю всех арестованных рабочих повесить на главной улице и не снимать три дня"] are cited in Professor Litvin's book[9]. So, contrary to what you say, Serge is a reliable source on this topic because his research is confirmed by more scholarly sources. EverlastingGaze (talk) 18:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Approach things from a neutral point of view rather than imitating a Cheka show trial and we will have something to discuss. cwmacdougall 19:11, 5 November 2012

Please see Wikipedia:Civility . EverlastingGaze (talk) 19:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

So, what response do you have to the fact that Serge's work is confirmed by and repeated in scholarly sources? Your false reasons provided above that Serge was a "Bolshevik propagandist" (he was actually an anarchist) that's untrustworthy has been refuted by the fact the contents of his work are repeated and cited in scholarly sources.

You also have not provided any alternative to the definition of White Terror that I cited above.

Looking at your edit history here and comments above, you haven't provided a single source to justify your actions. All you've done is come and insult people as "Bolshevik propagandists", accuse editors of "imitating a Cheka show trial", and make massive deletions of others' hard work. Most notably, you didn't really respond to anything I repeatedly posted above. I cannot let your edits stand because they're not based on anything except for your own personal opinions.::EverlastingGaze (talk) 23:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I have filed a complaint on the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard.cwmacdougall 19:19, 5 November 2012

Lock

I've fully protected the article for one week because of the protracted edit-warring among multiple editors. Work out your differences amicably (focusing on content, not conduct), and use the dispute resolution mechanisms available to you, if needed.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Starting Again

EverlastingGaze, my attempt at obtaining mediation having failed to attract interest either way, it looks like we are on our own, with occasional contributions from others. We could continue edit warring, or I could copy your style and introduce sourced but biased pro-White text, but I think it best if we can produce a neutral balanced article, don't you? We all know that the Civil War was a brutal and desperate fight for power between various groups, with terror by all sides; there is no need to have a biased unbalanced indictment against one side.

Looking at some points of dispute:

1 - Definition. I know you have found sources with wider definitions of "White Terror", but do they really use "White" in a broader way for "terror" than for "forces"? Logically in plain English I don't see how terror by anti-White forces can be included in "White Terror".

2 - Victor Serge. InformedContent, others, and I are very clear that he is not an acceptable source for factual information, as he was a paid Red propagandist during the Civil War and an unrepentant revolutionary thereafter, and never an academic historian. And he is really not necessary; his few additional examples of white terror added little.

3 - Biased language. The Red forces had no obvious greater claim to legitimacy than the White, so it is wrong to describe the former as a "Government" unless you also use that term for Kolchak's regime, which equally claimed that title.

4 - Dates for sources. Dates of first publication for sources would help in their assessment, my next task; without rehashing that inconclusive argument, some of us do think it matters whether a source is Soviet or post-Soviet.

cwmacdougall 9:46, 14 November 2012

1. Look at the definition I provided via Prof. Ratkovsky. He doesn't say that any and all opponents of the Soviet Government practiced White Terror. The anarchists, kulak bands, Makhno, and others haven't been described as practicing White Terror, and are therefore not included in this article.

2. I cited academic sources that use Victor Serge as a source for factual information. I also showed above that the contents of Serge's book are repeated in other, academic sources. There are other non-academic sources in this article, such as General Graves, but you have not insisted on removing them. Now, why is that? That you use terms like "Red propagandist" and "unrepentant revolutionary" are unhelpful.

3. The Soviets were directly elected by the people with a government based in Petrograd and later in Moscow. Note also the Brest-Liovsk Treaty by which major powers like Germany established diplomatic relations with Russia in 1918.

4. I showed above that research that originated in the Soviet 1920s and 1930s is cited in Russian academic works published in the last 10 years. So if these academic works think that Soviet-era stuff is reliable, then we are in no position to question it.

EverlastingGaze (talk) 00:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

We are not going to get anywhere if you refuse to be reasonable, and adopt a neutral point of view. And there is certainly no consensus on these points.

1 - It is also ridiculous to call terror by Poles and Ukrainian nationalists "White Terror" as they were also enemies of the White forces.

2 - Your sources use Serge as a source for colour, not facts, at least the ones I checked. Anyway, he is clearly not a reliable source for the same reason Goebbels is obviously not a reliable source for facts on Churchill. I will look at the Graves source; thanks for pointing it out. I have only just begun to work on this article.

3 - The Soviets deposed by force the only elected body, the Constituent Assembly. This is not the place to argue who is more legitimate, only that the case for Kolchak is similar to the case for the Soviets. It is only after the Soviet victory, when they were ruling all of the country and being recognised by Britain and others, that one can clearly call them legitimate.

4 - We can indeed challenge secondary sources, even when used by apparently reliable sources. It is far from enough that you can find some present day academic somewhere who uses a source. Anyway, all I am asking for is the dates of the original sources, so they can be checked.

cwmacdougall 0:44, 17 November 2012

Just looked at Graves. Personally I think what an American had to say against the Whites is probably an acceptable, relatively neutral, source. But the previous paragraph citing what an associate of Semyenov said under Stalinist interrogation, probably under torture, is obviously not acceptable; may well be true, as by all accounts Semyenov was pretty nasty, but not a reliable source. Anyway, not needed, the point has already been made. cwmacdougall 1:25, 17 November 2012

You still don't understand. NPOV does not mean that a source with a bias cannot be inserted into an article. Rather, all it means is that opinions need to be attributed to the author in the text: "Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with attribution. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and cannot be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre." This article does not cite Serge's opinions, but shows the evidence from his book that Krasnov ordered the practice of terror. EverlastingGaze (talk) 08:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

You don't understand; NPOV means you must edit from a neutral point of view, not cherry pick sources to match your biased viewpoint. Serge is a different issue; he is obviously not a reputable source - there can be no "evidence" from his book. Except that your choice of him is a sign of your bias. cwmacdougall 8:40, 17 November 2012

Your opinions mean absolutely nothing concerning the content of this article - nothing you've said is based on any kind of published research. Your evaluation of Serge's book is not very interesting. Please, take the time to read Wikipedia: NPOV: it doesn't mean what you think it does. EverlastingGaze (talk) 09:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

That you choose to differentiate between Graves and Serge shows an absolute lack of consistency. You said, "Personally I think what an American had to say against the Whites is probably an acceptable" - again, your personal opinions don't have much relevance to the content of this article. If you're going to make a point, it must be backed up with solid, reliable research.

EverlastingGaze (talk) 09:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

NPOV says "we edit articles so that all the major participants will be able to look at the resulting text, and agree that their views are presented accurately and as completely as the context permits" - that is precisely what you are not doing. You are cherry picking sources that agree with you and ignoring those that don't; that is contrary to the policy.

You are also using clearly unreliable sources, contrary to the reliable source policy. If you objected to what an American officer wrote about the Reds I probably would not complain, as one might expect him to have an anti-Red bias, but what he says he directly observed about the Whites is unlikely to reflect a bias; that is why I accepted him, while what a Red propagandist has to say about the Whites is quite likely to be pure propaganda, and therefore unreliable. Similarly a statement made under torture or threat of torture is inherently likely to be unreliable, hence my latest deletion.

This is getting tiresome. So far I have only made obvious clearly required amendments. Soon I will be looking at more complex issues; are you capable civilised discussion about them? Stop trying to write propaganda and we will have something to discuss and can make progress on this article. cwmacdougall 10:56, 17 November 2012

Your comments are based on nothing of substance: you've cited no scholarship or any kind of source to back up your points. All you have done is delete material based on your personal opinions, which is unacceptable. EverlastingGaze (talk) 20:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Definition

We need to try to reach a consensus on the definition of "White Terror". A definition that includes terror by anti-White forces, rather than just by White forces, appears contrary to the Plain English policy. Yet EveralstingGaze has cited a source that is that peculiar.

1 - Could anyone provide more information about Professor I. Ratkovsky to confirm he is a reliable source? Internal evidence suggests otherwise, with talk of "petit-bourgeois" whatever that is, when more commonly the Whites and Poles are accused of being aristocratic or aristocratic led movements.

2 - Can anyone provide other sources for this strange wide definition? Any in English, as this is partly a question of Plain English?

3 - I will look for definition sources too.

cwmacdougall 11:50, 18 November 2012

How about removing the stuff on the Czechoslovak legion which doesn't really belong here? Volunteer Marek 18:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

So amazing to see actual how the American propagandists wanted to modify this page for serve their favours, like how they spreaded false propaganda and rumors against Saddam Hussein's regime 16 years ago. Meliodas Sama (talk) 05:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

What Happened to the Outlying Upper Estimate?

When I was here in 2020, there was an outlying upper estimate of 300,000 for the death toll of the White Terror in Russia. It was sourced from Vadim Ehrlichman's Population Losses in the 20th Century, though only had a link to a website which included a table, assumedly from the text. Anyways, Ehrlichman's estimate for the Red Terror is fairly high, at 1.2 million, and, so, I'd doubt that his citation of 300,000 for the White Terror is a case of a creatively revised Russian history. I found another source for the citation here, [10]https://reason.com/2019/09/02/hard-lessons-from-the-russian-civil-war/. Daydreamdays2 (talk) 00:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

It's kinda weird that there is no victim here.

they apparently just attacked anybody in all of russia, randomly, if this whole entry is to be taken seriously. 199.7.158.59 (talk) 15:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)