Talk:White movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

White movement is within the scope of the Russian History WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Russian History. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (comments)

Contents 1 Nomenclature (2004 discussion) 2 anti-semitisim 3 White army - monarchist???? 4 White Russian

[edit] Nomenclature (2004 discussion)

Was there such a thing as the "White Army"? There was the Volunteer Army, which fought in southern Russia from 1918 to 1920, and then there were various force in Siberia, and Yudenich's army in Estonia, but can there be said to be a single "White Army"? john 06:17, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There was not, in a sense that counterbolshevik activities were not coordinated. And there was, as a common term for all these activities.

Similarly, I tried to find the origin of the term (Russian) White Guard, and it was not so eviden either. Mikkalai 20:23, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

But wouldn't it make more sense to have an article at "Whites (Russian Civil War)" or something, rather than White Army, which implies a single organization? john 18:58, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The "Whites" title has its own drawbacks. It would make much more sense to have someone knowledgeable to write a non-stubby article. The title will follow.

As for your wishes, there already is White Russians (Russian Civil War), btw., referred from this article, and equally poor. Mikkalai 03:20, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, a good article on this stuff would be good. But I think this article is a bad idea, as it implies there was something called the "White Army". We should have an article on, say, the Volunteer Army, which was an actual thing. Although there were various White armies, which were vaguely aligned with each other, there was no such thing as the "White Army" on a parallel with the Red Army. john 04:06, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I beg the logic above is faulty. While there was no White Army parallel to Red Army, it doesn't exclude "non-parallel" term. And it was, and pretty much in use. http://www.aviapress.com/viewonekit.htm?OTH-178 Mikkalai 06:58, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Given that that's a translation, I'm dubious. At any rate, of course there were White Armies (which is all one can infer from that title), but there was no "White Army". Why should there be an article on something that didn't exist? There should be an article on the White movement in general, and articles on the individual white armies (like the Volunteer Army), and on various white movements. I don't see why there should be an article on a non-existent "White Army". What could this article tell us that an article on the Whites in general could not? john 07:02, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

At the very least, since it is not a proper noun, the article should be moved to White army. john 07:03, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Please don't play with words. White Army is not a "thing", it is a "notion". The term is used, even if you maintain it doesn't exist. Atheists maintain that God doesn't exist, but they nevertheless can define the term and operate with it. Words don't always match things. Since the term is in use, it is none of our business to prove whether the choice of the word correct or not, you must describe the usage, rather than try to force your understanding. Mikkalai 07:32, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] anti-semitisim

is it not true that the white army was more antisemitic than the red army if not equally anti semitic? [The preceding comment was aded by 205.188.116.10]

It's a messy topic since Civil War era pogroms were often perpetuated by independent actors who were loosely allied with different sides at different times. See, e.g., Nikifor Grigoriev, who was responsible for many pogroms and who sided with at least 3 different governments during his career -- and then struck out on his own. Having said that, we have the following statement in History of the Jews in Russia and the Soviet Union:

In his book 200 Years Together, Alexander Solzhenitsyn provides the following numbers from Nahum Gergel's 1951 study of the pogroms in the Ukraine during 1917-1918: out of estimated 887 mass pogroms, about 40% were perpetrated by the Ukrainian forces led by Symon Petliura, 25% by the Green Army and various nationalist and anarchist gangs, 17% by the White Army, especially forces of Anton Denikin, and 8.5% by the Red Army.

Solzhenitsyn is not a professional historian and his book was not peer reviewed, so a better source would be nice. Ahasuerus 14:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

This is the view taken by James Lowene (author of Lies my Teachers told me) [The preceding comment was aded by 205.188.116.10]

That would be James W. Loewen, a sociologist whose book (as far as I know) was not peer reviewed. Ahasuerus 14:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Also is it not true that the U.S. supported them partially because of their antisemitic beliefs? [The preceding comment was aded by 205.188.116.10]

To quote WP:V:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

If there is a reputable source that makes this claim, we can certainly include it. Ahasuerus 14:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] White army - monarchist????

The white army was not monarchist - the official ideology of it was liberalism. (See V.V.Kozhinov, Russia, XX century 1901-1939 http://www.hrono.ru/libris/kozhin20vek.html, this book is a must read for anyone who wishes to understand Russian history). With respect, Ko Soi IX 14:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Most of its officer corps, particularly in the east sector, were vehement monarchists. The deliberate ambiguity of the White movement was to not limit its appeal. I think its safe to assume that if the Whites had won, the Romanov's would have been restored even if only as Constitutional Monarchs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.43.227.18 (talk) 04:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Let me repeat again - there might have been some monarchists in the White army, but they were underground, the ideology was that of liberalism. The White army is the child of the same forces that overthrew Romanov's in the first place. Why would they reinstate him after? With respect, Ko Soi IX 17:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect to Kozhinov, he is rather biased. I read his book and some of his assumption are rather questionable. The consensus among most academics who studied White movement ideology is that they had a wide range of views including liberal, socialist, conservative and monarchist...many of them especially military men had little ideology at all and were always apolitical. The only ideology that united them, however, was a strong sense of Russian nationalism. It is however true that after defeat in emigration, a conservative nationalist and monarchist ideology of Ivan Ilyin became dominant among White Emigres Fisenko 14:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Kozhinov's point was that, despite whatever ideology was common amongst the white guard, the leadership of the whites was liberal, followed liberal ideas and was anti-monarchist. With respect, Ko Soi IX 01:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] White Russian

Is this not the proper term for a member or advocate of the movement?

• Why is the case that the FIRST PARAGRAPH does not say that

a member of the "White movement" is called a "White Russian"?

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 04:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)