Kev_uk wrote:Just what does Vasileostrovskaya or Василеостровск mean in English? Curious.
Alexor wrote:that last Russian map is interesting because it still has a strong Communist propaganda element in it.
If you look carefully it never shows that the Volonteer Army took Tsarytsine nor Orel...It can't be a mistake, it's done in purpose to underplay the success of the Whites.
RICCO7859 wrote:Here, there are some very interesting maps in english :
RICCO7859 wrote:here another good site with some maps and articles:
ERISS wrote:Makhnovists too aknowlegded the White elite cavalry didn't care about death and were their thougher fights, and there were cavalry shocks and hacking saber combats.
elite White cavalry was sent against Blacks
Mark Plant wrote:Where are these Makhnovist accounts written by guys who actually fought?
Meanwhile accounts by soldiers who actually fought make it clear that prolonged hand-to-hand combat was a very rare event. One side cracks at the last moment and either stops the charge or flees.
This applies to cavalry in all wars. That the Anarchists in the Russian Civil War would break the pattern of centuries is just not credible.
No it wasn't. The cavalry sent against Makhno was the standard White cavalry.
At Peregenovka the Whites sent hardly any cavalry. And the Taman Cossacks were hardly a crack regiment.
Denikin made a mistake taking Makhno too lightly. As part of that, his mistake was to not send enough quality troops.
Of course he made that mistake precisely because his experience is that his men did not find the Makhnovists particularly staunch opponents.
It is not consistent to argue that the Makhnovists always provided strong opposition, yet experienced soldiers did not seem to notice that! White accounts are quite consistent: the Makhnovists provided a strong military challenge because they were hard to pin down,. But they were never really worried about one-on-one battles in open ground.
ERISS wrote: the makhnov made their huge come back, and steal everywhere they can all ingenously lightly guarded white supplies, to their past positions to the East
UKRAINIANS RETHINK THEIR REVOLUTIONS
(...) The decisive factor in Makno’s defeat was famine. Incessant requisitions, a bad harvest in 1920, and then drought led to hunger in 1921.
Although the Bolsheviks controlled southern Ukrainian towns by then, they neither lowered procurement rates nor provided relief. They did this deliberately to cause famine, argue the authors—and almost all Ukrainian historians agree. By the end of 1921 an estimated two million people in southern Ukraine had died of starvation and armed resistance stopped. As there are still some who doubt Bolshevik intent, it is worth noting that recent work on Bolshevik policies elsewhere shows they were not very concerned with niceties when it came to imposing their authority.
Faced with strong resistance they used poison gas against the civilian population in Tambov province, and in February-March 1919 systematically executed every inhabitant of the Don Region they could capture in what amounted to intentional genocide. (...)
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest