Customer Reviews

Churchill's Crusade: The British Invasion of Russia, 1918-1920

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Some of the most important episodes in history are those that are unknown to all but a few. An example of this is the foreign intervention in Russia during the latter's civil war at the end of WWI. A whole host of countries and organizations actively opposed the rise of the Bolsheviks in Russia, and many of them sent troops to actively fight the Red Army. These countries included the US and England; the latter behind the insistence of Winston Churchill. Though their intervention came to nought; in its wake was a permanent distrust of foreigners in general, and the West in particular, by Russia for the rest of the 20th century. This book is one of the few modern publications to explore the history of this episode from beginning to end. Major and minor characters, both in smoky halls of public office and smoky ruins of battlefields, are brought forth. Intentions are laid out as the author revisits old documents; many of them available only in certain archives. Though involving many, the book justifies its title as it was Winston Churchill who really pushed military intervention in Russia; to the point of costing him his seat in parliament and sending him into the political exile for over a decade.

The book moves at a brisk pace, and is structured as an extensive piece of journalistic work. There is little commentary; hence the text comes across as objective. There are also numerous references to other books on this episode; another plus. Altogether, a good book on an important topic.

Overall, an interesting book on the Allied intervention in the Russian Revolution during and after World War I. This book is very much a political history that focuses primarily on the British and Commonwealth involvement. Only brief mention of the more exciting escapades that occurred in this campaign such as Robin Bruce Lockhart's exploits, or Agar's sinking of the Oleg. I'll also warn you, since it focuses heavily on the political side of events, it is a dry book. The author also downplays the American and French contributions to this campaign.

The main impression one walks away with after reading this book, is that other than Winston Churchill and perhaps General Ironsides, no one had a clear goal as to what would be achieved by intervening in the Russian Revolution. A clear-cut case of a campaign that failed due to the absence of clear-cut, achievable goals.

Churchill managed to be at the cneter of events throughout his life. He was a central figure in numerous, now seemingly minor, endeavors that had a lasting impact such as Churchill's Folly: How Winston Churchill Created Modern Iraq. This book examines his role and the story of the British intervention against the Bolsheviks in 1920.

The British intervention was part of an international intervention in Russia against the rise of Communism. This saw the deployment of French troops, Greeks in the Crimia, Americans and Japanese in Siberia and other nationalities elsewhere. The British intervened in northern Russia near the Arctic circle, particularly around Archangel where they sought to protect an allied supply depot. The intervention began in August of 1918 and lasted until March of 1920. Some 6,000 British troops and another 6,000-10,000 allied troops participated in the north Russia campaign. Around 600 were killed in action.

This is a fascinating story and one that deserves more attention. This is a good start, a well written popular account of the conflict.

Seth J. Frantzman

I read this good book, here in Brazil. And this good book is about the British link with Russian Civil War between 1918 and 1920. This book has many good things:
1-This book is unbiased about its subject.
2-This book shows that Woodrow Wilson, Clemenceau, David Lloyd George were ever at Lenin's side. Any country really wanted to doom Communism from its start. Even the Japaneses went against the White Russians(see page 208).
3-The White Russians weren't just defeated for lack of numbers and weapons, but because they were also Anti-semithics, corrupts, bad organized and had terrible leaders (see pages 216, 217, 220, 232, 233, 305, 310, etc.). The admiral Kolchak lost to the Bolsheviks about US$6 billions in gold for today's US Dollars values(see page 203).
4-The White were at least so against independence of Ukraine as the Communists. White general Denikin used more will and military power against Anti-Communists than against the Communists(see pages 231, 232, etc.). They were even also against the independence of the Baltic States(see page 306).

The real thing is that David Lloyd George, Woodrow Wilson and Winston Churchill had many things in common. They were eugenists, collonialists, Free Masons and all wanted the British Empire to last at least for many decades more. The difference was that Churchill wanted and fought to support the Whites, while the rest were at the Lenin's side since the beggining. Two policies, but with just one possible result: the end of British Empire and the victory of the Communism. The White cause was doomed from the start. The support to Lenin gave a fake "peace" for some years, sentenced to death all Europeans and Japanese Collonial Empires less than thirty years later, because the Communist since the last day of power wanted the Soviet leadership to the world and this thing, couldn't come without the end of all Collonial Empires.

The main problem of this book is that it didn't showed the correct thing to do, during the Russian Civil War. And the right thing to do them was to divide the former Russian Empire. Today, in Afghanistan and Iraq Americans are doing the same mistake did by Churchill and David Lloyd George between 1918 and 1922. One wrong policy was to support Lenin in former USSR. Today is to support Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan. Another wrong policy was to support bad leaders and warlords such as Denikin, Wrangel, Kolchak, etc. Today we can see Americans giving money to warlords, in Afghanistan. Both policies are doomed. The Americans lost the opportunity to divide Afghanistan in 2001 and to divide Iraq in 2003, but followed the doomed decision to mantain these useless countries in history.
The terrible decision to remain the existence of former Soviet Union, doomed the British Empire less than twenty years later. To terrible decision to remain the Afghanistan and Iraq in our times is also a mistake, but this time from the Americans. If you want to rule, you must divide your enemy. Such as the Romans' proverb:"Divide et Impera". Divide to rule.