British army in Russia - Book recommendation.

[SgtPrice]

Dear Forum Members,

Could any forum members recommend a book which details the activities of the British army in Russia in the Great War? It is an aspect of the conflict I know very little about but would like to learn more of. Any help would be much appreciated. 

regards,

Sgt Price

[pierssc]

I believe this is meant to be very good...

 

 

[SgtPrice]

Hi, many thanks for the recommendation. Much appreciated. Will try to dig out a copy of the book. 

Regards,

Stuart

[wrightdw]

Thanks Piers,

Stuart, if you have any specific questions please post them to my book thread linked above and I would be pleased to respond.

My book covers the period March 1918-July 1920. It is currently out of print in hardback but available as an e-book which makes it easier if you want to 'CTRL-F' for specific terms.

You can get it from the publisher directly for £8.99 which is £4 cheaper than amazon.uk: https://www.helion.co.uk/military-history-books/churchills-secret-war-with-lenin-british-and-commonwealth-military-intervention-in-the-russian-civil-war-1918-20.php

There were a small number of British troops in Russia before March 1918, namely Army and RFC training missions 1916-17 and also RN icebreaker HMS Jupiter in 1915.

The RNAS Armoured Cars also operated in Russia for a while in 1916 but saw most of their service in Romania/Galizia 1916-17 which is today the western Ukraine, south-eastern Poland.

As you say, it is a very interesting but little known aspect of British involvement (Canadian, Indian, Australian, South African, New Zealand troops also took part) in WW1 which had huge ramifications for the remainder of the 20th Century.

 

[SgtPrice]

Damien,

Many thanks for posting your helpful reply. Your book seems to be exactly what I am after. I will be down loading it onto my Kindle fire once I have finished my current book in a week or so. I am really looking forward to discovering what exactly happened. I have just discovered that 5 VC's were awarded in 1919 including 3 at Kronstadt near St Petersburg. I place I had sailed past when I visited a few years ago. I will take you up on your offer of contacting you if I have any questions on the campaign. 

best wishes, 

Stuart.

 

 

 

 

[Chris_Baker]

It's hardly a book or comprehensive, but I hope you might find my article "6th Yorkshires in clash at Bol’shie Ozerki" useful in providing some outline. See https://www.longlongtrail.co.uk/6th-yorkshires-in-clash-at-bolshie-ozerki/

[SgtPrice]

Chris,

Many thanks for taking the time to publish the link. Any info on what happened in Russia is really appreciated.

regards,

Stuart.

 

 

[EvgenyS]

As I understand, all of the above concerns what we in Russia know as 'intervention'. The Great (also called the 'German', 'imperialistic', '2nd Patriotic', etc.) War for the Russian soliders ended in 1917, when the Eastern front collapsed. So this is about the British army messing around in the former ally's internal affairs, more or less (unlike when in 1916 the czar sent an entire division of best Russian troops to fight in the Western and other fronts along with the allies). From where I stand it's not a part of the Great War against Germany and the Austria-Hungarian empire, but a military expedition with certain limited objectives, like protecting the supplies from the allies to Russia that were stuck in the ports if the White Sea and Far East as well as along the Siberian railroad. It lasted much longer than the Great War itself. Maybe in Britain it's conceived somehow differently.

As for actual fighting done by the British in the Eastern front agianst the Germans, besides the armored car unit mentioned above, I read a book about a submarine unit that was based in St. Petersburg. It was very interesting to find out about that. There were transported by rail and reassembled in Russia. I came across it purely by chance several years ago and cannot find it now. If you research this topic, you may find it.

[SgtPrice]

EvgenyS,

Many thanks for the post. As you say the presence of the British in Russia at the time seems much more linked to internal Russian politics than trying to defeat the Germans. I am looking forward to learning exactly what happened in Russia and especially at Kronstadt where a number of VC's were awarded. I will also look for the book on the submarine to see if I can locate it. 

regards,

Stuart

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dever Mayfly]

One of the most important perspectives about the British involvement in Russia can be found in Volume 2 of Lloyd George's War Memoirs. He reminds us that the Great War was in doubt in early 1918 because the Brest-Litovsk treaty allowed 30 infantry divisions to reinforce the Prussian Army on the Western Front. Furthermore the independent government of Georgia signed peace with Germany and Turkey and allowed their armies to occupy Tiflis and access the oil of the Caspian. So the reason for sending the British Army to Russia was to "prevent German exploitation of the immense resources of Russia and Siberia, and her imperial expansion over their territories". As far as what they achieved is concerned, the Prime Minister suggests that the Allied expeditions to Siberia and the Caucusus in 1918: "barred the road to the Arctic and the Pacific Oceans, to the cornfields of Southern Russia, to the minerals of Siberia and the oil of the Caspian".  The British decision to support the White Russians after the Armistice was was based on the principle of giving "help to those allies in Russia whose cooperation with us against Germany had lately been so welcome".   

Harry Ferguson wrote an excellent book about Operation Kronstadt, but if you wish to understand what happened in the British Army's Siberian Campaign, (when more than 120.000 Allied soldiers helped to control the Trans-Siberian Railway), then I recommend Churchill's Abandoned Prisoners, which uses key government sources to explain how the whole intervention came to a conclusion through the eyes of the last British Army PoWs in Moscow. 

[EvgenyS]

This is a perfect example of outrageous lies of the politicians to justify the war for the capitalists's money. If the Allies wanted to stop the Germans from using the resources, why didn't they intervene directly in the Eastern front? Because this is where the Germans could and actually did pump a lot of resources from, not the White Sea ports and even less so Siberia and Far East. Protect the "immense resources of Siberia" from "zee Germans"? Like they could ever reach across thousand miles of the civil-war striken country to exploit something, while their economy was collapsing? Give me a break. The Germans were not stupid and, having financed the Bolshevik revolt, knew perfectly well to grab only what was at hand. After the Brest Litovsk treaty they did occupy a lot of territory and imported a lot of resources from the Western Russia and Ukraine, without the Allies firing a single shot at them on that part of the front. Why? Because the intervention corps was busy protecting the Western investments into the supplies that were likely not to be paid for after the government changed. Just look at the map and you will see that the Germans would not have reached even as far as Arkhangelsk port, let alone the alleged Siberain treasures, or even the Black Sea ports (which were occupied by the allies when the Armistice was already signed). 120,000 allies 'fighting the Germans' in Siberia and elsewhere years after Germany surrendered? In fact, the Germans managed to hold as long as they did partly thanks to the resources they took out of the Western part of the Russian empire in 1918. So, this supposed objective of the allies' intervention failed completely, simply because it was not the objective in the first place.

As for the prespectives, Upton Sinclair's 'Oil!' gives in fact a quite different impression of the Allies' intervention in Siberia from that of Lloyd George.

[Dever Mayfly]

I haven't found much evidence that the Great War was fought for "capitalist's money", but there is plenty of material to show that Britain fought against autocracy and militarism and that many of the Allies, such as the Czechs and Slovaks fought for their national identity. There is also evidence that British soldiers (and medics) were on the Eastern Front. For example, FM Wavell was part of the British contingent in Ukraine and several characters in my book were awarded Russian gallantry medals. Also, the Czech Legion was a formidible force that initially fought on the Eastern Front and then maintained its allegiance to the White Russian cause until its collapse.

We have to remember that British strategy at that time was global and influential politicians, such as the Foreign Secretary Lord Curzon, were genuinely worried about threats to India and Persia from whoever controlled Russia. Another important factor was the Anglo-Japanese Treaty which was signed in 1902 after Russia sent a fleet to the Far East and before it fought the largest-ever battle (before the Great War) at Mukden. By 1918, there was a large German and Austrian-Hungarian military presence in Siberia and after Brest-Litovsk, this posed a threat to the Allies (which included Japan). The British MP Colonel Josiah Wedgewood (who earned a DSO in the Dardanelles) conducted the reconnaissance at Vladivostock before the landing of the first Royal Marines in April 1918 (they later fought on the Kama river). As far as North Russia is concerned, it was all about access to the Atlantic for German U Boats, which were still a great menace in 1918.  The list of British Army battles and operations in Russia is included in the HMSO publication The Official Names of the Battles fought by the Military Forces of the British Empire During the Great War 1914-1919 (subsequently republished to include other engagements and the third Afghan War). 

[EvgenyS]

If the Czechs and Slovaks fought for their identity, how could they be considered "the Austro-Hungarian military presence"? You don't call the English POW's in Germany a British military presence, do you? The Slavic POWs were trying to escape from the bloody chaos and get home. In fact, they betrayed Kolchak and gave him to the Bolsheviks, while the Allies were supposedly supporting the White movement. If you look at the map of the intervention points, it's all about the strategic export ports and war supply depots, plus the Siberian railroad along which the supplies were stuck. And the few British volunteers actually fighting at the Eastern front... While the Russian government sent an entire division to Europe in 1916.

[EvgenyS]

How possibly could the German boats use the White Sea ports for the Atlantic ocean raids? Does it make any sense logistically, with no infrastructure there and their range not being that far anyway? How would they get there from the Baltics and why would they even do that?

[Dever Mayfly]

For a general understanding of how close the submarine menace came to winning the war for Germany, I recommend Douglas Botting's The U-Boats. As far as their capabilities are concerned, U-155 left Kiel on 24 May 1917 and cruised for 10,220 miles in 105 days and sank 19 ships. In May 1917, 549,987 tons were sunk in U-Boat attacks and their commanders were very adept at sustainment without infrastructure.

[EvgenyS]

It's not the point at all. Do you have any evidence that the Germans intended to use, let alone actually used, the Russian ports of the White sea? I doubt it because it would not make any sense. They were efficient already as you say, and that would not give them any advantage. So who did the allies secure those ports from then?

Edited 15 February by EvgenyS

[Dever Mayfly]

There is plenty of evidence that the German fleet operated in the Arctic Ocean and attacked Allied shipping that was bound for and returning from Russia with supplies for the Eastern Front. From 1916, German submarines and mines sunk many ships in the Barents Sea and the White Sea, while the route to and from the Atlantic was open from ice.

[EvgenyS]

But I see no connection between this and the fact that the allies suddenly in the late months of the war and long after its end decided to occupy the northern ports, as well as the Black sea and the Far East harbors. These German U-boats had never been based in those ports.

[Dever Mayfly]

I think we are going around in circles, which is unfair on poor old Sergeant Price who is more interested in the British Army in Russia. I do understand that for many Russians the Great War ended on 3 March 1918 with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (although Poland might have something to say about that). However for the other Allies and the Central Powers, the War continued until the various peace treaties were signed e.g. Versailles in June 1920 and Lausanne in July 1923. For Britain, the military operations to re-open the Eastern Front and prevent the Central Powers from exploiting their position in Russia after Brest-Litovsk (3 March 1918) were not "in the late months of the war" but at a critical juncture when Germany had the upper hand on the Western Front through the Kaiserschlacht (launched on 21 March 1918). The reality is that the British Army (Middlesex Regiment) which fought in Siberia in August 1918 at the battle of Dukhovskaya was up against Bolsheviks reinforced by Austrians, who had been released from their PoW camps - it wasn't just the Allies that were engaged in Russia.

I suggest that if you wish to continue the discussion about Berlin's ambitions in Russia and its diplomatic mission to Moscow, you start a new thread.

[Keith_history_buff]

Post 1 asked the question, and post 2 gave a successful answer to the question, as this has to be the definitive book on the British Army contingents in Russia presently available, and written in English.

[SgtPrice]

Guys,

Thanks for the extra posts. Always happy to see other people's take on the war and learn from their perspective. 

regards,

Sgt Price