Recent from talks
Nothing was collected or created yet.
North Russia intervention
View on WikipediaThis article needs additional citations for verification. (February 2015) |
| North Russia intervention | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Part of Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War | ||||||||
Red Army prisoners in the custody of US Army troops in Arkhangelsk | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| Belligerents | ||||||||
|
|
|
| ||||||
| Commanders and leaders | ||||||||
|
|
|
| ||||||
| Strength | ||||||||
|
Total: 32,614 |
|
| ||||||
| Casualties and losses | ||||||||
|
|
|
| ||||||
The North Russia intervention, also known as the Northern Russian expedition, the Archangel campaign, and the Murman deployment, was part of the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War after the October Revolution. The intervention brought about the involvement of foreign troops in the Russian Civil War on the side of the White movement. The movement was ultimately defeated, while the British-led Allied forces withdrew from Northern Russia after fighting a number of defensive actions against the Bolsheviks, such as the Battle of Bolshie Ozerki. The campaign lasted from March 1918, during the final months of World War I, to October 1919.
Reasons behind the campaign
[edit]
In March 1917, Tsar Nicholas II in Russia abdicated and was succeeded by a provisional government. The US government declared war on the German Empire and its allies in April, after learning of the former's attempt to persuade Mexico to join the Central Powers. The Russian Provisional Government, led by Alexander Kerensky, pledged to continue fighting Imperial Germany on the Eastern Front. In return, the US began providing economic and technical support to the Russian provisional government, so they could carry out their military pledge.
The Russian offensive of 18 June 1917 was crushed by a German counteroffensive. The Russian Army was plagued by mutinies and desertions. Allied war materiel still in transit quickly began piling up in warehouses at Arkhangelsk (Archangel) and the ice-free port of Murmansk. Anxious to keep Russia in the war, the Royal Navy established the British North Russia Squadron under Admiral Kemp.
The Bolsheviks, led by Vladimir Lenin, came to power in October 1917 and established the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic. Five months later, they signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with Germany, which formally ended the war on the Eastern Front. This allowed the German army to begin redeploying troops to the Western Front, where the depleted British and French armies had not yet been bolstered by the American Expeditionary Force.
Coincidental with the Treaty, Lenin personally pledged that if the Czechoslovak Legion would stay neutral and leave Russia, they would enjoy safe passage through Siberia on their way to join the Allied forces on the Western Front. However, as the 50,000 members of the Legion made their way along the Trans-Siberian Railroad to Vladivostok, only half had arrived before the agreement broke down and fighting with the Bolsheviks ensued in May 1918. Also worrisome to the Allied Powers was the fact that in April 1918, a division of German troops had landed in Finland, creating fears they might try to capture the Murmansk–Petrograd railroad, the strategic port of Murmansk and possibly even the city of Arkhangelsk. It was also feared that large military stores at Arkhangelsk might fall into unfriendly hands.[1]
Faced with these events, the leaders of the British and French governments decided the western Allied Powers needed to begin a military intervention in North Russia. They had three objectives: they hoped to prevent the Allied war materiel stockpiles in Arkhangelsk from falling into German or Bolshevik hands; to mount an offensive to rescue the Czechoslovak Legion which was stranded along the Trans-Siberian Railroad, and resurrect the Eastern Front; and by defeating the Bolshevik army with the assistance of the Czechoslovak Legion, to expand anti-communist forces drawn from the local citizenry.
On November 11, the armistice between Germany and the Allies was signed, marking the end of World War I, which made the goal of re-establishing the Eastern Front obsolete. However, British forces remained. From this point, their primary aims shifted to reinstating a White government and overthrowing the Bolsheviks. [12]
Severely short of troops to spare, the British and French requested that US President Woodrow Wilson provide U.S. troops for what was to be called the North Russia campaign, or the Allied intervention in North Russia. In July 1918, against the advice of the US War Department, Wilson agreed to a limited participation in the campaign by a contingent of U.S. Army soldiers of the 339th Infantry Regiment, that was hastily organized into the American North Russia Expeditionary Force, which came to be nicknamed the Polar Bear Expedition. Under his Aide Memoire, Wilson set the guidelines for American intervention by saying the purpose of American troops in Russia was "to guard military stores which may subsequently be needed by Russian forces and to render such aid as may be acceptable to the Russians in the organization of their own self-defense."[13]
International contingent
[edit]
British Army Lieutenant General Frederick Poole, who had previously spent two years in Russia, was appointed by the British Secretary of State for War, Lord Milner, to lead the expedition to Arkhangelsk.[14]
The international force included:
British Empire
[edit]- British Army:
- Headquarters elements,[15]
- 2/10th (Cyclist) Battalion, Royal Scots,[16]
- 2/7th Battalion, Durham Light Infantry,[17]
- 548th (Dundee) Army Troops Company, Royal Engineers,[18]
- 253rd Company, Machine Gun Corps,
- Canadian Malamute company of experienced sled dogmen[19]
- 236th Infantry Brigade,[15]
- 17th (Service) Battalion (1st City), King's (Liverpool) Regiment[20]
- 6th (Service) Battalion, Green Howards[21]
- 13th (Service) Battalion, Green Howards[21]
- 11th (Service) Battalion (1st South Down), Royal Sussex Regiment[22]
- 237th Infantry Brigade,[23]
- 238th Infantry Brigade,[23]
- "Finnish Legion" of Red Finns, commanded by British officers.[23]
- Infantry company from 2/9th (County of London) Battalion, London Regiment[23]
- Two detached sections from 253rd Company, Machine Gun Corps,[23]
- Two detached sections from 548th (Dundee) Army Troops Company, Royal Engineers[23]
- 238th Trench Mortar Battery
- "Finnish Legion" of Red Finns, commanded by British officers.[23]
- 52nd Battalion, Manchester Regiment,[citation needed]
- and elements of the Royal Dublin Fusiliers.[citation needed]
- Slavo-British Allied Legion (SBAL): a British-trained and led contingent composed mostly of anti-Bolshevik Russian volunteers (including Dyer's Battalion).
- Canadian Field Artillery
- (67th and 68th Batteries of the 16th Brigade, Canadian Field Artillery)[25]
- Royal Field Artillery
- 421st Battery
- (86th and 135th Batteries of the 32nd Brigade)
- 6th Brigade[26]
- 420th Battery
- 434th Battery
- 435th Battery
- 1203rd Battery
- Headquarters elements,[15]
- Royal Navy:
- a flotilla of over 20 ships including the seaplane carriers HMS Pegasus and HMS Nairana
- 6th Battalion Royal Marine Light Infantry (RMLI),[b]
- Royal Air Force:
- contingent comprising Airco DH.4 bombers, Fairey Campania and Sopwith Baby seaplanes along with a single Sopwith Camel fighter.[27][28]
1919 reinforcements
[edit]In late May 1919, the British North Russia Relief Force (British Army) arrived to cover the withdrawal of British, US and other anti-Bolshevik forces. It was made up primarily of:
- the 45th Battalion and 46th Battalions, Royal Fusiliers,[c]
- 2nd Battalion, Hampshire Regiment,[29]
- 1st Battalion, Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire Light Infantry.[29]
- two companies of the 201st Battalion, Machine Gun Corps,
- an armed company of the Chinese Labour Corps[30]
- 55th Battery, Royal Garrison Artillery
- 240th Light Trench Mortar Battery,
- 241st Light Trench Mortar Battery,
- 250th Signal Company, Royal Engineers
- and the 385th Field Company, Royal Engineers.[31]
United States
[edit]
- North Russia Expeditionary Force (also known as the Polar Bear Expedition): approximately 5,000 personnel from the US Army. including the:
- 310th Engineers,
- 339th Infantry,
- 337th Field Hospital,
- and 337th Ambulance Company.
- Also the 167th and 168th Railroad Companies, which were sent to Murmansk to operate the Murmansk to Petrograd line. US Navy: the cruiser USS Olympia during August and September 1918 (including 53 personnel attached to British naval units).[32]
France
[edit]- Predominantly the 21st Provisional Colonial Infantry Battalion,[33] a company of ski troops,[34] and engineers. Three artillery batteries (61st, 62nd, 63rd) of the 2nd Colonial Artillery Regiment provided supporting firepower.[35] This was supplemented with a North Russian battalion of the French Foreign Legion composed of anti-Bolshevik Russian volunteers who, like the SBAL, were recruited locally. For their bravery, they were awarded one Distinguished Service Cross[36] and six Military Medals from the Americans and British respectively.[37]
Italy
[edit]1,350 men in the it:Corpo di spedizione italiano in Murmania commanded by Colonel Sifola.
Russia
[edit]"White Russian" forces included the Northern Army (previously the army of Alexander Kerensky's provisional Russian government, led by General Evgenii Miller)
Other countries
[edit]- 1,000 Serbian and Polish infantry attached to Admiral Kolchak's forces in the north (as distinct from his Siberian forces, which included the Czechoslovak Legion).
- 30 Czechoslovak volunteers, part of them serving directly in British Army and part of them detached from the Czechoslovak Legion and attached to British Army.
Opposing forces
[edit]Opposing these international forces were the Bolshevik Sixth and Seventh Red Army, combined in the Northern Front (RSFSR), which was poorly prepared for battle in May 1918.
Landing at Murmansk
[edit]The First British involvement in the war was the landing in Murmansk in early March 1918. Ironically, the first British landing in Russia came at the request of a local Soviet council. Fearing a German attack on the town, the Murmansk Soviet requested that the Allies landed troops for protection. Leon Trotsky had ordered the soviet to accept Allied aid after the German invasion of Russia in February–March 1918. 170 British troops arrived on 4 March 1918, the day after the signing of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk between Germany and the Bolshevik government.[38][1]
White Finns volunteers who had crossed the border during the Finnish Civil War had captured the Russian town of Pechenga, and it was feared that the Whites would hand over the town to the Germans who would then use the bay as a submarine base. The Germans were allies of the White Finns as they had been assisting them militarily during their Civil War.[39] British troops saw action for the first time in early May, when a party of White Finns ski troops beat off a patrol led by Royal Marines and sailors from HMS Cochrane.[39] The second clash took place on 10 May at Tunturimaja,[40] where Royal Marines and their local guides were outflanked and forced once again to retreat.[39] The British forces, alongside Red Guards, eventually prevailed and secured Pechenga by 11 May with several casualties. In the following months, British forces in the area were largely engaged in small battles and skirmishes with White Finns in support of the Red Army.[41] Command of the British forces in the area was given to Major General Sir Charles Maynard.[42] In late June, 600 British reinforcements arrived. By this time, Soviet–Allied relations were passing from distrust to open hostility. A Bolshevik force was sent to take control of the town up the Murmansk-Petrograd railway, but in a series of skirmishes the Allied forces repelled the attack. This was the first real fighting between the troops of the Allies and Soviet Russia.[1] A trainload of Bolshevik troops was also found at Kandalaksha heading north, but Maynard managed to convince them to stop, before Serb reinforcements arrived and took over the train.[43]
In September, the British forces, who had so far mainly only engaged White Finns in small battles and skirmishes, were reinforced by the arrival of a force of 1,200 Italians as well as small Canadian and French battalions. By early Autumn, British forces under Maynard in the Murmansk region were also 6,000 strong.[44] However, on 11 November, the armistice between Germany and the Allies was signed, ending the First World War, meaning that the primary objective of re-establishing the Eastern Front was now irrelevant. The British forces did not leave. From this point onwards, the sole objectives of the British were to restore a White government and to remove the Bolsheviks from power.[12]
Landing at Arkhangelsk
[edit]
On 2 August 1918, anti-Bolshevik forces, led by Tsarist Captain Georgi Chaplin, staged a coup against the local Soviet government at Arkhangelsk. British diplomats had traveled to the city in preparation of the invasion, and General Poole had coordinated the coup with Chaplin.[45] Allied warships sailed into the port from the White Sea.[46] There was some resistance at first and Allied ships were fired on, but 1500 French and British troops soon occupied the city. The Northern Region Government was established by Chaplin and popular revolutionary Nikolai Tchaikovsky; to all intents and purposes, however, General Poole ran Arkhangelsk, declaring martial law and banning the red flag, despite the decision of the Northern Region Government to fly it.[47]
It was reported in the British press in early August that the Allied Powers had occupied Arkhangelsk, although not officially confirmed by the British authorities at the time.[48] By 17 August it was being reported that the Allies had advanced to the shores of Onega Bay.[49]
The lines of communications south from Arkhangelsk were the Northern Dvina in the east, Vaga River, Arkhangelsk Railway, the Onega River in the west, and the Yomtsa River providing a line of communication between the Vaga River and the railway in the centre. As soon as Arkhangelsk had been captured, preparations were made for a push southwards along the Arkhangelsk-Vologda railway. An armoured train was commissioned to support the advance, and a battle took place between Allied and Bolshevik armoured trains on 18 August.[50] In September 1918, the Allied Powers took Obozerskaya, around 100 miles (160 km) south of Arkhangelsk. During the attack, the RAF provided air support to the advancing Allied infantry, conducting bombing and strafing runs.[28] On 4 September 1918 the promised American forces arrived. Three battalions of troops, supported by engineers and under the command of Colonel George Stewart, landed in Arkhangelsk. This force numbered 4,500 troops.[51] In early September also an RAF squadron was set up specifically for service at Arkhangelsk, equipped with obsolete RE8 reconnaissance-bomber aircraft.[52]
Advance along the Northern Dvina
[edit]A British River Force of 11 monitors (HMS M33, HMS Fox and others), minesweepers, and Russian gunboats was formed to use the navigable waters at the juncture of the rivers Vaga and Northern Dvina. Some 30 Bolshevik gunboats, mines, and armed motor launches took their toll on the allied forces.
The Allied troops, led by Lionel Sadleir-Jackson, were soon combined with Poles and White Guard forces. Fighting was heavy along both banks of the Northern Dvina. The River Force outflanked the enemy land positions with amphibious assaults led by Royal Marines, together with coordinated artillery support from land and river. Their Lewis guns proved to be an effective weapon, since both sides were only armed with bolt-action rifles.
The 2/10th Royal Scots cleared the triangle between the Dvina and Vaga and took a number of villages and prisoners. The strongly fortified village of Pless could not be attacked frontally, so 'A' Company, less one platoon, attempted a flanking movement through the marshes. The following morning the company reached Kargonin, behind Pless, and the defenders – thinking themselves cut off by a large force – evacuated both villages. The regimental historian describes this as 'a quite remarkable march by predominantly B1 troops'.[53]
In mid-September, Allied troops were driven out of Seletskoe, and it took three days for the settlement to be retaken.[54] By late September, Royal Marines and 2/10th Royal Scots had reached Nijne-Toimski, which proved too strong for the lightly equipped Allied force. The monitors having withdrawn before the Dvina froze, the force was shelled by Bolshevik gunboats. In early October, the village of Borok was taken but, after a series of Bolshevik attacks were launched on 9 October, the Scots were forced to withdraw from the village. The Scots lost 5 men in their defence of the village. On 27 October, Allied forces were ambushed at Kulika near Topsa, losing at least 27 men killed and dozens wounded, a figure that could have been higher if it had not been for a detachment of Poles who bravely covered the retreat as others panicked. The Allied force withdrew to a defensive line for the winter, first driving off a number of attacks with the help of a Canadian Field Artillery battery, culminating in a very heavy assault on 11 November. An RAF squadron was set up at Bereznik on the bank of the Dvina, equipped with RE8s. Meanwhile, in October fighting between Bolshevik and American and French troops had occurred along the Arkhangelsk–Vologda railway. US rail troops worked to repair the trainline so as to allow the advance along the line to continue.[55]
The Allied troops were mainly inactive in the winter of 1918, building blockhouses with only winter patrols sent out.[53] On the first occasion that White Russian troops were sent into the line of combat during the North Russian campaign, on 11 December 1918, the White Russian troops mutinied. The ringleaders were ordered to be shot by General Ironside.[56]
Escalation
[edit]
Within four months the Allied Powers' gains had shrunk by 30–50 kilometres (19–31 mi) along the Northern Dvina and Lake Onega Area as Bolshevik attacks became more sustained. The Bolsheviks launched their largest offensive yet on Armistice Day 1918 along the Northern Divina front,[57] and there was heavy fighting on Armistice Day 1918 at the Battle of Tulgas (Toulgas) at the Kurgomin–Tulgas line: the final defensive line in 1919. Trotsky as Commander in Chief of the Red Army personally supervised this task on the orders of Lenin. 1,000 Red troops attacked the village, and the American and Scots defenders were driven back rapidly. The field hospital was captured and the large defensive gun batteries were threatened, but after heavy hand-to-hand fighting, the Red troops were pushed away from the guns. The Bolshevik force lost as many as 650 men killed, wounded or taken prisoner, whilst the Americans lost three men and seventeen Scots were killed.[58] The Allied forces had managed to quell the Bolshevik offensive by 14 November.[57] When the news came through of the Armistice with Germany, many of the British troops in Arkhangelsk eagerly anticipated a quick withdrawal from North Russia, but their hopes were soon dashed.[59]
The Bolsheviks had an advantage in artillery in 1919 and renewed their offensive while the Vaga River was hurriedly evacuated. 'A' Company of 2/10th Royal Scots had to be sent to reinforce a heavily pressed force on the Vaga, marching with sledges over 50 miles (80 km) in temperatures 40–60 degrees below freezing.[53] On 27 January 1919, word was received at Arkhangelsk that the Bolsheviks had fired poison gas shells at British positions on the Arkhangelsk–Vologda railway. The use of poison gas by the Bolsheviks was soon announced in the British press. The Bolsheviks would use poison gas shells against the British on at least two occasions in North Russia, although their effectiveness was limited.[60]
On the Dvina front, Tulgas was attacked by the Reds on 26 January.[61] The Bolsheviks originally drove back the American and Scots defenders but the following morning saw the Allied forces retake the settlement after a determined counter-attack.[61] The Bolsheviks continued to attack for the next three days until the Allies decided to withdraw, setting fire to the settlement as they evacuated four days later.[61] The Allied troops then reoccupied the town soon after.[61] By early 1919 the Bolshevik attacks along the Dvina were becoming more substantial.[61]
The River Force monitors made a final successful engagement with the Bolshevik gunboats in September 1919. However two monitors, HMS M25 and HMS M27, unable to sail downstream when the river's levels dropped, were scuttled on 16 September 1919 to prevent their capture by Bolshevik forces.
In the Murmansk sector, the British decided that the only way to achieve success in ejecting the Bolsheviks from power was by raising, training and equipping a large White Russian Army. However, recruitment and conscription attempts failed to provide a sizable enough force. It was therefore decided to move south to capture more populated areas from which recruits could be conscripted.[21] During February 1919, as the British fought defensively against attacking Bolshevik forces, the British decided to launch an offensive, aiming to capture extra territory from which locals could be conscripted. This would be the first significant action on the Murmansk front between the Allies and the Bolsheviks. With a force of only 600 men, most of whom were Canadians, the attack was launched in mid-February. Met with stiff opposition, the town of Segeja was captured and half the Red Army garrison was killed, wounded or taken prisoner. A Bolshevik train carrying reinforcements was intentionally derailed when the line was cut, and any escaping men were cut down by machine-gun fire. During the February offensive, the British forces pushed the Red Army beyond Soroko and as far south as Olimpi.[62] Despite an attempted Bolshevik counter-attack, by 20 February, 3,000 square miles of territory had been taken.[63]
On 22 September, with the Allied withdrawal already ongoing, a British detachment from the Royal Scots was sent by river to Kandalaksha on four fishing boats to stop sabotage operations carried out by Finnish Bolsheviks against the railway there. The British party was ambushed even before landing and suffered heavy casualties, with 13 men killed and 4 wounded. Consequently, the unopposed Bolsheviks destroyed a number of bridges, delaying the evacuation for a time.[64][65] One of the fatalities, a Private from Ormesby, Yorkshire, who succumbed to his injuries on 26 September, was the last British servicemen to die in action in Northern Russia.[65]
The furthest advance south on the northern front in early 1919 was an Allied Mission in Shenkursk on the Vaga River and Nizhnyaya Toyma on the Northern Dvina where the strongest Bolshevik positions were encountered. The strategicly important city of Shenkursk was described by British commander Ironside as 'the most important city in North Russia' after Arkhangelsk and he was determined to hold the line.[66] However, British and Allied troops were expelled from Shenkursk after an intense battle on 19–20 January 1919, with the Americans losing seventeen men in the process.[67] One American and White Russian force numbering 450 men drove back a Bolshevik force three or four times its size, but suffered some 50 casualties in the process.[66] The battle for Shenkursk took place in -45 degree Celsius temperatures.[68] Over the following days, RAF aircraft flew several bombing and reconnaissance missions to support the withdrawal from Shenkursk.[69] The battle of Shenkursk was a key turning point in the campaign, and the Allied loss put them very much on the back foot for the next few months along the railway and Dvina fronts.[70] On 8 March the Bolsheviks, determined to push the British from their positions on the Vaga, attacked Kitsa. The Reds went as far as using gas shells to bombard the settlement, but all attacks were repulsed. However, with much of the village being destroyed and the Allied force being outnumbered by the enemy, it was decided to withdraw.[71]
On the railway front south of Arkhangelsk, the Allied forces were gradually advancing.[72] On 23 March, British and American troops attacked the village of Bolshie Ozerki, but the first wave of attackers were pushed back. Orders were made to resume the attack the next morning, but some of the British troops protested as they had not had a hot meal for some time.[73] Another assault was repulsed on 2 April.[74] The next day, 500 Bolsheviks attacked Shred Mekhrenga but were eventually repelled, with over 100 Red troops being killed despite the British suffering no fatal casualties.[74] Another Bolshevik attack was launched on Seltskoe, but that attack also failed. In total, the Bolsheviks lost 500 men in one day in the two attacks.[75]
Many of the British and foreign troops often refused to fight, and Bolshevik attacks were launched with the belief that some British troops may even defect to their side once their commanders had been killed. The numerous White mutinies demoralised Allied soldiers and affected morale.[76] The Allied forces were affected by their own mutinies, with the British Yorkshire Regiment and Royal Marines rebelling at points as well as American and Canadian forces.[76] In April, a pre-emptive strike against the Bolsheviks was launched against Urosozero. A French armoured train shelled the town and it was then captured with the loss of 50 Bolshevik troops.[77] A major offensive was then launched in May. On 8 May, Allied positions in Karelskaya came under attack, with 8 men being killed. During the advance on Medvezhyegorsk on 15 May, the stubborn Bolshevik defence was only ended with a bayonet charge. British and Bolshevik armoured trains then traded blows as the British attempted to seize control of more of the local railway. The town was finally seized on 21 May, as Italians and French troops pushed forward with the British.[78] The May offensive never quite carried the Allies as far as the largest town in the region, Petrozavodsk.[79]
After the May offensive, there was a considerable amount of aerial activity around Lake Onega. The British constructed an airfield at Lumbushi, and seaplanes were brought in to add to the force of 6 R.E.8 planes.[80] The seaplanes bombed Bolshevik vessels, sinking four and causing the capture of three, including an armoured destroyer.[81]
In April, public recruiting began at home in Britain for the newly created 'North Russian Relief Force', a voluntary force which had the claimed sole purpose of defending the existing British positions in Russia.[82] By the end of April 3,500 men had enlisted, and they were then sent to North Russia.[82] Public opinion regarding the formation of the force was mixed, with some newspapers being more supportive than others.[83] The relief force eventually arrived in North Russia in late May–June.[84]
On 25 April a White Russian battalion mutinied, and, after 300 men went over to the Bolsheviks, they turned and attacked the Allied troops at Tulgas.[85] The Canadian defenders had to withdraw six miles to the next village, where attacks were eventually beaten off after heavy casualties. The capture of Tulgas by the Bolsheviks meant that the Reds now held the left bank of the Dvina 10 miles behind the Allied line.[86] On 30 April the Bolshevik flotilla appeared – 29 river craft – and, together with 5,500 troops, attacked the 550 total Allied troops in three area.[85] Only superior artillery saved the Allied forces, with the river flotilla eventually withdrawing. Tulgas was then eventually recaptured.[85]
In May and June, the units of the original British force which had arrived in Arkhangelsk in August and September 1918 finally received orders for home.[87] In early June the French troops were withdrawn and the Royal Marines detachment was also sent home, followed by all Canadian troops after it was requested that they be repatriated. All remaining American troops also left for home.[88] The Serbian troops (perhaps Maynard's best infantry fighters) became unreliable as others withdrew around them.[89] By 3 July, the Italian company was on the verge of mutiny as its men were seriously disaffected with their continued presence in Russia so long after the Armistice. In mid July, the two companies of American railway troops were also withdrawn. The Royal Marines unit had been expressing its dissatisfaction with being forced to stay in Russia after the Armistice since February, and had been openly demanding to their commanding officers that they be sent home. Threatening letters were sent to their officers stating that if they were not repatriated, the men would commandeer the first train going to Murmansk. The men became increasingly unwilling to participate in serious military action throughout 1919.[90] The French and American troops stationed in the north were similarly reluctant to fight, and French troops in Arkhangelsk refused to take part in any action that was not merely defensive.[91] During June, small naval battles occurred on Lake Onega between Allied and Bolshevik ships. The Bolshevik forces were completely taken by surprise when British seaplanes emerged and attacked. The settlement of Kartashi was captured during the month.[92] Despite being told when volunteering that they were only to be used for defensive purposes, plans were made in June to use the men of the North Russian Relief Force in a new offensive aimed at capturing the key city of Kotlas and linking up with Kolchak's White forces in Siberia.[93] The villages of Topsa and Troitsa were captured in anticipation of this action, with 150 Bolsheviks being killed and 450 being captured.[94] However, with Kolchak's forces being pushed back rapidly, the Kotlas offensive was cancelled.[95]
In early July 1919, another White unit under British command mutinied and killed its British officers, with 100 men then deserting to the Bolsheviks.[96] Another White mutiny was foiled later in the month by Australian troops.[97] On 20 July, 3,000 White troops in the key city of Onega mutinied and handed over the city to the Bolsheviks. The loss of the city was a significant blow to the Allied forces as it was the only overland route available for the transfer of supplies and men between the Murmansk and Arkhangel theatres, a particularly vital line of communication during the months of the year when the White Sea froze over rendering Arkhangel inaccessible to maritime traffic.[98] This event led to the British losing all remaining trust for the Whites and contributed to the desire to withdraw.[98] Attempts were soon made to retake the city, but in a failed attack in late July the British had to force detachments of White forces to land at gunpoint in the city, since they were adamant that they would not take part in any fighting.[99] On one Allied ship, 5 Bolshevik prisoners captured in battle even managed to temporarily subdue the 200 White Russians on board and take control of the ship with little resistance.[100] Despite the Allied setbacks, a battalion of marines, the 6th Royal Marine Light Infantry, was sent to assist the British at the end of July.[101]
Final offensives
[edit]The final two months on the Dvina front, August and September 1919, would see some of the fiercest fighting between British and Red Army troops of the Civil War.[102] In August, a major offensive was launched along the Dvina to try and strike a blow at Bolshevik morale and to increase the morale of the White forces before a withdrawal.[102] As part of this, an attack was made on the village of Gorodok. Before the attack began, 6 RAF DH.9s, 5 DH.9As and two Sopwith Snipes dropped three tonnes of bombs on the village in two successful raids, and on 10 August British planes also dropped bombs on other Bolshevik held villages.[103] During the attack, 750 Bolshevik prisoners were taken, and one battery was found to have been manned by German troops.[104] The village of Seltso was also attacked, but a strong Bolshevik defence halted any British progress.[105] However, the villages of Kochamika, Jinta, Lipovets and Zaniskaya were captured with little resistance. In total the offensive led to the deaths of around 700 Reds and was considered a success.[106] There was also action on the railway front south of Arkhangelsk at this time, and a raid on the settlement of Alenxandrova took place on 19 August.[107] On 24 August, there was an aerial dogfight between a British R.E.8 aircraft and two Bolshevik Nieuport fighters over the Pinega River, with the British plane only returning safely when the observer flew 100 miles back to base whilst his pilot lay unconscious.[107][d] On 10 September, the city of Onega was retaken.[109] The American River Force monitors made a final successful engagement with the Bolshevik gunboats in September 1919. However two British monitors, HMS M25 and HMS M27, unable to sail downstream when the river's levels dropped, were scuttled on 16 September 1919 to prevent their capture by Bolshevik forces.
A final offensive on the Murmansk front was launched by the Allied forces in September, aimed at destroying the Bolshevik forces to leave the White forces in a good position after the planned withdrawal.[110] On 28 August 1918 the British 6th Royal Marine Light Infantry Battalion was ordered to seize the village of Koikori (Койкары) from the Bolsheviks as part of a wide offensive into East Karelia to secure the British withdrawal to Murmansk. Serbian forces supported the British as they attempted to push on to the Bolshevik village.[110] The attack on the village was disorganized and resulted in three Marines killed and 18 wounded, including the battalion commander who had ineffectually led the attack himself.[111] A week later, B and C companies, led this time by an army major, made a second attempt to take Koikori, while D company was involved in an attack on the village of Ussuna. The British were again repulsed at Koikori; the army major was killed and both Marine company commanders wounded. D company was also beaten off by Bolshevik forces around Ussuna, with the death of the battalion adjutant, killed by sniper fire.[111]
The next morning, 9 September, faced with the prospect of another attack on the village, one Marine company refused to obey orders and withdrew themselves to a nearby friendly village. As a result, 93 men from the battalion were court-martialled; 13 were sentenced to death and others received substantial sentences of hard labour. In December 1919, the Government, under pressure from several MPs, revoked the sentence of death and considerably reduced the sentences of all the convicted men.[112][113][f]
The Serbs and White Russian forces attacked again on 11 and 14 September, but these attacks also failed.[64] However, the British did manage to reach the Nurmis river by 18 September, with 9,000 troops, including 6,000 White Russians, participating in this final offensive.[64]
On 6 September, the commanding officer of the 2nd Battalion Hampshire Regiment, Lieutenant Colonel Sherwood-Kelly, published an open letter in the Daily Express lambasting the North Russia campaign, stating that the volunteer British troops were being used for offensive actions (despite being told that they wouldn't be) and that the regional White "puppet" government "rested on no basis of public confidence and support".[118] The letter contributed to the British public and soldiers' desire for a withdrawal from North Russia.[119]
British withdrawal
[edit]An international policy to support the White Russians and, in newly appointed Secretary of State for War Winston Churchill's words, "to strangle at birth the Bolshevik State" became increasingly unpopular in Britain. In January 1919 the Daily Express was echoing public opinion when, paraphrasing Bismarck, it exclaimed, "the frozen plains of Eastern Europe are not worth the bones of a single grenadier".
From April 1919, the inability to hold the flanks and mutinies in the ranks of the White Russian forces caused the Allied Powers to decide to leave. British officers at Shussuga had a lucky escape when their Russian gunners remained loyal. A number of western military advisers were killed by White mutineers who went over to the Bolsheviks.[120] The Bolsheviks had no intention of allowing the British to leave without a fight, and resumed their attacks on the British positions on 6 September.[121] Fighting took place in the villages of Kodema, Ivanovskaya, Puchega and Chudinova, where 81 Bolsheviks were killed and 99 taken prisoner.[121] In total, 163 Bolsheviks were killed in their offensive compared to one fatality on the side of the British.[122] Over the next week, the Bolsheviks continued attacking the British lines and moved forward very quickly, and there were clashes at Pless and Shushunga. The attackers were subsequently identified as a combined force of civilian partisans and deserters who had mutinied and gone over to the Bolsheviks from the British lines on 7 July.[123] By this point, British troops had started withdrawing to Arkhangelsk in order to prepare themselves for the evacuation of North Russia.[124]
The British War Office sent General Henry Rawlinson to North Russia to assume command of the evacuation out of both Arkhangelsk and Murmansk. General Rawlinson arrived on August 11.
During September, a couple of Bolshevik assaults were launched on Bolshie Ozerki, and although the first was repelled, 750 Red troops advanced on the village on 15 September and attacked from all sides, inflicting heavy casualties on the British and Allied defenders.[125] On 22 September, with the Allied withdrawal already ongoing, a British detachment from the Royal Scots was sent by river to Kandalaksha on four fishing boats to stop sabotage operations carried out by Finnish Bolsheviks against the railway there. The British party was ambushed even before landing and suffered heavy casualties, with 13 men killed and 4 wounded. Consequently, the unopposed Bolsheviks destroyed a number of bridges, delaying the evacuation for a time.[64][65] One of the fatalities, a private from Ormesby, Yorkshire, who died of his injuries on 26 September, was the last British servicemen to die in action in Northern Russia.[65]
On the morning of September 27, 1919, the last Allied troops departed from Arkhangelsk, and on October 12, Murmansk was abandoned.
Arkhangelsk Railway and withdrawal of US troops
[edit]Minor operations to keep open a line of withdrawal against the 7th Red Army as far south as Lake Onega and Yomtsa River to the east took place along the Arkhangelsk Railway with an armoured train manned by the Americans. The last major battle fought by the Americans before their departure took place at Bolshie Ozerki from 31 March through 4 April 1919.
The US appointed Brigadier General Wilds P. Richardson as commander of US forces to organize the safe withdrawal from Arkhangelsk. Richardson and his staff arrived in Arkhangelsk on April 17, 1919. By the end of June, the majority of the US forces was heading home and by September 1919, the last US soldier of the Expedition had also left Northern Russia.
Aftermath
[edit]The White Russian Northern Army was left to face the Red Army alone. Poorly disciplined, they were no match for the Red Army, and quickly collapsed when the Bolsheviks launched a counter-offensive in December 1919.
Many soldiers capitulated and the remnants of the Army were evacuated from Arkhangelsk in February 1920. On February 21, 1920, the Bolsheviks entered Arkhangelsk and on March 13, 1920, they took Murmansk.[126] The White Northern Region Government ceased to exist. White Northern Russian commander Yevgeny Miller held out to the end, fleeing with a number of other White officers – including Grigory Chaplin – in an icebreaker when the Reds entered Arkhangelsk. They fled to France, and Miller was later captured by the Bolsheviks and executed in 1939.[127]
Legacy
[edit]In 1927, the Constructivist-styled Monument to the Victims of the Intervention was raised in Murmansk, on the tenth anniversary of the Russian Revolution. It is still standing as of 2025.[128]
While the intervention has been mostly forgotten in the west, it's still taught in history lessons in Russian schools and universities as proof of western hostility towards Russia.[citation needed]
The campaign in fiction
[edit]Two fictional television characters fought with the British Expeditionary Force: Jack Ford in When the Boat Comes In (as an intelligence officer in Murmansk) and Albert Steptoe in Steptoe and Son.
The campaign features in the Alexander Fullerton novels Look to the Wolves and Bloody Sunset.
The 1990 film Archangel is a surrealistic drama set in 1919 Arkhangelsk during the war.
In John Lawton's novel, Then We Take Berlin (2013), Countess Rada Lyubova mentions (from the novel's present in post-WW II Britain) that she "had turned back at the British lines near Archangel ... 'such folly.'" and "had crossed Siberia with the remnants of the Czech Legion ... 'not many ever saw home again.'"
See also
[edit]Notes
[edit]- ^ 590 in Murmansk sector, 274 in Arkhangelsk sector
- ^ The British 6th Battalion Royal Marines Light Infantry (RMLI) was scratched together from a company of the Royal Marine Artillery and companies from each of the three naval port depots. Very few of their officers had seen any land fighting. Their original purpose had been only to deploy to Flensburg to supervise a vote to decide whether northern Schleswig-Holstein should remain German or be given to Denmark. Many of the Marines were less than 19 years old; it would have been unusual to send them overseas. Others were ex-prisoners of war who had only recently returned from Germany and had no home leave. There was outrage when on short notice, the 6th Battalion was shipped to Murmansk, Russia, on the Arctic Ocean, to assist in the withdrawal of British forces. Still not expecting to have to fight, the battalion was ordered forward under army command to hold certain outposts.
- ^ Two companies of the 45th Battalion and one of the machine gun companies were composed mainly of Australian volunteers who were veterans of the Western Front: about 200–300 former members of the Australian Imperial Force.
- ^ The R.E.8 had basic duplicate flight controls in the observer's cockpit which folded out of way when not in use.[108]
- ^ Major Martyn Rogers Strover, DSO, was originally a Captain in the Royal Field Artillery but later transferred as a Major to the Royal Garrison Artillery.[114][115]
- ^ The questions asked in Parliament tell a slightly different story.
- "Mr. Thomas asked Mr. Long, First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that on 9th September a special battalion of the Royal Marines in Murmansk, after hard fighting for fifteen hours without food, were told by Major Strover, Royal Field Artillery,[e] to clear out, and, being left with no one in command, they marched to the base for food, and then, in consequence of this, fifty-three men have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment, in most cases of two years, which is being served in His Majesty's Naval Prison, Bodmin; and whether he will have full inquiry made into the matter in order to ascertain whether these men should have the remainder of their sentences quashed?[116]
- A few days later, Lt-Commander Joseph Kenworthy said: "It seems incredible that ninety-three of these men should be in gaol on a charge of cowardice and insubordination. It is an event unprecedented. Is it a fact that these men were disembarked from the ship and sent on leave with the instruction that they were going to be sent to the Army of the Rhine? Is it a fact that six hours after they had returned from leave, and before they were embarked, they were told that they were being sent to Russia? Is it also a fact that they were sent out there, and although they did not like it, they went? Whether these men actually did refuse to fight or did show any sense of cowardice is very much questioned."[117]
References
[edit]- ^ a b c d Mawdsley 2007, p. 91.
- ^ Mawdsley 2007, p. 251.
- ^ Wright 2017, pp. 526–528, 530–535.
- ^ Wright 2017, pp. 528–529, 531.
- ^ a b c House & Curzon 2019, p. 48.
- ^ Wright 2017, p. 528.
- ^ House & Curzon 2019, p. 24.
- ^ Swettenham 1967, p. 24.
- ^ House & Curzon 2019, p. 26.
- ^ Kinvig 2006, p. 315.
- ^ a b House & Curzon 2019, p. 53.
- ^ a b Wright 2017, p. 37.
- ^ "President Wilson's Aide-Memoire on the subject of military intervention in Russia". pbma.grobbel.org. Retrieved 2016-12-06.
- ^ Davis & Trani 2002, p. 139.
- ^ a b Wright 2017, p. 526.
- ^ Wright 2017, p. 122.
- ^ Wright 2017, p. 125.
- ^ Wright 2017, p. 29.
- ^ Wright 2017, p. 35.
- ^ Wright 2017, p. 36.
- ^ a b c Wright 2017, p. 38.
- ^ Wright 2017, p. 43.
- ^ a b c d e f Wright 2017, p. 527.
- ^ a b Millman 1998, p. 312.
- ^ Wright 2017, p. 143.
- ^ Wright 2017, p. 541.
- ^ "British Military Aviation in 1918 – Part 2". Rafmuseum.org. 1918-06-06. Archived from the original on 2012-06-30. Retrieved 2012-04-28.
- ^ a b Bowyer 1988, p. 38.
- ^ a b Wright 2017, p. 530.
- ^ Wright 2017, p. 535.
- ^ Wright 2017, p. 532.
- ^ Willett Jr. 2005, p. 267.
- ^ Wright 2017, p. 28.
- ^ Wright 2017, p. 47.
- ^ Munt 2015, pp. 21–24.
- ^ "Le Bataillon de la Légion Etrangère de Russie du Nord" (in French). Amicale des Anciens de la Légion Etrangère de Paris. Retrieved 18 November 2018.
- ^ Williamson 2018.
- ^ Wright 2017, pp. 23–24.
- ^ a b c Wright 2017, p. 24.
- ^ Paasilinna 1980, pp. 185–190.
- ^ Wright 2017, p. 86.
- ^ Kinvig 2006, p. 22.
- ^ Kinvig 2006, p. 26.
- ^ Kinvig 2006, p. 115.
- ^ Kinvig 2006, p. 29.
- ^ Foglesong 2014, pp. 208–254.
- ^ Kinvig 2006, pp. 34–38.
- ^ "Occupation of Archangel". Newcastle Morning Herald and Miners' Advocate. 6 August 1918. Retrieved 12 December 2017.
- ^ "Allied Troops at Archangel". The Border Morning Mail and Riverina Times. 17 August 1918. Retrieved 12 December 2017.
- ^ Wright 2017, p. 158.
- ^ Kinvig 2006, p. 40.
- ^ Wright 2017, p. 151.
- ^ a b c Brander 1976, pp. 75–78.
- ^ Kinvig 2006, p. 42.
- ^ Wright 2017, pp. 145, 147, 153, 160.
- ^ Balbirnie 2016, pp. 131–132.
- ^ a b Kinvig 2006, p. 123.
- ^ Wright 2017, p. 148.
- ^ Wright 2017, p. 149.
- ^ Wright 2017, p. 213.
- ^ a b c d e Wright 2017, p. 214.
- ^ Kinvig 2006, p. 121.
- ^ Wright 2017, pp. 43–50.
- ^ a b c d Kinvig 2006, p. 265.
- ^ a b c d Wright 2017, p. 131.
- ^ a b Wright 2017, p. 190.
- ^ Kinvig 2006, pp. 125–126.
- ^ Kinvig 2006, p. 125.
- ^ Wright 2017, pp. 193–194.
- ^ Wright 2017, p. 215.
- ^ Wright 2017, p. 196.
- ^ Wright 2017, p. 165.
- ^ Wright 2017, pp. 166–167.
- ^ a b Wright 2017, p. 167.
- ^ Wright 2017, p. 168.
- ^ a b Balbirnie 2016, p. 130.
- ^ Wright 2017, pp. 51–56.
- ^ Wright 2017, pp. 62–66.
- ^ Mawdsley 2007, p. 257.
- ^ Kinvig 2006, pp. 173–174.
- ^ Kinvig 2006, p. 124.
- ^ a b Kinvig 2006, pp. 180–181.
- ^ Wright 2017, p. 218.
- ^ Wright 2017, pp. 223–225.
- ^ a b c Kinvig 2006, p. 185.
- ^ Wright 2017, p. 216.
- ^ Wright 2017, p. 217.
- ^ Wright 2017, p. 229.
- ^ Kinvig 2006, p. 178.
- ^ Wright 2017, pp. 67–70.
- ^ Wright 2017, p. 129.
- ^ Wright 2017, pp. 77–79.
- ^ Kinvig 2006, pp. 191–192.
- ^ Kinvig 2006, p. 193.
- ^ Kinvig 2006, p. 198.
- ^ Balbirnie 2016, p. 136.
- ^ Wright 2017, p. 174.
- ^ a b Balbirnie 2016, p. 142.
- ^ Wright 2017, p. 170.
- ^ Wright 2017, p. 171.
- ^ Kinvig 2006, p. 255.
- ^ a b Wright 2017, p. 253.
- ^ Wright 2017, pp. 256–257.
- ^ Kinvig 2006, pp. 241–242.
- ^ Wright 2017, p. 264.
- ^ Wright 2017, p. 278.
- ^ a b Wright 2017, p. 177.
- ^ Hare 1990, pp. 259–260.
- ^ Kinvig 2006, p. 247.
- ^ a b Kinvig 2006, pp. 258–259.
- ^ a b Kinvig 2006, p. 259–262.
- ^ "Obituary: Brigadier Roy Smith-Hill". The Times. 21 August 1996. Retrieved 2 May 2025.
- ^ Arthur, Max (12 August 1996). "Obituaries: Brigadier Roy Smith-Hill". The Independent.
- ^ "We remember Martyn Rogers Strover". Imperial War Museum: Lives of the First World War. Retrieved 2 May 2025.
- ^ "Machine Gun Corps in North Russia 1919". The Great War (1914-1918) Forum. Retrieved 2 May 2025.
- ^ J. H. Thomas (1 December 1919). "Written Answers: Russia - Royal Marines (Court-Martial)". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). Vol. 122. Parliament of the United Kingdom: House of Commons. col. 57W.
- ^ Joseph Kenworthy (10 December 1919). "Wages, etc., of Officers, Seamen, and Boys, Coast Guard, and Royal Marines". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). Vol. 122. Parliament of the United Kingdom: House of Commons. col. 1458–1460.
- ^ Wright 2017, pp. 178–179.
- ^ Wright 2017, pp. 178–180.
- ^ Grey 1999, pp. 12–17.
- ^ a b Wright 2017, p. 286.
- ^ Wright 2017, p. 287.
- ^ Wright 2017, p. 288.
- ^ Wright 2017, pp. 291–292.
- ^ Wright 2017, pp. 188–189.
- ^ Mawdsley 2007, p. 255.
- ^ Wright 2017, p. 295.
- ^ Nikitin, Vadim (30 November 2017). "Diary". London Review of Books. 39 (23). Retrieved 2 December 2017.
Bibliography
[edit]- Balbirnie, Steven (2 July 2016). "'A Bad Business': British Responses to Mutinies Among Local Forces in Northern Russia". Revolutionary Russia. 29 (2): 129–148. doi:10.1080/09546545.2016.1243613. ISSN 0954-6545. S2CID 152050937.
- Bowyer, Chaz (1988). RAF Operations 1918–1938. London: William Kimber. ISBN 978-0-71-830671-7.
- Brander, A. Michael (1976). Famous Regiments Series: The Royal Scots (The Royal Regiment). London: Leo Cooper. ISBN 978-0-85-052183-2.
- Davis, Donald; Trani, Eugene (2002). The First Cold War: The Legacy of Woodrow Wilson in U.S.–Soviet Relations. University of Missouri Press. ISBN 978-0-82-621388-4.
- Foglesong, David S. (2014). "Fighting but Not At War". America's Secret War Against Bolshevism: U.S. Intervention in the Russian Civil War 1917–1920. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press. pp. 208–254. ISBN 978-1-46-961113-6.
- Grey, Jeffery (1999). A Military History of Australia (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-52-164483-9.
- Hare, Paul R. (1990). The Royal Aircraft Factory. London: Putnam. ISBN 0-85177-843-7.
- House, John M.; Curzon, Daniel P. M. (2019). The Russian Expeditions 1917–1920. U.S. Army campaigns of World War I, (No. 77-10) (1st ed.). Washington, D.C.: Center of Military History, United States Army. OCLC 1127909938.
- Kinvig, Clifford (2006). Churchill's Crusade: The British Invasion of Russia 1918–1920. London: Hambledon Continuum. ISBN 1-85285-477-4.
- Mawdsley, Evan (2007). The Russian Civil War. Pegasus Books. ISBN 978-1-933648-15-6.
- Millman, Brock (1998). "The Problem with Generals: Military Observers and the Origins of the Intervention in Russia and Persia, 1917-18". Journal of Contemporary History. 33 (2): 291–320. doi:10.1177/002200949803300207. S2CID 154104534 – via Sage Publications.
- Munt, Franck, ed. (2015) [1921]. Historique sommaire du 2e régiment d'artillerie coloniale pendant la campagne de 1914–1918 (PDF) (in French) (facs. repr. tableaudhonneur.free.fr ed.). Rennes: Impr. Oberthïr. OCLC 829611823.
- Paasilinna, Erno (1980). Kaukana maailmasta: historiaa ja muistoja Petsamosta [Far from the world: history and memories of Petsamo] (in Finnish). Helsinki: Otava. ISBN 951-10604-2-2.
- Swettenham, John (1967). Allied Intervention in Russia 1918-1919 and the Part Played by Canada. Toronto: The Ryerson Press.
- Willett Jr., Robert L. (2005). Russian Sideshow: America's Undeclared War, 1918–1920. Potomac Books. ISBN 1-57488-706-8.
- Williamson, Howard J. (2018). The Military Medal Awarded to The Allied Armies by The British Government. privately published by Anne Williamson. ISBN 978-1-99-967271-3.
- Wright, Damien (2017). Churchill's Secret War with Lenin: British and Commonwealth Military Intervention in the Russian Civil War, 1918–20. Solihull: Helion. ISBN 978-1-911512-10-3.
Further reading
[edit]- Albertson, Ralph (1920). Fighting Without a War: An Account of Military Intervention in North Russia. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Howe.
- Baron, Nick (2007). The King of Karelia: Col. P. J. Woods and the British Intervention in North Russia 1918–1919: A History and Memoir. London: Francis Boutle. ISBN 978-1-90-342732-3.
- Beevor, Antony (2022). Russia: Revolution and Civil War, 1917–1921. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. ISBN 978-1-474-61014-8.
- Brough, Ray (1991). White Russian awards to British & Commonwealth servicemen during the Allied Intervention in Russia 1918–1920. London: Tom Donovan. ISBN 978-1-87-108508-2.
- Bujak, Philip (2008). Undefeated: The Extraordinary Life & Death of Lt. Col Jack Sherwood Kelly VC, DSO, CMG. Forster Books. ISBN 978-0-95-519022-3.
- Droulin, Laurent (2016) [2012]. Corps expéditionnaire français en Russie du Nord, 1918–1919 (ePUB) (in French). Auto-Édition. ISBN 978-2-9542358-0-6 – via Fnac.
- Jackson, Robert (1972). At War With The Bolsheviks: The Allied intervention into Russia, 1917–20. London: Tom Stacey. ISBN 978-0-85-468265-2.
- Quinlivian, Peter (2006). Forgotten Valour: The Story of Arthur Sullivan (VC). Frenchs Forest, NSW: New Holland. ISBN 978-1-74-110486-8.
- Wright, Damien (2024). Australia's Lost Heroes: Anzacs in the Russian Civil War 1919. Newport, NSW: Big Sky. ISBN 978-1-92-314406-4.
External links
[edit]- American Polar Bears, the American Expeditionary Force, North Russia
- Polar Bear Memorial Association
- An account of a Royal Navy trip to North Russia on a hospital ship, June – October 1919
- Foreign Command of US Forces 1900–1993
- Russian Bolshevik Navy 1919_files
- North Russian Expeditionary Force 1919, The Journal and Photographs of Yeoman of Signals George Smith, Royal Navy
- The History of the American Expedition Fighting the Bolsheviki Campaigning in North Russia 1918–1919
- The Evacuation of Northern Russia, 1919 (1920)
- Polar Bear Expedition Digital Collections Housed at the Bentley Historical Library. More than 50 individual collections of primary source material, including diaries, maps, correspondence, photos, ephemera, printed materials, and a film.
- Original movie clip of US Army Allied War in Russia, 1918-22
North Russia intervention
View on GrokipediaBackground
Context of the Russian Revolution and Civil War
The Russian Revolution of 1917 arose amid severe strains from World War I, including massive military casualties exceeding 2 million dead by early 1917, widespread food shortages, industrial disruptions, and the Tsarist regime's autocratic failures under Nicholas II, which eroded public support and sparked strikes in Petrograd.[6] On February 23, 1917 (March 8 New Style), International Women's Day protests escalated into general strikes involving over 300,000 workers, joined by mutinous soldiers from the Petrograd garrison, leading to the collapse of imperial authority; Nicholas II abdicated on March 2 (March 15 NS), ending three centuries of Romanov rule and establishing a Provisional Government led by liberals and socialists like Alexander Kerensky.[7] This government shared power uneasily with the Petrograd Soviet, creating dual authority that undermined decisive action on war termination or land reform, amid ongoing economic chaos and soldier desertions numbering around 2 million by summer.[8] Bolshevik influence grew through agitation promising "Peace, Land, and Bread," with Vladimir Lenin returning from exile in April 1917 via German facilitation to direct the party toward overthrowing the Provisional Government.[9] Failed offensives like the June Kerensky Offensive, which caused 60,000 Russian casualties, fueled disillusionment, while the July Days unrest suppressed Bolsheviks temporarily but highlighted their organizational strength among workers and soldiers. By October 25 (November 7 NS), 1917, Bolshevik-led forces, including Red Guards, stormed key sites in Petrograd, arresting Provisional Government ministers in a swift coup d'état that faced minimal resistance and installed Soviet power without broad electoral mandate.[10] The All-Russian Congress of Soviets ratified the seizure, but opposition mounted as Bolshevik decrees nationalized industry and banks, dissolving the Constituent Assembly elected in November 1917 where they won only 24% of votes.[11] The subsequent Civil War (1918–1922) erupted from Bolshevik consolidation efforts, exacerbated by the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk signed March 3, 1918, which extracted Russia from World War I at the cost of ceding over 1 million square miles of territory—including Ukraine, Finland, and the Baltic states—to Germany, alienating socialists, nationalists, and military officers who viewed it as capitulation enabling German advances.[12] This treaty fractured alliances like the Left Socialist Revolutionaries, who rebelled in July 1918, while "White" anti-Bolshevik armies formed under former Tsarist generals such as Anton Denikin and Alexander Kolchak, supported by diverse factions including liberals, monarchists, and Cossacks, amid peasant "Green" revolts against grain requisitions. Bolshevik "Reds," organized into the Red Army by Leon Trotsky reaching 5 million men by 1920, countered through centralized command, forced conscription, and the Red Terror, which executed tens of thousands via the Cheka secret police, prioritizing control over vast territories despite initial disarray.[13] The war's chaos, including famines killing millions, fragmented Russia into competing zones, setting conditions for foreign interventions aimed at countering Bolshevik expansion and securing Allied interests.[14]Situation in Northern Russia Pre-Intervention
Northern Russia, encompassing the ports of Murmansk and Arkhangelsk, served as critical entry points for Allied supplies during World War I due to their northern positions facilitating access to the Russian interior via the newly constructed Murmansk railway and the Dvina River system from Arkhangelsk. Murmansk, an ice-free harbor developed after 1915, and Arkhangelsk, operational seasonally, handled over 2,000,000 tons of war materiel in 1917 alone, including munitions, vehicles, and food intended for the Russian armies on the Eastern Front.[15] These stockpiles accumulated in warehouses and on wharves as Russian military collapse accelerated, leaving vast quantities—estimated at least 1,000,000 tons in Arkhangelsk—unguarded and exposed following the Bolshevik seizure of power in Petrograd on November 7, 1917.[5][15] The Bolshevik Revolution plunged the region into political uncertainty, with central authority in Petrograd initially extending unevenly to the remote north. Local soviets in Murmansk and Arkhangelsk, dominated by workers and sailors, initially aligned with the Provisional Government after the February Revolution but shifted toward Bolshevik influence amid economic disruption and war weariness. Bolshevik control solidified in Arkhangelsk by early 1918, enabling initial looting of Allied stores for Red Army use, while Murmansk's soviet wavered between loyalty to Moscow and pragmatic cooperation with Allies against external threats.[5][15] Anti-Bolshevik sentiments persisted among local elites, officers, and peasants, fostering underground opposition, but lacked organized force until later uprisings. The region's sparse population, primarily rural and reliant on fishing and timber, faced food shortages and transport breakdowns, exacerbating instability without immediate large-scale Bolshevik enforcement.[2] The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk on March 3, 1918, which ended Russia's participation in World War I and ceded territories to Germany, heightened vulnerabilities in the north by freeing German forces for potential advances through Finland or direct seizure of ports. Allied intelligence feared German exploitation of the stockpiles to bolster their war effort or establishment of submarine bases at Murmansk, while German-backed White Finns threatened incursions from the south. These risks, combined with Bolshevik disavowal of prior Allied aid agreements, prompted urgent diplomatic cables from British and French leaders by mid-March 1918, warning of imminent loss of materiel critical to the Western Front.[5][2][15] No significant Allied ground forces were present before small naval detachments arrived in late March, leaving local garrisons—understrength Russian troops loyal to varying factions—to nominally guard the ports amid rising civil war tensions.[15]Strategic Objectives
Allied Motivations and Justifications
The primary Allied motivation for intervening in North Russia stemmed from the need to secure vast stockpiles of war materiel amassed in Murmansk and Archangel, which risked capture by German forces or Bolsheviks after Russia's withdrawal from World War I under the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk on March 3, 1918. These ports had received over two million tons of supplies in 1917 alone, including munitions, vehicles, and equipment intended for the Russian army, with at least one million tons remaining vulnerable by mid-1918.[15][5] British authorities emphasized preventing Archangel from serving as a German submarine base and averting the loss of these resources, which could have enabled German troop redeployments to the Western Front—estimated at six divisions per month prior to intervention.[16] A secondary justification involved supporting local anti-Bolshevik elements to maintain regional stability and counter Bolshevik advances, particularly after provisional governments in Murmansk (formed March 1918) and Archangel (following the anti-Bolshevik coup on July 30, 1918) sought Allied assistance against both German influence and Red Army threats.[5] This aligned with broader Allied aims to revive an eastern front against Germany and facilitate the Czechoslovak Legion's transit to Allied lines, though the Legion's primary route issues were in Siberia.[2] British and French pressure framed the effort as essential to containing Bolshevik consolidation, which threatened to consolidate control over Russian railways and ports critical for supply redistribution.[16] United States participation, involving approximately 5,000 troops landing at Archangel by September 4, 1918, was more circumscribed, as articulated in President Woodrow Wilson's Aide-Mémoire of July 17, 1918, which limited objectives to guarding stores, training local forces, and aiding Czech evacuations without political partisanship or offensive operations against the Bolsheviks.[2] American leaders expressed reluctance to entangle in the civil war, prioritizing recovery of materiel over regime change, though field commanders under British oversight expanded roles to include inland advances along the Archangel-Vologda railway.[5] These stated rationales masked evolving strategic pressures post-Armistice (November 11, 1918), shifting focus toward outright anti-Bolshevik support amid fears of communism's spread, despite initial anti-German pretexts dominating pre-Armistice planning.[17]Planning and Initial Allied Commitments
The planning for the Allied intervention in North Russia originated in the immediate aftermath of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk on March 3, 1918, which removed Russia from the Entente alliance and raised concerns that Germany could exploit northern ports like Murmansk and Archangel for submarine bases or to seize vast stockpiles of Allied-supplied munitions and equipment—estimated at over 500,000 tons—intended for the Eastern Front.[5][18] Britain took the lead, dispatching an initial force of approximately 170 Royal Marines to Murmansk on March 4, 1918, at the explicit request of the local Murmansk Soviet Council, which sought protection against potential German and Finnish incursions along the vulnerable Arctic frontier.[5][18] This defensive foothold quickly expanded under British General Charles Maynard's command, with reinforcements of 600 soldiers arriving to secure the port and the Murmansk-Petrograd railway against Bolshevik unreliability and external threats.[18] In April 1918, the Allied Supreme War Council formally authorized a broader intervention in North Russia, placing it under British overall command led by General Frederick C. Poole, with dual operations planned: Operation Syren to safeguard Murmansk's supplies and establish a front against German influence, and complementary efforts to occupy Archangel and connect with the Czech Legion fighting Bolsheviks farther south. Initial reinforcements at Murmansk on June 23, 1918, included 1,000 British troops, 400 French colonial soldiers, 100 U.S. sailors and marines, 2,000 Serbian contingents, and local Russian levies, totaling around 5,500 Allied and auxiliary forces by mid-summer to guard stockpiles and deter Bolshevik consolidation.[18] The U.S. Navy contributed early through the cruiser USS Olympia, which arrived at Murmansk on May 24, 1918, followed by the first American landing of 108 personnel on June 9 to support port security.[5] U.S. ground force commitments were secured on June 3, 1918, when President Woodrow Wilson reluctantly approved limited participation, formalized in his July 17 Aide-Mémoire, which restricted American roles to protecting supplies, aiding Russian self-government, and cooperating with Czech forces without independent offensive actions absent substantial local Russian support.[2] Approximately 5,000 troops from the U.S. 339th Infantry Regiment (elements of the 85th Division), engineers, and medical units—drawn primarily from Michigan and Wisconsin National Guard—were mobilized from Camp Custer, departing New York on July 22 and staging through Britain before sailing to Archangel in late August.[2] France committed around 2,000 colonial troops and a Foreign Legion battalion, while smaller detachments from Serbia, Italy, and later Canada and Australia bolstered British-led contingents, including the 236th Infantry Brigade for Archangel operations planned from July onward.[18][2] These initial commitments reflected a pragmatic Allied strategy prioritizing the recovery of materiel—valued at millions in munitions and rolling stock—to prevent its use by Bolsheviks or Germans, while testing the viability of bolstering anti-Bolshevik elements amid Russia's civil war chaos; however, vague coordination and overreliance on local Russian cooperation sowed early logistical challenges.[18] By August 1918, the Archangel expedition had landed over 1,200 troops (predominantly British and French) on August 2, marking the shift from ad hoc defense to organized occupation under Poole's direction.[5]Allied and Anti-Bolshevik Forces
Composition and Contributions by Nation
The multinational Allied force in North Russia primarily consisted of British-led troops supplemented by American, French, Canadian, and smaller contingents from other nations, alongside anti-Bolshevik Russian units raised locally. British forces formed the core, providing command structure, naval assets for amphibious landings and riverine patrols, armored trains, and air support, while enabling the occupation of key ports like Murmansk and Archangel.[5] American and other Allied infantry handled much of the ground combat, particularly in forward areas, though winter conditions and ambiguous objectives limited overall effectiveness. Local Russian allies contributed to garrisons and reconnaissance but often proved undisciplined.[2] British contributions were the most substantial, encompassing infantry battalions such as companies from the 6th Yorkshire Regiment and Royal Scots, which participated in advances and defenses along the Dvina River front. They also supplied logistical essentials like rations and engineering expertise, with naval vessels including HMS Nairana and HMS Glory facilitating initial landings—over 1,200 British troops arrived at Archangel between July 30 and August 2, 1918—and ongoing operations against Bolshevik fluvial threats. British planning drove the intervention's expansion from port security to inland offensives aimed at linking with Siberian forces.[2][5] The United States committed approximately 5,000 troops to the American Expeditionary Force, North Russia, including around 4,000 from the 339th Infantry Regiment ("Polar Bear Expedition"), which debarked at Archangel in September 1918. These units, divided into operational groups like Force A and Force C, conducted patrols, village garrisons, and assaults against Bolshevik positions, supported by the 1st Battalion, 310th Engineers for blockhouse construction and the 337th Field Hospital for medical care; U.S. naval personnel numbering about 1,000 bolstered port defenses via ships like USS Olympia. Casualties totaled 583, reflecting intense fighting in sub-zero temperatures.[2][5] French forces numbered in the hundreds, landing alongside British at Archangel and providing colonial infantry such as elements of the 21st Marching Battalion of Colonial Infantry; however, morale issues led to refusals for offensive operations, limiting their role to static defense and rear-area security.[5][2] Canadian detachments offered specialized artillery support, deploying sections with 3-inch guns that aided repulses of Bolshevik attacks, as at Toulgas in November 1918, often integrated into British formations. Australia sent a small volunteer contingent for similar combat roles, while minor units included Serbian platoons, a Polish company, an Italian battalion, and Chinese laborers for logistics.[2] Anti-Bolshevik Russian forces, organized under the Provisional Government of the Northern Region in Archangel, provided several thousand troops for auxiliary duties, such as the 600-man garrison at Shenkursk; they handled much local recruitment and intelligence but suffered from desertions and divided loyalties amid the civil war's chaos.[2]Command Structure and Coordination Challenges
The North Russia Intervention's Allied forces were placed under British overall command by the Supreme War Council on June 2, 1918, reflecting Britain's leading role in planning and logistics amid the multi-national composition.[1] Initial command fell to British Major General Frederick C. Poole, who directed operations from both Murmansk and Archangel ports after landings in June and August 1918, respectively.[4] By late October 1918, overextension following advances along the Dvina River and railway lines prompted the British War Office to relieve Poole and divide authority into two independent theaters: Archangel under interim British leadership transitioning to Major General Sir Edmund Ironside in March 1919, and Murmansk under Major General Sir Charles Maynard.[4][2] American contingents, comprising the bulk of non-British troops with approximately 5,000 personnel from the 339th Infantry Regiment, 310th Engineers, and support units, maintained separate administrative control under U.S. officers like Colonel George E. Stewart (initially) and later Brigadier General Wilds P. Richardson, but yielded tactical authority to British commanders.[2] Smaller forces from France, Italy, Poland, and Canada operated similarly under British oversight, with White Russian units under General Nikolai Yudenich or local leaders integrated ad hoc into Allied formations.[4] This structure aimed to leverage British experience but prioritized national contingents' integrity where possible, such as U.S. troops retaining their own junior leadership for combat tasks.[2] Coordination challenges stemmed primarily from the ad hoc multinational nature of the force, lacking a fully unified command and exacerbating frictions across a 500-mile front in harsh Arctic conditions.[4] The British-dominated hierarchy generated resentment among U.S. troops, who were often subordinated to British officers despite Washington's directives limiting their role to guarding supply stores rather than offensive anti-Bolshevik operations, leading to confusion over intent—exemplified by the 339th Infantry's unexpected front-line deployments upon arriving in Archangel on September 4, 1918.[2] Richardson later criticized the arrangement as a "fatal drawback," citing poor inter-Allied unit relations, uneven force distributions that bred animosity, and insufficient national administrative autonomy, which undermined cohesion.[4] Logistical dependencies amplified issues, with American and other contingents reliant on British-supplied equipment like outdated Mosin-Nagant rifles and inadequate Shackleton boots, fostering morale erosion and operational inefficiencies during winter patrols and riverine advances.[2] Separate theater commands hindered synchronization between Archangel and Murmansk, preventing joint offensives and allowing Bolshevik forces to exploit gaps, as seen in the Shenkursk defeat of January 1919 where overextended Allied positions collapsed without timely reinforcement.[4] Integration of unreliable White Russian auxiliaries further complicated efforts, as their desertions and poor discipline disrupted supply lines and front-line reliability, contributing to a stalemate by late 1918.[4] These factors, compounded by divergent national objectives—British emphasis on supporting anti-Bolshevik Whites versus U.S. focus on evacuation—ultimately curtailed effective operational art, highlighting the risks of coalition warfare without robust unity of command.[4]Bolshevik Opposing Forces
Organization, Strength, and Bolshevik Strategy
The Bolshevik forces opposing the Allied intervention in North Russia were initially disorganized local Red Guards but evolved into structured units of the Red Army under centralized command from Moscow. Commanded overall by Commissar Leon Trotsky, these forces fell under the Northern Front, incorporating the 6th and 7th Red Armies by late 1918, with regional commanders directing operations from bases south of Archangel and Murmansk.[19] Units comprised former Tsarist soldiers, conscripts, factory workers, and politicized commissars, emphasizing ideological loyalty over professional training, which enabled rapid mobilization but led to high desertion rates in harsh Arctic conditions.[2] Troop strength expanded significantly as the intervention progressed, reflecting Bolshevik conscription drives and reinforcements diverted from other Civil War fronts. In November 1918, approximately 12,900 Bolshevik troops operated in the theater. By February 1, 1919, this grew to 36,300, and by February 20, 1919, to 45,500, supported by over 42,000 total personnel, 98 artillery pieces, and 378 machine guns by mid-1919. [2] Specific engagements highlighted localized superiority: at Toulgas on November 11–14, 1918, 2,500 Bolsheviks with over 4,000 artillery shells assaulted Allied positions; at Shenkursk on January 19–27, 1919, several thousand troops overwhelmed defenders after heavy bombardment.[2] Bolshevik strategy shifted from initial underestimation—treating the intervention as a limited threat—to aggressive containment and expulsion, prioritizing diversion of Allied resources while consolidating central power. Early tactics involved guerrilla harassment and infrastructure sabotage to delay advances, such as destroying bridges along the Dvina River, but by winter 1918–1919, they adopted offensive operations exploiting severe weather, superior numbers, and riverine gunboats for flanking maneuvers. [2] In spring 1919, coordinated assaults like Bolshie Ozerki (March 31–April 2), involving ~7,000 troops and 4.2-inch guns, aimed to encircle isolated Allied garrisons, forcing retreats and tying down foreign forces without committing to decisive battles that risked high casualties.[2] Propaganda efforts, including appeals to Allied troops' anti-intervention sentiments, complemented military pressure, contributing to morale erosion among interveners. This attrition-focused approach ultimately compelled Allied withdrawal by late 1919, as Bolshevik numerical advantages and logistical resilience outlasted coalition cohesion. [2]Local Dynamics and Population Responses
In Murmansk, the local soviet, dominated by moderate socialists and railway workers, formally invited Allied assistance on March 6, 1918, to safeguard Allied-supplied munitions and the port from potential German and Finnish incursions following the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, reflecting pragmatic cooperation amid fears of external threats rather than ideological alignment.[20] This invitation facilitated the initial landing of British marines and subsequent Allied build-up, with local authorities providing logistical support and forming mixed defense units along the railway.[20] In Archangel, Bolshevik control unraveled through a coup on August 2, 1918, orchestrated by Tsarist officer Georgii Chaplin, local military units, and civilian moderates including socialists and liberals, who overthrew the soviet regime and established the Provisional Government of the Northern Region, signaling widespread dissatisfaction with Bolshevik centralization and requisitions among provincial elites and officers.[21] The coup enjoyed tacit support from segments of the urban population and merchant class, who viewed it as restoration of regional autonomy and protection against Petrograd's policies, enabling Allied landings later that day without immediate resistance.[18] Local population responses varied by locale and phase, with initial enthusiasm in urban centers like Archangel and Murmansk, where residents supplied intelligence, labor, and volunteers—forming units such as the Slavianskaia druzhina with several thousand ethnic Russians and Karelians—to bolster anti-Bolshevik efforts against Red partisans.[1] Rural Pomor communities, traditionally semi-autonomous fishermen and traders, exhibited ambivalence, offering sporadic aid but prioritizing survival amid famine and disrupted trade; however, regionalist sentiments fostered limited collaboration, as evidenced by assemblies electing the provisional government on August 6, 1918.[21] As the intervention deepened into 1919, dynamics shifted due to coercive measures: the provisional government conscripted approximately 15,000-20,000 local men into the Northern Army, prompting high desertion rates—up to 50% in some battalions—fueled by harsh winter conditions, unpaid wages, and perceptions of Allied exploitation for unrelated fronts.[15] Bolshevik propaganda exploited this resentment, portraying interveners as imperial occupiers, which gained traction in outlying villages, leading to partisan sabotage along supply lines and sporadic uprisings against conscription agents.[1] Despite these fractures, no mass pro-Bolshevik revolts materialized in the core areas, underscoring the fragility of Red support in the north, where Bolshevik forces relied more on external reinforcements than indigenous loyalty.[20]Initial Operations
Landing at Murmansk
The Allied landing at Murmansk began on March 6, 1918, when a contingent of British Royal Marines disembarked from naval vessels to secure approximately 600,000 tons of munitions, equipment, and coal stockpiled at the port, which were vulnerable to seizure by German forces operating from Finland after Russia's separate peace via the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk signed on March 3.[1][22] The operation was prompted by intelligence indicating German intentions to exploit Russia's withdrawal from the Entente by advancing northward to capture these supplies, which had been provided to the Tsarist government for use against the Central Powers.[15] The initial British force numbered around 150 marines, supported by the Royal Navy's North Russia Squadron, and landed at the explicit request of the Murmansk Regional Soviet, a local council dominated by moderate socialists and workers who prioritized defense against German aggression over loyalty to the Bolshevik central government in Petrograd.[22][23] This cooperation reflected the fragmented authority in northern Russia, where peripheral soviets often acted independently amid the ongoing civil war and the Bolsheviks' tenuous control.[15] No significant opposition was encountered during the disembarkation, allowing the marines to establish a defensive perimeter around key facilities without immediate combat.[1] In the following weeks, the Allied presence expanded modestly as joint patrols with local White Guard units and Murmansk Soviet militias probed inland along the railway toward Petrozavodsk, aiming to preempt any German-Finnish incursions while disrupting Bolshevik Red Guard elements suspected of collaborating with Berlin.[15] By late March, British engineers began fortifying positions and repairing infrastructure, though logistical strains from the Arctic winter and sparse population limited rapid advances.[1] These early actions marked the inception of the Murmansk front, distinct from the later Archangel operations, with initial engagements yielding minor Bolshevik setbacks but no decisive territorial gains.[15]Landing at Archangel and Consolidation
The Allied landing at Archangel (Arkhangelsk) began on August 2, 1918, as part of the North Russia intervention, with an initial force of approximately 1,400 troops drawn from 11 nationalities, primarily British and French, supplemented by a small American detachment of 50 marines under Captain Bion B. Bierer aboard the USS Olympia.[24] The operation relied on naval bombardment and a nighttime assault by Allied marines on the fort guarding the Northern Dvina River estuary, enabling rapid seizure of the port facilities with minimal casualties.[24] Bolshevik resistance proved negligible, as local anti-Bolshevik railway workers led by Georgi Chaplin had preemptively overthrown the Soviet administration hours earlier, facilitating the Allies' uncontested entry into the city.[24] Following the occupation, Allied commanders swiftly dismantled remaining Bolshevik elements and installed military governance under a French colonel, while coordinating with provisional anti-Bolshevik authorities to form the Supreme Government of the Northern Region on August 6, 1918.[25] [24] This interim administration, backed by Allied recognition, aimed to rally local White Russian forces and civilians against Bolshevik resurgence, though its effectiveness was hampered by fragmented loyalties among the population.[25] Key priorities included safeguarding approximately 600,000 tons of munitions and supplies stockpiled in Archangel's warehouses—originally destined for the Russian Imperial Army against Germany but now at risk of Bolshevik capture.[15] Consolidation extended beyond the port through immediate deployments: one column advanced 10 miles south along the Archangel-Vologda railway to Obozerskaya, while riverine forces probed the Dvina and Vaga rivers to secure supply routes and establish outposts.[24] These moves linked Archangel with the earlier Murmansk enclave, creating a 400-mile front, but exposed vulnerabilities due to limited initial manpower and harsh terrain.[24] By mid-August, British engineers fortified defenses with blockhouses and rail repairs, yet Bolshevik guerrillas began probing flanks, underscoring the precarious hold on the interior.[2] Reinforcements bolstered stability, with the primary U.S. contingent—around 5,000 men of the 339th Infantry Regiment (85th Division)—arriving September 4, 1918, via British transports, followed by smaller French, Serbian, and Polish units. These troops, divided into operational groups like Force A and Force C, extended patrols and manned a dispersed 500-mile line, enabling the Allies to consolidate administrative control over Archangel province by late September despite growing Red Army mobilizations estimated at 42,000 effectives.[2] Local recruitment yielded about 6,000 White Russian auxiliaries, though desertions and unreliability plagued integration efforts.[24] Overall, consolidation prioritized logistical hubs and anti-Bolshevik governance but sowed seeds of overextension, as Allied aims shifted from mere port security to broader anti-revolutionary support amid the Armistice's aftermath.[5]Main Military Campaigns
Advances Along Key Rivers and Fronts
Following the occupation of Archangel on August 2, 1918, Allied forces under British command initiated advances along the Northern Dvina River, its Vaga tributary, and the Archangel-Vologda railway to secure supply lines, counter Bolshevik threats, and potentially link with anti-Bolshevik forces further south. These operations involved combined arms, with infantry supported by riverine gunboats on the Dvina and White Russian auxiliaries, aiming to reach Kotlas on the Dvina for a rail connection to Siberia. Initial successes were achieved in September 1918 before environmental factors and Bolshevik resistance halted further progress.[1][20] On the Northern Dvina front, U.S. 1st Battalion, 339th Infantry, alongside British units like the Royal Scots and naval river flotillas, advanced from Archangel starting September 11, 1918. By September 18, they reached Bereznik at the Vaga junction, approximately 100 km southeast, capturing key villages such as Shushuga, Tulgas, Seltso, and Poutoeouga amid skirmishes with Bolshevik rearguards. Gunboat bombardment provided critical fire support, enabling the push to Kodema by late September, though the advance stalled as rivers froze by early October, limiting naval mobility and exposing flanks to winter conditions.[1][18] The Vaga River front saw parallel operations from September 16-21, 1918, with Company A, 1st Battalion, 339th Infantry advancing roughly 70 km south from Bereznik to secure Shenkursk and Ust-Poiskoi, the southernmost Allied positions at about 200 km from Archangel. This thrust, involving U.S., British, Canadian, and White Russian troops, aimed to protect the Dvina flank but faced immediate Bolshevik probes, leading to defensive preparations rather than deeper penetration. Shenkursk's capture provided a temporary base, though subsequent Bolshevik offensives in January 1919 forced evacuation.[1][2] Along the railway front, the U.S. 3rd Battalion, 339th Infantry pushed south from Archangel, reaching Obozerskaya—161 km distant—by September 6, 1918, and engaging Bolsheviks at Seletskoye on September 14. This axis complemented river advances by threatening Bolshevik concentrations from the west but yielded limited territorial gains beyond initial clearances, with lines stabilizing short of Vologda due to overstretched logistics and seasonal freeze. Overall, these September advances expanded Allied control to roughly 300 km inland across fronts but failed to achieve strategic convergence, setting the stage for stalemated winter fighting.[1][18]Winter Fighting and Stalemate, 1918-1919
As winter descended in late 1918, Allied advances along the Dvina, Vaga, and Emtsa rivers and the Archangel-Vologda railroad stalled amid temperatures plummeting to -30°F by October 20 and as low as -50°F by February 1919, with deep snow and frozen waterways complicating mobility and logistics.[2] Approximately 5,000 U.S. troops from the 339th Infantry Regiment, alongside British, French, and other contingents under British command, held dispersed positions in a semicircle south of Archangel, totaling around 18,000 Allied and White Russian forces facing an estimated 42,000 Bolsheviks equipped with superior artillery and machine guns.[26] [2] Inadequate winter gear, such as slippery Shackleton boots, and limited rations exacerbated the harsh subarctic conditions, contributing to low morale, disease outbreaks like Spanish flu, and operational constraints that shifted the Allies to a primarily defensive posture.[2] [5] Bolshevik forces, leveraging local knowledge of the terrain, skis for mobility, and the long polar nights for surprise attacks, initiated a series of offensives aimed at dislodging the Allies from isolated outposts.[26] On November 11–14, 1918, at Toulgas along the Dvina River, roughly 650 Allied troops, including elements of the 339th Infantry, repelled an assault by 2,500 Bolsheviks, inflicting about 500 casualties while suffering 7 Americans killed and 23 wounded.[2] Further south on the Vaga River, Bolshevik attacks from January 19–27, 1919, forced the evacuation of Shenkursk after intense fighting involving 1,100 Allies against 3,000 Reds, resulting in 27 U.S. deaths, around 100 wounded, and an estimated 200 Bolshevik killed with 500 wounded; the retreat covered 150 miles under pursuit.[2] [26] Similar engagements occurred at Kodish on the Emtsa River around New Year's Day 1919 and at Bolshie Ozerki on the Onega front from March 23 to April 2, where 2,000 Allies defended against 7,000 Bolsheviks, incurring 10 U.S. fatalities and 75 total casualties while claiming 2,000 enemy losses.[2] [26] These actions highlighted the Bolsheviks' tactical advantages in winter warfare, including rapid reinforcements via sleds and exploitation of forested swamps, against Allied reliance on river gunboats frozen in ice and strained supply lines.[15] [26] U.S. Navy detachments from ships like USS Olympia supported land efforts with shore parties and occasional fire support, but overall coordination faltered amid the dispersed fronts spanning six key sectors.[5] By spring 1919, thawing mud and persistent Bolshevik pressure prevented Allied counteroffensives, locking the fronts in a stalemate where neither side achieved decisive gains toward strategic goals like linking with Siberian forces or capturing Kotlas.[2] [15] Total U.S. losses in North Russia reached 109 combat deaths, 305 wounded, and additional non-battle casualties from disease and accidents, underscoring the campaign's attritional nature without territorial progress.[2] This deadlock, compounded by shifting Allied political priorities and public opposition, prompted withdrawal planning by February 1919 under U.S. President Wilson's directive.[2] [5]Allied Offensives and Bolshevik Counterattacks, 1919
In spring 1919, Allied forces under British command initiated limited offensives to push southward from Archangel along the Dvina River, aiming to recapture key positions lost to prior Bolshevik advances and consolidate defenses against the harsh Arctic conditions.[2] A notable engagement occurred at Bolshie Ozerki from 23 March to 2 April, where approximately 2,000 Allied troops, including companies from the American 339th Infantry Regiment and British 6th Yorkshire Regiment alongside White Russian units, repelled a Bolshevik force of around 7,000 equipped with 4.2-inch field guns; the Allies inflicted roughly 2,000 enemy casualties while suffering 75 killed, including 10 Americans, and retained control of Obozerskaya.[2] By April-May 1919, plans for a larger Allied offensive toward Kotlas emerged, with orders issued on 4 May to advance along the Dvina to link Northern forces with Admiral Kolchak's Siberian armies, involving British, American, and White Russian contingents totaling several thousand; however, the operation faltered due to logistical strains, White Russian unreliability, and Kolchak's deteriorating position farther east, resulting in no decisive capture of the town.[27][18] The arrival of the British North Russia Relief Force—about 3,500 volunteers—in early June 1919 bolstered capabilities, enabling localized pushes such as the recapture of Tulgas on 18 May after a White Russian mutiny on 25 April invited Bolshevik assaults, though these gains proved temporary amid ongoing mutinies and desertions.[18][28] In August, General Edmund Ironside directed offensives near Gorodok-Seltsoe and Emtsa on 29 August, where Allied units captured over 1,000 Bolshevik prisoners and 19 field guns while inflicting heavy casualties with minimal own losses, temporarily disrupting Red Army momentum along the Dvina front.[28] Bolshevik forces, reorganized under the Red Army's growing command structure, mounted counterattacks throughout 1919 to exploit Allied overextension and internal frictions. A major push from 19-25 January along the Vaga River forced the evacuation of Shenkursk, with Allies retreating northward to Kitsa under pressure from superior Bolshevik numbers.[28] Spring offensives followed, pressuring positions like Tulgas and contributing to White mutinies, while sustained summer probes along the Dvina tested Allied lines, ultimately compelling a strategic shift to evacuation by late August as Bolshevik strength—bolstered by conscription and local support—outpaced fragmented Allied-White coordination.[28][18] These counteroffensives, though not always decisive in battle, eroded Allied morale and logistics, hastening the phased withdrawal completed by October.[28]Operational Challenges
Logistical and Environmental Difficulties
The North Russia intervention occurred in an Arctic environment characterized by extreme cold, with temperatures dropping to -30°F by October 20, 1918, and reaching -50°F by February 1919, accompanied by deep snow cover that often exceeded knee depth and prolonged periods of darkness.[2][15] These conditions froze machine gun oil, rendered standard U.S. cold-weather gear insufficient, and caused rapid fatalities among wounded soldiers exposed outdoors, as frostbite and hypothermia claimed lives faster than combat in isolated outposts. Terrain further compounded difficulties, featuring dense pine and birch forests, swampy marshes, and muddy trails that became impassable during thaws, restricting mobility across a 500-mile front along rivers like the Dvina and Vaga.[2][15] Logistically, Allied forces, including American troops of the Polar Bear Expedition, depended heavily on British-supplied rations such as bully beef, hardtack, jam, tea, and rum, which provided inadequate calories for sustained Arctic operations and led to shortages of preferred items like coffee, sugar, tobacco, socks, and undergarments.[2] Medical supplies were particularly scarce, forcing foraging by personnel and exacerbating mortality from untreated injuries in the cold. Footwear issues were acute, with British-issued Shackleton boots lacking traction on ice and snow, prompting soldiers to discard them for captured enemy alternatives or local trades.[2] Transportation relied on seasonal riverboats for initial advances, transitioning to horse-drawn sleds, reindeer teams, and limited rail along the Archangel-Vologda line, but the freezing of the White Sea in winter severed maritime access, funneling all resupply through the vulnerable Murmansk railway.[15] Vast distances—comparable to New York to St. Louis—stretched these lines thin, while local unreliability, including villagers switching allegiances, required constant guarding of depots and routes, diverting manpower from combat. Adaptations like skis and snowshoes mitigated some mobility issues, but overall, these factors stalled offensives and contributed to a defensive stalemate through the 1918-1919 winter.[15][2]Internal Issues: Morale, Desertions, and Coordination Failures
Allied troops deployed in North Russia faced acute morale challenges stemming from the expedition's ill-defined objectives, the onset of a brutal Arctic winter, and the cessation of hostilities in Western Europe on November 11, 1918, which left soldiers questioning their continued combat role against Bolshevik forces. American contingents, including the 339th Infantry Regiment of the Polar Bear Expedition, experienced a sharp morale decline following the Armistice Day battle at Toulgas, as troops realized their mission had expanded from guarding supply depots to active frontline fighting without public declaration of war or clear strategic endgame.[26] British and other Allied units similarly suffered, with reports by early spring 1919 indicating widespread second thoughts about the operation amid ongoing losses and isolation from home.[15] Post-World War I fatigue compounded these issues, as demobilization sentiments spread, rendering sustained offensive efforts psychologically untenable for exhausted veterans.[29] Desertions and refusals to obey orders reflected this erosion, though precise figures remain elusive due to inconsistent Allied record-keeping; U.S. forces recorded instances of troops deserting posts or committing acts of treachery, often linked to interactions with disloyal local Russian auxiliaries.[30] More documented were outright refusals to advance: on March 1, 1919, at Obozerskaya, 90 French soldiers declined to participate in an offensive patrol, echoing earlier protests by British Yorkshire Regiment troops against inadequate winter preparations.[31] In April 1919, an entire U.S. infantry company threatened mutiny and refused frontline deployment, prompting War Department confirmation and demands for withdrawal once weather permitted evacuation.[32] These incidents, while not widespread mass desertions, signaled deep operational unreliability, with fatigue and perceived futile sacrifice driving soldiers to prioritize survival over orders. Coordination failures amplified these internal strains, as the multinational force—comprising British, American, French, and smaller contingents under overall British command—lacked unified doctrine and suffered from national divergences in commitment. U.S. troops, restricted by President Wilson's directives to defensive roles guarding ports and railroads, resented British General Edmund Ironside's insistence on offensives, fostering friction and operational hesitation.[5] [33] Heavy reliance on White Russian levies for manpower proved disastrous, with repeated mutinies disrupting joint maneuvers: on December 11, 1918, White troops at Archangel rebelled, requiring executions ordered by Ironside to restore order; an April 25, 1919, battalion mutiny saw 300 defect to Bolsheviks; and on May 25, White forces surrendered the key position at Tulgas, exposing Allied flanks.[15] [18] These local betrayals, combined with logistical silos between national commands, prevented coherent advances and eroded trust, contributing to the campaign's stalemate by mid-1919.[18]Withdrawals and Evacuation
Phased Allied Withdrawals
In response to shifting political priorities and mounting operational strains, the British War Cabinet authorized the phased withdrawal of Allied forces from North Russia on March 4, 1919, dispatching approximately 8,000 relief troops in two brigades under Major-Generals Edmund Ironside (replaced by Sir William Rawlinson in August), George Grogan, and Lionel Sadleir-Jackson to facilitate an orderly evacuation while maintaining defensive lines against Bolshevik advances.[34] These reinforcements, comprising British infantry, machine-gun units, and supporting elements from Serbia and other Allies, arrived progressively from late May to June 1919, relieving fatigued forward units and enabling the initial disengagement of American and French contingents from combat roles by early July.[34] Logistical constraints, including ice-blocked ports until June and low water levels on the Dvina River limiting gunboat mobility, dictated a cautious, multi-stage pullback to consolidate forces at key rail and river junctions.[34] The first phase emphasized securing withdrawal corridors through limited offensives on the Archangel front. On August 10, Sadleir-Jackson's brigade recaptured Puchega and Borok along the Dvina, inflicting heavy Bolshevik losses and capturing 1,000 prisoners and 19 field guns, which created a buffer zone of several days' march.[35] [34] This was followed on August 29 by an assault at Emtsa, where British-officered White Russian and Australian units repelled Red Army counterattacks, further extending the defensive perimeter and allowing rearward redeployment of non-essential personnel and stores.[35] Mutinies among Russian auxiliary units on July 7 and 22 necessitated direct British intervention to stabilize flanks, underscoring reliance on Allied core forces amid deteriorating local morale.[34] French detachments, numbering around 1,680 at peak strength, contributed minimally to these actions before embarking in summer convoys, while Italian elements withdrew as early as July 19.[34] The final evacuation phases focused on port clearances, executed in coordinated batches to prioritize military personnel over civilians. From Archangel, initial shipments in late August carried 3,000 troops to Baltic or Polish ports by September 20, followed by 5,800 British ranks between September 1 and 14, and subsequent waves including 3,700 Russian military and 6,535 civilians by early October.[34] The port was fully evacuated by the morning of September 27, 1919, after destroying supplies and scuttling vessels to deny assets to pursuing Bolsheviks.[34] [35] On the Murmansk front, advances to Medvyejya Gora (May 21) and Soroka secured rail lines for fallback, culminating in abandonment on October 12 aboard a flotilla of British troopships, marking the intervention's end with total evacuees numbering 48,975, including 28,976 British personnel.[34] British casualties during the evacuation period totaled 106 officers and 877 other ranks, attributable to combat, disease, and environmental hazards.[34]American Disengagement and Railway Operations
The decision to disengage American forces from the North Russia intervention stemmed from President Woodrow Wilson's assessment that continued involvement offered no viable path to reopening an eastern front against Germany or decisively aiding anti-Bolshevik forces, compounded by rising U.S. casualties exceeding 500 and domestic opposition to foreign entanglements.[2] On February 22, 1919, Wilson formally authorized the withdrawal of the approximately 5,000 troops of the American Expeditionary Force, North Russia (primarily the 339th Infantry Regiment, known as the Polar Bear Expedition), signaling a pivot toward isolationism amid the armistice in Europe and Bolshevik advances.[2] [33] This directive arrived as British-led offensives faltered, leaving U.S. units in defensive postures along the Dvina and Vaga rivers with limited strategic gains. Withdrawal operations commenced in earnest after the spring thaw, with evacuation ships accessing Archangel port in June 1919 once White Sea ice receded.[26] The U.S. gunboat USS Sacramento arrived on June 10 to support the embarkation of troops and equipment, facilitating the initial departure of over 1,500 men by mid-July. [3] American headquarters in Archangel closed on August 5, 1919, marking the end of major operations, though a small rearguard detachment guarded remaining stores until April 1, 1920.[33] [2] Throughout this phase, U.S. commanders prioritized orderly retreat over aggressive combat, coordinating with British allies to hand off positions to provisional White Russian governments, which proved unreliable against Bolshevik pressure.[2] Railway operations played a critical role in the disengagement, as American engineers and transport units secured and utilized limited rail infrastructure to evacuate munitions, supplies, and personnel amid sabotage threats from Bolshevik partisans.[36] The North Russia Transport Corps, including elements of the 516th, 518th, and 525th Engineers, maintained segments of the Archangel-Vologda line and feeder tracks, repairing war-damaged rails and defending against attacks to keep evacuation routes open.[36] [37] In Murmansk, where a smaller U.S. contingent operated, two companies of railway troops arrived in April 1919 specifically to run the Murmansk-Petrograd line, transporting Allied stores southward before Allied forces ceded the area to Finnish and White Russian control in July.[20] These efforts prevented total loss of stockpiled materiel—estimated at over 500,000 tons across northern ports—but faced challenges from harsh terrain, equipment shortages, and Bolshevik armored trains, resulting in sporadic engagements that delayed full extraction.[15] By late summer, rail handovers to local anti-Bolshevik units enabled the final American pullout, underscoring the logistical primacy of rail security in the intervention's inconclusive end.[37]Aftermath
Immediate Territorial and Political Outcomes
Following the phased Allied withdrawals, which concluded with the evacuation of Archangel on the night of 26–27 September 1919 and Murmansk on 12 October 1919, the anti-Bolshevik forces in North Russia rapidly lost control of key territories.[35][35] Without external military backing, the White Russian armies, plagued by low morale and defections, proved unable to maintain defensive lines against Bolshevik offensives.[1] By early 1920, Red Army units had overrun remaining positions, capturing Archangel on 21 February and Murmansk shortly thereafter on 13 March, thereby restoring full Bolshevik authority over the northern ports and surrounding districts previously occupied by Allied and White forces.[1][38] These territorial reversals eliminated the last footholds of organized resistance in the region, with no permanent secessions or independent entities emerging; the areas were promptly reintegrated into the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic under central Bolshevik administration.[1] Politically, the collapse precipitated the dissolution of the Provisional Government of the Northern Region (also known as the Supreme Administration of the Northern Regions), a White provisional authority established in 1918 with Allied recognition and nominal ties to the broader anti-Bolshevik movement.[39] Lacking viable military or diplomatic support post-evacuation, its leaders either fled into exile or were captured, marking the end of any semblance of autonomous governance in North Russia and underscoring the intervention's failure to foster a sustainable alternative to Bolshevik rule.[1] This outcome facilitated the redirection of Red Army resources southward, contributing to the broader consolidation of Soviet power amid the civil war's waning phases.[1]Casualties, Losses, and Economic Impact
The Allied forces in the North Russia intervention sustained approximately 1,000 casualties in total, including deaths from combat, disease, and accidents, though precise aggregates vary by national contingent due to incomplete records and the harsh environmental conditions exacerbating non-combat losses such as influenza.[2] American troops of the North Russia Expeditionary Force (often called the Polar Bear Expedition) recorded 235 deaths from all causes between September 1918 and June 1919, with around 110 killed in action or died of wounds, 70 from disease (predominantly the 1918 influenza pandemic), and the remainder from other incidents; total casualties for this force exceeded 500 when including wounded and missing.[40] [41] British and other Allied units, comprising the bulk of the relief force, experienced lighter combat losses but similar disease burdens, with specific engagements like the September 1918 defense of Archangel resulting in 75 Allied fatalities against estimated Bolshevik losses of 2,000.[2] Bolshevik forces opposing the intervention incurred significantly higher casualties, estimated in the thousands across the campaign, due to repeated assaults on fortified Allied positions and supply lines during winter offensives in 1918-1919; for instance, Red Army attacks in the Shenkursk sector alone inflicted heavy tolls, though exact figures remain elusive amid Soviet archival restrictions and propagandistic underreporting.[2] These losses stemmed from tactical disadvantages, including inadequate winter gear and exposure to Allied firepower from river gunboats and armored trains, contributing to Bolshevik strategic retreats by mid-1919.[20] Material losses included several vessels, such as the British HMS North Star and motor launches sunk by Bolshevik forces, alongside abandoned equipment during phased withdrawals; however, the Allies successfully evacuated much of the 500,000 tons of munitions and supplies stockpiled at Archangel and Murmansk, denying these resources to the Bolsheviks and mitigating potential economic bolstering of their war effort.[42] Economically, the intervention imposed substantial costs on participating nations—primarily Britain and the United States—in transport, logistics, and personnel, estimated in millions of contemporary pounds and dollars, but exerted limited direct impact on Russia's northern periphery, a sparsely industrialized region already strained by civil war disruptions; indirect effects included prolonged instability delaying reconstruction of rail and port infrastructure until Bolshevik consolidation post-1920.[1]| Force | Killed/Died | Wounded/Missing | Total Casualties | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| American (North Russia Expeditionary Force) | ~235 (all causes) | ~300+ | ~500-550 | Includes ~110 combat deaths; heavy influenza losses en route and in theater.[40] [41] |
| British & Other Allies | ~500-700 (estimated) | Varies by engagement | ~1,000 total Allied | Light per battle but cumulative; specific data fragmented.[2] |
| Bolshevik/Red Army | Thousands (estimated) | Heavy in offensives | N/A | Superior numbers but high attrition from assaults; e.g., 2,000 in one September 1918 battle.[2] |
