Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Baku

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Yobot (talk | contribs) at 13:53, 7 May 2015 (Tagging for WPNZ per WP:BOTREQ: Wikipedia:Bot requests#Tagging for Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand using AWB (10903)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Comments

The source provided seemed dubious - when and were was the book published? perhaps an ISBN? Also, removing the Armenian name was vandalism, not to mention the troops who fought the battle were not of the Baku Commune, but counter=revolutionaries.Hetoum I 02:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why there should be the names in other languages? There should be at least 4 names in languages other than English, is it really necessary? And the battle was fought initially by Bolshevik forces, and later by Centrocaspian Dictatorship. --Grandmaster 11:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, he is right. Centrokaspi D. was made up on August 1 and the battle started on August 26, so Baku Soviet dissolved almost a month before the battle took place. The confusion is made up by the fact that the troops weren't bolsheviks but only mere soldiers and they simply followed the orders of the current goverment, so they didn't change anything in the passage from pro-bolshevik governement to anti-bolshevik ones. In anycase these troops were fightin' for a counter-revolutionary government also because the brits never allied with the bolsheviks and they were in Baku also to fight the reds and not only the turks.Safeandsound 01:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I read memoirs of Dunsterville, and he said that communists supported British. Also, the battle for Baku was part of a larger campaign, when Baku Soviet started a march on Ganja, where the government of ADR was located. But Turkish and ADR forces defeated Bolsheviks and marched to Baku. This was all the same campaign, and capture of Baku as its culmination. --Grandmaster 13:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But this article is about a battle, not about the entire campaign and in anycase the bolsheviks were all anti-british, in fact the reason why the Baku soviet collapsed was because esers and armenians asked for british help and invitated the brits in Baku while bolsheviks didn't even want to hear about western troops on their sole,so they were outvoted and the governement fell and they were also arrested by the new pro-british government. Probably Dunsterville wrote so because, being a british, couldn't understand the difference between esers and bolsheviks, 'cause they both claimed to be socialists and maybe he couldn't distinguish. Don't forget that at the time the osman committee of union and progress was allied with the bolsheviks and even signed a friendship treaty with soviet Russia. Also, it's a bit unrealistic that ill-trained and few-numbered Baku soviet army wanted to march on Ganja, they played more a defensive role and their main scope was to keep Baku oil in russian hands, osman troops also moved to baku for this reason more than for utopic "pan-turanian" goals as it claimed in the article, british troops went here for the oil too.Safeandsound 15:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not constructed accurately. It looks more like a description of Dunsterville expedition, which is not right. The battle for Baku started while Bolsheviks were on power in Baku. Later after the situation became hopeless the Bolshevik regime was dismissed and Centrocaspian dictatorship was placed on power instead. This was done in hopes to gain military support of Britain, who would not help Bolsheviks. And first thing Centrocaspian dictatorship did was inviting Dunsterville to Baku. But initially it was a battle between Turkish/ADR forces and Bolsheviks, who reached as far as Goychay and Kurdamir, but were driven back. --Grandmaster 12:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, but then the article need a substantial re-write, because if we put the beginning of the battle on August 26, we can talk only about Dunsterville expedition. Also there are 2 other things not accurated: ADR and Mountain Republic never officially sent soldiers to fight against the brits or the russians, those who fought into the Army of Islam were irregulars and volunteers + it would be better not to call 'Bolsheviks' the whole Baku Soviet army, also taking into account their officers were all denikinites and monarchists like Bicherakov and in fact when the coup overthrown the Soviet the army sided with the new anti-soviet government. I think 'Bolshevik' should be used to describe the political party more than military units, in order not to create confusion. I'll try now to fix some holes in the articleSafeandsound 14:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see a citation for the "Armenian irregulars" and why the Dashnak flag is there. Also, I looked through an encyclopedic article as well as the online article, all sources consider 26 the start of the battle. Background is fascinating, but advanced parties of Turks did not arrive on the apsheron till about this time. If you can find sources naming battle from June, please show, I am happy to look.Hetoum I 17:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Historian Peter Symes puts the beginning of the hostilies on June 5 with a Turkish attack on Baku, repulsed by the Baku Soviet Army.
On 10 June the Baku Red Army was defeated by Turkish troops and retreated to Baku. The Turks had already launched an unsuccessful assault on Baku five days earlier, on 5 June 1918, but it was apparent to many that the Turks had the superior forces.

http://www.pjsymes.com.au/articles/az-baku.htm Safeandsound 18:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, apparently based from your source, those 2 engagements were fought by 2 different combatants on different dates. There is roughtly 2 months apart from those engagements.

Most important, I did not see a quote calling these the "battle of baku"

I doubt 2 months time lapse, 2 different engagement by 2 different combatants can be called the same battle. Term Battle of Baku is usually referred to the dunster aspect of it. I looked through several (all non-Armenian sources) that call the 26-14 events the battle of baku. I suspect the soviet clash and background history should be part of another article.

This source is further inadmissable because it is self-published. I suggest you add in citations for this article. I will try to add in about the battle and all needed citations soon.Hetoum I 05:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then we have to decide. We can put the turkish-soviet confrontation in another article, maybe one about the Baku Soviet that still doesn't exist if I'm not wrong, and leave this one only for Dunsterville part. Tell me what you all think Safeandsound 10:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ADR had their own corps, led by general Ali-Agha Shikhlinski. It assisted the Turkish Caucasus Islam Army, which also consisted at least by half of people of Caucasus. Interestingly, Dunsterville referred to Russian forces in Baku as Red Army, and Bicherakhov declared his support for the communist cause to be allowed to enter Baku and take command of the military forces in the city. Later he renounced his support for Bolshevism, as it was a political move, but left the city with his Cossacks, seeing hopelessness of the situation. In any case, the battle was initially fought by the Bolshevik forces, and later by Centrocaspian Dictatorship, supported by the British. I will cite a few sources later. --Grandmaster 06:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bicherakhov being a Communist? Are you sure? If so it's an interesting discoverySafeandsound 10:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He was not a commy, he just announced his loyalty to Baku Soviet and was placed in charge of the military forces in the city. I will provide a quote shortly. --Grandmaster 17:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
well, Bicherakhov hated the Turks even more than the Bolsheviks, this is for sure, but to say that he was a supporter of Bolshevism it seems a bit unrealistic for one of the most ardent monarchists of the area. He later became even a white emigre after the war. In anycase, indipendently from bicherakhov political views that are not at all the main point to discuss, i think we should decide if to start the article with the initial skirmishes between the Turks and the Soviets army or to talk only about Dunsterville's battle.Safeandsound 21:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should provide the whole history of the battle, how it started, and how the combatants changed over the relatively short period of time. --Grandmaster 10:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
About Bicherakhov and Red Army, this is what Dunsterville said in 1921:
Bicherakov had in the mean time crossed with his troops to Baku and was in command of the Red Army, having thrown in his lot with the Bolsheviks in a last hope of keeping the Turks out of Baku. He found the Red troops quite useless, and in the end was obliged to withdraw to the north, with the result that we never met again until I had the pleasure of finding him in London in the spring of this year.
L. C. Dunsterville. From Baghdad to the Caspian in 1918. The Geographical Journal, Vol. 57, No. 3. (Mar., 1921), pp. 153-164.
Grandmaster 11:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Btw Hetoum, I see you scanned some very good pictures of the battle in your page, why not to post them here? Safeandsound 21:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering coalition troops were predominantly Armenian, place in Armenian history next to September days there is more than enough reason to include Armenian name. If we use your logic, we should remove Azeri word for lavash in the lavahs article.Hetoum I 23:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Majority of troops being ethnic Armenians does not mean the Armenian name should be included. Most of the anti-Fascist troops in the Vienna Offensive, the Battle of Budapest and during World War II in general were Soviet, and so were most of the casualties, yet we don't see the Russian name being included into any of those articles.
  2. I searched "Բակվի ճակատամարտ" on Google, and no results came up. This leads me to believe that the event holds no or little significance to Armenian histriography. Hence it provides no insight to the topic of the article.
  3. Your analogy with lavash is irrelevant. Lavash is as common to Azeris, as it is to Armenians. Parishan 01:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Considering that there are only 600 hits total for word battle in Armenian it is not a surprise not to find it. There is the big ol soviet armenian encyclopedia. I am sure you know of it. Not everything is on the internet. Not every battle or article has the name of it in different languages listed on wikipedia.

My lavash analogy is perfectly relevant. Your words: Majority of troops being ethnic Armenians does not mean the Armenian name should be included. Just cause lavash is common with azeris, does not mean the Azerbaijani name should be included.

At the same time one wonders from your edit summary: Armenian name not needed (let alone placing it before the Russian name which is totally illogical), the battle had nothing to do w/ Armenia Ethnic Armenians were part of the Bolshevik Russian force - so why does Armenian name dissapear and Russian one stay.

So much for being nice.Hetoum I 03:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Soviet Armenian Encyclopædia includes articles on William Shakespeare and the French Revolution but that doesn't make them part of Armenian history. You analogy makes no sense: historically lavash has been as common among Azeris as are many other traditional meals. Would you say the Battle of Baku holds as much significance to Armenian history as does say, the Battle of Sardarabad, or the Battle of Abaran? The Russian name should stay because the Battle of Baku was a major turning point in the history of Communism in Russia. The Armenian name should go - it holds no significance, it provides no information or academic value, it is not a major topic of interest for Armenian researchers, and it has no relation to the history of the Republic of Armenia whatsoever. Parishan 05:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hetoum, are you trying to say that there’s an article called Battle of Baku in Armenian encyclopedia? Grandmaster 10:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parishan, you have a point, a battle fought by 6,000 Armenian troops against Ottomans in the first world war has not historical significance in Armenian history. The massacre of 9-30,000 Armenian and other civilians during and after the battle has even less significance. No publication, even Armenian would write about it. It is a small and pointless episode in Armenian history.Hetoum I 21:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for Russians only 600 White Russians fought there. Further, it was against Turks and not Bolsheviks. Not exactly a turning point in the Russian revolution or Communism.Hetoum I 21:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hetoum, sorry, I can't consider your sarcasm a reliable source. These particular Armenian units were fighting on the part of the Soviet regime and had nothing to do with Armenia. Ethnicity is not key here. The Russian name is important because this battle was a major event in the sovietization of Azerbaijan and it becoming part of the Soviet Union. It was mentioned in the works of contemporary Communist politicians and philosophers like Lenin and Mikoyan. How exactly did this battle affect Armenia? How significant to Armenia was its immediate outcome?
As for the massacre, you are free to include the Armenian name on the separate article dedicated to that topic called September Days. Parishan 22:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think I offered my sarcasm as a source. However, I suggest thee to actually review to contents of the article before prematurely stating those were Soviet, since cited info says everything but. At the same time you keep asking what is significance of the battle to history of Armenia when I have stated it twice. I think it is unfair to me, admins, or other contributors to keep repeating the obvious.Hetoum I 22:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of your arguments stands a chance. You keep mentioning ethnic Armenians, I keep saying that ethnicity has nothing to do with whom these Armenians in fact represented. Your argument about the Soviet Armenian Encyclopædia is beyond illogical. And that is all you have got. Please provide an exact referrence to a source or another reliable piece of research. For now, the Armenian name is being removed. Parishan 00:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But why is so important to name the battle in armenian language? Also, frankly speaking it's ridicolous to cancel the name of the battle in armenian and to leave the one in azerbaijani. In my opinion the name of the battle should be written in english only. A lot of very important battles' article don't have the name of the battle written in the languages of the fighting parties. If we continue like that soon a dagestani user will come and will add the name of the battle in its own language because the battle who fought also by dagestani volunteers.... And another thing. The article is about the battle, the atrocities committed before and after the armed confrontation should be mentioned of course but with short statements adding the links where one can read the full article dedicated about them. I don't see any reason to write two poems about march events or september days in this article. One can just tell they happened and then underline the links where to find complete articles. I think a reader who is searching info about the Battle of Baku is more interested in the battle itself than in pieces of other articles added to show how Azerbaijanis and Armenians love each others.Safeandsound 16:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. --Grandmaster 05:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No reason not to include an important event in Armenian history in Armenian. This battle is as important as the battle of sardarapat - walker spends as much time on both in his book, and I simply misspelt the name of Baku in Armenian, that is why you found nothing. The quote about the March days was also irrelevant, and had little to do with the politics of british occupation and prelude to the battle. The of Armenians meanwhile, was a direct part of the battle and resulted in virtual destruction of the city's armenian community.Hetoum I 02:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is (I seem to be saying it quite often) the English-language Wikipedia. So why should there be names for the battle in Armenian or Azeri? Was there alternative contemporanious names for the battle used by those that took part other than the British? If there were, that should be mentioned. But I can't see any valid reason for those Armenian and Azeri names if they are only found in Azeri or Armenian literature that post-date the event. Meowy 02:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the picture of the Memorial to the Turkish soldiers, who died in 1918. The caption was wrong, so I fixed it. There's also a memorial to the British soldiers in a few meters from the one on picture. --Grandmaster (talk) 07:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that is what the monument commemorates? The image's description suggested otherwise, which is why I removed it. As a suggestion - something in the "aftermath" section should be said of the existence and history of that monument to the British dead, and what happened to the original graveyard and its conection to the monument in Istanbul. Meowy 16:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result

Was not it an allied victory, not just the Ottoman one, as the ref suggests? --Brandспойт 09:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Azerbaijani troops enter Baku 1918.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Azerbaijani troops enter Baku 1918.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Azerbaijani troops enter Baku 1918.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring by GevorgA

Edit warring by new user GevorgA is unacceptable. He repeatedly removed sourced info, last time claiming that he cannot find any publications by Dr Alexander Marshall, who is a professor at the University of Glasgo, and wrote numerous books about Soviet history: [1]. In addition, GevorgA also removed the references to the British general George Milne, who was involved in the events and had a first hand knowledge of what was going on there. That is not in line with WP rules. Grandmaster 05:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Baku&oldid=661253601"