Is it really good to call that series of events a "Civil War"?
It wasn't just Reds vs Whites but it evolved troops from the US, France, Japan and many other countries, the Czech volunteers..... it spilled into other countries with the invasion of Poland, the war in Finland, the Hungarian Soviet Republic, Mongolia, Western china....
It was a massive war in terms of area and people evolved and affected not just the former Russian Empire but a huge part of Eurasia. Limiting this to being called a "civil war" just seem laughable.
It should be called the "Bolshevik War" or at least considered an extension of WWI, with Soviet Russia being the new enemy of the Entente.
>>3198321
by your metric American and French civil wars should be classified as World Wars
>>3198336
>American Civil War
>world war
There was never a single battle where outside forces fought allied with the Union and or the Confederates
However there was one battle where the Confederacy and the Union fought against a foreign foe, ironically.
>It should be called the "Bolshevik War" or at least considered an extension of WWI
Then you would have troubles putting into a proper context Ukrainian Nationalists fighting against German occupational government, or Makhno's Anarchists fighting against Ukrainian Nationalists, Whites and Reds, or Greens fighting against everybody.
>>3198321
Most of these are counted as different conflicts, following your shit logic we should count the American Coal Wars as part of it
>>3198374
>American Coal Wars
Those didn't happen because of Soviet Russia.
>>3198321
>US, France, Japan and many other countries
Largely irrelevant
>Czech volunteers
Stranded soldiers rather than volunteers, formerly served under Tsar.
>the invasion of Poland
Poland was former Russian province, both reds and whites did not considered them to be a legit state
>he war in Finland
Finnins civil war
>the Hungarian Soviet Republic
Wars of little entente, nationalistic issues were more important here
>>3198396
Neither did the Finnish Civil War, and you decided to include that
>>3198336
A better analogy would be a situation were Russia, France, Mexico actually sent troops to directly support one side or the other, the CSA and the Union would fight other countries outside the US borders, in Canada or Cuba, and future historians would still call it the "American Civil War".
>>3198321
America literally sent 5000 troops, that's like passing a fart in the middle of a tornado. I can't tell if you're a Burger shoehorning his country into everything or a Bolsheboo thinking Bolsheviks fought against the entire planet.
>>3198422
It happened in the context of the breakup of the Russian Empire and Soviet Russia was directly involved.
>>3198437
I'm neither and while that force was small it did occupy Russia's main Pacific port.
>>3198321
>talks about Russian Civil War
>posts pic of Americans that did nothing except for sitting on their ass in Vladivostok
>>3198454
So was Germany, guess it was the German Civil War too
>>3198480
>post an image as example an even mention Czechs in the OP
>smug asshole feels the need to post and contribute nothing