Talk:Soviet invasion of Manchuria
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Soviet invasion of Manchuria article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 90 days ![]() |
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Soviet invasion of Manchuria article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 90 days ![]() |
Extended content
|
---|
Source: Soviet Denunciation of the Pact with Japan
Even though it is arguable that the USSR denounced the pact illegally, the fact is that it was denounced and by the time war was declared, the pact was not in effect.
The Soviet Union understood that the Article Three gave it denounciations rights 1 year prior to the expiration date.
Your TIME's source:
You could argue that it was an illegal denounciation, but still it was a denounciation meaning "to announce the termination of".
A CIA document about that declaration corroborate this view:
On the other hand, I don't think there is any doubt at all that, 4 months later, the Soviets BROKE the treaty when they invaded Manchuria! And yes, it was probably "illegal", (but I don't know by whose laws - I'm not an expert on international law.) Here's my summary of my understanding of the situation. Please read it and tell me if you disagree, and with what you disagree.
Awaiting your reply. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Copied from a section of the book, page 153:
I think I now see what your point is. Please confirm or correct my interpretation. Interesting!
reduxI've just finished rereading the Slavinskiĭ extracts more closely. It seems I misread it first time.
In other words:
However: Malik did not know (had not been informed) that the Soviets were preparing to attack. But it gets better!
Jukes provides evidence that, in 1944, the Soviet government provided Japan with information, obtained by espionage, about American, British and Australian intentions and capabilities. Jukes suggests that the most likely explanation of this is Stalin's desire ... to keep ... Japan in the war until he was ready to attack (them).
Page 188 discusses many interesting things
So, anybody who thinks this is "simple" or "black & white" just doesn't know what went on!! Pdfpdf (talk) 13:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Truman's letter
|
- The plot just continues to thicken, doesn't it!
- I haven't had a look at those references yet, but in principle, yes, I think we should mention it.
- I'm beginning to think that all this information about the neutrality pact, its rise, its fall, and its abuse, should be placed in the Neutrality Pact article, and that this article should make reference to, and quote from, that article (rather than this article containing all the detail.)
- What do you think? Pdfpdf (talk) 00:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, I agree with your proposal. Mentions to Truman's letter, for example, should go into the Neutrality Pact article.
- I consider this issue solved. EconomistBR 19:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. (So when I've "done enough" here, unless someone beats me to it, I'll move on to the Neutrality Pact article ... ) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
When was war declared?
Extended content
|
---|
For ease, please look at Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact.
i.e. "We are declaring now, on the 8 August 1945, that from 9 Aug 1945 we will consider ourselves to be at war with Japan".
I don't think you have got it quite right. A declaration of a declaration doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me! Take a different example. Say that today I declared that, in one weeks time I would be at war. What do you think? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
|
- I consider this issue solved. EconomistBR 18:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- Me too. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- I consider this issue solved. EconomistBR 18:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Accuracy?
I dispute the accuracy of statements attributed to
- Richard B. Frank, Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire, Penguin, 2001 ISBN 0-14-100146-1
Extended content
|
---|
The article states: Japan's decision to surrender was made before the scale of the Soviet attack on Manchuria, Sakhalin, and the Kurils was known,<ref>''Downfall'', p. 289.</ref> but had the war continued, the Soviets had plans to invade Hokkaidō well before the other Allied invasion of Kyushu.<ref>David M. Glantz, "The Soviet Invasion of Japan", ''Quarterly Journal of Military History'', vol. 7, no. 3, Spring 1995, pp. 96–97, discusses new information indicating that Stalin was ready to land troops on Hokkaidō two months before the scheduled American landings in Kyushu. (Information from [http://www.highbeam.com/library/docfree.asp?DOCID=1G1:17100941&ctrlInfo=Round19%3AMode19a%3ADocG%3AResult&ao= The Smithsonian and the Enola Gay. The National Interest; 6/22/1995; Washburn, Wilcomb E.] footnote 15).</ref><ref>Frank, ''Downfall'', p. 323–4, citing David Glantz, "Soviet Invasion of Japan".</ref>
Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's research has led him to conclude that the atomic bombings were not the principal reason for capitulation. Instead, he contends, it was the swift and devastating Soviet victories on the mainland in the week following Joseph Stalin's August 8 declaration of war that forced the Japanese message of surrender on August 15, 1945. <ref>Hasegawa, ''Racing the Enemy'', p. 298.</ref> His claim, however, has been criticized because it ignores the fact that the Imperial Headquarters in Tokyo knew that a full-scale invasion had begun but were unaware of how badly the fighting in Manchuria was going.<ref>Richard Frank. Downfall</ref>
Who is "Richard B. Frank"? What is it that he actually does say? And what supporting evidence does he provide to back up his assertions? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. You have addressed most of my points and answered most of my questions, but there are still a few loose ends. On analysis of your response, and with the benefit of hindsight, it would now seem to me that my complaint is/was more about the statement re Hasegawa that:
I have problems with that statement. You say: "I see no reason to question Frank's assessment that the Japanese hadn't grasped the full scale of the Soviet attack; how could they have? They knew the important thing: that the Soviets were now in the war against them." I agree with you. I now realise that it is not that bit of Frank's assessment that I am calling into question. It's 2am here. I'll briefly touch on the other points, and come back to them tomorrow.
From "Japan's decision to surrender was made before ... ", I took the understanding that the sentence was implying that Japan's decision was NOT influenced by the fact that the Soviets were now in the war against them. Bed-time. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 17:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
|
- Awaiting you reply. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Soviet fronts
Extended content
|
---|
IMO, in order to avoid confusion with other Soviet Fronts, the mentions to the Eastern, Western and Northern Fronts in the Soviet sub-section should be removed or replaced. See Category:Soviet_fronts I prefer removal, do you agree with this change? EconomistBR 22:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
|
- IMO what's important is that we've found evidence that this nomeclature is used.
- I will then just add "of Manchuria". EconomistBR 18:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- That sounds good to me. Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Past tense on the Soviet sub-section
The Soviet sub-section is about the role each Front and army would play in the incoming battle according to Soviet plans, that's why the conditional was used.
I would like to restore the conditional, is it ok? EconomistBR 22:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
- That's a good solution. Yes, I agree that you have resolved the issue. Thank you, and Well done. Pdfpdf (talk) 23:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Soviet next-generation heavy tank involved?
When reading figures for the number of T-34 tanks deployed at the end of the Soviet section of Combatant Forces, I couldn't help but wonder if the IS-3 was employed against the Japanese as well. If so, I think it would be worth mentioning, somewhat similar to the importance of mentioning when and where Tigers or King Tigers were first deployed, since the IS-3 really was remarkable for that time.
However, I can't seem to find an answer, positive or negative - everything and everyone seems to basically say "maybe" which doesn't help me any. So, does anyone here know if IS-3 tanks were involved in combat against Japan?
I'm leaning more towards probably not, operating under the presumption that the Soviets would have bragged about their inevitable combat success with such an awesome tank and recalling how they flaunted them on parade in Berlin.
--Theanthropic avatar (talk) 08:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
I've heard rumors about that as well, I know they had IS-2 tanks involved but nothing concrete about IS-3s deployed. I treat it as rubbish, the result of tank enthusiasts wanting there to have been IS-3s involved....??? Ihatewheniforgetmydamnpassword (talk) 02:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC) |
- Agreed. The http://www.internethobbies.com/ro1issttakit.html article says they "had taken part in the parade", not that they had been used. In fact, it specifically says: "The IS-3 was not used in any military action during World War II".
- Regarding the "may have been deployed against the Japanese in Manchuria." quote, I have seen that in a number of places, but none of them attribute the source. I wonder who/what that source is? Pdfpdf (talk) 02:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
The title of this article should be changed
Extended content
|
---|
It seems that mrg3105 has returned, in an IP form at least. Who else would edit war over Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation? The current title, however, is not support by sources.
Also the claim that Soviet-Japanese War conflicts with Soviet-Japanese War of 1939 is a mistake since that was a border war, Wikipedia recognizes this fact with Soviet–Japanese Border Wars article. EconomistBR 21:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
|
The next steps
- I am really glad we've found common ground this quickly. IMO the next step is to create Soviet-Japanese War of 1945 and then split the Soviet invasion of Manchuria article .
- Sections:
- 1 Summary
- 2 Background and buildup
- 3 Combatant forces
- 3.1 Soviets
- 3.2 Japanese
- 4 Campaign
- 5 Importance and consequences
- 6 See also
- 7 References and notes
- 8 Further reading
- 9 External links
- Options:
- - Create Soviet-Japanese War of 1945 and cut and paste from Soviet invasion of Manchuria sections 1, 2 and 5 to this new article.
- - Move Soviet invasion of Manchuria to Soviet-Japanese War of 1945 and then cut and paste Sections 3 and 4 to Soviet invasion of Manchuria.
- - Sections 6, 7, 8 and 9 could exist on both articles.
- - As an additional step Soviet invasion of Manchuria could be kept or renamed to
Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation orBattle of Manchuria or something else depending on the sources.
- Do we have an understanding about what the next step is? If so, are the options acceptable? If so, which option is best? EconomistBR 15:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- I like option 1. The operations in the Kuril, Sakhalin and Hokkaido islands were quite significant (as well as being very interesting) and we need an overall article on the war and then seperate articles on each of its main campaigns (with further articles on notable battles, etc, as appropriate) as per the normal structure of Wikipedia articles on wars. Nick-D (talk) 23:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with the idea that there should be an "overarching article" about the war, and a number of articles about the campaigns. As that seems to be "the normal structure of Wikipedia articles on wars", that should avoid the need for further discussion on that choice! Here are my suggestions - some of them need more planning:
- 1. Reuse Soviet-Japanese War (1945) as the main article
- 2. Redirect Soviet-Japanese War to Soviet-Japanese War (1945).
- 3. Copy the contents of Soviet invasion of Manchuria (1945) to Soviet-Japanese War (1945). (Don't delete - just copy)
- 4. Review Soviet invasion of Manchuria (1945) as an article about "The Invasion" - I don't think all that much, if anything, would be deleted.
- 5. Review Soviet-Japanese War (1945) as the main article. I suspect that this may turn into a major job, but perhaps not.
- Sections:
- 0 Lead paragraph - Much the same, with obvious name changes.
- 1 Summary - Add to what's there to include the whole war.
- 2 Background and buildup - Expand, with the following sub-sections, each saying "See the relevant article for detail
- 2.1 The Russo-Japanese War and the Treaty of Portsmouth
- 2.2 Mukden Incident and Japanese invasion of Manchuria
- 2.3 Soviet-Japanese border incidents, Battle of Lake Khasan and Battle of Khalkhin Gol
- 2.4 Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact
- 2.5 Some sort of sensible blend of:
- 2.5a Cairo, Tehran, Yalta, Denunciation of the Pact, Postdam, Postsdam Declaration, Declaration of War.
- 2.5b Soviet build-up; Kwantung army depletion.
- 2.5c How the Soviets delayed the "negotiation on behalf of the Japanese" process and deceived the Japanese.
- 2.5d The first atomic bomb.
- 3 Combatant forces - perhaps not quite so detailed? (i.e. detail in "campaign" articles"?)
- 3.1 Soviets
- 3.2 Japanese
- 3.3 Others
- 4 Campaigns
- 4.1 The Invasion
- 4.1.a,b,c The three fronts
- 4.1.d,e,f The Mongolian, Chinese and other participants (e.g. US support for Russians / Lend Lease / etc.)
- 4.2 The Second atomic bomb
- 4.3 The other campaigns: Sakhalin, Kurils, Korea, etc.
- 4.4 The campaigns that didn't happen: e.g. Russian invasion of Hokkaido; US invasion planned for Nov 1.
- 5 The surrender process, more thought on the planning needed here, but at least:
- 5.1 Japanese desire to achieve peace and realise their territorial gains (while they still had upper hand)
- 5.2 Japanese desire to achieve peace and realise their territorial gains (while they were losing upper hand)
- 5.3 Japanese desire to achieve peace and retain the Emporer's role
- 5.4 Japanese desire to enlist support of Soviets (overlap with 2.5c)
- 5.5 Japanese desire to achieve peace: Emporer's broadcast; Cease-fire announcements; internal wrangling
- 5.6 The surrender and the treaties
- 6 Aftermath
- 6.1 The plight of the "Manchurian Japanese"
- 6.1 The plight of the "Manchurians" - Soviet rape & pilage
- 6.1 The plight of the Chinese, Koreans, Sakhalin-ers, Kuril-ians, Chinese civil war, etc.
- 7 Importance and consequences
6 See also- 8 References and notes
- 9 Further reading
- 10 External links
- I have been a bit rude (let's call it "bold") and already done steps 1, 2 and 3.
- I have also copied some of the above to Talk:Soviet-Japanese War (1945) - I think we should split the conversation: Invasion related stuff here; war related stuff there
- Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- First I want to point to the great progress we've made. Since August 9th we've used over 60,000 bytes to express ourselves and we've managed to successfully solve many issues. After just one month this talk page has become bigger than the article we are discussing.
- IMO Nick-D's suggestion of making this conflict comply with the "normal structure of Wikipedia articles on wars" is very good and it should have been the guiding principle since the beginning.
- I also support Pdfpdf's proposal which is quite ambitious and detailed. His blueprint includes the main article sections and calls for a lot of work, so it will remain as reference for the foreseeable future. IMO issue solved. EconomistBR 22:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Unassessed China-related articles
- Unknown-importance China-related articles
- Unassessed China-related articles of Unknown-importance
- WikiProject China articles
- Unassessed Japan-related articles
- Unknown-importance Japan-related articles
- WikiProject Japan articles
- Unassessed Korea-related articles
- Unknown-importance Korea-related articles
- WikiProject Korea articles
- WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
- B-Class Soviet Union articles
- Low-importance Soviet Union articles
- WikiProject Soviet Union articles
- B-Class Russia articles
- Low-importance Russia articles
- Low-importance B-Class Russia articles
- WikiProject Russia articles with no associated task force
- WikiProject Russia articles
- Start-Class military history articles
- Start-Class Asian military history articles
- Asian military history task force articles
- Start-Class Chinese military history articles
- Chinese military history task force articles
- Start-Class Japanese military history articles
- Japanese military history task force articles
- Start-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
- Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force articles
- Start-Class World War II articles
- World War II task force articles
- Wikipedia pages with to-do lists