Talk:Soviet invasion of Manchuria

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject China (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Japan / Military history (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 21:24, November 26, 2014 (JST, Heisei 26) (Refresh)
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is supported by the joint Japanese military history task force.
 
WikiProject Korea (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 
WikiProject Soviet Union (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Russia / History / Military (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject East Asia (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Soviet invasion of Manchuria:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Article requests: Japanese sources for defence of islands
  • Expand: the "Campaign" section to include the operations outside Manchuria such as the contemplation to "using the arid wastes of eastern Mongolia as a launching pad"
  • Infobox: add Soviet Fronts' commanders, and Commander of the Soviet Pacific Fleet
  • Wikify: citations and reference sections

Macarthur[edit]

Any info on what Macarthur is talking about here?--Stor stark7 Speak 23:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Which aspect?
  • that Gen Douglas MacArthur wanted to launch nuclear strikes on the Soviet Union from an underground airstrip in Britain. - No idea.
  • He also recorded Macarthur's view of the Soviet Union. "He felt certain they would also attempt to convert Japan into a subject county, so as to be able to use the Japanese manpower at a later date for operations in the Pacific. - Well, nothing particularly surprising or unclear there.
  • "He considered them a greater menace than the Nazis had ever been, complete barbarians, as exemplified by one commander [in Manchuria] who had issued orders that every woman between the age of 16 and 60 was to be raped twice by Russian soldiery as an example of the superiority of the Russian race!" - Again, nothing particularly surprising or new there - e.g. in a very understated and "British" way, Jones, F. C. “Manchuria since 1931”, 1949, Royal Institute of International Affairs, London. pg.221 says much the same.
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Kuanyuehtai & Lumintai[edit]

I am trying hard to find the Chinese names for these two resistance centers, which are adjacent to the Suifenho center. Could someone please help? Please answer me at Talk_Tazadeperla. Thanks a lot in advance. —Preceding undated comment added 04:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC).

Soviet war crimes[edit]

This need verification from serious scientific works backed by Soviet and Chinese archives, not some popular propaganda books. If no politically neutral sources provided this section should be removed. Serg3d2 (talk) 06:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

"serious scientific works" - What does science have to do with it? Please explain what you mean.
"backed by Soviet and Chinese archives" - a) Why limited to Soviet and Chinese archives? b) I think you can guarantee that anything Soviet from that period will be propaganda, and a LONG way from "politically neutral".
"If no politically neutral sources provided this section should be removed." - Then you may as well delete the rest of the article too, and 50% of the rest of wikipedia - VERY few of the sources on such topics are "politically neutral". Pdfpdf (talk) 07:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Now, ignoring your outrage and bluster: Which of the quoted sources are you classifying as "popular propaganda books", and why? Pdfpdf (talk) 07:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Also, it is not hard to find evidence of the Soviet behaviour - I will rat around and find some more references. Pdfpdf (talk) 07:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
The part of the "Crimes" section that is based on words of an anonymous foreign businessmen, should be removed until proper references are presented. We're talking about massive atrocities that supposedly took place on Chinese soil (3 days of rape is not a picnic), yet all we have as a proof is that some anonymous guy said it. Alexvhr (talk) 11:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but not to put too fine a point on it, bullshit!
  • WHICH part of the section is based on which words of which foreign businessman?
  • "We're talking about massive atrocities ... " - Indeed we are!
  • "yet all we have as a proof is that some anonymous guy said it." - No, your statement/assertion is quite false.
Let's have more specifics and less handwaving here please. Neither you nor Serg3d2 have stated specifically what you are talking about. I'd like something better than WP:I just don't like it please. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
The part "A foreigner witnessed Soviet Russian troops, formerly stationed in Berlin, who were allowed by the Soviet military to go at the city "for three days of rape and pillage" as per ref [14]. The work in [14] references an anonymous source. How much more specific you want me to get? BTW, the same [14] talks about "convicts divisions from salt mines of Siberia" - well, there were no divisions formed from convicts in Soviet Army. Alexvhr (talk) 12:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
"How much more specific you want me to get?" - That's adequate, thanks. Yes, at the very best, that's "a bit vague", isn't it! So, does that mean you are OK with the other references? Pdfpdf (talk) 13:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
"So, does that mean you are OK with the other references?" - No, it means that the part about 3 days of rape, backed by [14] should either be backed by some other source, or removed. Alexvhr (talk) 14:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Huh? Yes, we've discussed [14]. Are OK with the other references? If not, which one(s), and why? Pdfpdf (talk)
I' studying them still, so not yet ready to discuss them Alexvhr (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
"BTW, the same [14] talks about ... " - I'm not sure what your point is here. If it's: "[14] is a poor source", well, I've already agreed with you on that. If it's something else, please explain. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
"I'm not sure what your point is here" - my point is that not only [14] references anonymous sources (that alone does not mean it presents a false information), but provides an information, known to be false. And that information is included in the article. False information in wikipedia articles = bad. Thus references to [14] only hurt article's credibility and should be removed.Alexvhr (talk) 14:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, you've lost me. "Thus references to [14] ... should be removed." - Yes, third time, I agree. What are you talking about? Pdfpdf (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok, consensus reached - proceeded to remove the part in question Alexvhr (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the reference, but NOT the data - put a [citation needed] in there, and I'll find one. (Meanwhile, it's 2am Monday here, and I'm expected to sound intelligent at 9am, so I'm off to bed.) Pdfpdf (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
(P.S. Thanks for providing sensible specific answers! Most appreciated. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC))
I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand "NOT the data" bit. We have undisputedly false information there (convict divisions specifically), so what's the point of having it there? Alexvhr (talkcontribs) 16:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
It is a fact that Soviet troops raped and pillaged. It is a fact that the Soviets dismantled and exported to the Soviet Union all the Manchurian technology they could, and disabled and/or destroyed what they couldn't export. Beyond that (i.e. the details) we have to rely on what has been written. The citations are supporting references, (unless there are direct quotes).
I didn't see the text in the article mentioning salt mines in Sibera.
In any case, I have toned down what the text says and limited it to the basics. (e.g. I would be surprised to learn that the Soviets had an official policy of "rape and pillage", but the the facts are that Soviet troops did rape and did pillage, and Soviet commanders and authorities did not discourage them.)
I have yet to locate those other references - I think I archived them to DVD, and I've yet to locate which DVD I archived them too. But when I locate them, I will add them.
In the meantime, how do you want to proceed? Pdfpdf (talk) 15:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Hopefully Events in Manchuria, 1945-47 has addressed your concerns? Pdfpdf (talk) 10:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I will add: Those alleged crimes were committed on Chines soil against Chines nationals. So the reference on Chinese sources is a must here. Official documents, notes, archive references would be preferable. About Soviet archives: at least for alleged Berlin Soviet Army atrocities there are *some* military court sentences, NKVD(NKGB) and political officers reports. And NKVD reports were not propaganda - they were trying to relay real situation to leadership. The scale of Berlin atrocities is a subject of disputes, not the fact that there were some. Here - I see zero evidence, some vague third hand rumors. Serg3d2 (talk) 12:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't quite follow all of your answer. Perhaps you can confirm/deny/explain a few things for me?
"Those alleged crimes were committed on Chines soil against Chines nationals." - I'm assuming you are referring to the "Manchurians"? Well, not all of them were "Chinese". Some considered themselves either "Manchurian" or "Japanese". Or (unrealistically) both. Or (pragmatically) neither.
"Official documents, notes, archive references would be preferable." - Whose "official" documents? What does "official" mean? Where would one source such documents? (Sadly), I only speak/read European languages. If what you want is not available in a European language, then I'm afraid I can't help.
Regarding the bit of your reply from "About Soviet archives ... " to " ... there were some.", I'm afraid I don't understand what your point is.
"Here - I see zero evidence, some vague third hand rumors." - Third time - please be specific.
Pdfpdf (talk) 13:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Manchurian are minority inside China. It's legitimate to call them Chinese, the same as to call Ainu Japanese. I don't see how Japanese went into equation. " What does "official" mean? Where would one source such documents?" Are you just trolling or you don't know what National Archives/libraries are? UK seems have good collection of pre 50s Chinese documents. There should be plenty in library of Chines academy of social science.Most of Russian archives are opened to visitors. You should look though the list of documents avaliable for period, and check out those which looks like relevant (diplomatic notes, army liaisons correspondence, court martial protocols, counterintelligence&security reports(those sometimes available), discharge papers, reprimands etc. I'm not joking, I know some amateur WII fans who visit archives several times per year and sometimes make specific trips to other countries archives. If you are unwilling to do archive research and unable to find references by other means you shouldn't pose yourself as expert in the area and should not perpetuate some rumors in wiki. Serg3d2 (talk) 07:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Your reply has very little relationship to what I wrote, and is largely irrelevant.
Perhaps you would like to re-read what I wrote and address what I said?
(And this time, you can drop the scarcasm, the insults, the mis-statements and the false assumptions.)
  • First I asked : Whose "official" documents? - you didn't answer that. As the rest of my paragraph relies on that which you have ignored, your answer is quoting me out-of-context, so you are answering questions I didn't ask. Also, your response is very rude - please read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL before you reply.
It seems it's only you have license to be rude, ignore opponent's reply and repeat rhetorical questions.Serg3d2 (talk) 06:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
LOL! You do realise that is a well recongnised tactic, don't you? (i.e. Ignore what was written and make a personal attack on the person who wrote it.) You haven't read WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL yet, have you? When you've finished them, please also read WP:NPA. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • To clarify: By What does "official" mean?, my intent was to communicate: 'What do YOU mean by "official"?'
The rest of your rambling reply doesn't seem to say anything useful towards advancing the article. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:48, 22 February 2011
Hopefully Events in Manchuria, 1945-47 has addressed your concerns? Pdfpdf (talk) 10:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
It's better but not enough. It's 1949, so it's not likely to be impartial. Find credible academic work published after the end of Cold War and I will have no objections. Anyway it's the only source which at least looks like having some credibility. I suggest you remove all the rest of the sources and their allegations.
Rubbish.
E.g. You contradict yourself.
In your second sentence you say: "It's 1949, so it's not likely to be impartial." (which, by the way, is a false statement.)
In your next/adjacent/third sentence you say: "Find credible academic work published after the end of Cold War." - The "end of the cold war" was WELL after 1949, so by your faulty logic, it would be even less "likely to be impartial."
Until you read what I wrote, think about it, and answer my questions with something (anything?) relevant, I'm ignoring you and reverting your unreasonable edits on the basis that the ONLY reason you have supplied is WP:I just don't like it. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
To help you address some of the questions I have asked:
  • It was published in 1949 - I went to the effort of pointing out it was written in 1947-48. Why have you chosen to ignore that fact?
  • I have quoted the Christian Science Monitor published 12 October 1945. Why have you chosen to ignore that fact?
  • When it comes down to it, just what is it you are disputing? Why have you chosen to continue ignore that fact that you have been asked several times to state just what is it you are disputing?
At no time have you been specific about what you are disputing. 09:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
And regarding: "I suggest you remove all the rest of the sources and their allegations." - a) please sign your posts using ~~~~ b) I'm not your housemaid. I didn't put them there. If you want to remove citations, YOU read them and YOU explain why they should be removed. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Proof of crime allegations is responsibility of the side which make/defend those allegations Occam's razor. I object general tone of the section, and some of it is total nonsense. Allegation should not be stated as facts. "Three day of rape and pillage" is nonsense recognized by anyone familiar with inner working of Soviet army. I suggest you don't remove "disputed" template until consensus reached. PS try to be less emotional in discussion. Serg3d2 (talk) 10:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
"Three day of rape and pillage" is nonsense recognized by anyone familiar with inner working of Soviet army. That statement is so utterly laughable that it completely destroys your credibility as far as I am concerned. Given the behavior of the Soviet Army in eastern Germany towards the end of the European war, there is nothing the least implausible about the claim.Yaush (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding consensus, you are the only person complaining. And the ONLY complaint you have made is "WP:I just don't like it". And you continue to repeat yourself, not answer questions, and add nothing new that is relevant. There are at least half-a-dozen sources there, ALL supporting the statements. That's "proof" enough for most. Beyond "WP:I just don't like it", you still haven't said anything. Thus, I would say the discussion came to its logical end some time ago, and consensus has been reached. In fact, we have (unanimous-1 person) agreement. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm disputing it too. Certainly none of your references are primary sources and there is no way for me to verify without obtaining those books whether there is any truth to this. For all I know (since it doesn't actually say here what those books are saying), they could all be a reference to the single "foreigner" mentioned earlier, which is no evidence at all. You could give the relevant passages here rather than in the article. Given that all except one of your citations are single page reference, I don't see how the evidence could be extensive.

I just now noticed and read the "Events in Manchuria" citation. I am not going to dispute the removal of materials and equipment part, though certainly the term used ("looted") smacks of POV; obviously the Soviets thought of it as reparations. You might remember that they were in fact in Manchuko, which however much a puppet of Japan was nevertheless its ally. So that covers pp.227-9 of the citation. Which BTW, itself says that "How much of the wrecked condition is a direct result of Soviet removals and how much may be ascribed to pillage, civil war, and indirect consequences of the Soviet occupation cannot be accurately determined." If it cannot be determined then this isn't evidence that it happened.

That leaves pp. 224-5. This is some evidence, though it isn't clear how much. The first reference here is the same as your reference 14. I would assume that the citation for the Scotsman of December 35, 145 is a transcription error. [Yes, OCR error. Correct citation: The Scotsman, 27 and 31 December 1945.] Nevertheless, all the references are from US and UK newspapers and I contend that by this time they would have wanted to hear stories like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kovesp (talkcontribs) 05:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Then there is this reference to "Soviet Russian troops, formerly stationed in Berlin". I traced through the Soviet order of battle as much as I could. Most of the units in the three Fronts were stationed in the Far East all through the war. The two that did fight in the west were sent east to join the three fronts from Vienna and East Prussia. None of them were in Berlin. Obviously this does not preclude some smaller unit having come from Berlin, but what is the likelihood of the "foreigner" witnessing specifically that unit committing atrocities?

I also agree with what was said previously about Soviet archives. They are dependable, because the goal was to record facts secretly for leadership use. It is accepted that they more or less accurately record facts of the great purge etc. You can't have it both ways. The Soviets worked in this respect as the Nazis; they recorded everything.

None of this proves that the claimed events didn't happen. I just don't think adequate evidence was presented that they did.kovesp (talk) 05:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I came across this as I'm doing research for the writing of the memoir of a family member. Some events relate to the period. Academic or "scientific" studies aside, the rape and looting indeed happened and were widely known and feared for among Chinese, Mongolians, Manchurians and Japanese in the area at the time. A family associate killed herself for that reason. But I'm just stating this fact, not intending to join the debate as to whether that came from an offician order of the Red Army. And the removal of materials and equipment is a much more acknowledged fact in China today, referred to in some of the books and films on the China's liberation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessicaqiao (talkcontribs) 23:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

This section is now being repeatedly blanked from Russian IP addresses. It's getting tiresome enough that I'm wondering if the article needs to be semiprotected. Is that too extreme? --Yaush (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Do not wonder. Before any evidence in the form of official sources is presented this section is under serious doubt!--Alex (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article for a week. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
It's okay, but the text is again biased! I demand on the grounds of Wikipedia to remove the sentence about mass rapes. I CHECKED the links, there are no such accounts! And occasional rapes happen even today with american soldiers in Japan in Germany. So please remove the last sentence about mass rapes and looting. It's a complete lie. Alex (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
but the text is again biased - In your opinion ...
I CHECKED the links, there are no such accounts' - Interesting. Perhaps you'd like to check them again? I'm not having any problem finding such accounts.
So please remove the last sentence about mass rapes and looting. - No.
It's a complete lie. - Ummmm. Errr. No, it isn't. Please do your homework before making such statements. Maybe you'd even like to quote some references that support your opinion? After all, the article quotes a number of references that support an opinion opposite to yours. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Archive 3[edit]

The bot doesn't seem to be archiving stuff - I've manually placed stuff from 2009 in /Archive3. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh. It should have a space in the name. /Archive 3 Pdfpdf (talk) 10:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Events in Manchuria, 1945-47[edit]

F. C. JONES (1949) "Manchuria since 1931", Royal Institute of International Affairs, London, Oxford University Press
CHAPTER XII - Events in Manchuria, 1945-47

(F. C. JONES M.A. (Bristol), Ph.D. (Harvard), Lecturer in History, University of Bristol - written 1947-48)

In the interest of speeding up access to this talk page,
this section has been moved to /Events in Manchuria, 1945-47
Pdfpdf (talk) 11:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Request to move[edit]

I propose to move the article to "Soviet Strategic offensive in Manchuria". There are several reasons:

  1. "offensive" is three times more frequently used in general sources (all internet pages), compared to "invasion": [1], [2] - 379,000 against 122,000 pages Google indexed. People would come here looking for offensive, not an invasion. As such, offensive should be preferable under WP:Common names,
  2. in books, both names are used equally frequently: [3], [4], [5], 550-600 results indexed by Google for any of the two words, both are used in modern scientific works.
  3. "offensive" is not a charged word, while "invasion" has some negative connotations. E.g., in a non-military usage of the word, one can not "start an invasion" fighting bad things (drugs, crime), only against good ones, but can start an offensive against some evil. And per (1) and [2] "invasion" does not meet the necessary criteria for the usage of a charged title named in WP:Neutral Point of view,
  4. "offensive" is an adequate translation of the name used by Soviet military documents, and, having (1), (2), there's no need to use an expression that differs from the original name. 95.25.188.25 (talk) 23:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC) (FeelSunny)
There was a lengthy discussion of this a few years ago, and the consensus was that the Russian terminology for this topic isn't that which is used in English language publications. Your comments don't seek to justify the inclusion of the word 'strategic', and this sure was an 'invasion'. It's a bit odd to say that calling something what it is was 'charged'. Nick-D (talk) 10:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
This was't an invasion. Soviets attacked Japanese forces on the continent, becouse their allies insisted. Soviets in fact liberated Manchuria from previous invaders - the Japanese. And they didn't hold it long, but handed it to the rightful sovereign of the area - China. In the light of these facts, it is obvious that invasion is biased term. It's a bit odd calling something what it isn't. And the main issue that remains is whether in English sources it is named exlusively as 'invasion'. If so, then it perhaps better to leave it like that, otherwise it will be appropriate to use more correct term. 212.58.205.110 (talk) 05:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Same question. Same answer. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't the article be renamed Soviet liberation of Manchuria - Can you supply any sources that refer to the event as the "Soviet liberation of Manchuria"? I have not noticed any; it is my experience that "it is unanimously called invasion in sources", so if you can supply some sources that use that term, that would be a useful starting point. Pdfpdf (talk) 03:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


SVG maps[edit]

Currently the Vietnamese Wikipedia version of this article is a FA, and features quite detailed Vietnamese-language SVG maps of the order of operations. Would it be possible if someone could translate these SVG maps into English so that they can be incorporated into this article on the English Wikipedia?

Regards, -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 05:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Article name[edit]

Shouldn't the article be renamed Soviet liberation of Manchuria, because Soviets cleaned it of predessor invaders - the Japanese, however they didn't hold it, but almost immediately handed over to the rightful owner of territory - China? I think that should be discussed. Of course the main issue for English wiki will be how it is named in English language sources. If it is unanimously called invasion in sources, so probably it will remain so, otherwise I suggest that more appropriate term should be used. 212.58.205.110 (talk) 11:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't the article be renamed Soviet liberation of Manchuria - Can you supply any sources that refer to the event as the "Soviet liberation of Manchuria"? I have not noticed any; it is my experience that "it is unanimously called invasion in sources", so if you can supply some sources that use that term, that would be a useful starting point. Pdfpdf (talk) 03:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:NPOV it should be named simply Manchurian operation (1945) Elk Salmon (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Asmolov[edit]

The page cited with regard to refuting and downplaying accusations against the Red Army specifically diccusses Korea, not the entire campaign. The only "Far East" reference is with respect to the total number of troops, to minimize the possible fraction of Soviet troops engaged in wronging. It's not about the Far East in general. Considering the "encyclopedia" is edited by Dyukov, who has made a career of defending the Soviet legacy against indisputable evidence to the contrary of his contentions, Asmolov is already given undue weight, let's not apply it wider than appropriate. VєсrumЬа TALK 20:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Well this is your opinion and only that...
As for the text only talking about Korea, how do you know what it says? You can read Russian? -YMB29 (talk) 22:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


Во-первых, в пропагандистской литературе нередко встречается прием, когда, пользуясь ограниченностью объема печатного материала, 3–4 примера позиционируют как тенденцию. Во-вторых, данные «о зверствах русских» почему-то всплыли только сейчас, хотя в условиях «холодной войны» тех лет подобный пропагандистский козырь должен был быть весьма востребованным. В-третьих, хочется обратить внимание на абсолютные цифры. Те, кто любит рассказывать «о сотнях случаев», упускают из виду то, что численность советской армии вторжения на Дальнем Востоке составляла около двух миллионов человек.

Clearly says Far East, and the nearly 2 million troops were not all in Korea...

Зверства советских войск на освобождаемой территории опровергаются работой с документами. В российских архивах есть и документы о судах над мародерами или насильниками, и из них понятно, что и охота за трофеями, и иные недостойные действия в отношении местного населения носили куда меньший характер по сравнению с тем, что происходило в Германии на полгода раньше.

Korea was not the only liberated territory.

Гораздо интереснее было бы сравнить выявленную статистику преступлений, совершенных советскими военнослужащими на Дальнем Востоке в 1945 году, со статистикой преступлений, совершенных в то же время гражданскими лицами — как самими китайцами или корейцами, так и в Советском Союзе на территории со сходной численностью населения. К сожалению, нам ничего не известно о подобных попытках.

Again talks about the Far East in general and specifically mentions the Chinese.

-YMB29 (talk) 23:18, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

  • I can read Russian and looked at the source. Here is it, "The Great War Slandered" compiled by revisionist historian Aleksandr Reshideovich Dyukov. The preface of the book tells (Google translation): Our enemies - external or internal - encroach on the most sacred - on people's memory of the Great Patriotic War. ... Echoing the Goebbels propaganda, pseudo-historians inspire us ... This book - a rebuff detractors. ("Наши враги — и внешние, и внутренние — покушаются на самое святое — на народную память о Великой Отечественной войне. ... Вторя геббельсовской пропаганде, псевдоисторики внушают нам...Эта книга — отповедь клеветникам.") and so on. So, this is basically a book that declares mainstream history and historians to be "enemies" and "pseudo-historians" who conduct "Goebbels propaganda". Clearly, this is a propaganda/advocacy book. Please do not use it here. My very best wishes (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Again, this is your opinion only. You cannot claim it to be unreliable just because you don't like what it says. -YMB29 (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
No, this is not my opinion. This is their own admission. According to preface of the book, the purpose of the book is to refute "enemies" of their country, "foreign and domestic". This is very definition of an advocacy/propaganda source. My very best wishes (talk) 12:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
That does not make the whole book unreliable. You have to look at the main content, not the preface, and criticize the author of the text in question, not the editor of the book. -YMB29 (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I looked. The entire book is an unreliable propaganda source, just like Great Conspiracy against Soviet Russia. Not everything in such books is necessarily wrong. A lot of statements can be actually correct, but one must avoid using self-admitted advocacy sources per policy. My very best wishes (talk) 19:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
So you read the entire book? So far you have no evidence that it is unreliable, only your own opinion. -YMB29 (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)