Talk:Soviet invasion of Manchuria: Difference between revisions
EconomistBR (talk | contribs) →Soviet next-generation heavy tank involved?: Our figure is wrong. |
|||
Line 404: | Line 404: | ||
::http://www.o5m6.de/is3.html - Nice drawings, but no new information. |
::http://www.o5m6.de/is3.html - Nice drawings, but no new information. |
||
::http://www.internethobbies.com/ro1issttakit.html ''"Production was started in May of 1945, and continued up to mid-1946. At the end of the War 29 tanks were produced, with their total production number continuing on to 2311. '''The IS-3 was not used in any military action during World War II, but on September 7th 1945 a tank regiment had taken part in the parade of Red Army Units in Berlin, being dedicated to the victory over Japan.'''"'' [[User:Pdfpdf|Pdfpdf]] ([[User talk:Pdfpdf|talk]]) 10:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC) |
::http://www.internethobbies.com/ro1issttakit.html ''"Production was started in May of 1945, and continued up to mid-1946. At the end of the War 29 tanks were produced, with their total production number continuing on to 2311. '''The IS-3 was not used in any military action during World War II, but on September 7th 1945 a tank regiment had taken part in the parade of Red Army Units in Berlin, being dedicated to the victory over Japan.'''"'' [[User:Pdfpdf|Pdfpdf]] ([[User talk:Pdfpdf|talk]]) 10:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC) |
||
:::I've tried to find information dealing with which type of tanks and their numbers were deployed for that offensive, but didn't find anything. |
|||
:::The article informs that 3,700 T-34s were deployed but I've just checked Glantz and he says: |
|||
::::''"3,704 tanks, 1,852 SP guns total in Soviet Far East Command"'' |
|||
:::This means that we are assuming that all 3,704 tanks were T-34s. Based on the above quotation I will remove that information, if some one finds a source restore it. <span style="background-color:green">[[User:EconomistBR|<font color="yellow">EconomistBR</font>]]</span> 18:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:53, 18 August 2009
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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
To-do list for Soviet invasion of Manchuria:
|
|
||||
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
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>
- With the exception of Richard Frank, who else is asserting Japan's decision to surrender was made before the scale of the Soviet attack on Manchuria, Sakhalin, and the Kurils was known? I have seen no evidence to support this claim.
- "but had the war continued, the Soviets had plans to invade Hokkaidō well before the other Allied invasion of Kyushu." - This may well be true, but so what? What has this got to do with either the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, or Japan's decision to surrender?
- 'Frank, Downfall, p. 323–4, citing David Glantz, "Soviet Invasion of Japan".' - What is the point of including a reference to say that this person has copied, and has acknowledged that he has copied, the previous reference?
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 says that it is a 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"? Well, well, well! Richard Frank.
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)
- To start with the last, Richard B. Frank is the author of Downfall, an award-winning history of the end of WW2. It's probably available in a library near you.
- The Japanese decision to surrender was made early on 10 August — less than a day after the beginning of the Soviet attack, and several days before their operations in Sakhalin and the Kurils began. 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.
- (Actually, it was more than 24 hours, but that's nit-picking.)
- Despite the new name, this article covers all Soviet operations against Japan; Sakhalin and the Kurils aren't part of Manchuria either. As it
explainsexplained, "Though the battle extended beyond the borders traditionally known as Manchuria ... the coordinated and integrated invasions of Japan's northern territories is still collectively labelled in English as the Battle of Manchuria". Of course, if the Soviets had invaded Hokkaidō, we'd have a separate article on the[[Soviet invasion of Hokkaidō]]
, and/or the[[Soviet occupation of North Japan]]
.
- Despite the new name, this article covers all Soviet operations against Japan; Sakhalin and the Kurils aren't part of Manchuria either. As it
- I included Frank's footnote, rather than simply referencing "Frank, Downfall, p. 323–4.", because it occurred to me someone might be interested in, you know, "what supporting evidence does he provide", and have access to Glantz's article.
- Google has more of Glantz's book, The Soviet strategic offensive in Manchuria, 1945, than I remember, but it still doesn't have the pages on "the Aborted Hokkaido Offensive".
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:
- 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.
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 the statement that "Hasegawa ignores the fact".
As you say: "They knew the important thing: that the Soviets were now in the war against them."
Hasegawa most certainly does NOT ignore that fact.
I'm not convinced that Hasegawa "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." But for the sake of arguement, even if Hasegawa does "ignore" that fact, he does NOT ignore what we both agree is "the important thing".
It's 2am here. I'll briefly touch on the other points, and come back to them tomorrow.
- "Despite the new name" - Yes, I'm not super-keen on that aspect of the new name either. And I seem to have fallen into the trap of using "Manchuria" as "shorthand" for "all Soviet operations against Japan". I'll be more precise (and less concise) next time. However, I'm not sure what point you are making. My question should have been, "What has this got to do with either the Soviet invasion of Manchuria/Korea/Inner Mongolia/Sakhalin/etc., or Japan's decision to surrender?"
- Given that the Frank reference is simply a copy of the Glantz reference, what's the point of including it? Isn't it effectively just a duplicate reference?
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.
Your interpretation is/was the opposite of mine. I prefer, and agree with, your interpretation.
So for me, that particular issue becomes: "What is it about that wording that led me to come to the opposite conclusion? Or of more importance: "How can that wording be changed to prevent others from jumping to the same (wrong) conclusion that I did?"
Bed-time. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 17:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
- I haven't been able to get hold of a copy of "Downfall" yet, but I came across:
- http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000%5C000%5C005%5C894mnyyl.asp
- "Why Truman Dropped the Bomb" by Richard B. Frank
- The Weekly Standard, 08/08/2005, Volume 010, Issue 44
- From the August 8, 2005 issue: Sixty years after Hiroshima, we now have the secret intercepts that shaped his decision.
- If this is a typical example of his work, then I admit that I am unimpressed.
- This article presents him as either a poor anaylst, or a poor communicator, or both.
- It also presents him as narrow minded, biased, overly verbose, and sensationalist.
- I seriously question the abilities of someone who bases a justification for the use of the atomic bomb on the basis of somebody else's analysis of a translation of ONE sentence in ONE piece of communication between two people.
- To use Frank's style of writing: "Anyone would know that you can fit any trend line you like to ONE piece of data". This is a long way from "justification" for dropping two atomic bombs and killing about 150,000 civilians.
- (You tell me he won an award. What for?)
- I need more supporting evidence before I'm prepared to classify him as a "reliable source".
- So far I've seen two pieces of evidence of his "dubious" (I'm being polite) abilities, both of which support the theory that he is NOT a "reliable source" on this topic.
- 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)
- I know this is my problem, and not any-body elses, but I really don't like the use of the conditional, because it's my observation that most of the time WP editors use it to describe situations that are not conditional.
- e.g. "He would go on to do xxx." He would go on to do it if what? If time passed? No! He went on to do xxx.
- I will now get off my soapbox. (Yes, I am a bit passionate about that topic. Mea culpa.)
- Yes, you are correctly using the conditional here.
- However, as you have no doubt gathered, I would prefer that it was worded without using the "would"s. My personal biased opinion is that "it would be better if" the article presented it in the manner: "They planned to do x, y and z. They were successful in x. They were largely successful in y, except for a, b and c. (e.g. running out of petrol in the middle of Manchuria!) But they were unsuccessful in z.
- Now, I quickly admit that this is much more cumbersome. And also that the way you
havehad written it, it was quite correct.
- So, I guess I'll "pull my head in", and suggest that you do it in whatever way you think is best. (And then I'll sit back, bite my tongue, and cringe in silence. ;-)
- Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- That section is based almost exclusively on Glantz's Chapter 6 - Conduct of the Offensive: Far East Command Plan. He used "would" a lot, that's why that section got loaded with "woulds".
- But no problem, given your your request, we can work around this issue and dramatically reduce the use of "would"s. EconomistBR 01:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you! That is both very kind and very considerate of you, and is very much appreciated. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:20, 16 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)
- Nothing conclusive I'm afraid - plenty of mention of "tanks", some mention of T-34s and the ways in which they were superior to Japanese capability, but I haven't come across any mention of IS-3. Due to the lack of evidence, I vacilate between "probably not" and "no information. Good luck, and don't forget to tell us here if you resolve anything. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Although it quotes no sources, Iosif Stalin tank#IS-3 says:
- "The IS-3 came too late to see action in World War II. Though some older sources claim that the tank saw action at the end of the war in Europe, there are no official reports to confirm this. It is now generally accepted that the tank saw no action against the Germans, although one regiment may have been deployed against the Japanese in Manchuria.
- Again, nothing conclusive.
- IS-3#Surviving vehicles says there's one at United States Army Ordnance Museum, but that article say's it's a T-34, as does http://ordmusfound.org/Littledavidslideshow.htm On-the-other hand, http://www.peachmountain.com/5star/US_Army_Ordnance_Museum_IS3_tank.aspx has LOTS of pictures of (an?) IS-3 "Photos taken at US Army Ordnance Museum".
- I think I'm beginning to understand your "cry for help"! Pdfpdf (talk) 09:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- P.S. Heaps of pictures at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:IS-3 and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Iosef_Stalin_tank#IS-3 - it may lead you somewhere useful ... Pdfpdf (talk) 10:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- http://www.o5m6.de/is3.html - Nice drawings, but no new information.
- http://www.internethobbies.com/ro1issttakit.html "Production was started in May of 1945, and continued up to mid-1946. At the end of the War 29 tanks were produced, with their total production number continuing on to 2311. The IS-3 was not used in any military action during World War II, but on September 7th 1945 a tank regiment had taken part in the parade of Red Army Units in Berlin, being dedicated to the victory over Japan." Pdfpdf (talk) 10:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- I've tried to find information dealing with which type of tanks and their numbers were deployed for that offensive, but didn't find anything.
- The article informs that 3,700 T-34s were deployed but I've just checked Glantz and he says:
- "3,704 tanks, 1,852 SP guns total in Soviet Far East Command"
- This means that we are assuming that all 3,704 tanks were T-34s. Based on the above quotation I will remove that information, if some one finds a source restore it. EconomistBR 18:53, 18 August 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