Talk:Soviet invasion of Manchuria

Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact

Extended content

Source: Soviet Denunciation of the Pact with Japan On the strength of the above and in accordance with Article Three of the above mentioned pact, which envisaged the right of denunciation one year before the lapse of the five year period of operation of the pact, the Soviet Government hereby makes know to the Government of Japan its wish to denounce the pact of April 13, 1941." 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. Disagree. The pact was still in force, and would be for another 8 months. See below. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC) "This book on google might help us: ... " - That book is fascinating! So much so that I'm trying to get hold of a full copy. Thank you very much for bringing to my attention! (I owe you a beer.) Like other sources, it supports the interpretation that the denouncement was not "illegal", and that it is not a "fact" that "by the time war was declared, the pact was not in effect". I can reproduce the detail if you wish, but in summary, both the Russian author and the English/Australian/Japanese-affiliated translator state that "strictly legally", the treaty was still in force. However, both acknowledge that neither the Japanese, nor the Soviets, were particularly fussed about the "strictly legal" situation, except when it suited them!! The book makes really interesting reading. Again, thank you for mentioning it! Pdfpdf (talk) 14:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC) The Soviet Union understood that the Article Three gave it denounciations rights 1 year prior to the expiration date. Yes, but that doesn't address the fact of what "denunciation" means. (However, what you quote later does address the issue.) Pdfpdf (talk) 14:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Your TIME's source: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,775556,00.html "Legally, the treaty still had a year to run after the notice of cancellation. But the Foreign Commissar's tone suggested that this technicality might be brushed aside at Russia's convenience." Not my source. However, I agree with what it says. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC) You could argue that it was an illegal denounciation, but still it was a denounciation meaning "to announce the termination of". I do not see how you could argue that it was an "illegal denunciation". Yes, it did "announce the termination", but not the immediate termination - the termination in 12 months time. (Except, of course, that's not how Molotov chose to state he interpreted it.) Pdfpdf (talk) 10:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC) A CIA document about that declaration corroborate this view: http://www.foia.cia.gov/browse_docs.asp?doc_no=0000709436 "The Soviet denunciation on 5 April of its 5 year pact of neutrality with Japan ended a period..." EconomistBR 09:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC) Corroborates which view? Pdfpdf (talk) 10:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC) (The CIA interpretation supports the opinion that the treaty was still in force, and that this fact was of little (no?) concern to the Soviets! Pdfpdf (talk) 14:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC) ) I'm sorry, but I don't understand what point you are trying to present. It sounds to me that you are confusing the denouncing of the treaty with the breaking of the treaty, but as I don't understand you, I could be wrong. In my understanding, there was nothing questionable, ambiguous, uncertain or illegal about the Soviets denouncing the treaty. 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. (BTW: All the raw data now appears on Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact). 13 April 1941 - Soviets & Japanese sign a neutrality pact which (article 3) is in force for 5 years. Unless either party disagrees, at the end of 5 years, "it will be considered automatically prolonged for the next five years." (article 3) HOWEVER, the "automatic renewal" will only occur "In case neither of the Contracting Parties denounces the Pact one year before the expiration of the term." (article 3) One year before the expiration of the term, the Soviets DID denounce it. Denouncing it was not illegal. There is no argument or ambiguity here. If either party did NOT want it to automatically renew for another 5 years, then the ONLY way for them to say so was to denounce it 1 year before expiry/renewal. Denouncing the treaty did NOT mean that the treaty was no longer in force. In fact, it meant that the treaty was in force for another year. Awaiting your reply. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC) This book on google might help us: The Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact: A Diplomatic History 1941-1945 Author: Boris Nikolaevich Slavinskiĭ - Translated by Geoffrey Jukes" not sure the link will work: link (The link did work, thank you. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)) Your interpretation is very similar to Ambassador Sato's interpretation, which is reasonable. IMO, however, Molotov's interpretation is also sound. All of your sources state that their interpretation is very similar to Sato's. They all say that Molotov's interpretation was exactly what Molotov wanted it to be, and bore no relationship to the actual wording of the treaty. So no, Molotov's interpretation was NOT "sound" - it was simply what Molotov wanted it to be! I think it's fascinating that Sato actually had the presence of mind to ask Molotov what he meant. (That's probably why Sato was an ambassador, and why I'm not!) You'll note that Sato simply says something to the effect of, "Well, if that's the way you interpret it, then I guess that's what you think it means." (I repeat, that's probably why ... ) Copied from a section of the book, page 153: "The conversation between them is of scholary interest here are its main points from 'M. V. Molotov's diary. Molotov reads the Soviet government statement. Sato receiving the text, states that all that is left to him is to transmit it to his government. At the same time he permits himself to ask Molotov for some clarifications. He would like to know what the Soviet government thinks of the period that will begin on the 25 of April of this year, and last until the expiration of the pact, that is one more year. The Ambassador says he thinks his government expects that during that year, beginning on the 25th of this month, the Soviet government will maintain the same relations with Japan it has maintained up the present, bearing in mind that the Pact remains in force. Molotov replies that our statement was made in conformity with the Pact, the third Article of which envisages the right and procedure to denounce it. Factually Soviet-Japanese relations revert to the situation in which they were before conclusion of the Pact. Molotov says is acting in conformity with the Treaty. Sato observes that in that case the Soviet and Japanese government interpret the question differently. The Japanese government holds to the view that if one side denounces the Treaty one year before its expiration, the Pact remains in force for one year, denounciation notwithstanding. However, according to the explanations now given by the People's Commissar, it seems from the moment of denunciation, the Pact ceases to exist. If the Soviet government so interprets this question, then its interpretation differs from the Japanese government's. Molotov replies that there is some misunderstanding. The Soviet government's position is expressed in today's statement he reads... "...in conformity with Article 3 of the aforementioned pact, which envisaged the right of denunciation one year before the expiry of the Pact's five year validity, the Soviet Government by this present notifies the government of Japan of its wish to denounce the Pact of April 13, 1941." Molotov explains that on expiry of the five year period ... Soviet-Japanese relations will obviously revert to the status quo ante conclusion of the Pact. Sato replies, if that is so, the Japanese government will accept that interpretation. Molotov says this statement is precisely set out in the text the Ambassador has received." This is indeed a controversial issue given that Sato and Molotov argued about it. In light of the above what should we do? EconomistBR 20:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC) I think I now see what your point is. Please confirm or correct my interpretation. You (and the sources you quote) are saying: "Yes, the Soviets denounced the treaty, but what did that mean? Did that mean that the treaty would end in 12 months and would not be automatically renewed? Or did it mean that the treaty ended at the time of the denunciation?" Interesting! (And I thought it was quite clear what it meant!!) "In light of the above what should we do?" - Good question! What are our options? At the very least, it would seem to me that the article needs to mention this difference in interpretations. Beyond that, I'm not sure. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 23:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC) I am indeed indebted to you for bringing this matter to my attention. I had always wondered what all the fuss was about. To me, the denunciation seemed a pretty minor matter - i.e. the Soviets were telling the Japanese that they did not want the treaty to automatically renew itself. I thought: So what? Who cares? I now understand!!! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC) I am glad to know that you enjoyed the book, Google Books is becoming a powerful tool. I too was really surprised to know that a very expensive book had been written about the Neutrality Pact. The Neutrality Pact wasn't even mentioned in this article that's why I added that paragraph back in June 2008 (see edit). I didn't know until then about Article 3 or the controversy. I simply wanted to mention the Neutrality Pact and not be dragged into this controversy, which looked like a can of worms, that's why I chose to leave the controversy out and just quote the Denunciation. I agree with you in that the article needs to mention the different interpretations. EconomistBR 17:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC) redux I've just finished rereading the Slavinskiĭ extracts more closely. It seems I misread it first time. Page 153-154 1)Molotov reads the statement 2)Sato: So it stays in place for a year. Right? 3)Molotov: "Factually Soviet-Japanese relations revert to the situation in which they were before conclusion of the Pact." 4)Sato: "in that case the Soviet and Japanese government interpret the question differently" "However, according to the explanations now given by" Molotov "it seems from the moment of denunciation, the Pact ceases to exist." "If the Soviet government so interprets this question, then its interpretation differs from the Japanese government's." 5)Molotov: "there is some misunderstanding" "on expiry of the five year period ... Soviet-Japanese relations will obviously revert to the status quo ante conclusion of the Pact." 6)Sato: So we DO both agree that it lasts for another year. 7)Molotov: "precisely" 8)Sato: Thanks for the clarification. "I (Sato) deeply regret" you are ending the treaty. The Japanese govt would like to renew it. ... we would like to preserve peace in the east ... rhubarb ... rhubarb ... "I would be obliged" if you could explain the Soviet position 9)Molotov: "the Soviet government's position is precisely formulated in today's statement" ... rhubarb ... rhubarb ... "The period of the Pact's validity has not ended" 10)Sato: Thanks. I'll send the statement, and your clarifications, to Tokyo. I hope you'll tell your govt what my govt's POV is My govt will "surely" wish to negotiate with your govt to preserve peace in the east ... rhubarb ... I hope your govt shares my govt's view on peace. I would be "obliged" if I can talk to you again after I've received instructions from my govt. 11)"Molotov replies that he will gladly meet the ambassador" In other words: 3) Molotov says something ambiguous. 4) Sato says: "it seems" you are saying the treaty ends now 5) Molotov says: no, I'm saying it lasts for another year. 8) Sato says: Thanks for the clarification. We'd like to renew the treaty. We would like "peace in the east" to continue. Can you tell me what the Soviet govt thinks about "peace in the east"? 9) Molotov: Read the statement. "The period of the Pact's validity has not ended" 10) Sato: Thanks. Can I get back to you when I've heard from the boss? 11) Molotov: "gladly" Page 184 Even after Germany's exit from the war, Moscow went on saying the Pact was still operative, and that Japan had no cause for anxiety about the future of Soviet-Japanese relations. 21 May 1945 Malik tells Tanakamura that the treaty continues in force 29 May 1945 Molotov tells Sato: "we have not torn up the pact" 24 June 1945 Malik tells Hirota that the Neutrality Pact ... will continue ... until it expires However: Malik did not know (had not been informed) that the Soviets were preparing to attack. But it gets better! Back cover 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 185 Agreement that the Soviet Union would join the war ... and the rewards it would receive ... had been reached in a meeting between Stalin and Harriman on 12 December 1944. These were "formalised" at Yalta on 11 February 1945. Page 188 discusses many interesting things At 7:30am on the 9th August, "with the Soviet forces beginning to pour into Manchuria", Suzuki met with the Emperor. He accepted that Japan must surrender (i.e. BEFORE the second bomb was dropped.) The first accusations against the Soviet Union violating the Neutrality Pact surfaced at the Tokyo trial ... "But that was all a waste of time. The Tokyo trial was a trial of the vanquished by the victors ... " 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) Ok, I am wrong and you are right again. The Denunciation of 1945 was not meant to terminate the Neutrality Pact. More importantly the USSR understood the Pact to be in effect after the denunciation. EconomistBR 18:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Truman's letter I found 2 books. They both agree with you in that the Denunciation did not terminate the Pact, but they add new information to this issue: The End of the Pacific War Author: Tsuyoshi Hasegawa see page 217 Japan's decision to surrender Robert Joseph Charles Butow see page 156 Both books mention a letter sent by President Truman to Stalin that suggests that the Soviet Union would have legal grounds to violate the Neutrality Pact on the basis of Article 103 and 106 of the United Nations Charter and on the Moscow Declaration. Should we mention this? EconomistBR 18:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

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. The declaration statement was made on 8 Aug 1945. The final sentence of the delaration statement says: the Soviet Government declares that from tomorrow, that is from Aug. 9, the Soviet Government will consider itself to be at war with Japan. 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". "On 8th of August the USSR announced that on the 9th it would declare war. Am I interpreting it wrong? IMO that's a declaration informing that war is declared on the 9th, right?" 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! I think that on the 8th they declared that from the 9th they would be at war. Take a different example. Say that today I declared that, in one weeks time I would be at war. The declaration is today, not in a weeks time. What do you think? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC) Your example is good. You declared war but you are not at war with anybody, how come? You will declare war. Declaration of War states: "is a formal performative speech act or signing of a document by an authorized party of a government in order to initiate a state of war between two or more nations." A declaration of war serves to initiate a war, it happens IMO on the 00:00:00 second of the war. The Soviet declaration of 8th August didn't initiate a war, given that the USSR was not in a state of war on the 8th. That declaration informed that a war would be initiated. It could be argued that it wasn't formal, because of that. EconomistBR 20:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC) "You declared war but you are not at war with anybody, how come?" - Good question. As I said, I'm not an expert in the field of international law. My guess is that it might have something to do with Politcal, Diplomatic and/or Legal "niceities". But on the other hand, I might be completely wrong ... I had a chat with a colleague about this today. He pointed out that with regard to Pearl Harbour, the Japanese messed up their timing, and actually commenced their attack before the Americans received their declaration of war. Apparently, attacking without declaring war is a "no-no". So it would seem that the Soviets were making sure that they were doing the "right" thing by declaring war a full hour before attacking. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC) "You will declare war." - As already stated, I disagree - A declaration of a declaration doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me. "Declaration of War states ... " - Yes, but your quote doesn't make any mention of timing - it seems to make an implicit assumption that the timing is "now". I'm not sure about that implicit assumption. (i.e. I neither agree nor disagree - I'm not sure.) "A declaration ... " - That is indeed one interpretation. I have a different interpretation. I think we need some advice from an expert! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC) Book on Google "Five Days in August: How World War II Became a Nuclear War" Author: Michael D. Gordin link Copied this section of the book, page 27 "Soviet foreign minister Molotov comunicated to Japanese ambassador Sato at about 5 p.m. on 8 August that the Soviet Union had declared war on imperial Japan, and that this would be effective the next day. Sato, perhaps naively, believed that this gave him roughly twenty-four hours to communicate with Tokyo. He actually had one hour. Soviet forces crossed the border into Manchuria at midnight Transbaikal time, 6 p.m. Moscow time." Ok, so you are right and I am wrong. A declaration of war is not issued at 00:00:00 seconds. When the Declaration of War becomes effective the war starts. "The Soviet Union formally declared war on the Empire of Japan on August 8, 1945". So this sentence is correct but IMO it is incomplete since it leads to the conclusion that the war started on the 8th, it makes no mention of the 9th. How could we inform that the declaration became effective on the 9th? EconomistBR 14:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC) "but IMO it is incomplete" - I agree. What do you think of: "On 8 August 1945, Soviet foreign minister Molotov informed Japanese ambassador Sato that the Soviet Union had declared war on Imperial Japan, and that from August 9, the Soviet Government would consider itself to be at war with Japan." Or perhaps: At 11pm Trans-Baikal time on 8 August 1945, Soviet foreign minister Molotov informed Japanese ambassador Sato that the Soviet Union had declared war on Imperial Japan, and that from August 9 the Soviet Government would consider itself to be at war with Japan. At one minute past midnight Trans-Baikal time on 9 August 1945, the Soviets commenced their invasion." Your thoughts? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC) (P.S. Thanks for finding some evidence for what happened in which timezone at what time!) Yeah, that part was really interesting. Imagine Sato's reaction!! Yes indeed. (Yet another reason why he was a diplomat and I'm not!) Pdfpdf (talk) 12:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Google Books is amazing, it showed me the right chapter on the the right book. As for the options, either one would work, Option 2 has more detail while Option 1 is more compact. I know it might seem nitpicking from my part, but IMO it's necessary to inform the exact day in which the war started. EconomistBR 18:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC) OK. Well, given that you have ideas about what you want it to say, perhaps you should make the change? I have to admit that, as long as it's accurate, relevant and informative, I don't really mind what the exact wording is. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:04, 11 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)

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 explains explained, "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]].

• 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".

—WWoods (talk) 15:43, 12 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:

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) Good point(s). However, rather than removal, how about some sort of clarification? e.g. That the xxx front was the front in Eastern Manchuria, the yyy front was the northern front, etc.? If this clutters up the text too much, then it could be done as a footnote. e.g. ... the xxx front<ref>The xxx front was along the eastern border of Manchuria and xyz.</ref> What do you think? Pdfpdf (talk) 00:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC) I found these Japanese military papers that add new weight to your nomeclature: Record of operations against Soviet Russia on Northern and Western Fronts of Manchuria, and in Northern Korea (August 1945). Record of operations against Soviet Russia, Eastern front (August 1945) Given that I drop my objections against their use. Could we then just add "of Manchuria" to the end of each? EconomistBR 02:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC) I'm happy for you to use whatever nomenclature you think is "best". Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC) (As an aside: Actually, to say that the Japanese military used that nomenclature is a bit of a stretch. The so-called "Japanese Monographs" and "Manchurian Special Studies" were written after the war by ex-Japanese "soldiers" who were "employed" by the US Army Far East's Military History section, and then edited by US "soldiers". So, I expect it's more "American Army" terminology than "Japanese military" terminology. By-the-way, I will add them to the "further reading" section. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)) (Done. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)) Yeah, it was nice of you to add those monographs to the further reading section in that detailed manner. I had to call those monographs something so after reading the the first sentence of Monograph 155, page I which says:"prepared by former commanders and staff officers of the Kwantung Army", I decided to settle with Japanese military papers.

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 have had 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)

The conditional was not restored since no "woulds" were used. What was restored was the notion that the section deals with the battle plan and not with what actually happened. IMO text cohesion and coherence were preserved despite of the fact that the conditional was not used. A couple of other changes not related to this issue were also made. I consider this issue solved. EconomistBR 21:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Pdfpdf, I've restored the figures. I got carried away deleting because the numbers for tanks, artillery pieces and aircrafts were wrong. I had no justification to delete the other figures based on Glantz's paper since this paper doesn't discuss the Navy. I added cn as you advised. EconomistBR 02:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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. The Max Beloff book doesn't not contain the expression.

As mentioned in June 2008, the least controversial way to name this article is Soviet-Japanese War. As I mentioned in June 2008, IMO the least controversial way to name this article is Soviet-Japanese War. Both the Russian and Japanese Wikipedias have a similar title. I object to Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation because this terminology refers only to the 3 front offensive and the amphibious operations against the Kuril, Sakhalin and Hokkaido islands (per Glantz).

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)

Interesting.

1. "The title of this article should be changed" - Q1: Why? A1: "The current title is not supported by sources." - Agreed. However, the new title you propose is not supported by sources either.

2. "The Max Beloff book doesn't not contain the expression"

Q2a: Which Max Beloff book? (He has written many!)

Q2b: I assume you mean: "The Max Beloff book does not contain the expression"? (not "doesn't not")

Q2c: Which expression(s) does the Max Beloff book not contain?

Q2d: Which expression(s) does the Max Beloff book contain?

Q2e: Why are the expressions Max Beloff's books do and do not contain of interest or importance to us?

3. "As mentioned in June 2008, the least controversial way to name this article is Soviet-Japanese War.

Q3a: If that is the case, why is the article named "Soviet invasion of Manchuria (1945)"?

Comment3b: It may have been "mentioned", but the way I read it, it was not agreed that this was "the least controversial way to name this article".

Comment3c: It wasn't THE "Soviet-Japanese War", it was A "Soviet-Japanese War" - one of several conflicts that could (ambiguously) be named as A "Soviet-Japanese War".

Comment3d: In the aforementioned discussion, you wrote that russian WP calls it "Soviet-Japanese War of 1945". That's an infinitely better title than "Soviet-Japanese War". However, you can't use russian WP as a source.

Q3e: What sources are there to support either "Soviet-Japanese War" or "Soviet-Japanese War of 1945"?

4. "I object to ... "

Q4a: You are entitled to your opinion, but what evidence have you got that "this terminology refers only to the 3 front offensive and ... "?

Q4b1: Are you saying that Glantz uses and defines the term "Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation"?

Q4b2: If so, where does Glantz use and define the term?

5. Nomenclature currently in use in English WP:

• 1904-1905 Russo-Japanese War
• 1931 Japanese invasion of Manchuria
• 1937-1945 Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945)
• 1938-1945 Soviet-Japanese Border Wars, particularly
  • 1938 the Battle of Lake Khasan (the Changkufeng Incident)
  • 1939 the Battle of Khalkhin Gol (the Nomonhan Incident)

6. (Absence of) Supporting references:

• "Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation" - No supporting reference(s)?
• "Soviet-Japanese War" - No supporting reference(s)?
• "Soviet-Japanese War of 1945" - No supporting reference(s)?
• "Soviet invasion of Manchuria (1945)" - No supporting reference(s)?
• "The Battle of Manchuria" (Maurer, Herrymon, Collision of East and West, Henry Regnery Company, Chicago, 1951, p.238.), but personally, I haven't ever seen that term used.
• Others?

(My 2-bob's-worth.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

My opinion: Until someone can come up with a better name that has supporting references, "Soviet invasion of Manchuria (1945)" seems as good a name for the article as any, and (in my opinion), it seems better than many of the other unsupported names. So, "until ... ", let's leave it alone. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I want to thank you for giving so much attention to my comment. I will now attempt to answer your questions.

A1 - The formal Declaration of War is the best, strongest source there is to prove that there was a Soviet-Japanese War in 1945. That document makes it unambiguous, there was a war, a Soviet-Japanese War. Anything else requires a POV and some interpretation of the facts: "Manchurian War", "Soviet invasion of Manchuria", "Battle of Manchuria", "Manchurian Operation of 1945" and so on.

The fact that there was a Soviet-Japanese War in 1945 is made explicit in an official document of the Soviet Government. The question then becomes on what grounds are we not calling this conflict Soviet-Japanese War despite of the formal declaration of war? What made us prefer historian A instead of the declaration of war?

Instead of demanding sources for naming this conflict "Soviet-Japanese War", we should be demanding strong sources to call it anything but that.

We've needlessly invited controversy by ignoring the formal declaration of war, so we are now dependent upon historians and their natural POV in other to name this conflict.

A2 - This edit mentions a Max Beloff book which simply refers to "a Soviet invasion of Manchuria", his book does not use the terminology to name the conflict. Google books p.172

A3 - "As I mentioned in June 2008, IMO the least controversial way to name this article is Soviet-Japanese War." I've corrected the text. I don't like to use "I" when writing.

Given the formal declaration of war, there was only one Soviet-Japanese War. The lack of war declaration means that in order to call other conflicts as a War we must first accept the views of particular historians, inviting controversy.

Comment3d - Back in June 2008, I didn't write "Soviet-Japanese War and not "Soviet-Japanese War of 1945" because that implies that there were other wars between those 2 states.

The other conflicts were skirmishes and very small in scale when compared with the events of 1945. In November 2008 I wrote: "Comparing the Battle of Khalkhin Gol, the climax of cross border war, where the USSR deployed only 57,000 men, to the Soviet-Japanese War (in Russian Wiki) where 1,500,000 men were mobilized is inaccurate IMO." This argument hasn't yet been disputed.

A4 - On this book, Glantz mentions the full term and gives a definition.

Book: The Soviet strategic offensive in Manchuria, 1945: August storm

Author: David M. Glantz

page 179

Comment

mrg3105 was right is his opposition against this name. In fact, looking back, mrg3105 was reasonable in many instances. As far as I can tell, Wikipedia lost a good editor by blocking him indefinitely. I told him to be less confrontational and more flexible.

Soviet invasion of Manchuria is not only unsupported but it is factually wrong since the Soviets also invaded Korea, the Kuril and Sakhalin islands and reached Beijing. EconomistBR 21:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages rarely elict such thorough replies. Thank you!

Regarding your section A1:

1a. "The formal Declaration of War is the best, strongest source there is to prove that there was a Soviet-Japanese War in 1945. That document makes it unambiguous, there was a war, a Soviet-Japanese War." - I guess I'm being a pedantic pain-in-the-neck, but I don't agree with you.

• The declaration proves there was a declaration, and very little else. Yes, it is a very good and strong (and unambiguous) source. But it doesn't say anything about the war itself - only that the Soviets declared it.
• It certainly doesn't "prove" anything further. For rhetorical example, although it didn't actually happen, there might have been plague, pestilence, etc. amongst the Soviets, and the Soviets might never have attacked. In which case, there would still have been a declaration, but no war.

1b. "That document makes it unambiguous, there was a war" - No, it doesn't. (See 1a.)

1c. "a Soviet-Japanese War." - Weeeellll, yes and no. As you point out later (and the article itself states), the Soviets and the Japanese were not the only ones involved ...

1d. "Anything else ... " - Isn't all History just a statement of somebody's POV, supported by whatever facts the author chooses to quote in support of their POV? (But I think I'm going off on a tangent here ... )

1e. "The fact that there was a Soviet-Japanese War in 1945 is made explicit in an official document of the Soviet Government." - Actually, it's made explicit in many official documents of the Soviet Government, but the Declaration of War isn't one of them. (See 1a.)

1f. "The question then becomes on what grounds are we not calling this conflict Soviet-Japanese War despite of the formal declaration of war?" - That sentence/question covers a lot of ground!

• "The question then becomes"
  • What was the question before? I'll assume it was something like "What should the title of this article be changed to?"
  • If so, no, I don't agree that "the question then becomes ... ". I think that question stands, and this is a new additional question.
• "on what grounds are we not calling this conflict Soviet-Japanese War despite of the formal declaration of war?" - As I argued above, I don't think "the formal declaration of war" has very much to do with the name of this article.
• "On what grounds are we not calling this conflict the Soviet-Japanese War?" - I believe this is the heart of your argument. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) Sadly, there are many replies to this question, and most of them are not very good ones!! I believe you read most of them in June 2008!!! ;-)

1g. "What made us prefer historian A instead of the declaration of war?"

• Short answer: The declaration of war doesn't give us the name of the conflict, much less the name for a Wikipedia article about the conflict.
• As I can't work out where any of these names came from (except those created by Glantz post 1982), which historian(s) are "we" preferring? As Nick-D has implied elsewhere, (and like much of Wikipedia), the current name seems to have been chosen on the basis of "the least number of people object to it least"! i.e. It was chosen by "consensus", which is somewhat unrelated to chosing it on the basis of "reliable and verifiable facts"!!

1h. "Instead of demanding sources for naming this conflict "Soviet-Japanese War", we should be demanding strong sources to call it anything but that." I only half agree. In my (no doubt biassed opinion), "we" should have demanded strong sources before calling it anything. (I'm not a big fan of letting "consensus" be more important than strong sources, but it's my observation that such is not unusual on WP ... )

1i. "We've needlessly invited controversy by ignoring the formal declaration of war, so we are now dependent upon historians and their natural POV in other to name this conflict" - I don't think that's correct. I think "We've needlessly invited controversy by ignoring the requirement to provide reliable sources".

Regarding your other sections:

This discussion risks exceeding the length of "War and Peace"! Sadly, I'll cut corners from here.

A2 - Thanks.

A3 - "there was only one Soviet-Japanese War." - Strictly speaking, I believe you are correct, but there is the risk that someone may use that term to refer to the 1904-1905 Russo-Japanese War. "Soviet-Japanese War of 1945", or similar, would eliminate that risk ... (Not withstanding the fact that I still think more than the Russians and the Japanese were involved ... )

A3 - "The other conflicts ... " - Agreed. (Personally, I don't think there's anything to dispute there, but that's just my opinion - we have evidence that others have other opinions which seem to be unsupported by facts.)

A4 - Thanks.

Last sentence: "Soviet invasion of Manchuria is not only unsupported but it is factually wrong since the Soviets also invaded Korea, the Kuril and Sakhalin islands and reached Beijing." - Disagree.

• As an aside, where did that title come from? (I haven't been able to pin it down yet.)
• "is ... unsupported" - As yet, as I said before, I don't think ANY of the titles have supporting references outside of WP and Glantz; As I've said, I don't see that the the Declaration of War supports "Soviet-Japanese War"
• "but it is factually wrong" - No, you can't accurately say it is "factually wrong". (Actually, it is "factually correct" that the Soviets DID invade Manchuria in 1945.)
  • I agree it is not a comprehensive or complete description of all of the events, but it is NOT "factually wrong".
  • (On that basis, you could say "Soviet-Japanese War" is equally "factually wrong". However, that it is most definitely not my opinion.)

My opinion is that none of the so-far-proposed titles are complete/comprehensive, and none of them are yet to be supported by reliable references.

Hence, I am still of the opinion: Until someone can come up with a better name that has supporting references, "Soviet invasion of Manchuria (1945)" seems as good (or bad) a name for the article as any. I see no point in replacing one "bad" name with a different "bad" name. So, "until ... ", let's leave it alone. But note, that's just an opinion.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

1a. - Given the absence of "historian consensus", I thought that the Soviet Declaration of War simplified things, it established that there was a state of war and it also determined the participants, in this case USSR and Japan. The Declaration is considered as a primary reliable source by Wikipedia. ( See WP:Primary)

So the Declaration plus the offensive gave us safe and solid ground in order to name this conflict as Soviet-Japanese War or Soviet-Japanese War of 1945. I agree that in the case of Pacific War, World War II or Chaco War "historian consensus" is required. But this is just IMO.

1f - "What should the title of this article be changed to?" - Yes, that was the before question.

"If so, no,..." - Ok, don't agree but it's reasonable.

"I believe this is the heart of your argument." - Based on the Declaration and on the offensive, yes IMO we should require strong evidence in order to name this conflict as something else.

1g - "The declaration of war doesn't give us the name of the conflict" - Agree 100% but given the absence of "historian consensus" it gives us solid ground in order to name the conflict. As I said above.

1h. - Agree 100%

1i. - I've found good reliable sources

I tried Britannica but couldn't find anything. I've also ignored sources that I didn't consider authoritative, like the ones that simply mention the conflict. If you want I can post them.

• Book: Soviet natural resources in the world economy

By Robert G. Jensen, Theodore Shabad, Arthur W. Wright p. 232

The source above IMO is good because it presents a comprehensive list of all conflicts involving Russia and Japan.

I don't speak Russian but by pasting " Советско-японская война" I was able to find this source.

• Book: Большая историческая энциклопедия (Google Translate: Great Encyclopedia of History)

By Сергей Викторович Новиков (Google Translate: Sergey Novikov) p. 786

The Russian Encyclopedia IMO is a very good tertiary sources, since it's a 900+ page Encyclopedia and could arguably represent a "historian consensus".

A3 - OK, I accept your position, I will drop all my reservations against "Soviet-Japanese War of 1945", and I will from now on stand behind this name. Given the sources, IMO it's a good compromise and "of 1945" would help avoid confusion with other conflicts.

I've misrepresented myself, IMO the Soviet invasion of Manchuria should continue to exist as an article the same way Invasion of Normandy or Kuril Landing Operation exist as articles, the invasion could even be named Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation or Battle of Manchuria. The Soviet-Japanese War of 1945 article would deal with the prelude and consequences, which involve China, Japan and Korea. EconomistBR 14:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)