Talk:Soviet invasion of Manchuria

Macarthur

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)

This is bs. Cold war propaganda. Talked to Germans who experienced the Soviet occupation. They said that the Russians overall were the most mild mannered of all the allied soldiers.Don Brunett (talk) 02:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)Don Brunett

Kuanyuehtai & Lumintai

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

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 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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) 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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Numbers

It has come to my attention that the Japanese troop numbers don't appear to have any citations. The page says 1,217,000 for the Japanese forces, but gives no citation for it. Wikipedia's own page on the Kwangtung Army gives it a strength of 600,000 during August of 1945. Also, this page and the Soviet-Japanese War page list Manchukuo as having 200,000 troops in the battle box, even though the text on the latter page only gives them 40,000. 200,000 is taken from a source that was talking about their strength a year earlier (Volume 1 of "Rays of the Rising sun", by Philip S. Jowett, says the Soviets estimated Manchukuo's army at 200,000 to 220,000 in 1944). So, what gives? Did they have 600,000 men or over twice as much? And was the Manchukuo Defense Force 40,000 men or 200,000 men? The smaller numbers seem more likely, as this campaign was a total success making it unlikely that half the Japanese army escaped death or capture, but I haven't actually found good sources for any of these numbers.--Nihlus1 (talk) 02:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Most significant reason

Man historians have argued that the Soviet declaration of war and simultaneous invasion on Manchuria was the real reason for Japan's surrender in August 1945, not the atomic bombings. (92.12.236.221 (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC))

Can you give the name of a few important mainstream historians among these many and some of the publications where they make this claim? (in case of books pls provide page numbers). That will help us decide whether this claim is noteworthy. Thanks. Arnoutf (talk) 15:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Tsuyoshi Hasegawa concluded that the successful Soviet invasion of Manchuria was the main reason for Japan's surrender as the Japanese government realized it could not fend off a Soviet invasion from the north when it was preparing to fight a combined US/British Commonwealth and Empire/Chinese invasion from the south. The Japanese had been trying to negotiate a conditional surrender since the end of the war in Europe, as they did not have the industrial capacity to simultaneously fight the United States, the British Empire and China. The Soviet entry into the war removed their last hope of being able to surrender conditionally. (92.12.236.221 (talk) 16:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC))

That is one, notable, historian. The sales text for his 2005 book is talking about rewriting standard history. Can you (1) provide some more of the multitude of many claimed in your original post (2) Show that this book has now entered mainstream historic thinking (as an encyclopedia Wikipedia favours mainstream) and (3) Show exactly where in the book the invasion is called as the most significant reason (I read the sales text that is was some kind of a race to force Japan into surrender to claim postwar pacific influence between Truman and Stalin and that both the invasion and the A-bombs were part of that race). The sales text does not state the invasion was the most significant reason for surrender (although it suggests it was a reason for dropping the bombs and it may have convinced some Japanese politicians to surrender to the US before the USSR). In other words, can you prepare your proposal in much more detail and based on much more sources. Arnoutf (talk) 17:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Japan had been trying to surrender since May 1945. They wanted Stalin to act as a negotiator for a conditional surrender. His decision to declare war on Japan and invade Manchuria forced them to surrender. There was no need to use any atomic bombs. (92.12.236.221 (talk) 20:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC))

Which is a different point entirely. Arnoutf (talk) 21:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The Soviet invasion was the main reason for Japan's surrender, not the atomic bombs. (92.12.236.221 (talk) 08:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC))

Your assertion is not supported by the bulk of sources, as required by Wikipedia guidelines.--Darius (talk) 01:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Japan had already surrendered conditionally before the atomic bombs were dropped. The Soviet intervention is what forced them to surrender unconditionally. (92.12.236.221 (talk) 11:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC))

I have asked you repeatedly to substantiate your claims by specific and focused references. Without such support your assertions lack any value. Arnoutf (talk) 17:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Terry Charman said it was the Soviet invasion of Manchuria that forced Japan to surrender, as the Japanese government knew the Soviets would impose a far more severe peace settlement than the Western Allies: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/08/14/historians-soviet-offensive-key-japans-wwii-surrender-eclipsed-bombs/ At the very least the introduction to the article should say that the Soviet invasion has been argued to be the main reason. (92.12.236.221 (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC))

So now you have mentioned two out of many historians (with Charman seemingly supporting Hasegawas view rather than presenting his own analysis). At the same time you have introduced a historian (in the Fox article Richard B. Frank) who opposes this view. In my view it seems fairly clear that Japan losing on all fronts (i.e. loss of naval supremacy and south east Asian conquest to the US-UK lead coalition, loss of Manchurian holdings to Russia and threat of destruction / invasion of the most important Japanese isles by the US) together spead Japanese surrender. I would even agree that the importance of the Soviet invasion in Manchuria has been overlooked/underestimated by Western historians; and what I have seen from Hasegawa it is that point he makes. However your case that this invasion was the (single) most significant reason for surrender is one step beyond that and you really need to build a stronger case than you have that this is currently mainstream (as in clear majority of important academic WWII historians) consensus. Your case with two names and an analysis that is shy of naming it (black and white) most significant is just not enough. (PS note that while Hasegawa may even be right in claiming the Russian invasion is more important than any other threat, as a tertiary source Wikipedia must report mainstream expert consensus, even if it may be factually disputed. It is the ongoing academic debate that should solve the dispute before we can shift the conclusion) Arnoutf (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Japan clearly could not sustain the war by the summer of 1942. The government had been trying to surrender for several months before August 1945, on the condition that the Emperor was allowed to remain Head of State. However there are multiple sources that suggest the Soviet declaration of war and invasion was the final straw which compelled them to surrender unconditionally. The Japanese government was extremely anti-Communist and feared permanent occupation by the Soviets more than atomic war. (92.12.236.221 (talk) 11:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC))

There were actually four conditions. In addition to the Emperor remaining Head of State, these were that Japan retain control of Korea, Formosa, and Manchuria; that there be no occupation of Japan; and that Japan control any war crimes trials. And these were the conditions demanded by the civilian "doves" in the government; the Japanese Army was more intransigent and also had more real power in the government than the civilians. My own take is that the atomic attacks had more effect on the Emperor and the civilians while the Manchurian invasion probably had more effect on the Army. --Yaush (talk) 14:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

They had already dropped the other conditions before the Soviet invasion. Japan never had any chance of victory from the very beginning, they decided to attack Pearl Harbor in response to the US oil embargo. (92.12.236.221 (talk) 16:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC))

Anon user - can you please stop dropping new unsourced claims into this discussion; and finally provide evidence that your original suggestion for addition receives mainstream support. Arnoutf (talk) 17:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

FDR's son said Japan surrendered because of the Soviet intervention and that using atomic weapons was unnecessary. (92.12.236.221 (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC))

Thank you for replying to my last post by doing the opposite of what I requested you to do - ie bringing in yet other unsubstantiated facts instead of showing mainstream support for your original claim. Arnoutf (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

"The Soviets could take the cost?"

I would recommend the line about the Soviets being able to take the cost of invasion be deleted: even Hasegawa, the scholar who emphasizes the Soviet role in ending the war, stresses the political rather than military impact. A week of fighting vs a depleted army hundreds of miles away is much different from going up against over 4 million of Japan's best troops in the Home Islands. The Pittsburgher (talk) 14:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The Red Army had defeated the German army and would have done so even without any help from the West. Stalin was fully prepared to overrun Japan and occupy it as he did Eastern Europe - no matter how many Soviet soldiers and airmen were killed. (92.12.236.221 (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC))

By 1944 the red army could have indeed defeated the remaining German armies without further help. I am, however, not so sure whether the Soviets would have survived the initial operation Barbarossa without the military materials provided by the Western allies and without the Western allies tying up important parts of the German armored forces in North Africa, and without the Western allies ignoring the Germans access to Middle Eastern oil resources earlier in the war.

One major difference between Eastern Europe and Japan, is that you can walk (run) from Moscow to Berlin. You cannot walk from Moscow to Tokyo. An invasion of Japan would have required the building of a substantial pacific navy by the Soviets. However without the destruction of the Japanese navy by the US navy in the years before there would have been no way that the Russian could have invaded Japan. Arnoutf (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The Soviets made almost all their defensive materials themselves, they only needed the offensive weapons from the West. The Japanese Imperial Navy had already been destroyed so that was not an issue in preventing a fullscale Soviet invasion of the Home Islands in August 1945. (92.12.236.221 (talk) 17:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC))

So you admit that without the Western offensive weapons the Russian could not have overrun the German troops, like you admit that without the US destroying the Japanese navy they would not have been able to do landings. What I want to say is that it has been the combined allied forces that ensured victories in both theatres. I agree that we should not underestimate the importance of the Russian effort (which often tends to be done by Western historians) but we should also not OVERestimate their importance, which is what you seem to be advocating. Arnoutf (talk) 17:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

We are talking about in August 1945, by which time the Japanese navy was no longer an issue and the war in Europe had ended. The Axis never had any chance of winning the war from the very beginning anyway. The USSR could have eventually repelled Barbarossa without any outside help. (92.12.236.221 (talk) 17:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC))

On the basis of what scientific sources do you make that claim? Arnoutf (talk) 17:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Sir Max Hastings has argued that the Soviet Union could have defeated the Axis Powers singlehandedly. Perhaps if the Japanese had not betrayed Hitler by failing to declare war on the Soviet Union in 1941 then the outcome could have been different. (92.12.236.221 (talk) 17:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC))

Yes and Lord Whomever argued the Soviet support was not needed and the UK could have defeated the Axis. For the zillionth time, please be more specific in where you get your argument. Max Hastings has written dozens popular books on the war - in which of these books, and on which page/chapter does he make this claim. Arnoutf (talk) 17:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Hastings, a notable historian, argued that the USSR would have won without Western help in his 2011 book "Inferno: The World at War, 1939-1945". The British Empire would have defeated the Axis eventually due to its extreme advantages over Germany. (92.12.236.221 (talk) 18:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC))

Good argument gentlemen, but do the sources say any of this?

Nevertheless, from having studied WWII (particularly the Pacific) for years, my own opinion is that the Soviets had exactly zippo chance of conquering Japan. Why? First of all, they would have had their hands full where the fighting was still going on: the bulk of the Kwantung Army was still intact and withdrawing as planned to the "Tunghua Redoubt:" a fortified region centered on Tonghua near the Korea-Manchuria border. Taking this redoubt would have been an extremely time-consuming and bloody task, and based on the casualty ratios seen so far exterminating the Kwantung Army as a whole would have taken hundreds of thousands of Red Army losses. There was also the intact 91,000-man Japanese garrison on Sakhalin and the Kurile Islands that would have to have been dealt with, and based on the historical fighting at Shumshu would exact 1.5 Soviet casualties for every Japanese (implying ~137,000 total losses). Both of these things would be necessary for the security of the flanks and the establishment of a firm logistics base, and only then could the Reds have even thought of taking a crack at Hokkaido. Accordingly, Vasilevsky didn't even contemplate a landing in Japan until after the war had ended. Of course by that point the Japanese would have made the necessary preparations there, making any invasion by the Red Navy, with its less-than-stellar landing capability and naval gunfire support, all but suicidal. Landing crushed.

Outside Hokkaido, there is the matter of Soviet logistics in East Asia in general: their entire war effort there was supplied by the Trans-Siberian Railroad, a single line that was barely sufficient to build up the force for the initial offensive after 3 months of lag following the German surrender. This is with additional Allied support in stockpiling supplies. Even historically Soviet supply lines were becoming strained a few days into the operation, which is why Stavka wanted a quick campaign: they only had a few months' worth of supplies on hand and didn't want to give Japan the chance to drag out the fighting. Unfortunately, had the war continued, this is exactly what would have happened.

Hence, the impact of the USSR's declaration of war was political, rather than military: in declaring war, Stalin removed the only neutral nation powerful enough to act as a third party in negotiating a favorable termination of hostilities. This is what Hasegawa and others have said. Combined with the military shock of nuclear weapons (denying Japanese leaders their "decisive battle" on the Homeland, also offering a chance to 'save face' by claiming they gave in to physics, not American arms), the political shock of the Soviet entry into the war stampeded Japan's leadership into throwing in the towel. Hence the reason why I contend the blurb about 'proving themselves able to take the cost' should be removed or amended to something like the above.

Cheers, The Pittsburgher (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Clear and well argued point, which aligns very much with what (limited) knowledge I have about the sources. Thanks for the overview. Arnoutf (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

You're most welcome. Glad I could help :) The Pittsburgher (talk) 20:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The Japanese government knew it would not be able to withstand a combined Soviet-US-British Empire-Chinese invasion. Remember the Soviets were not going to invade alone. It was obvious as early as the middle of 1942 that Japan was economically and militarily defeated. The use of atomic bombs, which would not have been possible if the USSR had atomic weapons in 1945, did nothing to shorten World War II. (92.12.236.221 (talk) 11:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC))

Actually, the entire Japanese strategy, Operation Ketsu-Go, was designed to withstand such an invasion (don't know where you got the Chinese from, they were never to be involved in invading Japan). What was more, IGHQ actually overestimated the size of the Allied force that would be brought to bear on them, projecting 90 divisions over the actual 52-54. Japan was as much a defeated nation in 1945 as Germany was in 1944, yet the war in Europe had to be carried all the way through the ruins of Berlin. It would have been no different, and quite probably far worse, in Asia: Admiral Takijiro Onishi, vice chief of the Naval General Staff, boasted after the bombings and Soviet declaration of war: "If we are prepared to sacrifice 20,000,000 lives in a special attack (kamikaze) effort, victory shall be ours!"

By 1945 the Japanese military was far from impotent: they had nearly 8 million men in all services and 13,000 aircraft in the Home Islands alone. Production in all sectors was on the upswing, as was the quality of the designs. Only after the bombings did the Japanese realize that, in the words of Prime Minister Suzuki: "The Americans, instead of staging the invasion, will deep dropping atomic bombs." This singular fact completely ruined the attrition strategy the Japanese spent years preparing for, leaving them with no alternative but national suicide. That is why they surrendered.

Cheers, The Pittsburgher (talk) 11:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Nope. Japan surrendered because of the Soviet declaration of war and invasion of Manchuria. The atomic weapons had nothing to do with it. It's very lucky for the US that Stalin had not yet got atomic bombs, otherwise they could never be used at all. (92.12.236.221 (talk) 12:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC))

Kindly explain then why, in spite of the reasons others and myself have mentioned, the USSR was the primary factor in Japan's decision to give in. Please provide specific documented sources/quotes to support your position, as there is already formidable evidence against it:

But now the war has lasted for nearly four years. Despite the best that has been done by everyone – the gallant fighting of the military and naval forces, the diligence and assiduity of Our servants of the State, and the devoted service of Our one hundred million people – the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage, while the general trends of the world have all turned against her interest.

Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should We continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.

Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects, or to atone Ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers.

- Hirohito, Emperor of Japan, August 15, 1945.

Cheers, The Pittsburgher (talk) 13:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The Emperor only gave the official explanation to save face. The real reason why he surrendered was because the anti-Communist Japanese government feared permanent Soviet occupation far more than nuclear war. Atomic weapons should never have been used as many US generals and politicians said at the time, and thankfully since 1949 nuclear weapons can never be used by any country in war. Many historians have argued that the Soviet Union's entry into the war on 9th August 1945 caused Japan to surrender and this should be mentioned in the introduction. (92.12.236.221 (talk) 14:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC))

The atomic bombs did serve to save face for Japanese leaders by allowing them to claim they gave in to science rather than military might. However, I'm going to need more than just your say-so to disregard my years to study and believe the USSR was the primary cause of the Japanese surrender. Its role was important and that is duly noted in the article as is. While I agree we are fortunate to have never witnessed the use of atomic weaponry in anger at any time since 1945, there can be no debate that Fat Man and Little Boy saved many more lives than they took. Every other viable course of action would have resulted in more human suffering, making Truman's decision, in the words of Secretary of War Henry Stimson, "the least abhorrent choice."

Cheers, The Pittsburgher (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The atomic bombs did not save any lives at all as Japan had already surrendered as a direct result of the Soviet invasion. The atomic bombs were only used so Japan would not be partitioned. Of course this was not possible in the Korean War as the USSR had atomic weapons by then. In any event Japan was largely in the right - everybody wanted the European colonial powers expelled from the Pacific in 1941, and Japan was best able to actually do it. (92.12.236.221 (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC))

Again friend, I'm going to need to see a source. Japan did not surrender until August 15th, and the reason cited by Hirohito in his official broadcast was the bombs. I also find it more than a bit disturbing you find Japan 'in the right' given everything we know about World War II in the Pacific. Perhaps you would desire to rephrase your statement?

Cheers, The Pittsburgher (talk) 17:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

It is well known that Hirohito only gave the atomic bombs as the reason to spare the military from embarrassment. The Allies were guilty of the same war crimes as Japan. (SinusDrake (talk) 17:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC))

Hi SinusDrake for the sake of transparency and to avoid confusion, are you by chance the same editor as anon editor 92.12.236.221 now editing under a newly created user name? Thanks Arnoutf (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

No, why? (SinusDrake (talk) 17:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC))

Hello SinusDrake. As was already posted, the atomic bombs did have a face-saving value, to the point where one Japanese leader declared them "gifts from the gods." However, the weapons were decisive in that they ruined Japan's grand strategy by circumventing an invasion. Japan's leaders acknowledged this and surrendered, knowing their only alternative was meaningless destruction. I strongly disagree with your claim that the Allies were guilty of the same crimes as the Japanese: The Allies did not attack innocent countries without warning or provocation, did not dissect thousands of innocent people alive, did not starve and murder prisoners of war on a shocking scale, deliberately plan and carry out the genocide of so-called "inferior races", did not use chemical and biological weapons against civilian population centers, and did not commit wanton acts of butchery against occupied peoples the like of which would have made Attila the Hun proud. All of these things the Japanese did, and did in spades. The number of deaths from Japan's war of conquest and extermination may have topped those attributable to Nazi Germany, i.e, more than 30 million. For every month of war during late 1945 400,000 people perished throughout Asia, most at the hands of the Japanese.

Cheers, The Pittsburgher (talk) 17:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The United States was not an "innocent" country, we were supplying the British Empire with money and weapons and we had helped the British overrun Iceland. In any case the attack on Pearl Harbor happened because of the oil embargo. Germany and Italy probably should have declared war on us in 1940 after the Destroyers for Bases Agreement which was a clear violation of neutrality. We have not declared war on any country since 1950, despite being at war continually. The use of atomic bombs against civilians was far worse than the use of chemical and biological weapons. In any case 30 million dead hardly compares to the 1.8 billion people killed by the British Empire. (SinusDrake (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC))