Talk:Soviet–Japanese War

Article about the war

I suggest an article about the war might have the following structure. Comments please. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Sections:

0 Lead paragraph - Much the same, with obvious name changes.

1 Summary - Add to what's there to include the whole war.

2 Background and buildup - Expand, with the following sub-sections, each saying "See the relevant article for detail

2.1 The Russo-Japanese War and the Treaty of Portsmouth

2.2 Mukden Incident and Japanese invasion of Manchuria

2.3 Soviet-Japanese border incidents, Battle of Lake Khasan and Battle of Khalkhin Gol

2.4 Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact

2.5 Some sort of sensible blend of:

2.5a Cairo, Tehran, Yalta, Denunciation of the Pact, Postdam, Postsdam Declaration, Declaration of War.

2.5b Soviet build-up; Kwantung army depletion.

2.5c How the Soviets delayed the "negotiation on behalf of the Japanese" process and deceived the Japanese.

2.5d The first atomic bomb.

3 Combatant forces - perhaps not quite so detailed? (i.e. detail in "campaign" articles"?)

3.1 Soviets

3.2 Japanese

3.3 Others

4 Campaigns

4.1 The Invasion

4.1.a,b,c The three fronts

4.1.d,e,f The Mongolian, Chinese and other participants (e.g. US support for Russians / Lend Lease / etc.)

4.2 The Second atomic bomb

4.3 The other campaigns: Sakhalin, Kurils, Korea, etc.

4.4 The campaigns that didn't happen: e.g. Russian invasion of Hokkaido; US invasion planned for Nov 1.

5 The surrender process, more thought on the planning needed here, but at least:

5.1 Japanese desire to achieve peace and realise their territorial gains (while they still had upper hand)

5.2 Japanese desire to achieve peace and realise their territorial gains (while they were losing upper hand)

5.3 Japanese desire to achieve peace and retain the Emporer's role

5.4 Japanese desire to enlist support of Soviets (overlap with 2.5c)

5.5 Japanese desire to achieve peace: Emporer's broadcast; Cease-fire announcements; internal wrangling

5.6 The surrender and the treaties

6 Aftermath

6.1 The plight of the "Manchurian Japanese"

6.1 The plight of the "Manchurians" - Soviet rape & pilage

6.1 The plight of the Chinese, Koreans, Sakhalin-ers, Kuril-ians, Chinese civil war, etc.

7 Importance and consequences

8 See also

9 References and notes

10 Further reading

11 External links

--Pdfpdf (talk) 14:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Copycat article

This article is an almost carbon copy of Soviet invasion of Manchuria (1945). --Tocino 20:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. If you read the talk page: Talk:Soviet invasion of Manchuria (1945), it should all become clear to you. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 06:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that should be signposted for this article because as it stands it is not an article about the Soviet-Japanese War.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:59, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey yankee

"Hey yankee" is not a particularly useful section heading.

First, many of the editors involved are not "yankee"s.

Second, it tells me nothing. i.e. It is not clear to me what you are attempting to communicate.

Pdfpdf (talk) 06:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Soviet-japan war is summary name for all soviet conflict vs jap in WW2

• Battle of Lake Khasan (1938)
• Battle of Khalkhin Gol (1939)
• Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation
• Participation of the USSR in war on Pacific

Yes. And others as well - not just WW2. What's your point?

1) Have you looked at Soviet-Japanese War? (If not, I suggest you do so.)

2) Note that this article is titled "Soviet-Japanese War (1945)" (I suggest you read the first topic at the top of this page.)

Pdfpdf (talk) 06:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation include only Маньчжурская наступательная операция, 9 августа - 2 сентября 1945 г.

Khingan-Mukden Offensive Operation (August 9, 1945 - September 2, 1945) Хингано-Мукденская наступательная операция, 9 августа - 2 сентября 1945 г.

Harbin-Kirin Offensive Operation (August 9, 1945 - September 2, 1945) Харбино-Гиринская наступательная операция, 9 августа - 2 сентября 1945 г.

Sungari Offensive Operation (August 9, 1945 - September 2, 1945) Сунгарийская наступательная операция, 9 августа - 2 сентября 1945 г.

Seisin Landing Operation (August 13, 1945 - August 16, 1945) Сейсинская десантная операция, 13-16 августа 1945 г.

Yes. What's your point? Pdfpdf (talk) 06:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

But other operation Russian historic name

Participation of the USSR in war on Pacific Участие СССР в войне на Тихом океане

South Sakhalin Army Group Offensive Operation (August 11, 1945 - August 25, 1945) Южно-Сахалинская наступательная операция, 11-25 августа 1945 г.

Kuril Landing Operation (August 18, 1945 - September 1, 1945) Курильская десантная операция, 18 августа - 1 сентября 1945 г.

Phenyan-Port Arthur Descent Operation (August 19, 1945 - September 2, 1945) Пхеньян-Порт Артур Десантная операция (this is operation by paratroopers division primary and support by NAVI after first stage)

My grandpa participated in this, and was awarded the Order of the Red Star.95.52.113.206 (talk) 02:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional information. Most appreciated. Pdfpdf (talk) 06:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

tendentious paragraph

The following paragraph is tendentious and historically inaccurate.

The Soviet invasion and occupation of the defunct "Manchukuo" marked the start of a traumatic period for the more-than-one-million occupants of the puppet state of Japanese descent. The non-Japanese "native" Manchurians wanted to be rid of these so-called "foreigners" - many of whom were born in "Manchukuo" and had never been to Japan. Many were killed, many others ended up in Siberian prisons for up to 20 years, and some made their way to the Japanese home islands, where they were also treated as foreigners.[13][19][20][21]

Japan occupied Manchuria in 1931 and was expelled as a result of the Soviet-Japanese War. That's 14 years. It's misleading to pretend that the Japanese belonged in Manchuria, that the occupiers were in doubt about what nation they belonged to, that because there were some Japanese births in their colony it is fitting to put the words native and foreign in quotation marks. There was no doubt about who was who. To even refer to 'occupants of Japanese descent' implies a long presence which is historically inaccurate. They were simply Japanese. These words do not need quotation marks. I don't want to get into a revert war but the paragraph will read better without them.

Most of the Japanese in Manchuria were soldiers, hence the Siberian captivity. Their postwar trauma had nothing to do with whether they were native or foreign. I should say, they were not in doubt about why they and not Manchurians were sent to Siberia.

--Asmaybe (talk) 10:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"Japan occupied Manchuria in 1931 and was expelled as a result of the Soviet-Japanese War. That's 14 years." - Yes.

"It's misleading to pretend that the Japanese belonged in Manchuria" - Whose pretending that? The paragraph does not assert that.

"that the occupiers were in doubt about what nation they belonged to" - The paragraph does not assert that.

"that because there were some Japanese births in their colony it is fitting to put the words native and foreign in quotation marks." - I'm afraid I don't understand. (However, I'm fairly certain that the paragraph does not assert that.)

"There was no doubt about who was who." - Agreed. The paragraph does not assert that there was any such doubt.

"To even refer to 'occupants of Japanese descent' implies a long presence." - Errrr. No, it doesn't. The occupants of "Manchukuo" can/could be divided into (at least) two groups - those of Japanese descent, and everyone else. That is just a simple arithmetic reality, and doesn't imply anything. It's just a simple fact.

"They were simply Japanese." - No, it wasn't "simple". As I said before, I suggest you read some of the quoted references. As I said/implied before, to classify it as "simple" is to miss the point. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"These words do not need quotation marks." - If the paragraph is reworded to capture the same intent, then I agree that the words do not need quotation marks. However, simple removal of the quotation marks changes the intent.

I expect that you noticed I reworded some sections and removed some quotes?

I'll have another go, and I look forward to your comments on the changes. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a big improvement. There was nothing ambiguous about their presence in Manchuria. --Asmaybe (talk) 16:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

See also section

Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation)#"See also" section. 05:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

a) Please sign your posts with 4 tildes (i.e. ~~~~)

b) Yes, I have read it before. Many times. Note that this is not a disambiguation page. Why are you asking me to read WP:MOSDAB? It is not relevant to this page.

Pdfpdf (talk) 10:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

This is nothing but a chronology of border conflicts between China and Russia, Japan and Russia (USSR) + other events (maybe it's important by your own POV). But this military campaign was not a border conflict. In brief, it's needless for this article. I recommend you to create other article of chronology. Takabeg (talk) 11:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

"I recommend you to create other article of chronology." - For your information: I didn't put it there. If you feel that it should be somewhere else, then you are welcome to make that proposal here, and discuss it here, and get consensus here before you make any changes.

As I am, (and all the other previous authors involved in the consensus of the current shape of the page are), quite comfortable with the current shape of the page, I, and the others, have not seen any need to do it differently.

"This is nothing but a chronology of border conflicts between China and Russia, Japan and Russia (USSR) + other events" - You contradict yourself within your own sentence. No, it is not "nothing but" something. It is a number of things, and serves a number of purposes - that's what "see also" sections do.

"In brief, it's needless for this article." - Other than your own POV, on what do you base that statement?

Pdfpdf (talk) 11:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

By-the-way: Drop the personal attacks. They are not going to achieve anything useful. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

See WP:ALSO.

Takabeg is making a proposal here, and trying to discuss it and get consensus before he makes any change. Why do you think minor edits (which is what basically any edit to a "See also" section is) need to be discussed in advance and in a formal way?

Your second paragraph smacks of ownership. Your level of comfort with the article (and others') is, of course, irrelevant. Takabeg and I are two who are not comfortable with the bloated redundancy.

Takabeg did not contradict himself. That section is nothing but (i.e. only) a chronology [of things, what else?]. "See also" sections are not supposed to contain chronologies with dates. Can you name other articles that have them?

Other than your own POV, on what do you base anything you've said? This goes both ways. While Takabeg and I have independently provided reasons why the content is not appropriate, you have tried only to sideline us as outsiders whose opinions are not as good as your own. You have not at all attempted to explain why the section is as it is or should continue to be so. Srnec (talk) 03:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Groan. Try reading and thinking about what I actually wrote, not what you want to think that I wrote.

Note that the current state of the page was reached by consensus - consensus of a number of editors.
Note that I am by far NOT the only editor of this page.
Read the talk page archives.
Also: Please stop quoting me out of context. Please stop attributing to me things I have not said. And, yet again, please stop making personal attacks - I assure you that they will not achieve anything useful.

"Takabeg is making a proposal here" - Please be explicit about what this proposal is. If the proposal is to create a new article containing that information, and link that article to this article, and vice-versa, my personal POV is that I would support such a proposal. But note that I am only one of the editors involved in creating, maintaining and expanding this page.

"Why do you think ... " - I don't think it's minor edit.

"Your second paragraph smacks of ownership." - No it doesn't. Read what I wrote.

"That section is nothing ... " - No it isn't. Read what I wrote.

"Takabeg and I are two who are not comfortable with the bloated redundancy." - You are entitled to your opinion. It is different from the opinion of the person who put it there (which is not me), and different from the opinion of the people who were involved in constructing and editing the page at the time that it was put there. I don't see that there's any problem with making a proposal and discussing it - I've already said that more than once before. Note, however, that discussion does not involve making personal attacks, insulting people, making false accusations and/or quoting people out of context. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

FYI: The discussions and archives I refer to are actually on Talk:Soviet invasion of Manchuria Pdfpdf (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

On reflection, I propose that the information in the "see also" section be incorporated into one or more new subsections of the article - this/these new subsection(s) would provide more background to the article by summarising the history indicated by the links and linking to the articles which provide the detail. In addition, I also think a new article containing a list of links would also be useful. What do others think of these two proposals? If there is interest, then it would be useful to be specific about just what is being proposed. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Just come here from WP:MILHIST - on a cursory glace the See Also section seems far, far too long. The huge list of what appears to be every single dispute between Japan and Russia/the Soviet Union since the year dot would probably be better served by siome sort of navbox - something like Japanese/Russian conflicts, while many of the opther links shouldn't be in the See also section as they should be in the main body of the text.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. That's what I proposed. I gather that you are agreeing with me. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

(Also via MILHIST Talk). Currently too many links in the See also section. If there was a "list of" article for Russian/Soviet-Japanese border issues I would replace most of them with that. Items already discussed and/or linked in the article should also face the axe. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. That's what I proposed. I gather that you are agreeing with me. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Not quite. I'm saying the see also needs to be trimmed, and that articles already linked in the main body of the text should go. As I understand it you are proposing to incorporate the links in the see also section into the text. Which is different. And it appears you intend to do this by inserting a (large) body of text on the border disputes of the previous half five centuryies when a short summary is all that is required. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Milhist response. The "see also" is equivalent to WP:CONTENTFORK - events from 1689 upto 1945 have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the battle in the article title. Pdfpdf is clearly attempting to POV-push and yes, there are elements of ownership in his words, whether he denies it or not - he isn't even debating like an editor, he's bitching ("Groan"? This is wiki, not msn! - take the attitude elsewhere) - deal with the obvious - the current consensus is clearly against this non-standard bloated "see also" - someone implement Be bold and get it reduced, removed, or replaced with regular links - it doesn't need the Japanese version of "War and Peace" in there. I doubt it even meets MOS standards.. so it's only dragging the rest of the article down with it. In reality it should be in a collapsible navbox template, if anything. Not filling half a page... Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 22:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

What nonsense!

"events from 1689 upto 1945 have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the battle in the article title." - Utter nonsense. The events from 1689 upto 1945 set the stage for this war.

"Pdfpdf is clearly attempting ... " - Still more nonsense. Try reading what I wrote. You may actually learn something. If you do, you'll learn quite quickly that I'm doing (not attempting, doing) the exact opposite.

Quite clearly, other than how to be rude, you have no idea what you are talking about. Go do your homework before you come here and start spouting "facts" which are easily demonstrated at false.

"("Groan"? This is wiki, not msn! - take the attitude elsewhere)" - Hypocrit.

"the current consensus is clearly against this non-standard bloated "see also"." - Yes, if you'd bothered to read what I wrote, it would be blindingly obvious that I am part of the current consensus that is against it.

Again quite clearly, you have nothing to add to this discussion except "look at me and see how rude I can be."

Please go away, and don't come back until you have something useful to contribute.

Whilst you are away, please read WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:I just don't like it and similar related policy articles. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

BTW: I have taken this article off my watchlist - there's no WP policy that says I have to put up with this sort of rubbish. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I thought you had teenage kids, not were one? You argue like a YouTube troll.. your remonstrations are little more than petty childishness. You haven't produced a single point other than to say "nonsense" and other such non-contributive defence - do you even know how to debate? I'm not required to read anything you link, until you learn to understand them yourself. And how to write a proper See Also section. And how to respect consensus, criticism and when the votes are against you. Read WP:ETIQUETTE. No cabals. Bye bye. Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 00:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Korea

It seems to me that the information about Korea is incorrect. The Red Army actually withdrew to the 38th Parallel as requested by the US government. This article and other that accompany it imply:

• That the Soviet invasion of Korea was somewhat unsuccessful, whereas it was a rapid advance.
• That the USSR had the intention of seizing Korea but was forestalled by the American landing at Inchon, whereas it was requested by the Western allies to declare war on Japan and this was a necessary consequence.
• That the 38th Parallel was a predetermined boundary past which the Red Army should not have gone.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I was somewhat mistaken. According to Bruce Cumings in Korea's Place in the Sun (pp 186-187), Soviet troops began fighting the Japanese in Korea on 8 August, the Soviet Union agreed to the division at the 38th Parallel after 11 August, and some Soviet troops withdrew from the South after 15 August. But this article implies that the Soviet troops didn't reach Korea until 18 August. I don't know the extent of the Soviet fighting in Korea. This is an area that should be cleared up. Even so, the claim that the US landing at Inchon on 8 September (i.e., weeks later) would forestall the Soviet advance, seems pretty unlikely, even if you ignore the agreement to divide Korea at the 38th Parallel.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I've tried to clarify this, with citations, but there seems to be some discrepancy about the dates.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Korea since 1850 by Stewart Lone and Gavan McCormack says: "Soviet forces crossed the border into Korea on 9 August 1945. By the time of the Japanese surrender on 15 August, they had already captured much of northern Korea and were pushing southwards against diminishing Japanese resistance..." (p94). (The difference between 8/9 August might be because of time zones.)--Jack Upland (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Kinsu Maru

(From Talk:Russo-Japanese_War#Kinsu_Maru) I read about a Jpn ship with this name whom occupants made seppuku instead of surrending to Russian. Is it a real fact? Thanks.--Adriano Esposito (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

a) Where did you read about it?

b) This article appeared in 1904. Why are you asking on this page?

c) If you google "Kinsu Maru", you'll find a wide range of articles on the subject.

d) There is already a link to more information amongst the replies you got at Talk:Russo-Japanese_War#Kinsu_Maru.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Casualties

Per WP:VERIFIABLE, the casualties must be sourced. John W. Dower is considered a notable historian and you can't just remove the source just because you don't like it. Kiwifist (talk) 08:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Soviet casualties in the infobox, as per declared source (krivosheev)

Soviet casualties are not accurately taken from the source. Krivosheev operates with "irrecoverable" and "sanitary" losses, thus the irrecoverable include the missing, as well as non-combat dead (accidents, disease), while the sanitary include hospitalizations due to sickness. A more accurate picture is thus, 9780 KIA, 911 MIA, 19 562 WIA (also, 1340 non-combat dead and 4863 cases of sickness). I propose to alter the infobox accordingly. Mudriy zmei (talk) 12:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

new improved weapons?

Article currently states "The Soviet plan incorporated all the experience in maneuver warfare that the Soviets had acquired fighting the Germans, and also used new improved weapons, such as the RPD light machine gun, the new main battle tank T-44 and a small number of JS-3 heavy tanks." and cites the Leavenworth Papers #7 with no specific page. Source does not explicitly reference the RPD being used in this conflict and usage of the RPD in the final stages of the war has not been proven. Similarly, though the T-44 may have been used in the final days of the conflict, this source does not reference that. It makes no mention of the T-44 and repeated references to the T-34 being the tank used. Certainly calling it the "new main battle tank" is overselling it a bit. Finally, the JS-3 / IS-3's own page references how the tank did not see combat in WW2 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IS-3. The source again makes no reference to JS-3 and instead references the JS-2 as being used. There were definitely new techniques and organizations used in this stage of the conflict but not necessarily these new weapons specifically. This sections should probably be removed or a better source found. Mark199562 (talk) 13:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)