![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I suggest an article about the war might have the following structure. Comments please. Pdfpdf ( talk) 14:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
-- Pdfpdf ( talk) 14:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
This article is an almost carbon copy of Soviet invasion of Manchuria (1945). -- Tocino 20:26, 24 October 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)
Soviet-japan war is summary name for all soviet conflict vs jap in WW2
Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation include only ĐĐ°ĐœŃŃжŃŃŃĐșĐ°Ń ĐœĐ°ŃŃŃпаŃДлŃĐœĐ°Ń ĐŸĐżĐ”ŃĐ°ŃĐžŃ, 9 Đ°ĐČĐłŃŃŃĐ° - 2 ŃĐ”ĐœŃŃбŃŃ 1945 Đł.
Khingan-Mukden Offensive Operation (August 9, 1945 - September 2, 1945) Đ„ĐžĐœĐłĐ°ĐœĐŸ-ĐŃĐșĐŽĐ”ĐœŃĐșĐ°Ń ĐœĐ°ŃŃŃпаŃДлŃĐœĐ°Ń ĐŸĐżĐ”ŃĐ°ŃĐžŃ, 9 Đ°ĐČĐłŃŃŃĐ° - 2 ŃĐ”ĐœŃŃбŃŃ 1945 Đł.
Harbin-Kirin Offensive Operation (August 9, 1945 - September 2, 1945) Đ„Đ°ŃĐ±ĐžĐœĐŸ-ĐĐžŃĐžĐœŃĐșĐ°Ń ĐœĐ°ŃŃŃпаŃДлŃĐœĐ°Ń ĐŸĐżĐ”ŃĐ°ŃĐžŃ, 9 Đ°ĐČĐłŃŃŃĐ° - 2 ŃĐ”ĐœŃŃбŃŃ 1945 Đł.
Sungari Offensive Operation (August 9, 1945 - September 2, 1945) ĐĄŃĐœĐłĐ°ŃĐžĐčŃĐșĐ°Ń ĐœĐ°ŃŃŃпаŃДлŃĐœĐ°Ń ĐŸĐżĐ”ŃĐ°ŃĐžŃ, 9 Đ°ĐČĐłŃŃŃĐ° - 2 ŃĐ”ĐœŃŃбŃŃ 1945 Đł.
Seisin Landing Operation (August 13, 1945 - August 16, 1945) ĐĄĐ”ĐčŃĐžĐœŃĐșĐ°Ń ĐŽĐ”ŃĐ°ĐœŃĐœĐ°Ń ĐŸĐżĐ”ŃĐ°ŃĐžŃ, 13-16 Đ°ĐČĐłŃŃŃĐ° 1945 Đł.
But other operation Russian historic name
Participation of the USSR in war on Pacific ĐŁŃĐ°ŃŃОД ĐĄĐĄĐĄĐ ĐČ ĐČĐŸĐčĐœĐ” ĐœĐ° ĐąĐžŃ ĐŸĐŒ ĐŸĐșĐ”Đ°ĐœĐ”
South Sakhalin Army Group Offensive Operation (August 11, 1945 - August 25, 1945) ĐźĐ¶ĐœĐŸ-ĐĄĐ°Ń Đ°Đ»ĐžĐœŃĐșĐ°Ń ĐœĐ°ŃŃŃпаŃДлŃĐœĐ°Ń ĐŸĐżĐ”ŃĐ°ŃĐžŃ, 11-25 Đ°ĐČĐłŃŃŃĐ° 1945 Đł.
Kuril Landing Operation (August 18, 1945 - September 1, 1945) ĐŃŃОлŃŃĐșĐ°Ń ĐŽĐ”ŃĐ°ĐœŃĐœĐ°Ń ĐŸĐżĐ”ŃĐ°ŃĐžŃ, 18 Đ°ĐČĐłŃŃŃĐ° - 1 ŃĐ”ĐœŃŃбŃŃ 1945 Đł.
Phenyan-Port Arthur Descent Operation (August 19, 1945 - September 2, 1945) ĐŃ Đ”ĐœŃŃĐœ-ĐĐŸŃŃ ĐŃŃŃŃ ĐĐ”ŃĐ°ĐœŃĐœĐ°Ń ĐŸĐżĐ”ŃĐ°ŃĐžŃ (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)
The following paragraph is tendentious and historically inaccurate.
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)
That's a big improvement. There was nothing ambiguous about their presence in Manchuria. -- Asmaybe ( talk) 16:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation)#"See also" section. 05:19, 28 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.
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. MaŸ©usBritish talk 00:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
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:
(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)
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 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)
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 - /info/en/?search=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)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I suggest an article about the war might have the following structure. Comments please. Pdfpdf ( talk) 14:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
-- Pdfpdf ( talk) 14:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
This article is an almost carbon copy of Soviet invasion of Manchuria (1945). -- Tocino 20:26, 24 October 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)
Soviet-japan war is summary name for all soviet conflict vs jap in WW2
Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation include only ĐĐ°ĐœŃŃжŃŃŃĐșĐ°Ń ĐœĐ°ŃŃŃпаŃДлŃĐœĐ°Ń ĐŸĐżĐ”ŃĐ°ŃĐžŃ, 9 Đ°ĐČĐłŃŃŃĐ° - 2 ŃĐ”ĐœŃŃбŃŃ 1945 Đł.
Khingan-Mukden Offensive Operation (August 9, 1945 - September 2, 1945) Đ„ĐžĐœĐłĐ°ĐœĐŸ-ĐŃĐșĐŽĐ”ĐœŃĐșĐ°Ń ĐœĐ°ŃŃŃпаŃДлŃĐœĐ°Ń ĐŸĐżĐ”ŃĐ°ŃĐžŃ, 9 Đ°ĐČĐłŃŃŃĐ° - 2 ŃĐ”ĐœŃŃбŃŃ 1945 Đł.
Harbin-Kirin Offensive Operation (August 9, 1945 - September 2, 1945) Đ„Đ°ŃĐ±ĐžĐœĐŸ-ĐĐžŃĐžĐœŃĐșĐ°Ń ĐœĐ°ŃŃŃпаŃДлŃĐœĐ°Ń ĐŸĐżĐ”ŃĐ°ŃĐžŃ, 9 Đ°ĐČĐłŃŃŃĐ° - 2 ŃĐ”ĐœŃŃбŃŃ 1945 Đł.
Sungari Offensive Operation (August 9, 1945 - September 2, 1945) ĐĄŃĐœĐłĐ°ŃĐžĐčŃĐșĐ°Ń ĐœĐ°ŃŃŃпаŃДлŃĐœĐ°Ń ĐŸĐżĐ”ŃĐ°ŃĐžŃ, 9 Đ°ĐČĐłŃŃŃĐ° - 2 ŃĐ”ĐœŃŃбŃŃ 1945 Đł.
Seisin Landing Operation (August 13, 1945 - August 16, 1945) ĐĄĐ”ĐčŃĐžĐœŃĐșĐ°Ń ĐŽĐ”ŃĐ°ĐœŃĐœĐ°Ń ĐŸĐżĐ”ŃĐ°ŃĐžŃ, 13-16 Đ°ĐČĐłŃŃŃĐ° 1945 Đł.
But other operation Russian historic name
Participation of the USSR in war on Pacific ĐŁŃĐ°ŃŃОД ĐĄĐĄĐĄĐ ĐČ ĐČĐŸĐčĐœĐ” ĐœĐ° ĐąĐžŃ ĐŸĐŒ ĐŸĐșĐ”Đ°ĐœĐ”
South Sakhalin Army Group Offensive Operation (August 11, 1945 - August 25, 1945) ĐźĐ¶ĐœĐŸ-ĐĄĐ°Ń Đ°Đ»ĐžĐœŃĐșĐ°Ń ĐœĐ°ŃŃŃпаŃДлŃĐœĐ°Ń ĐŸĐżĐ”ŃĐ°ŃĐžŃ, 11-25 Đ°ĐČĐłŃŃŃĐ° 1945 Đł.
Kuril Landing Operation (August 18, 1945 - September 1, 1945) ĐŃŃОлŃŃĐșĐ°Ń ĐŽĐ”ŃĐ°ĐœŃĐœĐ°Ń ĐŸĐżĐ”ŃĐ°ŃĐžŃ, 18 Đ°ĐČĐłŃŃŃĐ° - 1 ŃĐ”ĐœŃŃбŃŃ 1945 Đł.
Phenyan-Port Arthur Descent Operation (August 19, 1945 - September 2, 1945) ĐŃ Đ”ĐœŃŃĐœ-ĐĐŸŃŃ ĐŃŃŃŃ ĐĐ”ŃĐ°ĐœŃĐœĐ°Ń ĐŸĐżĐ”ŃĐ°ŃĐžŃ (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)
The following paragraph is tendentious and historically inaccurate.
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)
That's a big improvement. There was nothing ambiguous about their presence in Manchuria. -- Asmaybe ( talk) 16:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation)#"See also" section. 05:19, 28 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.
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. MaŸ©usBritish talk 00:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
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:
(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)
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 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)
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 - /info/en/?search=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)