PDA

View Full Version : Kwantung Army



Siberian Rifleman
08-09-2005, 01:57 AM
Wondering if you guys have any info on the Kwantung Army ? I know they were in Manchuria, and that they have millions of men. What I'm interested is like which battles did they fought ? Also you guys have any info on the Kwantung Army in China ? Like the battles ? :) Anything would be helpful :)

Commando Jordovski
08-09-2005, 02:05 AM
They had the Kwantung Army or Guandong Army.
They were units of the Imperial Japanese Army that originated from a Guandong garrison established in 1906,.... to defend the Kwantung Leased Territory and the areas adjacent to the South Manchurian Railway.
They were initially composed of a regular army division and a heavy siege artillery batallion, both stationed within the Kwantung Leased Territory.

Their Army in 1941 consisted largely augments of 700,000.

The Army fought against the Red Army of the Soviet Union at Zhanggufeng in 1938 and Nomonhan in 1939. Since the outbreak of the Pacific War, many troops were mobilized to the Pacific islands from Manchuria. When the Soviet Red Army invaded into Manchuria in August 1945, the Army retained approximately 600,000 soldiers. To cope with the Soviet invasion, the Army planned to form the defence line near the capital of Manchuguo, but the Emperor of Japan Hirohito ordered them to surrender before the main defensive engagement took place.

Siberian Rifleman
08-09-2005, 03:08 AM
They had the Kwantung Army or Guandong Army.
They were units of the Imperial Japanese Army that originated from a Guandong garrison established in 1906,.... to defend the Kwantung Leased Territory and the areas adjacent to the South Manchurian Railway.
They were initially composed of a regular army division and a heavy siege artillery batallion, both stationed within the Kwantung Leased Territory.

Their Army in 1941 consisted largely augments of 700,000.

The Army fought against the Red Army of the Soviet Union at Zhanggufeng in 1938 and Nomonhan in 1939. Since the outbreak of the Pacific War, many troops were mobilized to the Pacific islands from Manchuria. When the Soviet Red Army invaded into Manchuria in August 1945, the Army retained approximately 600,000 soldiers. To cope with the Soviet invasion, the Army planned to form the defence line near the capital of Manchuguo, but the Emperor of Japan Hirohito ordered them to surrender before the main defensive engagement took place.

Thanks Jordovski :) That really surprises me... I heard that the Kwantung Army was the pride of the Japanese Empire. Yet they surrendered most of it to the Russians... Did they ever return to Japan ? Or did they remain in Russia to work as slave labours ?

Commando Jordovski
08-09-2005, 05:11 AM
I think alot of them did Return to Japan, but some weren't.


by the way, you talked about your history teacher or something in another room, which tells me your still in school, which year may i ask ?

Firefly
07-19-2006, 03:00 PM
Well I suppose the japanese came out of it better in the end than they would have if the Soviets had been allowed to opress them as well. The Soviet invasion into manchuria was nothing more than a land grab. Stalin wasnt interested in war with Japan, in fact Japan may have survived longer if they had declared war on the Soviets in 1941. Most of the US aid that saved the Soviets in ww2 came through Vladivostok in US ships registered as Soviet ones. If Japan had declared war they could have helped the Germans and themselves by stopping this aid and forcing the US to rely more on the Norther Atlantic route and the Iranian route.

Slightly off topic but releveant to the end of the war I think.

Timbo in Oz
09-20-2006, 01:57 AM
It is my understanding also that the invasion of Manchuria by Russia did play a role in hastening the use of both weapons.

OTOH as a liberal-lefty on some things I do find this tendency to take up hindsight positions is execrable, amoral and silly too.

I remember meeting a young American who had a big problem with Lincoln for being basically a racist! I'd just been to Washington my ist time.

well yes in late 20c terms, yes, BTA a significant minority of Americans still ARE!

savoy6
04-25-2007, 06:33 PM
I agree with Chevan, the A-bombs were mainly dropped to impress/scarry USSR.



Why is it in every post here lately coming out of Russia..the Soviet army or the Soviet goverment is the reason that everything in the war happened?...Given the russians late,.....VERY late, entry into the war in the Pacific, I doubt that that figured into why we dropped the bombs except in a very limited ,secondary sense.Truman was a very pragmatic person who was usually interested in solving the problem in front of him at the moment..at the time,that was the impending invasion of Japan with an estimated 200,000 US casualties for the intial stages of the invasion.The Japanese had already shown themselves to be willing to fight to the last man ,woman and child at Saipan and Okinawa, and had been quite public about the fact that they would make the Allies pay for every inch of Japanese soil....

i don't know it maybe saved many lives but it destroyed 2 towns killed too much people and even now that act affects you because of radiation, years after people were dieing because of radiation. there would be less casaulites if the allies atacked japan.japan would have kapitulated because italy,3.reich and other countries did
No, they wouldn't have.....surrendering the country was completely abhorrent to the Japanes culture and mindset.For thousands of years the Japanese had been unconquered in their island home and they would have fought to the death for it....The only reason they did give up was because the Emperor ordered it...

Egorka
04-26-2007, 04:20 PM
as for the japanese... much of you suppositions about the great influence of the soviets rolling an experienced mechanized army over an ill equipped and poorly organized kuantung army and how they were ready to take over the entire east is...well..suppositional bullshit....

The way you wrote it sure does sound like bullshit.

I am not claiming that USSR was the main force that defeated Japan (and I think Chevan think so neither), but the Kwantung Army was the best Japanese force in August 1945.
And considering your insight in to the Japanese psychology we now know for sure that they did their 110% to defended Japan.

Would you care to elaborate on "ill equipped and poorly organized" thing, please?


The ovens. Do you have an idea for how long can an oven continiously burn bodies before its reflective bricks would start fall down and the oven would had to be repared?

savoy6
04-26-2007, 05:47 PM
ill equipped and poorly organized

the Kwantung Army was the best Japanese force in August 1945.

the kwantung army was nearly the only organized japanese army left at that point..lol..

large portions of the kwantung army were scattered about in operations against the chinese communists and and nationalist guerillas.parts of it had been recalled for the defence of the home islands as well.also you can't compare the japanese mech units,what little they had, with an experienced soviet army armed with things like the T34/85 and the SU122.the japanese armor was outmoded within the first couple of years of the war.and they had outmoded artillery and little or no AT guns.it's just that most UK and US units in the far east had little or no priority of supply before the war and were very under trained and under equipped.the reason the UK lost at singapore was because of their inability to understand or deal with the speed of the japanese advance down the malay peninsula.the same thing happened in the oil rich dutch east indies where a very poorly equiped dutch army constabulary force was speedily dealt with by japanese paras and naval landing troops.though the japanese weapons and equipment were outmoded for most of the war their early sucesses were based mainly on a concentration of force against weaker units and their abilty to move more quickly than their opposition.

I am not claiming that USSR was the main force that defeated Japan (and I think Chevan think so neither
maybe not, but what is coming through seems to be a belief that the A-bombs were dropped more to impress the soviets than to hasten the end of the war.also ,from both of you guys statements you seem to be of the opinion that the US spent the last year of the war doing more to get set to fight the russians that it was to invade japan.public opinion in america after the nazi surrender was of a "let's beat these japs by any means neccesary and get our boys home" variety.for the planners who were looking at such huge losses for an invasion the A-bomb was a stand off godsend.you have to remember that very few people knew about the manhattan project even after the first test bomb was set off.many of the PTO planners didn't even know there was such an item until right before it was dropped.


as for the bricks....hmmmmm.. i not able to give you an exact time figure but i know that the crematorium in the mortuary i worked in for a time had been in regular use for almost 50 years with no need to redo the interior bricks.though i don't think the nazis were planning on the "final solution" taking that long...

Egorka
04-27-2007, 01:30 AM
savoy6
the kwantung army was nearly the only organized japanese army left at that point..lol..
So you mean that there was no organised military unit available for the defence of Japanese homeland? Nice to know! Otherwise it is a funny picture you draw. In Japan itself there were no good units but the Japanese would fight like hell and cause USA immense casualties. In Manchuria, on the other hand, there was an organised army but they were sissies and could not provide resistance.



large portions of the kwantung army were scattered about in operations against the chinese communists and and nationalist guerillas.parts of it had been recalled for the defence of the home islands as well.also you can't compare the japanese mech units,what little they had, with an experienced soviet army armed with things like the T34/85 and the SU122.the japanese armor was outmoded within the first couple of years of the war.and they had outmoded artillery and little or no AT guns.it's just that most UK and US units in the far east had little or no priority of supply before the war and were very under trained and under equipped.the reason the UK lost at singapore was because of their inability to understand or deal with the speed of the japanese advance down the malay peninsula.the same thing happened in the oil rich dutch east indies where a very poorly equiped dutch army constabulary force was speedily dealt with by japanese paras and naval landing troops.though the japanese weapons and equipment were outmoded for most of the war their early sucesses were based mainly on a concentration of force against weaker units and their abilty to move more quickly than their opposition.

So, have you looked at the OOB for the Kwantung army in August 1945? What is your conclusion?

Rising Sun*
04-27-2007, 06:34 AM
In fact they tryed to surrender through the Stalin but its obviously Washington could let them it on political reasons.


I don't think so.

The Soviets frustrated Japanese attempts to negotiate a surrender through the USSR; strung out Japan without letting the other Allies know about the Japanese approaches (although the other Allies got a certain amount of information about them from decoding Japanese traffic); and then declared war on Japan in the dying moments of the war against Japan, to Japan's considerable surprise, and when Japan was unable to defend itself.


On 20 June the Emperor on his own initiative called the six council members to a conference and stated that it was necessary to have a plan to close the war at once, as well as a plan to defend the home islands. He asked what the council thought of that idea. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister and the Navy Minister stated that they fully concurred with the Imperial view and that such steps were then being taken to that end. Then the Emperor in turn asked when the ministers expected they would be able to send a special ambassador to Moscow. The reply was that it was uncertain but they hoped he could be sent before the Potsdam conference. Sakomizu testified that after this expression from the Emperor, Suzuki decided he could stop the war; when he returned from the conference he told Sakomizu "Today the Emperor said what everyone has wanted to say but yet was afraid to say."

After that the Government redoubled its talks with Russia and decided to send Prince Konoye to Moscow if he were persona grata. On 10 July the Emperor called Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo and said, "As it is now early July should not our special ambassador be dispatched to Moscow without delay?" Since Soviet Ambassador Malik was ill in Tokyo and the conversations there were not progressing, Sato was again instructed to put the matter directly to the Vice Commissar for Foreign Affairs in Moscow. Russia asked for more details concerning the mission and Sato was directed to explain the mission as follows: (1) to make an improvement in relations between Russia and Japan (in view of Russia's denunciation of the neutrality pact), and (2) to ask Russia to intercede with the United States in order to stop the war. The Soviets replied on 13 July that since Stalin and Molotov were just leaving for Potsdam no answer could be given until their return to Moscow. On 12 July meanwhile the Emperor had called in Konoye and secretly instructed him to accept any terms he could get and to wire these terms direct to the Emperor. Konoye also testified that when Sato was sounding out the Russians he reported the Russians would not consider a peace role unless the terms were unconditional surrender, and that this reply had a great influence on the Emperor.

In the days before the Potsdam Declaration, Suzuki, Togo, and Yonai became pessimistic about the Russian negotiations. They expected eventually that they would have some answer; but


--7--

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


if it were unfavorable they concluded that their only recourse would be to broadcast directly to the United States.
On 26 July the Potsdam Declaration was issued. In their deliberations on that statement, which began immediately, no member of the Inner Cabinet had any objections to ending the war. Suzuki, Togo, and Yonai felt that the declaration must be accepted as the final terms of peace at once, whether they liked it or not. The War Minister and the two chiefs of staff on the other hand felt that the terms were "too dishonorable". Discussion centered around first the future position of the Emperor, second the disposition of war criminals, and third the future form of Japan's "national polity".

On 6 August in the midst of these discussions an atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. Early reports to Tokyo described very great damage, but the military did not think it was an atomic bomb until President Truman's announcement and a mission of Japanese scientists sent to Hiroshima confirmed it. On the morning of 7 August Suzuki and Togo conferred and then reported the news to the Emperor, stating that this was the time to accept the Potsdam Declaration. The military side still however could not make up their minds to accept it.

These differences continued to be examined and hope of favorable word from Russia had been all but abandoned when very early in the morning of 9 August the news arrived that Russia had declared war. Although considerable pessimism had prevailed regarding the outcome of the negotiations, the Government was not prepared for war with the Soviets, nor the military capable of any effective counter-plan. Suzuki calculated that he had a choice of resigning or taking immediate positive action, which could be either declaring war on Russia and continuing until the whole Nation was destroyed or accepting the Potsdam Declaration. http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS/JapansStruggle/index.html

Rising Sun*
04-27-2007, 06:44 AM
So, have you looked at the OOB for the Kwantung army in August 1945? What is your conclusion?

I have.

It wasn't impressive.

Common sense alone tells us that the Japanese were hardly likely to leave crack units and top troops facing the USSR where there was no fighting there from 1941-45 when they were fighting for their lives and nation elsewhere. They didn't leave them there. They sucked the guts out of the Kwantung Army and left it a shell of poor troops with little support by the time the USSR attacked. I'm not diminishing the excellent planning and execution of the Soviet attack, but it wasn't an equal fight by any means.


Surprise was the essential element in the Soviet
offensive plan. [12-37] The Russians successfully deployed
30 divisions to western Manchuria without Japanese
awareness. [10-1] Deception and surprise was achieved by
heavy reliance upon night movement, utilization of assembly
areas far removed from the border and simple but strict
measures such as instructing senior Soviet officers to not
wear rank insignia and to use assumed names.[10-1] The 6th
Guards Tank Army left all tanks, self-propelled artillery
and vehicles behind in Czechoslovakia and picked up new
equipment manufactured in Soviet Ural factories. [7-52]
This extraordinary effort resulted in the Soviet Union's
ability to field a force in the Far East comprised of 11
combined-arms armies, one tank army and three air armies.
Thus, without discovery by the Japanese at the start of war
with Japan, the Russian Army fielded 1,577,725 men, 26,137
guns and mortars, and 5,556 tanks and self-propelled
artillery pieces. [9-62] The Air Force possessed 3,800
aircraft while the Soviet Navy (Pacific Fleet and Amur River
flotilla) had distinct superiority on the seas (600 fighting
ships as touted by Gorelov) and an additional 1500 A/C. [l2-
38] This vast array of men and arms gave the Russians a
2.2:1 ratio advantage in men, 4.8:1 in artillery and tanks
and a 2:1 advantage in aircraft. [10-29]
The threat which kept 40 Soviet divisions, including
two tank divisions, from the European front was the
Kwangtung Army. In existence since 1919, the Kwangtung Army
was more than 1 million men strong in early 1941. [10-25]
Manchuria represented the breadbasket and military warehouse
for the Japanese armed forces. However, as the Allied
effort in the Pacific war intensified, the Japanese Imperial
General Headquarters began to withdraw elite divisions from
the Kwantury Army to counter the Allied threat elsewhere.
By early 1943, the Japanese had approximately 600,000 troops
protecting Manchuria against an estimated 750,000 Soviet
troops deployed on its borders. [18-11] Approaching the end
of 1944, this former vanguard of Japanese military prowess
found its strength reduced half again from its number in
December 1942. [18-118] The Japanese Army was short in more
than manpower. They were severely deficient in aircraft,
engineer support, communications and armor. What few tanks
the Japanese did possess were armed with 57mm guns and were
grossly overmatched by the Soviet T-34's.
The day of 7 March 1945, saw the complete annihilation
of Japanese forces on Iwo Jima and brought the Allies closer
to the Japanese homeland. Japanese Imperial General
Headquarters (IGHQ) issued orders on 15 March 1945, which
withdrew all remaining elite divisions from Manchuria to the
homeland and included two divisions on the border. This
also removed the Kwantung Army's 1st Tank Division, the last
armor division in Manchuria. [18-125) The result left the
Kwantung Army a mere shadow of its former self (its most
seasoned division was formed only as late as the spring of
1944). [9-63]
This drain on the strength of the Kwangtung Army
required a drastic change in the defense plan against the
Soviet Union. The Japanese formerly planned to defend along
the northern and eastern Manchurian border areas, the
expected Russian avenue of approach. They believed the
western approaches to be untrafficable to any sizeable
Soviet formation due to the vast Mongolian desert and the
natural barrier of the Grand Khinghan Mountains.
Accordingly, the Japanese had 17 fortified areas covering
the assumed approaches into Manchuria over a 1,000 kilometer
stretch in the northern and eastern border regions. [12-37]
Due to the extreme reduction in strength and armaments,
the Kwangtung Army adopted a new operations plan in May
1945. It called for a delaying action along the border,
withdrawal to subsequent prepared defensive lines and
finally to a stronghold area in southeastern Manchuria for a
final defensive action approximately 650 kilometers from the
northern and western borders. [10-34]
The Kwangtung Army believed that the terrain, long
distances involved and determined Japanese resistance would
weaken the attacking Soviet forces by the time they reached
the final defensive positions and their advance would be
stopped and possibly subjected to a decisive counterattack.
In this plan only one-third of the Japanese Army would be
positioned on the border and the remainder deployed in
depth. [10-34]
In order to prevent the Russians from discovering their
alarming weakness in Manchuria, the Kwangtung Army mobilized
reservists and new recruits to form new divisions and
brigades to maintain the appearance of a formidable fighting
force. In early July 1945, the Kwangtung Army was expanded
from 11 infantry divisions to more than 24 divisions.
Unfortunately for the Kwangtung Army, more than one-fourth
of its entire combat force was mobilized only ten days prior
to the Soviet offensive (8 of 24 divisions and 7 of 9
brigades). [4-63] One of two very weak tank brigades was
not formed until July 1945, and both brigades were far
removed in south central Manchuria. [9-63]
The Japanese IGHQ and Kwangtung Army had not heeded the
lessons learned at Nomonhan. In the Summer of 1945, their
army had no artillery larger than 75 mm, few tanks, no
rockets, nor any modern anti-tank weapons. The newly formed
149th Infantry Division did not have a single piece of
artillery in its possession when war commenced! [9-63]
Ammunition and weapons were in such short supply the
Japanese resorted to arming soldiers with bamboo spears.
[18-154] Of the 24 divisions in the Kwangtung Army, the
Japanese themselves rated only seven or eight to be combat
effective. [9-63] In fact, eight of their infantry
divisions were rated at being only 15% combat effective
while all nine independent mixed brigades were rated at 15%
combat effectiveness or less. [18-161]
By August 1945, the Kwantury Army had pieced together a
combat force of 1,155 tanks, 5,360 guns and 1,800 aircraft,
most obsolete. Discounting Japanese forces in South
Sakhalin, Korea and the Kuriles, the Soviets faced an
inexperienced army totalling little more than 710,000 men.
[10-29]
In May 1945, the Japanese commenced their unit
redeployments and construction of fortifications and
barriers to conform with the new defense plan. [18-134] The
Japanese problem and "Achilles heel" was simply that their
troop redeployments and military construction projects were
underway and incomplete when the Russians attacked on 9
August 1945. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1986/RMF.htm

Egorka
04-27-2007, 06:48 AM
I don't think so.

The Soviets frustrated Japanese attempts to negotiate a surrender through the USSR; strung out Japan without letting the other Allies know about the Japanese approaches (although the other Allies got a certain amount of information about them from decoding Japanese traffic); and then declared war on Japan in the dying moments of the war against Japan, to Japan's considerable surprise, and when Japan was unable to defend itself.


I do not get it... When you talk about possible invasion of Japan by US you clame enormous losses could be inflicted to the Americans due to ferosiousness of the Japanese fighters.

But when you are talking about the best regular Army that the Japanese had left, you say "was unable to defend itself".

So on the islands japanese showed hell to US marines, but in Manchuria they were sissies? Are there different breeds of Japanese available?

Contradictione muy grande!

Rising Sun*
04-27-2007, 07:04 AM
I do not get it... When you talk about possible invasion of Japan by US you clame enormous losses could be inflicted to the Americans due to ferosiousness of the Japanese fighters.

But when you are talking about the best regular Army that the Japanese had left, you say "was unable to defend itself".

So on the islands japanese showed hell to US marines, but in Manchuria they were sissies? Are there different breeds of Japanese available?

Contradictione muy grande!

Where did I say anything about the
best regular Army that the Japanese had left facing the Soviets. Or anyone?

The Kwantung Army facing the USSR weren't sissies, but they were generally very poor troops with lousy artillery, armour and air support. Because the best of everything had been drawn off them for years to fight the real war s in the Pacific and Burma theatres, and then at the end their remaining strengths were pulled out to defend the home islands.

The Soviets, during the few days they fought the Japanese, never faced Japanese troops of anything like the quality and support that the Americans and Australians faced from mid-1942 to the end of the war in the POA and SWPA, nor anything like the quality that the British faced in Malaya in 1941-42 and Burma 1941-45, or that the Dutch faced in the NEI 1941-42. Nor did the Americans, Australians, British or Dutch every have anything remotely like the military, territorial or logistical advantages the Soviets had against the Kwantung Army.

As I said earlier, I'm not trying to diminish the great success of the very brief Soviet engagement with Japan, but it wasn't anything like what the other Allies had been doing for several years beforehand, nor did it contribute a great deal to the defeat of Japan.

Rising Sun*
04-27-2007, 07:08 AM
I do not get it... When you talk about possible invasion of Japan by US you clame enormous losses could be inflicted to the Americans due to ferosiousness of the Japanese fighters.

Contradictione muy grande!

I don't recall saying anything about that, either.

I've based my opinions on what the Allies, which in this case is really the Americans, estimated as losses because that is what encouraged them to use the atom bombs.

Rising Sun*
04-27-2007, 07:15 AM
Originally Posted by Rising Sun*
I don't think so.

The Soviets frustrated Japanese attempts to negotiate a surrender through the USSR; strung out Japan without letting the other Allies know about the Japanese approaches (although the other Allies got a certain amount of information about them from decoding Japanese traffic); and then declared war on Japan in the dying moments of the war against Japan, to Japan's considerable surprise, and when Japan was unable to defend itself.

I do not get it... When you talk about possible invasion of Japan by US you clame enormous losses could be inflicted to the Americans due to ferosiousness of the Japanese fighters.

But when you are talking about the best regular Army that the Japanese had left, you say "was unable to defend itself". So on the islands japanese showed hell to US marines, but in Manchuria they were sissies? Are there different breeds of Japanese available?

Contradictione muy grande!

Just to clarify that point about Japan being unable to defend itself, I was referring to the Soviet attack in the dying minutes of the war against Japan.

So far as defeating Japan goes, it ranks roughly with someone watching a bloke get the shit kicked out of him by a big gang until he's unconscious and moments away from bleeding to death, and then running in and giving the victim a kick in the head and claiming responsiblity for his death.

savoy6
04-27-2007, 07:31 AM
egorka,
you seem to think that somehow the condition of the kwantung army is a corolation with how much the japanese people would have resisted the allied invasion of the home islands. the japanese people have a history of resisting invasions with every resourse availiable,whether military or civilians.every person possible was mobilized to resist the 2 attempts by the mongols to invade.
what we are stating is the fact that the kwantung army was a paper tiger by the end of the war and no match for the soviets that rolled through it in the closing days of the war.the reason the emperor surrendered the nation was to prevent the destruction of the japanese nation by either A-bomb or invasion.the last few days before the surrender saw a junta of nationalistic officers actually attempt a coup of sorts to prevent the surrender by trying to make the emperor a captive in his palace,and not make the announcement he had recorded.they saw it as a greater shame to surrender and save the people then to have the nation sacrifice itself against the allies.luckily they were stopped by retainers loyal to the emperor who hid the recording and got it into the hands of the right people to get it broadcast....
oh, and thanks for the backup info rising sun....with 2 jobs i just didn't have time to find the background info..lol..

Rising Sun*
04-27-2007, 08:42 AM
oh, and thanks for the backup info rising sun

Semper fi. :D Even if we're not Marines.

This current thread is related
http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?p=100196&posted=1#post100196

Egorka
04-27-2007, 03:33 PM
Just to clarify that point about Japan being unable to defend itself, I was referring to the Soviet attack in the dying minutes of the war against Japan.

So far as defeating Japan goes, it ranks roughly with someone watching a bloke get the shit kicked out of him by a big gang until he's unconscious and moments away from bleeding to death, and then running in and giving the victim a kick in the head and claiming responsiblity for his death.

Right. I agree it was like that. The main reason USSR joined in was to secure its interests. The minor reason ws also that the were obliged to do it 90 days after the Germany's capitulation and USA actually wanted them to do it (remember the our Potsdam discussion).

But I also guess that you can kind of see at least a tiny reason in that some Soviet/Russian peope say the same thing about western front in Europe.

I am not claming that USSR did any very sizeable impact on the defeat of Japan if we look at the whole was period, though USSR inpact at the moment it joint the war was very significant. Japan was practicaly defeated. Japan had only chance if they could hold Manchuria. Because it was practicaly the only source of many crusial raw materials. And even then it was too weak. Maybe Japanese could try some political intrigue or something. But! It is absolutely another thing when it comes to the specific battle where RKKA crushed Kwantung army.

My main message is that Kwantung army lost not because it was weak, but because RKKA was strong. Essentially RKKA defeated a normal regular Japanese army, which was NOT worse than that fighting on the islands against Americans. And before you start arguing with me lets settle the first bit in this equation: see the next post :)

Egorka
04-27-2007, 03:51 PM
Ok , guys! Savoy6 and Rising Sun!

Before we start talking about the strenght of the force that oposed RKKA in Manchuria in August 1945, lets settle one thing.

The question:

Do you agree that the Kwantung army was mentaly set to fight until the end, just like they did on the islands and just like they would do it in case of the Japan's invasion?
If possible keep you answers short... :) Just to keep the pace...

Rising Sun*
04-27-2007, 05:23 PM
The question:

Do you agree that the Kwantung army was mentaly set to fight until the end, just like they did on the islands and just like they would do it in case of the Japan's invasion?

I don't know.

I'd assume so as a fair part of the Kwantung Army was transferred outside China and presumably followed the usual Japanese customs in warfare in the Pacific.

But the Kwantung Army had always been a distinct entity, in many respects running its own show, and wasn't used to fighting the sorts of battles that were standard in the Pacific, so I don't know if it had a different culture to the rest of the IJA.

Digger
04-27-2007, 08:06 PM
Pre war the code of Bushido was instilled heavily into any man serving with the JIF, and in almost all cases these troops, airmen, sailors showed a fanaticism that defied belief.

By August 1945 the Kwantung Army had very few of these well trained, indoctrinated troops. For the most part the greener soldiers did not, could not have had the same level of training and indoctrination as their predecessors. While the Soviet attack blew them away, there were cases where Japanese resistance was fierce, if not suicidal.

I doubt whether the Kwantung Army was made of sterner stuff, they would have altered the result.

Regards digger.

Rising Sun*
04-27-2007, 09:20 PM
I am not claming that USSR did any very sizeable impact on the defeat of Japan if we look at the whole was period, though USSR inpact at the moment it joint the war was very significant.

The USSR's biggest contribution to the defeat of Japan didn't involve firing one shot. It was holding large Japanese forces against it for the duration of the war, which prevented them being employed elsewhere.


My main message is that Kwantung army lost not because it was weak, but because RKKA was strong. Essentially RKKA defeated a normal regular Japanese army, which was NOT worse than that fighting on the islands against Americans. [/I]

The Japanese troops the Russians fought in 1945 couldn't be compared with the Japanese troops who fought in the Pacific and Burma, nor with the Kwantung Army that existed in 1941.

For a start, the Russians never fought the IJN's Special Naval Landing Force (=Japanese Marines), who were outstanding, and vicious, troops.

By the time the Russians got involved, Japan's best soldiers had generally been killed by the other Allies or were isolated around the Pacific. Just as importantly, its best generals and other officers had largely gone the same way.

If the Russians faced Japanese troops of the same quality that the other Allies fought up to the end of 1945, and especially the Japanese troops who secured all Japan's early gains and who had to be defeated by the other Allies to reach the home islands, and even allowing for the superior numbers and weapons the Russians had, they would not have had such an easy victory. Nor necessarily any victory at all, by the time Japan surrendered.

Egorka
04-28-2007, 04:25 PM
To both Digger and Rising Sun,


Pre war the code of Bushido was instilled heavily into any man serving with the JIF, and in almost all cases these troops, airmen, sailors showed a fanaticism that defied belief.
By August 1945 the Kwantung Army had very few of these well trained, indoctrinated troops.
We have not reached the military training yet. We will talk about it later. We will see when sertain divisions were formed and so on. For now we are trying to establish common understanding on the mental setting of the soldiers in Kwantung army. Why do you claim that the japanese soldiers serving in Kwantung army were less eager to die for their country than those one on the islands or the main land?


For the most part the greener soldiers did not, could not have had the same level of training and indoctrination as their predecessors. While the Soviet attack blew them away, there were cases where Japanese resistance was fierce, if not suicidal.
I doubt whether the Kwantung Army was made of sterner stuff, they would have altered the result.

Again, wait with training. The indoctrination, as you call it, did not come from the army service. It came from the up bringing in sertain cultural evironment. It is a process that it normaly in place from the birth. I could equaly say that they were indoctrinated to sacrifise them self even before they joint the army.

So to wrap it up, you have no grounds to say that the japanese soldiers in Kwantung army were less determined to die for Japan than those on the islands or those on the main land. Agree?

Rising Sun*
04-28-2007, 07:37 PM
To both Digger and Rising Sun,

So to wrap it up, you have no grounds to say that the japanese soldiers in Kwantung army were less determined to die for Japan than those on the islands or those on the main land. Agree?

Whether they were equally, less, or more determined to die than any other Japanese troops doesn't matter.

They simply were not first rate troops.

Focusing on the quality of the troops and their willingness to die ignores two more important factors. The Russians had massive superiority in armour and airpower, which ensured that even against first rate troops the Russians were bound to win.


Soviet air superiority was virtually absolute.In any case, if individual Japanese planes did take off from their airdromes,Russian fighters almost instantly shot them down. Superiority of Soviet aviators was ensured by three basic factors: quantity (the USSR had manymore warplanes; quality (Soviet fighters, attack planes and bombers possessed much higher tactical and technical characteristics; and, finally, Russian pilots, who had acquired enormous combat experience in battles with theGerman ďLuftwaffeĒ, proved to have much higher flying skills.
http://www.fegi.ru/prim/flot/flot1_13.htm

To which might be added the fact that Japan had lost almost all of its battle experienced, and even battle inexperienced but well trained, pilots. Hence the kamikazes, because they could at least fly a plane into a ship even if they lacked the skill to bomb or torpedo it.

Against inferior Japanese troops, Russia's superiority in every respect just meant that Russia got a quicker and easier victory.

Rising Sun*
04-28-2007, 08:32 PM
Egorka

A point that needs to be made is that while the USSR didn't contribute anything directly to the sustained fight against Japan 1941-45 and didn't contribute anything to Japan's many and important military defeats during that time, its attack on Japan at the end of the war made an important contribution to Japan's decision to surrender, in conjunction with the dropping of the atom bombs.

The USN had Japan blockaded and was pretty much running a turkey shoot around the Japanese coasts by August 1945. Japan had been defeated or isolated on land everywhere else. It knew it was going to lose the war well before August and had started looking for a negotiated peace. The Russian attack was the final piece in putting a noose around all of Japan, with the prospect of a Russian invasion of the home islands through Manchuria becoming an alarming possibility when Russia attacked around the same time that the two atom bombs were dropped.

It's impossible to know whether Japan would have surrendered just because of the atom bombs (I think it would have, if only because they threatened destruction of the home islands), but the Russian declaration of war and rapid advance in Manchuria certainly had a significant impact on the Japanese leadership and encouraged it to surrender, in the realisation that it was doomed on all fronts.

Egorka
04-29-2007, 12:51 PM
Egorka

A point that needs to be made is that while the USSR didn't contribute anything directly to the sustained fight against Japan 1941-45 and didn't contribute anything to Japan's many and important military defeats during that time, its attack on Japan at the end of the war made an important contribution to Japan's decision to surrender, in conjunction with the dropping of the atom bombs.

The USN had Japan blockaded and was pretty much running a turkey shoot around the Japanese coasts by August 1945. Japan had been defeated or isolated on land everywhere else. It knew it was going to lose the war well before August and had started looking for a negotiated peace. The Russian attack was the final piece in putting a noose around all of Japan, with the prospect of a Russian invasion of the home islands through Manchuria becoming an alarming possibility when Russia attacked around the same time that the two atom bombs were dropped.

It's impossible to know whether Japan would have surrendered just because of the atom bombs (I think it would have, if only because they threatened destruction of the home islands), but the Russian declaration of war and rapid advance in Manchuria certainly had a significant impact on the Japanese leadership and encouraged it to surrender, in the realisation that it was doomed on all fronts.

Thank you for comforting me, Rising Sun. I appreciate it.

Egorka
04-29-2007, 12:58 PM
Whether they were equally, less, or more determined to die than any other Japanese troops doesn't matter.
WHAT?! It does not matter? Do I even need to comment on it?


They simply were not first rate troops.
We will deal with the technical side of the problem in the next step.


Focusing on the quality of the troops and their willingness to die ignores two more important factors. I am not focusing on it. I am just doing it step by step. One builds a house sequentially, right?


The Russians had massive superiority in armour and airpower, which ensured that even against first rate troops the Russians were bound to win.
http://www.fegi.ru/prim/flot/flot1_13.htm
The russians superiority is not the same as Kwantung army was bad. But! We will deal with it in the next step.


To which might be added the fact that Japan had lost almost all of its battle experienced, and even battle inexperienced but well trained, pilots. Hence the kamikazes, because they could at least fly a plane into a ship even if they lacked the skill to bomb or torpedo it.

Against inferior Japanese troops, Russia's superiority in every respect just meant that Russia got a quicker and easier victory.
Again, lets wait a bit.

First I want us agree on the mental state of the Japanese soldiers in Kwantung army.

Chevan
04-29-2007, 02:20 PM
as for the japanese... much of you suppositions about the great influence of the soviets rolling an experienced mechanized army over an ill equipped and poorly organized kuantung army and how they were ready to take over the entire east is...well..suppositional bullshit....the soviets did not have the equipment neccesary for a full scale invasion of japan


Who do tells you about full scale invasion?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_August_Storm
On August 18, several amphibious landings had been conducted ahead of the land advance: three in northern Korea, one in Sakhalin, and one in the Kuril Islands. This meant that, in Korea at least, there would already be Soviet soldiers waiting for the troops coming overland. In Sakhalin and the Kurils, it meant a sudden and undeniable establishment of Soviet sovereignty.

The Red army had enought forces to landing on the Sakhalin.
And be sure they have enough power to land at the Hakkaido as it was planned at the first time befor the capitulation of Japane.


.also,since you obviously have spent little or no time in japan itself..you would not understand the simple facts of how deep national pride in that country goes.

Are you Japanese to spread about the depth of its national feeling?
i/m sure not so .....
Leave you feeling comments aside.
As far as i know the national feeling of Japane was based at the devotion to the Imperor and on the cult ineviolability of homelands.
Actualy they were the fanatic as much as they could ignored the mass victims among the civils during the terrible firebombing of Tokio in march of 1945( the victims were much worst then even after the bombing of Hiroshima).
They could be enought fanatic to send kamikaze to die...This was in the limits of their "love" and national felings toward the motherlands. Becouse the mothelands was a holy for them.
But they NEVER could lost its Imperor ( who was like a alive god for the Japanes) and its matheland.
So I will NEVER believe that Japanes should not surrender in the august when they had learned the USSR declared the war for them.
So ONLY a stupid idiot could continie the war becouse in this way they could lost everything ( and imperor and homelands) if the Red Army together with the Allies would sturmed the Homeislands and inevitably ( inspite of possible great casulates) captured it.
The way of your thinking is just a tupical after-war popular point among the USA politicans who prefered to use the public execution for the Japane ( on own egoistic political purposes) instead of the diplomatic means that could find the way to get the japanes ( who in fact already lost the war in war sence) the normal way to surrender with the analogical demands like they have to accept after the Red Army attacked the Kwantung army in 8 august.
Thus without the terrible a-bombing and bloody landing operations we could finished this war by the full surrender of Japane ( with the only conditiond of saving the institute of Imperor)


contrary to your opinion, i don't think of the japanese as "suicidal idiots". i don't confuse fanatic nationalism with idiocy.to this day all ,at least all the ones i saw there,of the nation's war memorials only speak of how the west ,and the US in particular,left the japanese no choice but to attack all of asia...

Wel i would like to hear more about how did the USA forced Japane to attack all of asia.Would you so kind please;)


also to this day the japanese goverment,unlike the germans, has NEVER apologized for any of the atrocities that its armies commited during the war....NEVER....
from forced comfort women,the rape of nanking,the murder of hundreds of thousands of philipinos during the battle for manila,to their live desections of POWs as part of there bio-warfare program,etc.,etc..

Well sure the Japanes atrocities above the other asian nations were even the worst then the Nazy's.
So what ?
Does it means you wish to say the USA drope the a-bombing for the revenge for killed chineses?

this is one of the things that i hate about the internet in the last few years..people can put out the most illogical and under- or un-informed opinions out there and since its on the internet it must be true....it's why i can't stand wikipedia as a source...

Your firstly read the post about the fat from the bodies that supported the fire in oven ,befor the telling about illogical points of other members.


Cheers.

Chevan
04-29-2007, 02:55 PM
The Soviets frustrated Japanese attempts to negotiate a surrender through the USSR
Not so.


After that the Government redoubled its talks with Russia and decided to send Prince Konoye to Moscow if he were persona grata. On 10 July the Emperor called Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo and said, "As it is now early July should not our special ambassador be dispatched to Moscow without delay?" Since Soviet Ambassador Malik was ill in Tokyo and the conversations there were not progressing, Sato was again instructed to put the matter directly to the Vice Commissar for Foreign Affairs in Moscow. Russia asked for more details concerning the mission and Sato was directed to explain the mission as follows: (1) to make an improvement in relations between Russia and Japan (in view of Russia's denunciation of the neutrality pact), and (2) to ask Russia to intercede with the United States in order to stop the war. The Soviets replied on 13 July that since Stalin and Molotov were just leaving for Potsdam no answer could be given until their return to Moscow. On 12 July meanwhile the Emperor had called in Konoye and secretly instructed him to accept any terms he could get and to wire these terms direct to the Emperor. Konoye also testified that when Sato was sounding out the Russians he reported the Russians would not consider a peace role unless the terms were unconditional surrender, and that this reply had a great influence on the Emperor.

In the days before the Potsdam Declaration, Suzuki, Togo, and Yonai became pessimistic about the Russian negotiations. They expected eventually that they would have some answer; but



You brought a good text , tanks Rising Sun
But this text ignored the some importaint events during the Potsdam conference.
Actually the Stalin recieved the telegram from the Tokio in 11 jule where they asked him to be the negotiators in Japane surrender.
Stalin was not against this idea but he was forced to wait till the Potsdam conference of allies.
The USA certainly knew about japanes attemps towar the Moscow and this was absolutly unaccesable neither for them nor for the Britain.
Just imagine the situation: Both US and UK has spend a lot of time and resourses to finished the japane but this insolent Imperor wish to surrender to the Stalin :D
Therefore both US and UK made all possible to prevent this attempts.
They pull out the UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER that they knew was 100% unacceptable for the Japane.
So the continie of war was INEVITABLE as it wished the UK/US.
Knowing it Stalin, desided not to leave the allies and continie the war on its own purposes ( and he was right thus he could to take the whole China for itself).
So the reason why Stalin has refused the Japanes surrender was not his will, but the demand of allies.
This is very importain ADDITION.

Chevan
04-29-2007, 03:26 PM
The Kwantung Army facing the USSR weren't sissies, but they were generally very poor troops with lousy artillery, armour and air support. Because the best of everything had been drawn off them for years to fight the real war s in the Pacific and Burma theatres, and then at the end their remaining strengths were pulled out to defend the home islands.

Egorka right Rising Sun in here.
The Kwantung Army was the strongest army of Japane in the august of 1945.
Becouse after the battle for Okinawa the Japane losed practically all of the rest of its Pacific army. So they simply had no other large army except of Kwantung in the august of 1945.;)


The Soviets, during the few days they fought the Japanese, never faced Japanese troops of anything like the quality and support that the Americans and Australians faced from mid-1942 to the end of the war in the POA and SWPA, nor anything like the quality that the British faced in Malaya in 1941-42 and Burma 1941-45, or that the Dutch faced in the NEI 1941-42. Nor did the Americans, Australians, British or Dutch every have anything remotely like the military, territorial or logistical advantages the Soviets had against the Kwantung Army.

Do not compare please the Japanes army in 1942 and in august 1945.
this is like to compare the Wermacht in the summer of 1942 on the with the pitiful rest ot it during the battle for the Berlin.;)
Actually the Japanes resistance in China was not so fierce like it was for the allies. But you absolutly wrong that the Red army did not faced the seriouce enemy as the fanatics and kamicadzes.Moreover the great problem was the Japanes forsed areas where they used the suicidal mashin-gunners who was was riveted by chain to the his machine gun.



http://www.revolucia.ru/kvantun.htm
The Japanese Armed Forces rested on the rich material, food and raw resources of Manchuria and Korea and in the Manchurian industry, which produced entire necessary for their life and combat activity in essence. On the territory, occupied by troops of Kwantung army, it find by 13 700 km of iron and 22 thousand km of motor roads, 133 airfields, more than 200 landing fields - a total of are more than 400 airport points, 870 large military storages and well equipped military posts.
In Manchuria on the boundaries with THE USSR and the Mongolian People's Republic Japanese militarists created 17 fortified areas, of them 8 - in the east against the Soviet littoral. Each fortified area occupied 50 - 100 km along the front and to 50 km into the depth. Their destination - not only strengthening of defense, but also the creation of more advantageous conditions for concentration and developing the troops. The line of the boundary fortified areas consisted of three positions.
Four fortified areas were built in Korea and one against North Sakhalin. The islands of Kurile bank were covered coast artillery batteries, sheltered into the ferroconcrete construction, and by the military garrisons, provide ford with developed lasting defensive installations.
So the power that Red Army has faced in the august of 1945 were the much stronger that for instance the allias in Okinawa. And just the soviet experience and the power lets to continie the hight temp of offencive in spirit of the germans blizkrige.


As I said earlier, I'm not trying to diminish the great success of the very brief Soviet engagement with Japan, but it wasn't anything like what the other Allies had been doing for several years beforehand, nor did it contribute a great deal to the defeat of Japan.
This is like the war with Germany. When the allies had not anything like what the Red Army had been doing for the several years ;).

savoy6
04-29-2007, 07:15 PM
So the power that Red Army has faced in the august of 1945 were the much stronger that for instance the allias in Okinawa. And just the soviet experience and the power lets to continie the hight temp of offencive in spirit of the germans blizkrige.


WTF????do you not understand the difference between forces in a staff OOB and the actual forces on the ground?you can have all the fortified defence zones that you want and maybe even have the structures for them built but it's meaningless when the forces manning them are under strength and inexperienced....sorry man...i'm going by the US Navy's post war intelligence analysis survey of japanese preparations for the home island defence that included hundreds of interviews with former japanese staff officers and commanders.all of the analysis showed that,just as RS has pointed out,they had very little troops laft to man the defence areas.also,don't even attempt to compare short hop landings around a peninsula(korea) that the soviets already held areas just north of,or short distance trips to close islands like the kuriles to the allies putting together invasions fleets consisting of thousands of vessels and hundreds of thousands of men and them sailing these across vast expanses of the pacific,getting objectives on time and on target, to pull off success after success...


This is like the war with Germany. When the allies had not anything like what the Red Army had been doing for the several years
now this....this proves exactly what you guys are all about with this constant stretching of the facts....the soviets did more to win the war than the allies......whatever.
did the soviet people suffer greatly during the war? hell yes...no one is arguing the sacrifices made by millions of the soviet people.did soviet tactics used for a large portion of the war have anything to do with these losses?...hell yes...what do you think happens when you put 10,000 guys on 3000 tanks and then charge them into fixed enemy positions.?..yeah, you take the position but at what cost?what happens when you enforce a policy of scortched earth against both your civilian population and a rapidly advancing enemy that you can't stop?tens and hundreds of thousands starve to death..heading soldiers into german fire with machine guns behind them?it takes no leadership to stick a gun in someones back and tell them to charge or else...motivating free peoples to do it is another thing.

Rising Sun*
04-29-2007, 08:04 PM
The Kwantung Army was the strongest army of Japane in the august of 1945.

No way. The best remaining available troops; all the elite formations; and by far the largest number of troops (with about 2 million Japanese Defence Army troops in addition to the IJA) were in Japan to defend the home islands against the imminent invasion by the Allies other than the USSR


The Kwangtung Army was more than 1 million men strong in early 1941. [10-25]Manchuria represented the breadbasket and military warehouse
for the Japanese armed forces. However, as the Allied
effort in the Pacific war intensified, the Japanese Imperial
General Headquarters began to withdraw elite divisions from
the Kwantury Army to counter the Allied threat elsewhere.
By early 1943, the Japanese had approximately 600,000 troops
protecting Manchuria against an estimated 750,000 Soviet
troops deployed on its borders. [18-11] Approaching the end
of 1944, this former vanguard of Japanese military prowess
found its strength reduced half again from its number in
December 1942. [18-118] The Japanese Army was short in more
than manpower. They were severely deficient in aircraft,
engineer support, communications and armor. What few tanks
the Japanese did possess were armed with 57mm guns and were
grossly overmatched by the Soviet T-34's.

The day of 7 March 1945, saw the complete annihilation
of Japanese forces on Iwo Jima and brought the Allies closer
to the Japanese homeland.

Japanese Imperial General Headquarters (IGHQ) issued orders on 15 March 1945, which withdrew all remaining elite divisions from Manchuria to the
homeland and included two divisions on the border.

This also removed the Kwantung Army's 1st Tank Division, the last
armor division in Manchuria. [18-125) T

The result left the Kwantung Army a mere shadow of its former self

its most seasoned division was formed only as late as the spring of
1944. [9-63]
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1986/RMF.htm

Egorka
04-30-2007, 01:58 AM
Savoy6:
now this....this proves exactly what you guys are all about with this constant stretching of the facts....the soviets did more to win the war than the allies......whatever.
Exactly - WHATEVER!

Savoy6, you do not even try to answer on a simplest issue about the motivation of Japanese soldiers in Kwantung army.

If you noticed this forum is about communication between people. And communication in most of the world means speaking and listening. You only speak out.

I want to hear why japanese in Manchuria were less eager to die for Emperor, than japanese in Guadalcanal?
What objective arguments can you bring to light EXCEPT your personal opinion?

Rising Sun*
04-30-2007, 02:42 AM
I want to hear why japanese in Manchuria were less eager to die for Emperor, than japanese in Guadalcanal?




Eight of the twenty four divisions and seven of the nine infantry brigades, comprising over one quarter of the total Japanese manpower in Manchuria, were mobilized only 10 days before the Soviet attack, in a desperate all-out mobilization of all Japanese males in Manchuria (most of them previously deferred as over age or for other reasons).
Raymond L Garthoff, The Soviet Manchurian Campaign August 1945, Military Affairs (Journal of the Society for Military History), 1969 (October), p312, at 313 If you have access to JStor you can view it here
http://www.jstor.org/view/00263931/di962670/96p09204/1?frame=noframe&userID=83ac042d@latrobe.edu.au/01cce4406900501bdbe28&dpi=3&config=jstor

The article also notes that most of those divisions were at about 11,000 to 15,000 instead of the usual 23,000, and badly unbalanced in composition.

These were not the well-trained, seasoned, battle hardened, fit, well-supplied, first rate Japanese troops on Guadalcanal or that the Allies fought elsewhere in the Pacific and Burma.

The Japanese on Guadalcanal actually weren't that keen on all dying for the Emperor, which is why they pulled out when they were defeated rather than hurl every last man at the Americans.

Who knows whether the Kwantung Army were prepared to die on the same basis as other Japanese troops? It wouldn't matter in most cases, because they were going to get killed through inexperience, lack of training, lack of support, and lack of leadership anyway.

Rising Sun*
04-30-2007, 05:08 AM
First I want us agree on the mental state of the Japanese soldiers in Kwantung army.


I want to hear why japanese in Manchuria were less eager to die for Emperor, than japanese in Guadalcanal?
What objective arguments can you bring to light EXCEPT your personal opinion?

There is a very simple way to evaluate the willingness of Japanese troops in Manchuria to die. Better still, it involves only your favourite way of comparing things.

Numbers.

How many Japanese troops were committed to Guadalcanal? About 38,000. How many were killed? About 24,000 to 28,500. How many were taken prisoner? About 1,000.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USMC/Guadalcanal/USMC-M-Guadalcanal-A.html
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/brochures/72-8/72-8.htm

How many Japanese troops were committed to fighting Russia in Manchuria in August 1945? I’m not sure. How many were killed? I don’t know. How many were taken prisoner? Most of them.

Sure, Japan surrendered, but if these supposedly fierce troops were so set on dying rather than bearing the shame of surrender they would all have committed suicide. The fact that most of them survived doesn’t suggest that they were all that keen on keeping alive the supposed tradition of dying rather than surrendering, does it? Which is pretty much what you expect of troops on a beaten side fighting a pointless action in the dying days of a lost war.

Again, the troops the Russians fought in Manchuria in 1945 cannot be compared with first rate troops anywhere in the IJA at any time.

Egorka
04-30-2007, 08:39 AM
Rising Sun,

You previously quoted this text http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1986/RMF.htm
Do you find it reliable and trustworsy? Can we use it as a base that represents your position?

Rising Sun*
04-30-2007, 06:22 PM
Not so.

The situation was a lot more complex than whether or not the Soviets frustrated Japan's peace feelers towards America. Japan was playing its own game to split the Soviets and US for its post-war benefit, as outlined in the interesting article from which the following quotes come.


Concerning Japan's "abrupt" capitulation, most studies ascribe it to the shock of either the atomic bombs or the "surprise" attack by the Soviet Union, or both, followed by the "sacred" decision by Emperor Hirohito.1 An orthodox lesson of the Pacific War is that Japan should have surrendered to the United States earlier, to save hundreds of thousands of deaths and casualties.2 Had Japan done so, however, the United States would have taken over the entire sphere of Japan's continental empire and become a dominant power in the region, perhaps imposing harsh constraints on defeated Japan. That was not what Japan desired. Japanese leaders saw a need to investigate the best way to leave the war, and, as this article will show, they calculated an end game for the nation by staking its survival on the future of East Asia after the empire's collapse. para 1


It was the Soviet Union that gave Japan strategic versatility in exiting the world war. The Soviet entry into the war during its last phase is portrayed simply as a betrayal to Japan in light of the Neutrality Pact. Conversely, the Imperial Japanese Army and government have been criticized for wasting time in hoping for the Soviets to help broker peace with the United States. Such vilification of the Soviet Union, however, has obfuscated a complex strategy Japan adopted toward the Soviets. A body of little-known and rarely used documents, kept since 1941 by Japanese military leaders, diplomatic officials, and scholars and journalists of international relations, reveals that these Japanese did not adhere to any hopes for Moscow to mediate peace with the United States.4 Neither did they hold onto a naïive anticipation for a break-up of the Moscow-Washington Grand Alliance, which would supposedly bring Japan its preferred terms for surrender. On the contrary, these Japanese were firmly convinced of eventual Soviet abrogation of the Neutrality Pact and entry into the war. They meticulously studied the possible timing of a Soviet attack and the manner of subsequent collapse of Japan's colonial empire, specifically the Soviet impact on postwar East Asia. In their perceptions, the Soviet Union possessed an ability to achieve a balance of power against the United States in a postwar world. Moreover, the Soviet presence would, they hoped, prevent the United States from establishing hegemony in East Asia and recreating it solely in its image. And ultimately, the Soviet influence in East Asia would restrain harsh U.S. control of post-surrender Japan. para 3


Obviously, as the Japanese policymakers read this article in Tokyo, they knew Japan could not "bargain" for its defeat with either the Soviet Union or the United States. A two-front war against both the United States and the Soviet Union was looking like an impossible scenario; the Soviet attack alone would be the end of Japan's war in Asia and the Pacific. However, Japan's surrender tactic was now to have the United States and the Soviet Union compete against each other in their planning for the future of East Asia. Thus Japan's plan for surrender and beyond, both politically and militarily in the Eurasian context, was made assuming a Soviet attack beginning in Manchuria and assessing its impact on the United States. In fact, by mid-April 1945, when the Imperial Headquarters acknowledged the rapid reinforcement of Soviet forces in the Far East, the Army War Operations Plans Division made no recommendations for preparations for counterattack. Instead, it made the following observation: the key to accomplishing the goal of the Greater East Asian War was to predict precisely when the Soviet attack would occur and to complete by then a quick and proper response and measure concerning it. The "quick and proper response and measure" seems, in this context, to mean Japan's surrender. But nowhere in the observation did it hint that Japan should do so before the Soviet attack.60 para 32


From a different perspective, the Japanese also saw that a Soviet thrust into Manchuria would play havoc with Chinese politics, specifically defusing the momentum gained by the CCP, and also preventing an otherwise victorious China from becoming a threat to postwar Japan. The aforementioned Japanese "offer" of its Manchurian interests to the Soviet Union was meant to deter U.S. hegemony in China. Now the anticipated Soviet attack on Manchuria would have two effects: not only hamper such U.S. ambitions but also crush any hope for a GMD-CCP united front. para 36


In the last phase of World War II, Japan was investigating the best way for the empire to collapse in a new configuration of power and searching for the best strategy toward the Soviets while observing the spatial and temporal origins of the Cold War in Asia. Once the war was over, defeated Japan quietly withdrew into a niche, away from the new rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union, and devoted its resources to the nation's reconstruction. It seems that Japan survived and recovered in the way these Japanese wartime strategists hoped. para 50
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ahr/109.2/koshiro.html

Rising Sun*
04-30-2007, 06:38 PM
On the general question of whether the atom bombs ended the war, the article quoted in my last post
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ahr/109.2/koshiro.html suggests that Japan was looking for a Soviet attack to end the war and simply did not factor the possibility of atom bombs into their calculations. It also suggests that the Soviet attack on Manchuria was a necessary pre-condition to Japan's surrender.

It's an interesting article that alters the conventional view of the impact of the atom bombs, and of the impact of the Soviet entry into the war. If nothing else, it should make it worthwhile for Chevan and Egorka to get out of bed today. :D

One of the biggest problems in understanding Japan's conduct is that most of the relevant writings before, during and after the war are in Japanese and rarely translated. Many of the English versions are excerpts in analyses by Westerners looking at events primarily from the Western perspective. It's hard to get the sort of analysis in English of Japanese documents and thinking that the linked article provides, unless one subscribes to some rarefied academic journals.

Rising Sun*
04-30-2007, 08:28 PM
Rising Sun,

You previously quoted this text http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1986/RMF.htm
Do you find it reliable and trustworsy? Can we use it as a base that represents your position?

Egorka

I can do better than that as Iíve borrowed David Glantzís August Storm: The Soviet 1945 Strategic Offensive in Manchuria which is one of the sources for the Global Security link figures, although there still seem to be some large gaps in the figures.

At p.29 he provides Soviet estimates before the attack of 713,000 Japanese troops in the Kwantung Army; 170,000 Manchukuoan Army; and 44,000 Inner Mongolian forces. In note 1 to Ch. 11, at p.229, he says that Soviet estimates of casualties and prisoners fall short of the 713,000 troops Japan claimed in Manchuria and North Korea.

In note 1 to Ch. 11 he says Japan estimated 21,000 Japanese troops were killed but, as Japan lost all Kwantung Army records, this is based on demobilization figures while unit battle accounts show heavier losses. The Soviets say 84,000 Japanese were killed. Glantz also says that Manchukuoan casualties accounted for a significant part of Japanese losses, along with an indeterminate number of Japanese reservists and civilians who fought in garrisons alongside Japanese soldiers. Japan estimated Soviet casualties at 10,000, while the Soviets say their casualties were 32,000 of which 8,000 were killed.

No Japanese figure is given for Japanese taken prisoner but the Soviets say they took about 594,000 Japanese prisoner.

I've seen post-surrender POW figures around 600,000 elsewhere but I canít recall the source. I don't know whether the auxiliaries (Manchukuoan Army and Inner Mongolian forces) were treated as POW's and included in any figures, but as the Manchukuoan casualties were included in Glantzís Soviet casualty figures I assume that the same goes for POWís.

On Glantzís figures, we get a maximum figure for the Kwantung Army plus auxiliaries of 927,000 deployed against the Soviets, so:

927,000
- 84,000 killed (including unknown number of civilians and reservists)

843,000 (+ or - unknown number of civilians and reservists)
- 594,000 POW

249,000 unaccounted for.

The 249,000 unaccounted for might be troops who avoided capture; troops who went over to the Nationalist or communist Chinese forces; or troops who never existed in the first place. Or a combination of all of the above.

Taking 249,000 Ďunaccounted forí from the maximum figure of 927,000 gives a minimum figure for the Kwantung Army plus auxiliaries of 678,000.

On the wider question of willingness to die for the Emperor, Glantz concludes at p. 184 that some Japanese units fought very well, including ďdeath unitsĒ which caused Soviet awe by throwing their explosive-laden bodies at Soviet tanks.

However, Glantz also says that cease-fire rumours disrupted Japanese operations. He also notes at p.185 that, because of confusion at high command levels and conflicting orders, many units withdrew from battle. Such unwillingness to fight and withdrawal from battle were not features of any other battles in which the Japanese engaged with the other Allies.

Chevan
05-01-2007, 12:58 PM
No way. The best remaining available troops; all the elite formations; and by far the largest number of troops (with about 2 million Japanese Defence Army troops in addition to the IJA) were in Japan to defend the home islands against the imminent invasion by the Allies other than the USSR

Oh common, the 2 million Japanese Defence Army were mostly from a worker from a reserve and teenagers - this could not be the "elite" (and army at a common sence).
I rather think the so called "elite" Japane army was fully distructed in the previous battles.
You wrote

By the time the Russians got involved, Japan's best soldiers had generally been killed by the other Allies or were isolated around the Pacific. Just as importantly, its best generals and other officers had largely gone the same way.


The Kwangtung Army was more than 1 million men strong in early 1941. [10-25]Manchuria represented the breadbasket and military warehouse
for the Japanese armed forces.

That's right the Manchuria with occupated Korea and China was the last resource and breadbasket for the Japane.
Therefore its defence was critacally improtaint for the defence of Japane in the strategic-war sence.

However, as the Allied
effort in the Pacific war intensified, the Japanese Imperial
General Headquarters began to withdraw elite divisions from
the Kwantury Army to counter the Allied threat elsewhere.

Oh tell us the "definition" of Japane elite division in Kwantung Army please.
Was this the division that killed a most of Chinese guerrilas and raped a a most of women?
Becouse as it told mst savoy6 large portions of the kwantung army were scattered about in operations against the chinese communists and and nationalist guerillas


By early 1943, the Japanese had approximately 600,000 troops
protecting Manchuria against an estimated 750,000 Soviet
troops deployed on its borders. [18-11] Approaching the end
of 1944, this former vanguard of Japanese military prowess
found its strength reduced half again from its number in
December 1942.
Oh yea, it was found reduced half ;)
According to the russian military archives datas in the august the Kwantung army had:


http://www.cultinfo.ru/fulltext/1/001/008/060/322.htm
the 1st front (3-4 and the 5th of army),
the 3rd front (the 30th and 44-4 armies),
the 17th front (34-4 and 59-4 armies),
independent (4th) army,
two (2-4 and the 5th) air forces and Sungariys military flotilla.
Furthermore, to it were operationally subordinated army Manchjo-Go, troops of internal Mongolia (prince de Van) and Sungary's army group.
In the composition Kwantung army. and the subordinated to it troops were counted 37 infantry and 7 cavalry divisions, 22 infantry, 2 tank and 2 cavalry brigades (only 1 million. 320 thousand people), 1155 tanks, 6260 artillery of different calibers, 1900 aircraft even 25 ships

Not bad "reducing" after 1942 up to the 1 320 000 peoples.:)


The Japanese Army was short in more
than manpower. They were severely deficient in aircraft,
engineer support, communications and armor.

But this 'manpower" was able to bring the 35-30% of casulites for the US trops in the battles for Okinawa and Ivo Jima being the severely deficient in aircraft,engineer support, communications and armor. And without the Any tanks.


What few tanks
the Japanese did possess were armed with 57mm guns and were
grossly overmatched by the Soviet T-34's.

Yes those 'few" (about 1000) tanks were too weak agains T-34 but it was a enought seriouse when crashed US troops in Birma and Britains in Malaya.Right?
Becouse the Japanes easy tanks was a enough good in the jungles.


The day of 7 March 1945, saw the complete annihilation
of Japanese forces on Iwo Jima and brought the Allies closer
to the Japanese homeland.

Japanese Imperial General Headquarters (IGHQ) issued orders on 15 March 1945, which withdrew all remaining elite divisions from Manchuria to the
homeland and included two divisions on the border.
Aha? all the "elite" divisions.;)
Have you a exact number , quantity and names of those divisions to check how much they were "elite"?


This also removed the Kwantung Army's 1st Tank Division, [b]the last
armor division in Manchuria.[b]
Oh really?
The LAST tank divisions were removed into Japane in march but ... they forgot its 1000 tanks in Manchjuria ,that were suddenly found in august.


The result left the Kwantung Army a mere shadow of its former self

Nevertheless the 1/4 part of its "shadow" made a nightmare for the USA marines in the Okinawa and Ivo Jima.

You know Risin Sun i have to conclude you are capable to find the "sorces" that contradicts at the your previous posts.

Chevan
05-01-2007, 01:19 PM
The Soviets, during the few days they fought the Japanese, never faced Japanese troops of anything like the quality and support that the Americans and Australians faced from mid-1942 to the end of the war in the POA and SWPA, nor anything like the quality that the British faced in Malaya in 1941-42 and Burma 1941-45, or that the Dutch faced in the NEI 1941-42. Nor did the Americans, Australians, British or Dutch every have anything remotely like the military, territorial or logistical advantages the Soviets had against the Kwantung Army.
This is a nonsence.
The Soviet army WAS the first who faced the most experienced Japanes troops in the 1938-39 at the borders conflicts like in the like of Halkin-Gol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khalkin_Gol
The 30 000 of Kwantung Army ( the most experienced Japane army at that time has tryed to capture the some of the soviet lands.)
But they were crushed..
For the comparision:
The 36 000 of Japanes were enough to crush the 85 000 British garrison in the febriary of 1942 in the Battle of Singapore.
And only 75 000 of Japanes were enought to capture the whole Bataan with its 150 000 garrison at that time.

Chevan
05-01-2007, 01:34 PM
This could explaine the increased the quantity of Kwantung Army befor the august of 1945.


http://volk59.narod.ru/Manchuria.htm
In spite of the efforts of the Japanese to concentrate as much as possible troops on the islands strictly of empire, and also in China south of Manchuria, Japanese command paid attention to Manchurian direction, especially after during April 1945 the Soviet Union officially declared, that the Soviet-Japanese pact about the neutrality more was not urgent.
For this very reason from the 9 infantry divisions remaining themselves in Manchuria at the end 1944 the Japanese to August 1945 unrolled 24 divisions and 10 brigades.
True, for organizing of new divisions and brigades the Japanese could use only the untrained draftees of low-order ages and limited suitable elder ages - such in summer of 1945 was called 250 thousand, which comprised more than half of personnel of Kwantung army.
Don't forget that the mostly teenages were in Japane Home Defence Army also at that time.

Chevan
05-01-2007, 01:58 PM
On Glantzís figures, we get a maximum figure for the Kwantung Army plus auxiliaries of 927,000 deployed against the Soviets, so:

927,000
- 84,000 killed (including unknown number of civilians and reservists)

843,000 (+ or - unknown number of civilians and reservists)
- 594,000 POW

249,000 unaccounted for.

The 249,000 unaccounted for might be troops who avoided capture; troops who went over to the Nationalist or communist Chinese forces; or troops who never existed in the first place. Or a combination of all of the above.


Oh Look at that Egorka ;)
Our friend Rising Sun has bagan to like a mathematic ;)
Yes you right Rising Sun.
Well indeed the 249 000 unaccounted are proved nothing.
This could be the simple teenagers form native population ( Cinese, korean and mongolian) who were send at the their houses after the war as it was for the kid-members of FolKsturm after the battle of Berlin.
Or you right this could be the part of former Kwantung soldiers who avoided the encirclement and went out of the soviet zone of occupation.

Firefly
05-01-2007, 03:21 PM
In what previous battles were the Japanese forces in China destroyed?

Chevan
05-01-2007, 03:23 PM
They were not destroed , they were particulary redused durin the Pacific war.
But then were made up till the august 1945 mostly from of teenagers.

Egorka
05-01-2007, 04:19 PM
Guys! Wait for me! I also want to be part of the quarrel! :D

Ok, now seriously. Since I was the one who brought this topic up I want you to listen to my supposition.

1. I did not mean to claim that Kwantung army was all that elite and that they all were skilled like paratroopers. My first claim is that they were one of the best REMAINING land forces available to Japan in August 1945. It is true that USA/UK inflicted huge damage to IJA and many of the best soldiers and officers were lost. But it is "normal" after so many of fighting. Germany had exactly the same situation. For that matter USSR too.

2. When we talk about strength of Kwantung army we should always remember to what TASK this force was assigned. The expected task of Kwantung army in 1941 could only be attack - therefore it was supplied accordingly. In Sommer 1945 the task turned up side down to DEFEND against USSR attack.
We know that different military units perform differently in attack and defence. F.ex. the relative lack of tanks was not as big obstacle for japanese in defense as in the offense. So my claim is that Japanese had very reasonable resources for DEFENSIVE action. The size of the japanese forces was very reasonable for leading defensive war.

3. Japanese COULD stop the advance of soviet army IF they planed and placed their forces accordingly. F.ex. they could relativly easily with very small force complitely block the tank armies of the Trans-Balkal Front when they had to cross Grand Khinghan Mountains to secure positions on the central Manchurian plain. The Japanese did not do it because they were GROSSLY DECEIVED by the Soviets. The similar situation was in Normandy, as some of the best German troops were concentrated at Pa-De-Cale.

4. This DECEPTION was done across all 3 "dimentions": TIME of the attack, PLACE of the attack and the AMOUNT OF FORCES in the attack. Almost like in Normandy.

5. Japanese Suprime comand WAS SURE that the soviet attack will be repulsed successfuly! This means they we sure that the soviet attack would at least stall. Why did they need it to stall? See next point.

6. After stalling of the initial Soviet attack when the front line stabilises, Japanese planned to use BACTERIOLOGICAL WEAPON ON MASS SCALE. They had very large quantities of this wepons produced, stored and ready for deployment in Manchuria. The special porcelan shells were armed with the viruses and could easily be used IF there was a stable front line.

7. On top of that the terrain across which the RKKA had to move was UNTRAFFICABLE. In the west: "They believed the western approaches to be untrafficable to any sizeable Soviet formation due to the vast Mongolian desert and the natural barrier of the Grand Khinghan Mountains."
In the North and East: "In addition to the two major river crossings, 150 kilometers of spurs descending from the Lesser Khinghan Mountains and vast stretches of marshland on both sides of the rivers were significant obstacles." and "Under the worst weather conditions possible, the Russians initiated an offensive under the cover of darkness approaching from areas thought impassable by large troop ormations."
So please no la-la-la about an easy terrrain. The terrain was the BEST FOR DEFENCE and WORST FOR OFFENSE!

8. And this one is about bushido code that applied to the japanese Kwantung army soldiers just as much as for other units! They were following it! And the reason why they did not kill them self is well explained in the link on GlobalSecurity.org. The one you Rising Sun provided.

The rough conclusion: The Kwantung army was crushed because of (most important first):
- DESEPTION and CAMUFLAGE
- SUPERIOR STRATEGY and TACKTICS
- SUPERIOR FORCES

and NOT because of WEAKNESS and EASY TERRAIN FOR RUSSIANS.

Loving you even more! ;)

Rising Sun*
05-01-2007, 05:56 PM
Guys! Wait for me! I also want to be part of the quarrel! :D

Ok, now seriously. Since I was the one who brought this topic up I want you to listen to my supposition.

1. I did not mean to claim that Kwantung army was all that elite and that they all were skilled like paratroopers. My first claim is that they were one of the best REMAINING land forces available to Japan in August 1945. It is true that USA/UK inflicted huge damage to IJA and many of the best soldiers and officers were lost. But it is "normal" after so many of fighting. Germany had exactly the same situation. For that matter USSR too.

2. When we talk about strength of Kwantung army we should always remember to what TASK this force was assigned. The expected task of Kwantung army in 1941 could only be attack - therefore it was supplied accordingly. In Sommer 1945 the task turned up side down to DEFEND against USSR attack.
We know that different military units perform differently in attack and defence. F.ex. the relative lack of tanks was not as big obstacle for japanese in defense as in the offense. So my claim is that Japanese had very reasonable resources for DEFENSIVE action. The size of the japanese forces was very reasonable for leading defensive war.

3. Japanese COULD stop the advance of soviet army IF they planed and placed their forces accordingly. F.ex. they could relativly easily with very small force complitely block the tank armies of the Trans-Balkal Front when they had to cross Grand Khinghan Mountains to secure positions on the central Manchurian plain. The Japanese did not do it because they were GROSSLY DECEIVED by the Soviets. The similar situation was in Normandy, as some of the best German troops were concentrated at Pa-De-Cale.

4. This DECEPTION was done across all 3 "dimentions": TIME of the attack, PLACE of the attack and the AMOUNT OF FORCES in the attack. Almost like in Normandy.

5. Japanese Suprime comand WAS SURE that the soviet attack will be repulsed successfuly! This means they we sure that the soviet attack would at least stall. Why did they need it to stall? See next point.

6. After stalling of the initial Soviet attack when the front line stabilises, Japanese planned to use BACTERIOLOGICAL WEAPON ON MASS SCALE. They had very large quantities of this wepons produced, stored and ready for deployment in Manchuria. The special porcelan shells were armed with the viruses and could easily be used IF there was a stable front line.

7. On top of that the terrain across which the RKKA had to move was UNTRAFFICABLE. In the west: "They believed the western approaches to be untrafficable to any sizeable Soviet formation due to the vast Mongolian desert and the natural barrier of the Grand Khinghan Mountains."
In the North and East: "In addition to the two major river crossings, 150 kilometers of spurs descending from the Lesser Khinghan Mountains and vast stretches of marshland on both sides of the rivers were significant obstacles." and "Under the worst weather conditions possible, the Russians initiated an offensive under the cover of darkness approaching from areas thought impassable by large troop ormations."
So please no la-la-la about an easy terrrain. The terrain was the BEST FOR DEFENCE and WORST FOR OFFENSE!

8. And this one is about bushido code that applied to the japanese Kwantung army soldiers just as much as for other units! They were following it! And the reason why they did not kill them self is well explained in the link on GlobalSecurity.org. The one you Rising Sun provided.

The rough conclusion: The Kwantung army was crushed because of (most important first):
- DESEPTION and CAMUFLAGE
- SUPERIOR STRATEGY and TACKTICS
- SUPERIOR FORCES

and NOT because of WEAKNESS and EASY TERRAIN FOR RUSSIANS.

Loving you even more! ;)

Egorka,

An intelligent and comprehensive analysis, although I don't agree with it as a full explanation.

I think that, cutting through all the detail about how many troops were there, terrain and so on, the main factors that caused defeat were that the Japanese were caught in the process of moving their troops to better defensive positions; the Japanese high command was timid and confused; and most of all the Soviets were better troops; better equipped; and better led.

Glantz notes that because of various deficiencies in equipment, training and leadership the Japanese considered none of the largely new Kwantung divisions facing the Soviets combat ready and some divisions only 15% ready. (p.33) Against them was a highly professional Soviet force led by the cream of the Soviet officer corps, blooded and educated in four years of war, leading some of the best Soviet units. "The Manchurian operation qualified as a post-graduate exercise for Soviet forces, the culmination of a rigorous quality education in combat begun in Western Russia in 1941."(p.184)

I've found a copy of Glantz's book here http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/glantz3/glantz3.asp but it seems to lack the page references in the hard copy I've been using.

Rising Sun*
05-01-2007, 07:22 PM
Oh common, the 2 million Japanese Defence Army were mostly from a worker from a reserve and teenagers - this could not be the "elite" (and army at a common sence).

I didn’t say that the JDA were elite troops. It was mentioned in addition to the other catergories I mentioned.


I rather think the so called "elite" Japane army was fully distructed in the previous battles.

Thus reinforcing my point that the Kwantung Army facing the Soviets in 1945 were not first rate troops.


That's right the Manchuria with occupated Korea and China was the last resource and breadbasket for the Japane.
Therefore its defence was critacally improtaint for the defence of Japane in the strategic-war sence.

Maybe not. See my posts # 96 and 97


Oh tell us the "definition" of Japane elite division in Kwantung Army please.
Was this the division that killed a most of Chinese guerrilas and raped a a most of women?
Becouse as it told mst savoy6 large portions of the kwantung army were scattered about in operations against the chinese communists and and nationalist guerillas

In August 1945 there were no elite divisions in the Kwantung Army.
In 1941 there were quite a few. Where do you think the troops used in the southward advance came from?

By August 1945 the Kwantung Army was focused on the Soviet threat. The Central China Expeditionary Army was organised more as an anti-guerilla army.


Oh yea, it was found reduced half ;)

Yes, it was. As is clear from the context, this refers to the end of 1944. Forces were built up again in 1945.


According to the russian military archives datas in the august the Kwantung army had:

Not bad "reducing" after 1942 up to the 1 320 000 peoples.:)

Those figures probably refer to full strength units in the Japanese OOB. As Glantz notes some divisions with nominal strengths of 20,000 had as many as 18,000 men; most had 12,000 to 16,000; and some had as few as 9,000. (p.26)


But this 'manpower" was able to bring the 35-30% of casulites for the US trops in the battles for Okinawa and Ivo Jima being the severely deficient in aircraft,engineer support, communications and armor. And without the Any tanks.

There is no comparison between those Pacific campaigns and Manchuria. The battle areas were compact at Okinawa and Iwo Jima compared with Manchuria; the IJA was contained on islands with no room to manouevre; the defensive strategy on both islands was to dig in and make the attacker pay dearly for every inch of ground, which is exactly what happened, and exactly what didn’t happen in Manchuria as shown by the widths of front, depths of advance, and rates of advance shown in Appendix 3 here http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/glantz3/glantz3.asp.


Yes those 'few" (about 1000) tanks were too weak agains T-34 but it was a enought seriouse when crashed US troops in Birma and Britains in Malaya.Right?
Becouse the Japanes easy tanks was a enough good in the jungles.

This is a meaningless comparison. Japanese tanks generally weren’t decisive in the Pacific jungles; generally they were facing infantry without armour or with limited armour; and they never faced anything like the number and quality of tanks the Russians employed in Manchuria.


Aha? all the "elite" divisions.;)
Have you a exact number , quantity and names of those divisions to check how much they were "elite"?

I have the exact number, 16, and names of the those divisions.

Four divisions, 11th, 25th & 57th Infantry and 1st Armoured, were removed from the Kwantung Army to the home Islands in March 1945, being the last of 16 first line divisions taken from the Kwantung Army in 13 months. Edward J Drea, Missing Intentions, Japanese Intelligence and the Soviet Invasion of Manchuria, Military Affairs, 1984, p.66, at p.67 & n.17 Drea records the previous units as:


July 1944

1st and 8th Infantry Divisions and 2nd Armoured Division to Luzon.
24th Infantry Division to Okinawa

The 24th, a [heavy] triangular division with three regiments, three battalions per regiment, and three companies per battalion, was organized and equipped for strategic warfare against mechanized and well-armed Russian forces of the sort the IJA clashed with at Nomonhan in 1939. It had abundant combat support units, with artillery, engineer, transport, and reconnaissance elements organic at regimental level. Each regiment, battalion, and company had its own artillery unit, and each battalion also boasted an antitank gun company. The transport regiment included three motor transport companies. In a word, the 24th, with its firepower, mobility, specialization, and consistent triangular structure was fashioned for large-scale operations with another modern army. http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/Huber/Huber.asp#14

June 1944

9th Infantry Division to Okinawa
28th Infantry Division to Miyakojima
68th Infantry Division to Taiwan (subsequently Leyte)

February 1944

29th Infantry Division to Guam
14th Infantry Division to Palau

Unspecified dates 1944 - 45

12th, 23rd, & 71st Infantry Divisions to Philippines and Taiwan



Oh really?
The LAST tank divisions were removed into Japane in march but ... they forgot its 1000 tanks in Manchjuria ,that were suddenly found in august.

What is the basis for this figure, apart from Soviet estimates?


Nevertheless the 1/4 part of its "shadow" made a nightmare for the USA marines in the Okinawa and Ivo Jima.

As they would for Russian troops in exactly the same situation.


You know Risin Sun i have to conclude you are capable to find the "sorces" that contradicts at the your previous posts.

I don’t know what this is supposed to mean. Is there something wrong with continuing to educate myself? I don’t have a problem in changing my view when evidence is produced to alter it, nor do I confine myself just to sources to prove a particular point of view.

I’m interested in learning more about the history of the war, not just in trying to prove that Russia always fought the biggest, baddest, meanest enemy and virtually won the war all by itself while the other Allies just fiddled about on the edges.

Chevan
05-02-2007, 01:05 AM
I didn’t say that the JDA were elite troops. It was mentioned in addition to the other catergories I mentioned.

JDA was not troops in the common sence. It was like a germans folksturm - rather voluntares than the experienced troops.


Thus reinforcing my point that the Kwantung Army facing the Soviets in 1945 were not first rate troops.

No , this is just proves the mistaken points of savoy6 that the Kwantung Artmy fought ONLY with China's guerrials.
In this perspective your point about "elite"divisions that were sended to the home islands is also controversials.
How could they be "elite' if whole their work was to kill the civilians and patrtisans?


In August 1945 there were no elite divisions in the Kwantung Army.
In 1941 there were quite a few. Where do you think the troops used in the southward advance came from?

i.e. do you wish to say that all Japanes about 5 million army was given from the Manchguria in the 1941?;)



Those figures probably refer to full strength units in the Japanese OOB. As Glantz notes some divisions with nominal strengths of 20,000 had as many as 18,000 men; most had 12,000 to 16,000; and some had as few as 9,000.
Indeed the Glats in his work
http://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/glantz3/glantz3.asp
is not discussed the soviet datas.
He wrote
Composition of Forces Facing the Soviets in the Far East
Personnel: 1,217,000
Weapons:
Tanks 1,155
Guns 5,360
Aircraft 1,800
Forces:
Japanese 993,000 (Manchguria 773 000 + Korea,Sachhalin, Kuril islands garrison 280 000)+ Auxiliary 214,000 (170 000 of Manchikko Army +44 000 of inner Mongolia forces) = 1 217 000 of mens.


There is no comparison between those Pacific campaigns and Manchuria. The battle areas were compact at Okinawa and Iwo Jima compared with Manchuria; the IJA was contained on islands with no room to manouevre; the defensive strategy on both islands was to dig in and make the attacker pay dearly for every inch of ground, which is exactly what happened, and exactly what didn’t happen in Manchuria as shown by the widths of front, depths of advance, and rates of advance shown in Appendix 3 here http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/glantz3/glantz3.asp.

Well conditions were the same - the total shortage of everything by the Japanese and the absolut war superiority of allies and Soviet.
True, the tactic was a different - the allies used the its airforces and the ship artillery, the soviets used its power armoured armies and artillery.
But the infantcry of allies and soviet were in the simular situation - they faced the suicidal troops, that was ready to die.
BTW the Red Army has a casulates about 12 000 of perished - at lest it could be conpared with casulated of Americans in the battle of Okinawa.


This is a meaningless comparison. Japanese tanks generally weren’t decisive in the Pacific jungles; generally they were facing infantry without armour or with limited armour; and they never faced anything like the number and quality of tanks the Russians employed in Manchuria.

Perhaps their tanks were not so good las the T-34, but the the japanes easy tanks were much better as the armoured car role and agains the infantry. So even having the 57-mm and mashin-gun gun they could be the problem for the soviet infantry and transport escorts.


I have the exact number, 16, and names of the those divisions.

But you still did not say what does mean the "elite " divisions for the Kwantung Army ;)
And tell me please what the was the reason to call for instance the 1st and 8th Infantry Divisions from your list was the more "elite" then the 24 other divisions that faced the Red Army in august?


What is the basis for this figure, apart from Soviet estimates?

And do you have another datas exept the soviet estimetes?
BTW David Glantz is fully agreed with it.
Moreover this figure give us the Wiki also.
So does it mean the Wiki is soviet too?


As they would for Russian troops in exactly the same situation.

That's absolutly rigt
The Red Army faced the simular fanatics in the Mahcguria and only the powerfull and quick soviet offensive has halped the achive the success.


I don’t know what this is supposed to mean. Is there something wrong with continuing to educate myself? I don’t have a problem in changing my view when evidence is produced to alter it, nor do I confine myself just to sources to prove a particular point of view.

I’m interested in learning more about the history of the war, not just in trying to prove that Russia always fought the biggest, baddest, meanest enemy and virtually won the war all by itself while the other Allies just fiddled about on the edges.

I've told you where you get a controversial points - For the first time you have proved the Kwantung army was a too weak thet was busy ONLY in the fight with guerrilas - then you suddenly called a 16 divisions like "elite". Where is the logic my Friend?
The login in the emotions i think.
You tryed to prove the Kwantung Army was the weaker then the other Japanes troops- but here is a some of intersting contraductions in here.
How do you think whey the Ruswelt wished so much the joing the Red Amry to the fight with Japane in the Mancguria if the Kwatung Army were the "pitful shadow of itself" as you wrote.
Why did need to sucriface the China to the Stalin. (becouse the allies sertainly knew - Stalin would get the China for himself). If the Kwantung Army was a so weak why the American marines after the capturing Okinawa ( where they fought with "real" enemy) don't wish to crush the "the pitfull rest" 1 million og Japanes in the Manchguria and China.?;)

Rising Sun*
05-02-2007, 02:33 AM
No , this is just proves the mistaken points of savoy6 that the Kwantung Artmy fought ONLY with China's guerrials.
In this perspective your point about "elite"divisions that were sended to the home islands is also controversials.
How could they be "elite' if whole their work was to kill the civilians and patrtisans?

No idea. I didnít say anything about the Kwantung Army killing civilians and partisans. At post #100 you said ďThe Soviet army WAS the first who faced the most experienced Japanes troops in the 1938-39 at the borders conflicts like in the like of Halkin-GolĒ The Japanese canít be both the most experienced when fighting the Soviets and no good for much else the rest of the time.


do you wish to say that all Japanes about 5 million army was given from the Manchguria in the 1941?

No. From memory they took 12 of about 50 to 55 divisions from China.



No.
Indeed the Glats in his work
http://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/car...z3/glantz3.asp
is not discussed the soviet datas.

Yes.

See the notes to Table 1, which is based on Soviet sources.

Youíre including troops outside Manchuria in South Korea, Sakhalin, and the Kuriles.


Well conditions were the same - the total shortage of everything by the Japanese and the absolut war superiority of allies and Soviet.

No way. The Japanese didnít have a total shortage of everything at Iwo Jima and Okinawa, otherwise they wouldnít have been so hard to defeat.


True, the tactic was a different - the allies used the its airforces and the ship artillery, the soviets used its power armoured armies and artillery.

No comparison. For a start, the Pacific campaign involved major amphibious assaults and associated naval battles. The USN as gun platforms were subjected to kamikaze air attacks that didnít occur in Manchuria, because the Soviets had total air superiority. The USN got mauled at Okinawa in ways that land based artillery never would have.


But the infantcry of allies and soviet were in the simular situation - they faced the suicidal troops, that was ready to die.

No. Less than 10% of Japanese troops facing the Russians in Manchuria died. On your figure of 1,217, it was only 7% of Japanese troops. On Okinawa about 90% of the Japanese troops died. The same at Iwo Jima. Which brings me back to the point that no matter how much you and Egorka want to believe it, the troops fighting in the Pacific were much more determined to fight to the death than those in Manchuria. About 9 to 13 times more determined.


BTW the Red Army has a casulates about 12 000 of perished - at lest it could be conpared with casulated of Americans in the battle of Okinawa.

No way. Work out casualties as percentages of total Soviet and American forces in each campaign and youíll see just how little similarity there is.


But you still did not say what does mean the "elite " divisions for the Kwantung Army.

No, and Iím not going to. You wanted numbers and names so you could check how elite they were. Iíve given you the information. If you want to dispute whether they were elite, first line, experienced, combat ready, trained, untrained or simply non-existent, you do the research.


And tell me please what the was the reason to call for instance the 1st and 8th Infantry Divisions from your list was the more "elite" then the 24 other divisions that faced the Red Army in august?

Because, if youíve been following the posts, you will know that the best divisions were pulled out of the Kwantung Army before August and what was left wasnít very good or even combat ready. When you've researched the history of the long-established units taken from Manchuria and those that were raised rapidly from the remnants of other units and reservists and unfit men to replace them, you'll see the difference.


And do you have another datas exept the soviet estimetes?
BTW David Glantz is fully agreed with it.

Not with the figures youíve presented of 1,217,000. He says 927,000.


Moreover this figure give us the Wiki also.

In that case it must be right, given Wikiís great reputation for accuracy.


So does it mean the Wiki is soviet too?

No. Just that itís as wrong as the figures youíve been using.


That's absolutly rigt
The Red Army faced the simular fanatics in the Mahcguria and only the powerfull and quick soviet offensive has halped the achive the success.

Youíre flogging a dead horse.


I've told you where you get a controversial points - For the first time you have proved the Kwantung army was a too weak thet was busy ONLY in the fight with guerrilas - then you suddenly called a 16 divisions like "elite". Where is the logic my Friend?

Logic? I never said a thing about the Kwantung Army fighting only guerillas, or anything to do with guerillas. You said it had the most experienced Japanese troops in 1938-39. You have the Kwantung Army in August 1945 being strong, when it's fighting the Soviets who always fight only the biggest and best of everything, and weak because it never had any elite units and was good only for killing civilians, at the same time.


The login in the emotions i think.

Not here, itís not.


You tryed to prove the Kwantung Army was the weaker then the other Japanes troops- but here is a some of intersting contraductions in here.
How do you think whey the Ruswelt wished so much the joing the Red Amry to the fight with Japane in the Mancguria if the Kwatung Army were the "pitful shadow of itself" as you wrote.

I imagine because they were enemy troops and the conventional way of fighting a war is to defeat the enemy, without regard to their quality. I didn't see the USSR holding back when Germany was on its knees in 1945 and being defended by untrained old men and children.


Why did need to sucriface the China to the Stalin. (becouse the allies sertainly knew - Stalin would get the China for himself). If the Kwantung Army was a so weak why the American marines after the capturing Okinawa ( where they fought with "real" enemy) don't wish to crush the "the pitfull rest" 1 million og Japanes in the Manchguria and China.?

Because they left that to the Russians who, for all their marvellous military brilliance and world beating military, naval and air power, confined themselves to fighting essentially a land war on one front on one continent while the other Allies fought on land and sea all over the planet for the preceding four to six years, doing practically nothing of military value to the war effort but thereby enabling the Russians to get to the point in August 1945 where they could defeat the biggest and best Army Japan ever put in the field with the best Japanese equipment and limitless resources of Japan at the end of an exhausting war so that the Kwantung Army could be beaten by a platoon of Heroes of the Soviet Union using nothing but broomsticks and nail files produced in the USSR on the most advanced production lines in the world by workers fed from the boundless agricultural productive capacity of the USSR which didnít need Lend Lease, support from the other Allies, or anything else to beat Germany and Japan single-handed, and frighten Italy into surrendering in the process.

I really donít see any point to responding to further posts in the same vein. Like many other issues involving the USSR, this has just become a pointless and tedious pissing contest with no prospect of resolution upon any terms other than agreeing that the USSR won WWII and fought all the important battles while the other Allies did little more than cheer it on from the sidelines.

Egorka
05-02-2007, 02:53 AM
Rising Sun:
No. Less than 10% of Japanese troops facing the Russians in Manchuria died. On your figure of 1,217, it was only 7% of Japanese troops. On Okinawa about 90% of the Japanese troops died. The same at Iwo Jima. Which brings me back to the point that no matter how much you and Egorka want to believe it, the troops fighting in the Pacific were much more determined to fight to the death than those in Manchuria. About 9 to 13 times more determined.

You amase me! I know there is nothing I could say that you would find unbiased. There is nothing I could tell you from Soviet sources that you would not deny. But here is a quote from the paper you reffered to. And it was writen in 1986 - there is no way it is prosoviet!





extract from http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1986/RMF.htm
The Soviet Army Offensive: Manchuria, 1945
CSC 1986

The continued combat impaired already poor
communications between Japanese headquarters and field
units. This delayed tramsmissions of cease-fire orders on
17 August 1945, during which time the Kwangtung Army was in
preparation for a counter attack in the southeast.
This atmosphere of confusion and anxiety by the Japanese was
intensified by the Japanese warrior code of Bushido (fight
to the death). Existing Army/Navy regulations expressly
prohibited servicemen from surrendering. Surrender was
considered shameful and dishonorable, subject to court-
martial and execution. To absolve the traditional stigma of
surrender and remove legal liabilities, IGHQ published an
order which stated that the nation and government of Japan
would not regard servicemen "delivered" to the enemy as a
result of the cease-fire order as having surrendered under
the old law. This had a tremendous psychological effect on
the Japanese soldiers... with no dishonor there was no reason
to commit suicide. On 19 August, the Kwangtung Army
transmitted this order to its field commands and the
Japanese capitulated everywhere.


Was there a similar "order which stated that the nation and government of Japan would not regard servicemen "delivered" to the enemy" issued during the last stages of battle for Okinava, for example?

Egorka
05-02-2007, 03:12 AM
Rising Sun:
I really don’t see any point to responding to further posts in the same vein. Like many other issues involving the USSR, this has just become a pointless and tedious pissing contest with no prospect of resolution upon any terms other than agreeing that the USSR won WWII and fought all the important battles while the other Allies did little more than cheer it on from the sidelines.

So there is no way one can challenge a common Wester perseption without being accused of pulling blanket?
It is very sad that there is no intent to listen what so ever... Plus there is constant accusation of glorifying my country above others.
I understand that you are probably not accustomed to hear a determined opposition that would present soviet action in favorable light, but what is point of having this forum then?

Rising Sun*
05-02-2007, 04:22 AM
I understand that you are probably not accustomed to hear a determined opposition that would present soviet action in favorable light,

I can assure you that I have become rapidly accustomed to it on this forum, which mimics Soviet chauvinism and revisionism on some other military forums.

The purpose of historical discussion is not to present past events in a way favourable to a given nation. That is just chauvinistic history at best and propaganda at worst.

I donít have any difficulty in examining issues from different perspectives, or in acknowledging the Soviet contribution, such as at post # 79.

At posts #96 and 97 I volunteered an important and different assessment of the significance of the Russian attack in Manchuria in Japanís strategic assessment of how to end the war on the best terms for Japan. Curiously, it has been completely ignored.

Perhaps because it takes away the glory of the Russian attack in crushing the massive, suicidal, magnificently equipped Japanese forces facing the Russians in August 1945, following the magical transformation of the Japanese forces from being good only for murdering civilians, following their magical transformation from being the best troops Japan had when Russia faced them in 1939.

Perhaps because it doesnít come from the Russian archives which are the source of all truth and knowledge about WWII.

About all it did apparently was stimulate Chevan to say that Iím capable of finding sources that contradict my previous posts.

Chevan seems to find that remarkable, and worthy of comment. I donít. The difference is that Iím trying to get a balanced perspective, not present Soviet or any other action in a favourable light. Itís the difference between an open and a closed mind.


but what is point of having this forum then?

To discuss and learn about the history of WWII in an attempt to get a balanced perspective on the myriad factors and events involved.

Not to engage in a chauvinistic contest to put one nation above another.

Thatís how wars start.

Chevan
05-02-2007, 04:57 AM
Come on , Risin Sun.
I have no intentions to insult you or to show the disrespect at the your knowlages.
But i think we are going around in here.

No idea. I didnít say anything about the Kwantung Army killing civilians and partisans. At post #100 you said ďThe Soviet army WAS the first who faced the most experienced Japanes troops in the 1938-39 at the borders conflicts like in the like of Halkin-GolĒ The Japanese canít be both the most experienced when fighting the Soviets and no good for much else the rest of the time.

Yes the Japanes 30 000 army that has attecked the Halkin-Gol in 1939 WAS THE MOST ecperienced Japanes force IN THE 1939. Coz the Kwantung Army was the ONLY Japane army that fought at thet moment.


No. From memory they took 12 of about 50 to 55 divisions from China.

i.e. from the Kwantung Army, coz the Kwantung army was responsible for the occupation of China?


Yes.

So much better ;)


See the notes to Table 1, which is based on Soviet sources.

Youíre including troops outside Manchuria in South Korea, Sakhalin, and the Kuriles.

But all the troops in the South Korea and China was sabjiudated operatively at the Kwantung command in august of 1945.
So it could be enought right to calculate its forces together.


No way. The Japanese didnít have a total shortage of everything at Iwo Jima and Okinawa, otherwise they wouldnít have been so hard to defeat.

Really they had enought arcrafts and big-caliber artillery to fight with Allies ships. ?
If so why they do not begain the fire till the marines has reached the coast?


No comparison. For a start, the Pacific campaign involved major amphibious assaults and associated naval battles. The USN as gun platforms were subjected to kamikaze air attacks that didnít occur in Manchuria, because the Soviets had total air superiority. The USN got mauled at Okinawa in ways that land based artillery never would have.

And had in summer 1945 allies abssolut air superiority too?
How many the rest of plains did the Japanes used in the battle of Okinawa. And were those plants a first line aircraft or obsolete?


No. Less than 10% of Japanese troops facing the Russians in Manchuria died. On your figure of 1,217, it was only 7% of Japanese troops. On Okinawa about 90% of the Japanese troops died. The same at Iwo Jima. Which brings me back to the point that no matter how much you and Egorka want to believe it, the troops fighting in the Pacific were much more determined to fight to the death than those in Manchuria. About 9 to 13 times more determined.

Well you get the total figures of the perished Japanes for the all period of operation "august storm" and simply devide at the common quantuty of Japanes.
But you uses the 90% of japanes casulated only in two separated battles, right.
So could you get us the statistic of whole Japane army that were fought with allies and what persentage of casulaties were?
I suggest thet the rest of Japane army that was not in China, Korea and Mongolia fought with allies we far from 90% of death rate.
Let calculate the averal death rate for the Japanes who fought in the Pacific-
The total death of Japanes soldiers -1 740 000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ww2_casualties
The total quantity of peoples who were call for the army duty were about 6-7 mln peoples for the period 1941-1945.
So as we could calculate the overal death rethe the Japane soldiers durint the whole Pacific company was about 1,7 /7 = 24%.
Still far from 90% right.
Indeed the hight rated of captured POWs by the Red Arrmy was explained the mass surrender of the rest Japanes armies AFTER 17 september when the order of imperor on capitulation has reached the troops. But this does not mean the some of units of cuicidal soldiers continie the figh till its dead.



No way. Work out casualties as percentages of total Soviet and American forces in each campaign and youíll see just how little similarity there is.

Well that exactly that i 'm talking about.


No, and Iím not going to. You wanted numbers and names so you could check how elite they were. Iíve given you the information. If you want to dispute whether they were elite, first line, experienced, combat ready, trained, untrained or simply non-existent, you do the research.

He he
I 'm not need the research coz i know you simply could not to pove you point -ONLY the 16 divisions that were sended to the Pacific were the Elite.
You used the american author who a possibly a "little biased" and he prefered to portray the US fight with "elite" Japanes troop but the Soviet faced only "poor armoured troops".


Because, if youíve been following the posts, you will know that the best divisions were pulled out of the Kwantung Army before August and what was left wasnít very good or even combat ready. When you've researched the history of the long-established units taken from Manchuria and those that were raised rapidly from the remnants of other units and reservists and unfit men to replace them, you'll see the difference.

Again where get you the information that the those division that wer pulled out of Kwantung Army were the "best".
Sorry i could not able to confirm it from your earlyesposts.


Not with the figures youíve presented of 1,217,000. He says 927,000.

No he says 1217, but he added the the Kwantung Army the units of Japane allies , who in fact were under operative command of Kwantung Army.


In that case it must be right, given Wikiís great reputation for accuracy.

But this "accuracy" did not bother you in the thread about official version of holocaust;)


No. Just that itís as wrong as the figures youíve been using.
Youíre flogging a dead horse.
OK let's bury this horse.


Logic? I never said a thing about the Kwantung Army fighting only guerillas, or anything to do with guerillas. You said it had the most experienced Japanese troops in 1938-39. You have the Kwantung Army in August 1945 being strong, when it's fighting the Soviets who always fight only the biggest and best of everything, and weak because it never had any elite units and was good only for killing civilians, at the same time.

Does it mean the Allies ALWAYS fought with Japanes in the 1944-45 that had the biggest and best of everything ?


I imagine because they were enemy troops and the conventional way of fighting a war is to defeat the enemy, without regard to their quality. I didn't see the USSR holding back when Germany was on its knees in 1945 and being defended by untrained old men and children.

Germany was the Agressor who attacked the USSR and coused the millions victims, but was the Japane the simular agressor for ht eUSSR in the 1945. I/m sure not.


Because they left that to the Russians who, for all their marvellous military brilliance and world beating military, naval and air power, confined themselves to fighting essentially a land war on one front on one continent while the other Allies fought on land and sea all over the planet for the preceding four to six years, doing practically nothing of military value to the war effort but thereby enabling the Russians to get to the point in August 1945 where they could defeat the biggest and best Army Japan ever put in the field with the best Japanese equipment and limitless resources of Japan at the end of an exhausting war so that the Kwantung Army could be beaten by a platoon of Heroes of the Soviet Union using nothing but broomsticks and nail files produced in the USSR on the most advanced production lines in the world by workers fed from the boundless agricultural productive capacity of the USSR which didnít need Lend Lease, support from the other Allies, or anything else to beat Germany and Japan single-handed, and frighten Italy into surrendering in the process.

Oh that's good sarcasm Rising Sun my respect;)
So why the allies asked the Platon Of the Soviet Heroes for the joining to the war agains Japane if the one single of US Super-marine-Rembo could done the whole job and cuptured the whole "the rest of shadow" of Kwantung Army.
Why the allies licked the *** for the Stalin : presented him the Poland and whole the Eastern Erope ?


I really donít see any point to responding to further posts in the same vein. Like many other issues involving the USSR, this has just become a pointless and tedious pissing contest with no prospect of resolution upon any terms other than agreeing that the USSR won WWII and fought all the important battles while the other Allies did little more than cheer it on from the sidelines.
Oh now you've insulted.
Do not need to lead this thread to the absoud please . Nobody here try to declare simular like that you wrote.

Cheers.

Chevan
05-02-2007, 05:14 AM
At posts #96 and 97 I volunteered an important and different assessment of the significance of the Russian attack in Manchuria in Japanís strategic assessment of how to end the war on the best terms for Japan. Curiously, it has been completely ignored.


About all it did apparently was stimulate Chevan to say that Iím capable of finding sources that contradict my previous posts.

Chevan seems to find that remarkable, and worthy of comment. I donít. The difference is that Iím trying to get a balanced perspective, not present Soviet or any other action in a favourable light. Itís the difference between an open and a closed mind.

Yes you right trying to have the open mind.And this quality i/m trying to raise in me.
I think one of the best your trait - you try to be the relatively objective and neitral ( as much as it possible for you).And i thankful to you for it.
And you are wrong thinking that we are not appreciate your post 96/97.
But trying to not present the Soviet action in the favorible light you inevtably begin to use the old cold war arguments that perhaps no more accurate than the soviets.

Dani
05-02-2007, 05:21 AM
Chevan and Rising Sun! Hold on your horses! As this topic slipped away it will be splitted making a new one: Soviets in Manchuria - August 1945.

Do you agree Chevan?;) You know what I mean...

Chevan
05-02-2007, 05:52 AM
Let's go Dani.
Just move the all of post that deels the Kwantung army fro this thread to the new.

Rising Sun*
05-02-2007, 09:13 AM
Yes you right trying to have the open mind.And this quality i/m trying to raise in me.

Mate, Iím happy to try to raise it in you a bit more.

But it could be painful.

For you. ;)


I think one of the best your trait - you try to be the relatively objective and neitral ( as much as it possible for you).And i thankful to you for it.

Thanks. Seriously.

Weíre all prisoners of our personal, ethnic and national pasts, but we should all try to see things from the other side.

Objectivity is a subjectively determined state.

Complete objectivity occurs when someone agrees with us. By our subjectively determined objective standards. :D



And you are wrong thinking that we are not appreciate your post 96/97.

Iím not interested in anyone appreciating it, in the sense of being grateful for it.

Iím interested in anyone appreciating it in the sense of understanding it; discussing it; disputing it; or agreeing with it; and giving their reasons for their position because that paper offers an interesting alternative to the orthodox views about what forced Japan to end the war. It makes the USSRís attack on Japan in Manchuria the most important step in Japan surrendering, even if the USSR and the other Allies didnít even begin to suspect that, and completely alters the significance of the USSRís late entry into the war against Japan, for reasons that have everything to do with Japanís post-war aims and nothing to do with USSR / USA post-war aims.

Posting that paper, which alters my previous views about the significance of the atom bombs, reflects my view that if I find something interesting I should make it available for consideration. Whether or not I agree with it. The aim is to present all the available information to allow the most informed interpretation.


But trying to not present the Soviet action in the favorible light you inevtably begin to use the old cold war arguments that perhaps no more accurate than the soviets.

Iím not trying to not present the Soviet action in a favourable light.

Iím trying to reach a balanced view of the Soviet and Japanese military actions against the various factors affecting all nations involved.

I donít know where Ďold Cold Warí arguments come in, so far as affecting Western views of the USSRĎs WWII effort is concerned. Perhaps this reflects your assumptions, or what youíve picked up from Russian / USSR history, about how the West thought.

I canít speak for others, but hereís my personal experience on some relevant factors, to illustrate how things really were.

In October 1962, during the Cuban missile crisis, I was sitting in my schoolyard discussing with another kid what it would look like when the Russian atomic missiles came over the horizon and how it would affect the city we lived in which had rings on the phone book cover showing the different zones of diminishing damage from a nuclear weapon dropped on the city centre, all of which went beyond where we lived and went to school near the centre.

At that time; before; and after other significant Cold War events, nothing ever came up about the USSRís WWII history being altered by the Cold War.

In fact, we grew up through our education system and general public information with an admiration for the Murmansk convoys supplying the gallant and indomitable Russians, and both admiration and sympathy for the huge sacrifices of the Russian troops and the immense suffering of the Russian people under the Germans in Russia and the terrible treatment of Russian POWís in German hands.

We knew a lot more about those things than what Stalin did to his own people during his regime before, during and after WWII.

I donít know what you think the West understood about the USSR during the Cold War, nor do I know what anyone else here or in Britain or America thought, but an awful lot of people were blinded to the evils of the Stalin era, and later eras, because they thought that the socialist ideal was being practised there.

I was, in an abstract and idealistic sense, one of them in them in the late 1960ís and to a lesser extent in the early 1970ís, despite also being during that time a soldier training to and willing to fight the communist forces in Vietnam.

I still think that there are few great ideals better than ďFrom each, according to his ability. To each, according to his need.ď

But if you live in a Western democracy where the bludgers contribute sweet FA and suck up everything, including a disproportionate amount of police and court and prison time, youĎll change your mind about how that great principle works in practice.

The failure in Western intellectual circles to challenge and denounce the Stalinist era, and the subsequent perversions of socialist theory in the USSR and China, is a bigger political and moral failure than the failure to do the same with the Nazi assault on the Jews. (Not that persecuting Jews hasnít been a popular sport in Europe for centuries.) And saw a lot more people killed.

Dani
05-02-2007, 02:22 PM
45 posts or so moved to an old thread from 2005.

So far I added it in Japanese Military section.

Cojimar 1945
05-07-2007, 01:48 PM
The Soviets do seem to have an advantage in World War II in terms of contribution but people should not despair over this or try to deny it. There are many other wars in which the Soviets/Russians did not have an overwhelming role such as World War I or the American Civil War.

Rising Sun*
05-08-2007, 06:29 AM
The Soviets do seem to have an advantage in World War II in terms of contribution but people should not despair over this or try to deny it.

I'm not disputing their immense contribution, and sacrifice, against the Germans in Europe, but where is their contribution to defeating the Germans elsewhere. Notably on the seas? And the same for the Japanese?

Cojimar 1945
05-13-2007, 04:17 AM
Realistically, I think Germany did more to damage its cause than any of its opponnents. There is no rationale for trying to fight the entire world.

With regards to the Soviets the problem is the huge descrepancy in casualty figures. The British, Americans and others did not suffer casualties on anywhere close to such a scale.

Rising Sun*
05-13-2007, 05:44 AM
With regards to the Soviets the problem is the huge descrepancy in casualty figures. The British, Americans and others did not suffer casualties on anywhere close to such a scale.

If Stalin hadn't killed most of his marshals, army commanders, corps commanders, divisisional commanders and sundry other officers a few years before Russia entered the war, there might have been more competence with fewer casualties.

Or maybe a regime which didn't value the lives of its own citizens as much as Britain and America did was happy to sacrifice them in vast numbers.

Probably both.

Chevan
05-13-2007, 02:28 PM
If Stalin hadn't killed most of his marshals, army commanders, corps commanders, divisisional commanders and sundry other officers a few years before Russia entered the war, there might have been more competence with fewer casualties.

This is the most tupical mistake of the western propoganda during the Cold war, Rising Sun.
Indeed all of those "marshals, army commanders, corps commanders, divisisional commanders and sundry other officers" that was purged in the 1937-38 had NO ANY REAL COMBAT EXPERIENCE.
Certainly the Great Purge was a cruel action, but many of "victims' in fact deserved it.
As fo instance the bloody NKVD leaders like Jagoda and Ejov who was responsible for the mass excutions in the befor the 1938.
All of the soviet commanders ( whom are you talking about) has ONLY the experience of the supprestion of the anti-communists uprising and a mass terror actions agains the population.
I do not think them their "experience" could help the red army in the 1941;)
Indeed the Red Army had not bad experience: they succesfully defeated the Japanes agressive attemps in the 1938-39 in the Halkin-Gol and Mongolia.
The soviet aces showed itself from the god side during the Spanish civil war.
Actually the winter war 1939-40 was a worst planned ( they ignored the special o f the winter temperature in the jenuary).
But it was not a ONLY red Army mistake- as we know the Germans made the simular lack in the planning during thewinter of 1941 in the battle for the Moscow.
The problem of the Red Army was the just only amall part of the army could cet the REAL combat experience till the 1941- about 50 000 in the Far East and about 250 000 in the Finland.
For the comaprision the Germans army in the 1941 was fully trained and prepeared to the wide combat actions - they had about 2 millions of troops that had A REAL combat experience.
The main tragedy of the Red Army was the lack of quality of low and average offisers corp. The soviet low commanders had a lack of real experience therefore the initial phase of war was so unsuccesfull for them.
The Germans in the opposite had a best low officers corp in the world in the 1941-43. As it wrote the Eric von Manstaine in his memours "Lost battles' - the reason of initial success of German army was the excellent prepare of the low and awerage command staff.
So actually the Great Purge had no any influence to the soviet lacks in the 1941-42.
BTW this supported by the history - As we know in the France and in the Polan there were no the Stalins purge - does it help them to fight with germansin the 1939-40..;)
Or unsuccesfull balles of Britain agains the Japanes and Germans in the Nothern Africa in the first period of war - was it the resault of repression of Britis high staff;)?


Or maybe a regime which didn't value the lives of its own citizens as much as Britain and America did was happy to sacrifice them in vast numbers.

It too easy to spread the tell about "regime that send its people to die" - if your own country there is the ocean between you and your mortal enemy, right.
I would wath at your "speculation" if the Japanes landed to the Australia- would the Australian army so effective agains them at least as much as the Red Army was?

Rising Sun*
05-14-2007, 09:28 AM
This is the most tupical mistake of the western propoganda during the Cold war, Rising Sun.
Indeed all of those "marshals, army commanders, corps commanders, divisisional commanders and sundry other officers" that was purged in the 1937-38 had NO ANY REAL COMBAT EXPERIENCE.
Certainly the Great Purge was a cruel action, but many of "victims' in fact deserved it.
As fo instance the bloody NKVD leaders like Jagoda and Ejov who was responsible for the mass excutions in the befor the 1938.
All of the soviet commanders ( whom are you talking about) has ONLY the experience of the supprestion of the anti-communists uprising and a mass terror actions agains the population.
I do not think them their "experience" could help the red army in the 1941;)
Indeed the Red Army had not bad experience: they succesfully defeated the Japanes agressive attemps in the 1938-39 in the Halkin-Gol and Mongolia.
The soviet aces showed itself from the god side during the Spanish civil war.
Actually the winter war 1939-40 was a worst planned ( they ignored the special o f the winter temperature in the jenuary).
But it was not a ONLY red Army mistake- as we know the Germans made the simular lack in the planning during thewinter of 1941 in the battle for the Moscow.
The problem of the Red Army was the just only amall part of the army could cet the REAL combat experience till the 1941- about 50 000 in the Far East and about 250 000 in the Finland.
For the comaprision the Germans army in the 1941 was fully trained and prepeared to the wide combat actions - they had about 2 millions of troops that had A REAL combat experience.
The main tragedy of the Red Army was the lack of quality of low and average offisers corp. The soviet low commanders had a lack of real experience therefore the initial phase of war was so unsuccesfull for them.
The Germans in the opposite had a best low officers corp in the world in the 1941-43. As it wrote the Eric von Manstaine in his memours "Lost battles' - the reason of initial success of German army was the excellent prepare of the low and awerage command staff.
So actually the Great Purge had no any influence to the soviet lacks in the 1941-42.

I doubt it.

All armed forces are based on higher ranks training lower ranks. Even socialist armies never ran as collectives. Especially the Red Army in WWII. Otherwise it wouldn't have needed so many political commissars to supervise the military which didn't operate as a collective.

Remove the middle to senior ranks in an army and you're still left with junior ranks trained by the missing people.

If the remainder do well in battle, they must have been well trained by the missing senior ranks.

Which suggests that the missing senior ranks would have been a lot more value alive than dead.


BTW this supported by the history - As we know in the France and in the Polan there were no the Stalins purge - does it help them to fight with germansin the 1939-40..;)
Or unsuccesfull balles of Britain agains the Japanes and Germans in the Nothern Africa in the first period of war - was it the resault of repression of Britis high staff;)?

The Soviets, happily freed of the dead wood of the burdensome senior ranks, didn't do too well in the initial periods either. Their retreats weren't any different to France and Britain. They just had more room to move, and lot longer to the sea at their rear.


It too easy to spread the tell about "regime that send its people to die" - if your own country there is the ocean between you and your mortal enemy, right.

I would wath at your "speculation" if the Japanes landed to the Australia- would the Australian army so effective agains them at least as much as the Red Army was?

Australia was the first nation to defeat the Germans in battle, before the USSR got involved in WWII and even longer before the USSR had a win, and the first to defeat and force the evacuation of a Japanese landing force in WWII.

As for the Red Army being effective against the Japanese, Nomonhan was a series of accidents that grew into a much bigger battle than was ever intended by either side.

The USSR never faced a planned and sustained attack by the Japanese even remotely like that faced in Japan's southward advance, so there's nothing to suggest it would have done any better than the other Allies in WWII. Particularly based on the crushing Japanese defeat of Russia in 1905.

Chevan
05-14-2007, 12:05 PM
I doubt it.

All armed forces are based on higher ranks training lower ranks. Even socialist armies never ran as collectives. Especially the Red Army in WWII. Otherwise it wouldn't have needed so many political commissars to supervise the military which didn't operate as a collective.
Remove the middle to senior ranks in an army and you're still left with junior ranks trained by the missing people.

If the remainder do well in battle, they must have been well trained by the missing senior ranks.

Which suggests that the missing senior ranks would have been a lot more value alive than dead.

And who do tell the senior ranks were DEAD in the 1941?
They were purged in the 1937-38 this means the other commanders took its plase later.
Thrue , the new senior ranks also had no real combat experience. Moreover the problem for them was the FEAR ( they saw what was happaned with its precursors and how did they finished;))
But this was a purge - not the "execution" of hight ranks staff .
BTW in the 1938 to the red army has come the its best war commanders like Gukov, Rokossovskij and Konev- the best soviet generals( as it was proved lated)
The Red Army got its first combet experience in the 1938-39 with Japanes.Where the new generation of the soviet generals has proved its potential.( The soviet troops in the Halkin-Gol was under command of Gukov)
So i/m really do not see the reason to tell the Great Purge was the reason of soviets failures in the 1941-42.


The Soviets, happily freed of the dead wood of the burdensome senior ranks, didn't do too well in the initial periods either. Their retreats weren't any different to France and Britain. They just had more room to move, and lot longer to the sea at their rear.

Exactly this is support my point, thanks,
now do you see the reason of initial defeat was to the purges but the simply weakness and lack of real combat experience of the Red Army ( exactly like and the France&British troops in the 1940 in the Europe)
But its wrong to say the Red Army retreat like and British and France troops ;)
Inspite of the lack of command the some of soviet unita had resisted very srong( in the comparition with the France resistanse in the 1940 for instanse)
BTW and you are wrong about more "room to move" for the Red Army.
Indeed the "moving room" was limited by the line- Murmansk-Leningrad-Moscow-Stalingrad-Baky.
The lost of any of those cities was mean the LOST OF THE WAR for the USSR.
The Barbarossa only planned to capture the territory western then the Volga river- so all of the cities above were the LAST line.
Becouse inspite of the enourmous territory of the USSR the whole industry , most of the human and all of the resources was LIMITED By this LAST line.
Therefore all the tells about a "great moving room" is the exaggeration.


Australia was the first nation to defeat the Germans in battle, before the USSR got involved in WWII and even longer before the USSR had a win, and the first to defeat and force the evacuation of a Japanese landing force in WWII.

Oh common i did not mean you national proudness.
I just wish you to compare what could be if the Japanes attacked Australia as they did in Malaja - was the Australian high command so kind to save its own soldier, be prefered to retreat and leave the australian peoples for the Japanes slaughter?
You simply never know the german occupation therefore so it so easy to speculate about it in the instance of the critical period for the Red Army in the 1941.
It's so easy to criticize the soviet high command in the 1941 , imagine yourself as the "great commander", when the German henocige had come to the USSR.


As for the Red Army being effective against the Japanese, Nomonhan was a series of accidents that grew into a much bigger battle than was ever intended by either side.

Oh my friend its seems you naver heared about Japanes plans of the invasion to the Suberia ;)
it was so called the "Nother direction" the invasion to the USSR and the occupation it from the Kamchatka till the lake of Baikal - the whole half of territory of the USSR.It was detailed war plan that was developed by the suff of Kwantung command.
After the occupation of the Mongolia it waqs the lovely plan of Kwantung army and they lobbied it in the Tokio.
The attack of the 1938-39 was the simple battle-reconnaissance of the ability of the Red Army to fight.
If they won there were no any doubt they should bagan the full scalle invasion.


The USSR never faced a planned and sustained attack by the Japanese even remotely like that faced in Japan's southward advance, so there's nothing to suggest it would have done any better than the other Allies in WWII. Particularly based on the crushing Japanese defeat of Russia in 1905.

The USSR faced the most power war mashine in the world in the 1941, that had a excellent planning, perfect victorious combat experience and the best hight command that the Japanse even could not a dream.
I know for the sure the whole Japanes army was just a pitiful parody for the Germans army of the period 1941-42
But nevertheless this Japane army was able to crush the more bigger in quantity the allies armies in the 1941-42.

Rising Sun*
05-15-2007, 09:53 AM
And who do tell the senior ranks were DEAD in the 1941?
They were purged in the 1937-38 this means the other commanders took its plase later.
Thrue , the new senior ranks also had no real combat experience. Moreover the problem for them was the FEAR ( they saw what was happaned with its precursors and how did they finished;))
But this was a purge - not the "execution" of hight ranks staff .

So no high ranks were executed?

Rather than me present unreliable Western figures, how many Red Army officers do the Soviet archives show as having been executed?

Assuming any were actually killed by the great and gentle Stalin.;)


BTW in the 1938 to the red army has come the its best war commanders like Gukov, Rokossovskij and Konev- the best soviet generals( as it was proved lated)
The Red Army got its first combet experience in the 1938-39 with Japanes.Where the new generation of the soviet generals has proved its potential.( The soviet troops in the Halkin-Gol was under command of Gukov)
So i/m really do not see the reason to tell the Great Purge was the reason of soviets failures in the 1941-42.

If the purge had no effect on the army and the people left were so good in their brilliant defeat of the magnificent Japanese at Nomonhan, then why weren't they just as good when Germany attacked?


Becouse inspite of the enourmous territory of the USSR the whole industry , most of the human and all of the resources was LIMITED By this LAST line.
Therefore all the tells about a "great moving room" is the exaggeration.

So nothing moved east? No war materials were produced further east?


Oh common i did not mean you national proudness.

This is what happens when the Soviet line is pushed as if nobody did anything else, and nobody has anything else to be proud of because they didn't face the biggest, baddest bastard on the block. Which, as I have said often enough before, only the British Commonwealth was doing from the fall of France until Germany attacked Russia.


I just wish you to compare what could be if the Japanes attacked Australia as they did in Malaja - was the Australian high command so kind to save its own soldier, be prefered to retreat and leave the australian peoples for the Japanes slaughter?

Actually, the Australian high command would have retreated to lines to defend the main productive and population areas, and any Australian left outside those lines would have been left to the Japanese.


You simply never know the german occupation therefore so it so easy to speculate about it in the instance of the critical period for the Red Army in the 1941.
It's so easy to criticize the soviet high command in the 1941 , imagine yourself as the "great commander", when the German henocige had come to the USSR.

Imagine yourself as the Australian battalion, company and platoon commanders fighting the Japanese from Malaya down through the NEI and up through New Britain in the knowledge that if you don't defeat the Japanese, your family will be subjected to an even worse version of the rape of Nanking because the Europeans got it worse from the Japanese.

Russians didn't have a monopoly on being at risk of brutal extermination by an enemy which hated them.


The USSR faced the most power war mashine in the world in the 1941, that had a excellent planning, perfect victorious combat experience and the best hight command

So?

The British Commonwealth faced exactly the same machine alone, and fought it, long before the USSR came into the war. And with a bloody sight less resources and men, and over a bloody sight bigger area of the globe than the USSR ever had to deal with.


I know for the sure the whole Japanes army was just a pitiful parody for the Germans army of the period 1941-42

So why make such a big deal of the Russian attack on the Japanese in August 1945?

What happened between 1938-39 when the post-purge Russian generals defeated the mighty Japanese and the Japanese somehow turned into a parody in 1941-42, before magically turning back into a magnificent fighting force when facing the Russians in the dying days of the war after having the tripe belted out of them for several years beforehand?

It always seems that when the Russians / USSR fight anyone it's the biggest fight in town with a sell-out crowd in the biggest stadium on the planet, but when anyone else fights the same enemy it's an amateur bout between pygmy morons in a toilet cubicle in a country shithouse.

Egorka
05-15-2007, 12:25 PM
So no high ranks were executed?

Rather than me present unreliable Western figures, how many Red Army officers do the Soviet archives show as having been executed?

Here is some data in Russian: http://militera.lib.ru/research/pyhalov_i/02.html

I will summirise and translate it later. Just give me some time.

Egorka
05-15-2007, 12:49 PM
Rising Sun, listen to me please. I want to tell you something. Please get one thing in your mind before you post comments:

We, Russians, do not claim to be better than anyone!

So there is no use in exhagerating and twisting our statements into selv elevating propaganda speech.

When I say "our statements" I mean mine nad Chevan's.
Chevan, if I got something wrong please correct me.

Statements like this is an insult, Rising Sun. It is an insult because it is a lie that it has been clamed by any one in this forum:

This is what happens when the Soviet line is pushed as if nobody did anything else, and nobody has anything else to be proud of because they didn't face the biggest, baddest bastard on the block.

Egorka
05-15-2007, 01:04 PM
Still thinking of your words...


This is what happens when the Soviet line is pushed as if nobody did anything else, and nobody has anything else to be proud of because they didn't face the biggest, baddest bastard on the block. Which, as I have said often enough before, only the British Commonwealth was doing from the fall of France until Germany attacked Russia.

You are right,the British Commonwealth was facing the same "the biggest, baddest bastard on the block". The difference is that in case of the UK the the baddest bastard spat at your and eventually tried to step on your foot, wheras in case of USSR the bastard tried to take the heart out of the chest.

And please stop implying that anyone claimes some kind of moral superiority over other allies!

Egorka
05-15-2007, 05:14 PM
So no high ranks were executed?

Rather than me present unreliable Western figures, how many Red Army officers do the Soviet archives show as having been executed?

Assuming any were actually killed by the great and gentle Stalin.;)


Rising Sun, how many officers were arrested in the period before June 1941 (especially the 1937-1938 purge) in RKKA according to your sources?

As I said, I will summirise my info later. I just need to print it first (I hate reading from the screen).

Chevan
05-16-2007, 07:03 PM
Here is some data in Russian: http://militera.lib.ru/research/pyhalov_i/02.html

I will summirise and translate it later. Just give me some time.
Oh this is very interesting source mate thanks.



Thus, actual loss from the army of the command- commanding and political composition comprises:
1. in 1936-37 yr. - 19 674 men, or 6,9% to the listed number (including of 2827 men of armed forces political personnel).
2. in 1938-39 yr. - 11 723 men, or 2,3% to the listed number (including of 3515 men of armed forces political personnel), i.e., are almost three times less against 1936-37 yr.
As a result of the accomplished great work the army to a considerable extent was cleaned of the spies, saboteurs, conspirators, who do not suggest the political confidence of foreigners, from the drunkards and the spongers,

The "lost" does not mean the "executed", but the dismissed fro army.
BTW the big part of dismissed were later restore in army after the getting complains.


Repression they did not put yes and we could not put because of the insignificance of their scales in comparison with the overall mass of the officer corps of the visible imprint on the educational level. A certain drop in the portion of officers, who have average military education in 1938-1939 is explained not by repressions, but by significant inflow into the army of officers from the reserve, from the extended-servicemen and especially officers, who finished the courses of Junior Lieutenants. At the same time in the pre-war years is observed steady tendency toward an increase in the percentage of officers, who have academic formation. In 1941 this percentage was highest within entire interwar period and was equal to 7,1%. To the repressions, in 1936 this number composed 6,6. The carried out calculations show that in the period of repressions was observed the steady increase in the quantity of command personnel, which has average and high military education. Thus, academic formation in 1936 had 13 thousand faces of command personnel, in 1939 - after the actual end of repressions - 23 thousand, in 1941 - 28 thousand officers.
Military education in the volume of military school had respectively 125, 156 and 206 thousand soldiers "

Not bad for the Great Purge the level of the high educated officers even increased;)

royal744
05-17-2007, 05:43 PM
Why is it in every post here lately coming out of Russia..the Soviet army or the Soviet goverment is the reason that everything in the war happened?...Given the russians late,.....VERY late, entry into the war in the Pacific

I agree Savoy. One might also say that the Russians were rather "late" in entering WW2 in Europe. They were too busy swallowing Poland and other independent Eastern European (Baltic) states as a result of their pact with Hitler, something that is rarely mentioned by our ex-soviet brethren in here.

Having said that, let me add that the Soviet contribution to Allied victory in Europe was simply massive. Their contribution against Japan was simply predatory and unneeded, but it was war and the world was standing on its head. The soviets adore talking about how terrible Hitler was - and he was most certainly all that and more - but Stalin was no picnic himself. He gave Hitler the free hand he needed to attack in the west which was not exactly helpful in the struggle against Hitler.

The millions of Russians who died in this terrible war must have wondered just what Stalin "bought" with the time he secured as a result of sleeping with Hitler. Perhaps that question could better be asked of the Russian officer corps which Stalin decimated all on his own. Or of the entire captured Polish officer corps which was found under ten feet of dirt in the Katyn forest by Germans, who were no slouches in the callous murder department.

The Russians did fight bravely against the Germans and there is a good case to be made that, properly supplied mostly by the Americans, they might have beaten the Germans all on their own, but we'll never know. One might make the case as well that if Stalin had not entered into a pact with Hitler but had simply attacked Germany at the same time as the Germans struck Poland, things might have developed very differently indeed.

It's all speculation of course, but that's part of the interest, isn't it? The Russian contribution to victory was real, but it was definitely not the whole story and Ivan needs to face up to Stalin's role in enabling Hitler. No, Natasha, it isn't all about you.

Egorka
05-18-2007, 08:00 AM
I agree Savoy. One might also say that the Russians were rather "late" in entering WW2 in Europe. They were too busy swallowing Poland and other independent Eastern European (Baltic) states as a result of their pact with Hitler, something that is rarely mentioned by our ex-soviet brethren in here.

Do you mean like that USSR/Stalin was selfish and came "late" in to war. Wheras UK/USA were generous and selfdefying and entered the war early. Is this your logic, royal744 ?

royal744
05-18-2007, 08:46 AM
Do you mean like that USSR/Stalin was selfish and came "late" in to war. Wheras UK/USA were generous and selfdefying and entered the war early. Is this your logic, royal744 ?

Not exactly sure what you mean, Igor, but, I know what I meant, which is that Stalin "did a deal" with Hitler and cynically carved out his portion of the steak he and Hitler had agreed to carve up. Even this singular act of cynicism on Stalin's part "might" have been marginally understandable if Stalin had used the time thus gained to good effect instead of leaving his army and air force like a doormat waiting for the Germans to walk over them. Alas, this was not to be, Igor.

royal744
05-18-2007, 08:53 AM
It always seems that when the Russians / USSR fight anyone it's the biggest fight in town with a sell-out crowd in the biggest stadium on the planet, but when anyone else fights the same enemy it's an amateur bout between pygmy morons in a toilet cubicle in a country shithouse.

I agree Rising Sun. You have a good way of putting it.

Egorka
05-18-2007, 09:03 AM
Originally Posted by Rising Sun*
So no high ranks were executed?

Rather than me present unreliable Western figures, how many Red Army officers do the Soviet archives show as having been executed?

Hello,

Here is a short summury of the documents presented in the work "The Great Slandered War (http://militera.lib.ru/research/pyhalov_i/index.html)". The chapter 2: "Was RKKA beheaded?".

There are 2 commonly exhagerated statements existing bout the purge of 1937 - 1938 in RKKA:

During the purge almost whole officer corp of RKKA was annihilated, as the result in 1941 the army was left without experiensed officers.
Tuhachevsky, Uborevich, Yakir and other "inncent victims" were genious commanders which removal was fatal.


So, how many officers were repressed?

Here is some common exhagerated statement from different sources:

General-colonel D.Volkogonov: "According to the existing data, from May 1937 till September 1938 (i.e. 1,5 years), 36 761 people were repressed in the army and more than 3000 in the navy. ... Part of them, though, were just fired from the Army."
General-leitenant N.Pavlenko: "... were repressed 36 791 commander."
L.Kirshner: "It is known that during the pre war period 44 000 people were repressed in the officer corp - i.e. more thqan half of the corp."
The fomer cheif ideologist of Communist party of USSR A.Yakovlev: "More than 70 000 officers were annihilated by Stalin before the War."
V.Rappoport and Y.Geller: "That is why we have to conclude that loss of the officer corp during the 2 years of cleancing accounted for app. 100 000 people."
V.Koval: "Without any wars almost all glourious officer corp of RKKA - the spine of the army - perished in the dangions of NKVD."
Melnikov and Chernaya: "Almost whole middle officer corp was killed by the hands of the executioners."

According to the book "1937: Golgotha of the elite of RKKA" by N.Cherushev, 2003, page 39, the reduction in the officer corp in the period 01 January - 01 November 1937:

Military district Dismissed Of those arrested
Moscow 1252 363
Leningrad 1015 60
Belorussia 1215 279
Kiev 1126 382
Harkov 780 257
North Caucasian 569 101
Volga region 315 106
Ural 297 102
Sibirian 204 128
Trans Caucasian 395 138
Middleasian 136 98
Trans Baikal 295 14
OKDVA 1867 642
Air forces 1205 285
Navy 705 171

During the first 10 month of 1937 and taking into account other military
related units (military schools, rear office emplyees, intelligence office,
officers in the reseve) -
13 811 officers were dismissed, of those 3 776 arrested.


Another document (РГВА. Ф.37837. Оп.19. Д.87. Л.42-52. citied as in N.Cherushev "Statistics of anti army terror", 1998) gives wides picture of the repressions:





Memo

During the last 5 years (1934 - 25 Oct 1939) the following number of the officers was being dismissed:

1934: 6596 ppl. or 5,9% of the total.

a) for drinking and moral decay - 1513
b) due to illness, invalids, death - 4604
c) arrested and convicted - 479

1935: 8560 ppl. or 7,2% of the total.

a) politico-moral issues, incomepetence, volountiraly - 6719
b) due to illness, invalids, death - 1492
c) arrested and convicted - 349

1936: 4918 ppl. or 3,9% of the total.

a) or drinking and moral decay - 1942
b) due to illness, invalids, death - 1937
c) arrested and convicted - 782

1937: 18658 ppl. or 13,6% of the total.

a) for politcal reason (excluded from the party, connection to enemies of the state) - 11104
b) arrested and convicted - 4474
c) for drinking and moral decay - 1139
d) due to illness, invalids, death -1941


1938: 16362 ppl. or 11,3% of the total.

a) political motives - 3580
b) foreign nationals, bourn aboad and connected with abroad - 4138
c) arrested - 5032
d) for drinking and moral decay - 2671
b) due to illness, invalids, death - 941

1939 until 25 Oct: 1691 ppl. or 1,6% of the total.

a) political motives - 277
b) arrested - 67
c) for drinking and moral decay - 197
b) due to illness, invalids - 725
c) death - 425


The total for the 6 years period - 56785 people.
Total for 1937 - 1938 : 35020 people. Of those arrested - 9506 (27,2% of dismissed)
...
...
...
The leader of the 6th unit
Colonel Shiryaev
20 October 1939


to be continued in a new post...

Rising Sun*
05-18-2007, 09:05 AM
Rising Sun, listen to me please. I want to tell you something. Please get one thing in your mind before you post comments:

We, Russians, do not claim to be better than anyone!

So there is no use in exhagerating and twisting our statements into selv elevating propaganda speech.

When I say "our statements" I mean mine nad Chevan's.
Chevan, if I got something wrong please correct me.

Statements like this is an insult, Rising Sun. It is an insult because it is a lie that it has been clamed by any one in this forum:

Egorka

I've refrained from responding for a few days to ensure that I don't respond in heat.

I stand by what I've said here and elsewhere.

I have been insulted by what you and Chevan have said in various threads.

Regardless of what you and Chevan might intend, you come across consistently as presenting the USSR as having done all the hard fighting with the worst of the Axis powers and pretty much won the war all by itself, with occasional interference from minor irritants like Brtain and the US who, when they fought the same enemy, never had to fight such a big and bad one as the USSR did.

Such as, for example, in August 1945 fighting the supposedly ferocious, well trained, battle hardened, soundly equipped and brilliantly led Japanese forces left in Manchuria after Japan had exhausted itself fighting the other Allies elsewhere for more than four years, during which the USSR had fired not one shot at the Japanese, but which was an even more ferocious enemy than the one which the USSR defeated in 1938-39? ?? Do you ever get your hands off your ****s?

The nitpicking apportionment of calorific values of Lend Lease food is a perfect example of the ďthe USSR won the war all by itselfď line. The net result of your careful calculations is that food shipped into the USSR by Britain and America was worth ****-all to the otherwise adequately fed people and troops of the magnificent USSR. If it was such a useless load of unnecessary food, itís a pity that Stalin didnít have the courtesy to tell the other Allies that he neither needed nor wanted the food, not to mention the other supplies, that caused the loss of many ships and vastly more lives of non-Soviet merchant seamen and non-Soviet naval escorts from Britain and America while the Russian fleet did ****-all of any naval significance anywhere during the whole war, being wholly preoccupied with saving mother Russia while the rest of the world was engaged in a rather larger fight which, surprising though it may seem, actually extended beyond the ****ing Volga.

In attempting to deny the allegations I am making about the jingoistic Soviet attitude, you have merely reinforced them by saying:


The difference is that in case of the UK the the baddest bastard spat at your and eventually tried to step on your foot, wheras in case of USSR the bastard tried to take the heart out of the chest.

The contempt for everything that every other nation did is abundantly clear from that comment. Ignoring, as it does, the efforts of the other Allies in so many theatres on land, sea and in the air which allows you to make such a contemptuous and ill-informed comment.

Has it ever occurred to you that the USSR performance was pathetic? Work out the relative populations, resources and so on of the USSR and Germany. The USSR should have creamed Germany. Why didnít it?

Rather than the USSR being such a great element in the war, why donít we examine why such a great power with vastly more people than Germany, and a couple of years more time to prepare than Britain and France, was so weak against Germany, and took just as long as the other Allies to defeat Germany?

Why donít we examine why Stalin, bored with exterminating his own people, was so keen for the other Allies to open a Second Front? If the USSR was so capable of winning the war all by itself?

Putting things another way, why donít we abandon the USSR-focused approach of the clash of the titans and look at other countries?

Such as Australia with a population of about 7 million being the last bastion against Japan with a population of between about 75 and 100 million, depending upon how one counts Japanese in the home islands and in Manchuria etc?

Other nations, notably Britain, did a bloody sight better with smaller numbers against the magnificent German forces which the USSR eventually faced after carefully keeping out of the war for a couple of years.

A heavyweight bout is always impressive, but a light or middle weight holding a heavyweight is even more impressive. Which, applied to WWII, results in Britain being the medium weight holding the heavyweight while the USSR as the biggest heavyweight can't even hold another heavyweight, let alone defeat it.

I donít have a problem with any nation being proud of its wartime achievements, but I do have a serious problem with people treading on my and my mates' ****s and telling us that their ****s are bigger.

Egorka
05-18-2007, 09:06 AM
I agree Rising Sun. You have a good way of putting it.

Excuse my french, it is bull shit. If this is the message you and RisingSun get then we have a big problem!

Either I can not communicate my point or you do not want to listen. Or both.

It is sad... truely sad...

Rising Sun*
05-18-2007, 09:21 AM
Excuse my french, it is bull shit.

At the risk of being pedantic, and quite diffident after many decades since I did schoolboy French, but I think your comment should be

"Excuse my French, but it is merde de taureau" :D

Egorka
05-18-2007, 09:24 AM
RisingSun, look at the post #78, please.

Rising Sun*
05-18-2007, 09:52 AM
Excuse my french, it is bull shit. If this is the message you and RisingSun get then we have a big problem!

Either I can not communicate my point or you do not want to listen. Or both.

It is sad... truely sad...

Try reading my post at #79 with an open mind.

Where would the USSR have been if Britain, alone, didn't fight the Nazis long before the USSR was forced into the war by Germany?

Despite all the smart-arse Russian comments in various threads about Britain's failure to defend Czechoslovakia and Poland, what exactly did Russia / USSR do on this front, apart from expand its borders and kill more people?

I'm sick to ****ing death of hearing from Russia about how Britain should have saved Czechoslovakia and Poland, and the moral indignation that comes from those quarters about these events.

Both nations were a bloody sight closer to Russia than to Britain, and Russia was a bloody sight more ethnically aligned with and militarily capable of assisting those nations. But it didn't, apart from doing a great action of getting onto the battelfield after the battle and killing the wounded.

Russia's willingness to carve up Poland with the Nazis tells us all we need to know about how great it was in that area.

The USSR survived only because Britain gave it the breathing space to do so. And because the USSR stuck by a deal with Germany to protect itself while the rest of Europe, and in the end Britain alone, was fighting Germany.

And Britain did it with rather more courage and cleaner hands than a territorially ambitious Russia did in sucking up to Germany and co-operating in wiping out various peoples.

When, given the many opportunities to fight against the evil Germans, did the USSR ever do so? While Britain was fighting for its life?

Better to be Britain which might have failed, however impossible it might have been, to stop the ovens than to be Russia which marched people into the woods and killed them by the thousands.

So, don't tread on my **** and tell me it's my problem when your own **** is so thorougly up your own arse that it's blown off the top of your head.

Egorka
05-18-2007, 04:11 PM
Your post, RisingSun, is one more prove of my understanding that the biggest problem we have is not actually of a historical nature, but rather lack of willingness to understand each other. We can not even do it in real life, let alone internet forums.

Anyway here it goes... with open mind as you asked.

First I would like to say something that I find very important: I live in the world of my own interpretations. Just like you live in the world of your own interpretations. Just like anyone around.
And I am perfectly aware of this. The only thing that I could say I know almost for sure to be true is that the God is mercifull and will help my soul if I acknowledge my sins. The rest in the world around me is all relative.

So if you think that I regard my statements as definitive and undoubtefull, then we have miscommunication problem. That is why, for example, I opened the thread "The greatest contributor" because I wanted us to get something that would be based as much as possible on numbers than on personal feelings. Instead I was called a "**** measurer".


Egorka
I've refrained from responding for a few days to ensure that I don't respond in heat.
I stand by what I've said here and elsewhere.
I have been insulted by what you and Chevan have said in various threads.
If so, then sorry for insulting you. My aim is not to isult anyone in here or in real life. Even if I use some sarcasm it is not for insulting someone feelingss but for highlighting my points.


Regardless of what you and Chevan might intend, you come across consistently as presenting the USSR as having done all the hard fighting with the worst of the Axis powers...
I will speak of my self and let Chevan comment on behalf of himself. I make statements on his behalf a bit too often. :)

I have a set of ideas that I have developed for my self according to the knowledge I have. Just like anyone in the world. I am not always sure that this ideas represent an objective view. But this is what I have. So I present them consistently and defend them until I am presented with new facts.

I have for example, thanks to you and some others, got better impression of the importance of the sea battles in the Atlantic and Pacific. As my self being not much connect to the sea affears I deminished it's role in my head. So thank you! Do you think it could be that you underestimate the role of land warfare?


...and pretty much won the war all by itself, with occasional interference from minor irritants like Brtain and the US who, when they fought the same enemy, never had to fight such a big and bad one as the USSR did.
This is absolutely NOT my point! I repeatedly said on this forum (maybe not in a reply to you) that if UK whould have fallen or got a deal with Germany - USSR would have been beaten in 1941/1942.
And I never said or thought that USSR would have won alone.
It still does not dnegate my ideas that ALL sides (USSR, UK, US) were persuing they own interests in the war. For ALL three all other countries and nations were either the tool/allies or material or obstacle on the way for their after war plans. Because politics in all the coutries always are a bit heartless.


Such as, for example, in August 1945 fighting the supposedly ferocious, well trained, battle hardened, soundly equipped and brilliantly led Japanese forces left in Manchuria after Japan had exhausted itself fighting the other Allies elsewhere for more than four years, during which the USSR had fired not one shot at the Japanese, but which was an even more ferocious enemy than the one which the USSR defeated in 1938-39? ?? Do you ever get your hands off your ****s?
As a sarcastic comment it is OK, but not as a serious one. Has this been said sarcasticly? I hope so.
So why Japan was "more ferocious enemy" than Germany?
I mean objectivley. Not just because you or other many people think so.
I would think that Germany was more ferocious because all the Allies agreed to deal with Japan AFTER Germany. That is kind of strange for "more ferocious enemy", right?.


The nitpicking apportionment of calorific values of Lend Lease food is a perfect example of the “the USSR won the war all by itself“ line.
MAn! Friend! Amigo!
Where do you get this from?

My result, as I said, showed that the Lend-Lease help likely saved more than 5 million Soviet sitizens. HOW is that not a good evaluation of the Lend-Lease food supply?

Yes, I was trying to show that Lend-Lease food help could not save the population of USSR from a complete stravation to death as it was said in some post in this forum. That is I am still stending by.

You wrote this: “the USSR won the war all by itself“. It is a stupid statement. So why is it in quotes? Have I said it? Has Chevan said it? Who said it?


The net result of your careful calculations is that food shipped into the USSR by Britain and America was worth ****-all to the otherwise adequately fed people and troops of the magnificent USSR.
See my answer to the previous quote.

You did not read my posts carefully.
I never clamed that USSR population was feed good or even adequatly. I already said before that there were death due to hunger, especially in 1943.
Again I repeat. +5 mil saved people is more than good evaluation of the food help.



If it was such a useless load of unnecessary food, it’s a pity that Stalin didn’t have the courtesy to tell the other Allies that he neither needed nor wanted the food, not to mention the other supplies, that caused the loss of many ships and vastly more lives of non-Soviet merchant seamen and non-Soviet naval escorts from Britain and America while the Russian fleet did ****-all of any naval significance anywhere during the whole war, being wholly preoccupied with saving mother Russia while the rest of the world was engaged in a rather larger fight which, surprising though it may seem, actually extended beyond the ****ing Volga.
Ok. Again I did not say the food was "unnecessary ". Quite contrary.

Stalin would take all the food he whould be able to get for free. Just like any other country whould.

Regarding the convoys. I see your point and I find your position very relevant. But I would like to ask you if you know answers on these 2 questions:

How big was the part of the Lend-Lease goods moved by SOVIET sailors ot USSR?
What was the share (in %) of killed SOVIET sailors in the total number of killed sailor during the delivery of Lend-Lease to USSR.



In attempting to deny the allegations I am making about the jingoistic Soviet attitude, you have merely reinforced them by saying:

The difference is that in case of the UK the the baddest bastard spat at your and eventually tried to step on your foot, wheras in case of USSR the bastard tried to take the heart out of the chest.
The contempt for everything that every other nation did is abundantly clear from that comment. Ignoring, as it does, the efforts of the other Allies in so many theatres on land, sea and in the air which allows you to make such a contemptuous and ill-informed comment.

Has it ever occurred to you that the USSR performance was pathetic? Work out the relative populations, resources and so on of the USSR and Germany. The USSR should have creamed Germany. Why didn’t it?

Rather than the USSR being such a great element in the war, why don’t we examine why such a great power with vastly more people than Germany, and a couple of years more time to prepare than Britain and France, was so weak against Germany, and took just as long as the other Allies to defeat Germany?

Why don’t we examine why Stalin, bored with exterminating his own people, was so keen for the other Allies to open a Second Front? If the USSR was so capable of winning the war all by itself?
I will disregard most of this comment because you did not understand my statement. If you read your own words that I answere to you will see that I reffered only to UK in the period 1939 - june 1941, and not to "every other nation":


This is what happens when the Soviet line is pushed as if nobody did anything else, and nobody has anything else to be proud of because they didn't face the biggest, baddest bastard on the block. Which, as I have said often enough before, only the British Commonwealth was doing from the fall of France until Germany attacked Russia.
It is the last sentence I was answering to. Germany NEVER seriously planned defeating UK before getting rid of USSR first. The aftrican campaign was a joke on the large scale of the complete was. This of course has nothing to do with the experience of particular soldiers on the battlefield. But we are talking of countries and their goverments making political descisions.
Germany just tried they luck and turned away until later. They of course would come back in case of USSR was defeated.


Putting things another way, why don’t we abandon the USSR-focused approach of the clash of the titans and look at other countries?

.
.
.

I don’t have a problem with any nation being proud of its wartime achievements, but I do have a serious problem with people treading on my and my mates' ****s and telling us that their ****s are bigger.
It is late now... I am exhausted... RisingSun! My friend, if it makes you happy I am ready to admit that your tool is bigger! Happy now?:cry:

Egorka
05-18-2007, 04:53 PM
Try reading my post at #79 with an open mind.

I hope my openness has been satisfactory to you.


Where would the USSR have been if Britain, alone, didn't fight the Nazis long before the USSR was forced into the war by Germany?
Where wohuld USSR be? Likely to be defeated by Germany as I said MANY times before. Unless of course much bigger USA's help.


Despite all the smart-arse Russian comments in various threads about Britain's failure to defend Czechoslovakia and Poland, what exactly did Russia / USSR do on this front, apart from expand its borders and kill more people?
RisingSun, you miserpresent the reality (the way I see it of course :) ). You see, this "Britain's failure to defend Czechoslovakia and Poland" is wrong. Do you know why? Because there was NO attempt to save them at all. Do you see the it now too?

Poor Czechoslovakia was the just sacrificed by ALL of it's partners! This includes UK, France and Poland! Poland also got a peice of it. Kind of Stalin like attitude, do not you think? Yosef Beck even bragged to Hitler and used as an argument in negotiations with Germnay the fact that he blocked any attempts of USSR to provide military help to Czechoslovakia. How sincere this Stalin's intentions to help Czechoslovakia were is irrelevant (they were not).


I'm sick to ****ing death of hearing from Russia about how Britain should have saved Czechoslovakia and Poland, and the moral indignation that comes from those quarters about these events.

Both nations were a bloody sight closer to Russia than to Britain, and Russia was a bloody sight more ethnically aligned with and militarily capable of assisting those nations. But it didn't, apart from doing a great action of getting onto the battelfield after the battle and killing the wounded.
This is strange to hear form you. You are informed person. USSR, for sure, could not help Czechoslovakia. This has been discussed in this forum during last 6 months a bit. Look for it.

Poland is different. Stalin wanted a part of it back. And this made him more practical about the issues.

But have you heard about the "mutual security" negotiations in 1939 between UK, France and USSR? What do you think of them? Who proposed mutual security in Europe in 1939? Who objected and why? What happened that made Stalin to sign Molotov-Ribbentrop pact while the French and British envoys were still in Moscow talking to him in August 1939? What do you think?


Russia's willingness to carve up Poland with the Nazis tells us all we need to know about how great it was in that area.
Yes, you are right about it. It also tells us about Poland carving Czechoslovakia. Tough times there were...


The USSR survived only because Britain gave it the breathing space to do so. And because the USSR stuck by a deal with Germany to protect itself while the rest of Europe, and in the end Britain alone, was fighting Germany.
True most of it. The only comment I have is that Britain did not fight Germany in the sence of defeating it. Britain just protected it self and tried to prevent colapse of it's Empier.



And Britain did it with rather more courage and cleaner hands than a territorially ambitious Russia did in sucking up to Germany and co-operating in wiping out various peoples.
Yes, Britains hands were cleaner than USSR's but the mind is filthier. Do you understand what I mean? Stlain's politics were crude and butchery. Chirchils were refined and corrupt.

Who do you want to meet? A street huligan who would brake your leg or a conman who would trick your money from you? Take a pick.



When, given the many opportunities to fight against the evil Germans, did the USSR ever do so? While Britain was fighting for its life?

Better to be Britain which might have failed, however impossible it might have been, to stop the ovens than to be Russia which marched people into the woods and killed them by the thousands.
Ovens? You mean the ovens in the camps for Jews stoped thanks ti Britain? Is that what you mean?


So, don't tread on my **** and tell me it's my problem when your own **** is so thorougly up your own arse that it's blown off the top of your head.
You keep bringing in some biology terms I never heard before. Why is that? Any particular urges? Confused? Need an advice?

Egorka
05-18-2007, 05:03 PM
I can see Chevan is reading this thread right now... I guess his eye are going to fall out of the orbits! :)

And just change a bit the pace of this thread: RisingSun, I love you. And all other ozzies that are not Osbournes.
Last week in Italy we had as neighbour a couple from Adelaide, Australia. They were of your age, I guess, around 60+. We had such a great time together!!! We would have dinner together every evening, drink great Italian wine and talk a lot about many subjects (no WW2 though).

So I am imagining you now, RisingSun, as that ozzy guy. So I love you.

P.S: Though I love you, could you please stop mentioning the meaty part of you body? ;)

Chevan
05-18-2007, 06:12 PM
Mate i'm sure our friend Risin Sum soon calm down and stop to spread the emotional posts.

I have been insulted by what you and Chevan have said in various threads
How do you thing Egorka is this really our guilt for that what's happands with Risin Sun;)?
He so tired to hear about Chechoslovakia but at the same time he has no problems to repeate about "cutting of Poland" in everywhere.

Despite all the smart-arse Russian comments in various threads about Britain's failure to defend Czechoslovakia and Poland, what exactly did Russia / USSR do on this front, apart from expand its borders and kill more people?

What do i hear ?It so stange to hear it from you Rising Sun - the specialist (in our forum) of the Pacific thearte.
May be you do not know but NOBODY did not even planned to defend the Chehoslovakia and Poland;)
When Edvard Beneh (Chech president) has saw the France and Britain demanded to take the German conditions in the 1938 (i/e/ lost the independence of state) he trued to turn to the USSR help ( the chechoslovakia had a war-defence treaty with USSR). But the Britains notified him - if the chehoslovakia admit the soviet help then the Britain could not to help and war will has the total anti-bolshevic character (i/e/ Britain supported the GErmany).
So this was a tupica blackmail for own political purposes- not the defence of Chehoslovakia.
And about Poland.
Don't you really know the Britain and France decided not to help the Poland befor the 1 sep 1939?
The war plan of the british-France union defence troops even do not consider the Poland as a side in the war.
Not bad defence of Poland how do you think?;)
Well if seriously, i think we need "to sign the peace" with Rising Sun.
He is really neitral member and good guy. ;)

Cojimar 1945
05-18-2007, 09:00 PM
Although Germany was theoretically very powerful it did not utilize its assets for the war until late in the conflict. When debating alternative scenarios regarding whether one country could beat Germany alone one must take into account that Germany did not mobilize for war for a long time so even a country with far less potential than Germany could match or surpass German weapons production.

Rising Sun*
05-19-2007, 07:00 AM
Mate i'm sure our friend Risin Sum soon calm down and stop to spread the emotional posts.

Don't confuse me being pissed off with listening to jingoistic Soviet bragging with me being emotional.

Having offered that conciliatory comment :D, I'll move on to the the real purpose of this post.


Well if seriously, i think we need "to sign the peace" with Rising Sun.


Agreed.

Egorka and Chevan

I've said what I wanted to say.

You've replied.

I'm not going to turn this into something rivalling Tolstoy's War and Peace in both complexity and length and, were it possible, even harder to follow, by responding to your replies.

I don't have any problem with either of you or your opinions, apart from my (and others') perception that you have a tendency to focus in an unbalanced way on Soviet aspects, about which I've expressed my views forcefully. I accept that you may think that the perception that your focus is unbalanced is an unbalanced perception on my and others' parts. There is nothing to be gained by disputing these perceptions further. It can lead only to more lack of balance. :D

I think you both have deep knowledge of many aspects of WWII and I have learned a lot from both of you.

I have also learned a lot from both of you on internal Soviet aspects and perceptions which aren't covered too well in a lot of Western sources.

So, having expressed our respective views, how about we resume our normal more or less peaceful relations, to the extent that it is possible with Egorka and his obsession with reducing everything to numbers and Chevan with his posts fuelled by his 500% proof vodka and my posts fuelled by 5% alcohol Aussie beer, which naturally is nowhere near as big and bad as Russia's standard drink, as Egorka will undoubtedly prove with some complicated calculations? :D

Peace?

Egorka
05-19-2007, 08:44 AM
"Alrighty then!"
Jim Carrey in Pet Detective

Peace and love!

I will continue the information in the post #78 within next couple of days or so.

Egorka
05-21-2007, 07:44 AM
Rising Sun*, by the way the large font in my post #70 was not ment as a shouting, but rather the cry out.
So if you got it a was shouting at you, then it is just an other example how difficult it is for people to understand each other. Especially if they talk about different issues!

Rising Sun*
05-22-2007, 01:27 AM
Rising Sun*, by the way the large font in my post #70 was not ment as a shouting, but rather the cry out.

Not a problem. I didn't even notice it. :D

Cojimar 1945
05-23-2007, 01:15 AM
Russians/Kazakhs/Ukranians and others who composed the former USSR who want to emphasize Soviet contribution to the war effort might best do so by merely pointing out facts. For example, the Soviets did kill more Germans than all the other allies put together as far as I can tell.

Rising Sun*
05-23-2007, 08:37 AM
Russians/Kazakhs/Ukranians and others who composed the former USSR who want to emphasize Soviet contribution to the war effort might best do so by merely pointing out facts. For example, the Soviets did kill more Germans than all the other allies put together as far as I can tell.

Figures don't mean much.

The Nazis killed about six million Jews, which is about six million more than anyone else managed (ignoring routine exterminations in Europe and Russia for centuries before the war and those enthusiastically aided during the war by the French, Poles, Hungarians etc).

The Soviets lost up to 25 million combined military and civilian deaths.

On that basis the European Jews contributed about one quarter of the effort that the Soviets contributed to the defeat of Germany, without even picking up a gun.

The Soviets lost maybe 13% of their population, against maybe 18% lost from Poland's population. Does that mean that the Soviet contribution to the defeat of Germany was only about 70% of Poland's?

Factor in about 60% of Polish losses being Jews killed by the Germans, with Polish complicity, which means that only about 8% of Poland's non-Jewish population was killed, which leaves the Soviets ahead at 13% (omitting the million or so Jews killed by the Nazis left from the Jews killed by various Soviet / Russian regimes).

What matters in war is not the absolute or relative numbers or percentages of deaths, but the strategic significance of events.

Egorka
05-23-2007, 08:55 AM
The numbers are not the goal, not the end of discussion. It is the start for discussion, the beginning.

And I do believe they are very important to know!

Because it is very easy to give up to the common ideas floating arround about millions of killed in GULAG, about how Russains repayed many times over to the German POWs, about millions of rapes in Germany. It is easy because we are kind of scared of that time and therefore tend to overestimate what happenned.

For example you say about "routine exterminations (of jews) in Europe and Russia for centuries before".
I can only say about Russia it is wrong. But again it depends what you mean by "routine exterminations"? How many jews were killed in the conflicts? How many local none jewish people were killed in those conflicts? You can not say it is irrelevant to know.

Rising Sun*
05-23-2007, 09:31 AM
The numbers are not the goal, not the end of discussion. It is the start for discussion, the beginning.

And I do believe they are very important to know!

Because it is very easy to give up to the common ideas floating arround about millions of killed in GULAG, about how Russains repayed many times over to the German POWs, about millions of rapes in Germany. It is easy because we are kind of scared of that time and therefore tend to overestimate what happenned.

For example you say about "routine exterminations (of jews) in Europe and Russia for centuries before".
I can only say about Russia it is wrong. But again it depends what you mean by "routine exterminations"? How many jews were killed in the conflicts? How many local none jewish people were killed in those conflicts? You can not say it is irrelevant to know.

I don't think the exact number of deaths matters too much.

It's the attitudes which cause the deaths which matter.

And it goes back a long way.


The year 1096 ushered in a period of viciously cruel harassment unique in Jewish history in terms of duration: the Crusades.(20)

'Great, ill-organized hordes of nobles, knights, monks, and peasants -- "God wills it" on their lips as they set off to free the Holy Land from the Muslim infidel -- suddenly turned on the Jews … One chronicler, Guibert of Nogent (1053-1124), reported the crusaders of Rouen as saying: "We desire to combat the enemies of God in the East; but we have under our eyes the Jews, a race more inimical to God than all the others. We are doing this whole thing backwards." '(21)

Approximately a quarter to one-third of the entire Jewish population in Germany and northern France was murdered during the First Crusade.(22)

In Jerusalem the Jews fled from the Crusaders, locking themselves in the main synagogue, where all 969 were burnt to death. Outside, the Crusaders, who believed they were avenging the death of Christ, sang, Christ, We Adore Thee, holding their Crusader crosses aloft. Earlier that day, as the Crusaders ran over the mutilated bodies of those slaughtered, one leader, Raymond of Aguilers, quoted Psalm 118:24: 'This is the day which the Lord has made; let us rejoice and be glad in it.' The Crusaders intended to make Jerusalem a Christian city."
http://www.kanaan.org/israel1.htm

It didn't get any better in the next thousand years or so.

Does it matter whether it was six or two or eleven million Jews or Russians or anyone else killed in WWII?

I'm more concerned by the national philosophy which permits any of these things to happen.

George Eller
05-23-2007, 12:32 PM
I don't think the exact number of deaths matters too much.

It's the attitudes which cause the deaths which matter.

And it goes back a long way.


http://www.kanaan.org/israel1.htm

It didn't get any better in the next thousand years or so.

Does it matter whether it was six or two or eleven million Jews or Russians or anyone else killed in WWII?

I'm more concerned by the national philosophy which permits any of these things to happen.
-

Well said.

-

Egorka
05-23-2007, 03:24 PM
I don't think the exact number of deaths matters too much.
It's the attitudes which cause the deaths which matter.
And it goes back a long way.

http://www.kanaan.org/israel1.htm

It didn't get any better in the next thousand years or so.
Does it matter whether it was six or two or eleven million Jews or Russians or anyone else killed in WWII?
I'm more concerned by the national philosophy which permits any of these things to happen.Yes, I agree. Well said.

The exact number is not important as such. As I wrote before on this forum 1 unjust death is one too many. The number starts getting more important whe someone tries to call you nazi or fascist if you say that it MAYBE was 4 million. The funny thing is that ther will be usually no reaction regarding different numbers of gipsies, polish, belorussians and russians.

Yes, it goes back a long way. The existense of those anti jewish events is note disputable. The reasons, on the contrary, are much more complex. It is not only pure anty jewish hatred. There were also mercantile intrests involved (on both sides). Not all the Jews were exactly good to the local population either. And the locals paied them with the similar curency.

Sidenote 1: By the way, are you aware of the very explicit antagonism towards the none jews among the orthodox jewish community. Some jewish sects do not even concider people of other religions as humans at all, but rather like animals with no immortal souls. Things like that could hardly be working for the peacefull and friendly coexistence in the old days.

Sidenote 2: The qrusades were enourmous butcher fares really! I guess the Jews were not very popular among the people involved. The same day that is mentioned in the quote also the whole muslim population of Jerusalem was slaughtered. BTW, do you know that Jerusalem was not the only destination for Qrusades? In the 13th century Russia had to reppell a Qrusade from Europe as well.

Egorka
05-23-2007, 03:40 PM
Brain excercise:

How would you evaluate the name of an article like this one? Is it good? Reasonable? Fair? Makes sense? Theologically correct? What is it?


"The Guilt of Judaism Towards the Christian People."

.

Egorka
05-24-2007, 05:35 PM
Brain excercise:

How would you evaluate the name of an article like this one? Is it good? Reasonable? Fair? Makes sense? Theologically correct? What is it?


"The Guilt of Judaism Towards the Christian People."

.

Ok. What if I change the article name to tihs one:


"The Guilt of Christianity Towards the Jewish People"

Is this one good? Reasonable? Fair? Makes sense? Theologically correct? What is it?

George Eller
05-24-2007, 07:37 PM
I don't think the exact number of deaths matters too much.

It's the attitudes which cause the deaths which matter.

And it goes back a long way.


http://www.kanaan.org/israel1.htm

It didn't get any better in the next thousand years or so.

Does it matter whether it was six or two or eleven million Jews or Russians or anyone else killed in WWII?

I'm more concerned by the national philosophy which permits any of these things to happen.

-

Well said.

And thanks Rising Sun for the very interesting and informative link.

-

Chevan
05-25-2007, 03:53 AM
Gentlemens what was happend on this forum?
The second thread that i found today is about "jewish problems".
Now in the thread devoted the Japane military;)
How many jews were in Japane army, do somebody know.
Could we create a separate thread for "jewish question"?
I think do not nessisary discuss it in every thread of forum.:D

Rising Sun*
05-25-2007, 07:02 AM
Gentlemens what was happend on this forum?
The second thread that i found today is about "jewish problems".
Now in the thread devoted the Japane military;)
How many jews were in Japane army, do somebody know.
Could we create a separate thread for "jewish question"?
I think do not nessisary discuss it in every thread of forum.:D

I don't know how many Jews were in the Japanese army but, surprisingly, there was a small Jewish community in Japan and, even more surprisingly, Japan actually accepted Jews fleeing the Nazis when many other nations wouldn't. http://www.jcpa.org/jl/jl425.htm

Just to get back to the Kwantung Army, there was also a Jewish community in Harbin http://www.bh.org.il/Communities/Archive/Harbin.asp

So now we're back in Manchuria. :D

George Eller
05-25-2007, 12:07 PM
I don't know how many Jews were in the Japanese army but, surprisingly, there was a small Jewish community in Japan and, even more surprisingly, Japan actually accepted Jews fleeing the Nazis when many other nations wouldn't. http://www.jcpa.org/jl/jl425.htm

Just to get back to the Kwantung Army, there was also a Jewish community in Harbin http://www.bh.org.il/Communities/Archive/Harbin.asp

So now we're back in Manchuria. :D

-

Thanks for the links :)

Here are some on Chiune Sugihara - The Japanese Schindler:

Chiune Sugihara
The Japanese Schindler
http://www.immortalchaplains.org/Prize/Ceremony2000/Sugihara/sugihara.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiune_Sugihara

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/sugihara.html

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3243778,00.html

-

Sugihara: Conspiracy Of Kindness - DVD
http://www.amazon.com/Sugihara-Conspiracy-Kindness-Neil-Ross/dp/B0009OUC78/ref=sr_1_1/105-4006696-6405254?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1180115359&sr=1-1

In Search of Sugihara: The Elusive Japanese Dipolomat Who Risked his Life to Rescue 10,000 Jews From the Holocaust
http://www.amazon.com/Search-Sugihara-Japanese-Dipolomat-Holocaust/dp/0684832518

-

ALSO:

Fugu Plan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugu_plan

The Fugu Plan: The Untold Story Of The Japanese And The Jews During World War II
http://www.amazon.com/dp/9652293296/

-

Rising Sun*
05-26-2007, 06:20 AM
George

Thanks for those very interesting links.

I'd never heard of Sugihara.

His actions, like those of principled and kindly Japanese soldiers and civilians towards POWs and in other circumstances during WWII, just reinforce how wrong it is to lump all people of any nation in with their worst examples under a bad regime.

The Fugu plan is also something I'd never heard of. I mentioned an unrelated plan for Jews to settle in Australia before WWII in another thread http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4663&page=7, described here http://www.abc.net.au/rn/relig/ark/stories/s1438826.htm . I wonder how different things might have been for some European Jews if some of these plans had come to fruition.

In your first link about Sugihara there is this statement

"There they were treated well during the war. Despite its alliance with Nazi Germany, Japan had little history of antiSemitism."

That confirms my view that the bulk of anti-Semitism is passed down the generations with mothers' milk, especially in Europe. People whose experience of Jews isn't tainted by ancient prejudices don't have a problem with them.

Just to keep Chevan happy about not drifting off topic onto Jews, as Japan had little history of anti-Semitism and wanted to settle Jews in Manchuria, there probably wasn't any anti-Semitism in the Kwantung Army. :D

George Eller
05-26-2007, 10:15 PM
George

Thanks for those very interesting links.

I'd never heard of Sugihara.

His actions, like those of principled and kindly Japanese soldiers and civilians towards POWs and in other circumstances during WWII, just reinforce how wrong it is to lump all people of any nation in with their worst examples under a bad regime.

The Fugu plan is also something I'd never heard of. I mentioned an unrelated plan for Jews to settle in Australia before WWII in another thread http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4663&page=7, described here http://www.abc.net.au/rn/relig/ark/stories/s1438826.htm . I wonder how different things might have been for some European Jews if some of these plans had come to fruition.

In your first link about Sugihara there is this statement

"There they were treated well during the war. Despite its alliance with Nazi Germany, Japan had little history of antiSemitism."

That confirms my view that the bulk of anti-Semitism is passed down the generations with mothers' milk, especially in Europe. People whose experience of Jews isn't tainted by ancient prejudices don't have a problem with them.

Just to keep Chevan happy about not drifting off topic onto Jews, as Japan had little history of anti-Semitism and wanted to settle Jews in Manchuria, there probably wasn't any anti-Semitism in the Kwantung Army. :D
-

You're welcome :)

I think that I first read of Sugihara some years back in a newpaper article after the movie Schindler's List came out. People like him are such an inspiration.

Sugihara video clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBXCYxSYbQs

Yes, it seems that anti-semitism is presently strongest in Europe and in the Middle-East.

I don't think that it is as prevalent here in the United States. In fact, the intermarriage ratio of American Jews to Gentiles in the USA is around 50 percent IIRC. The assimilation rate is pretty high also.

I don't think that Jews can really be classified as a race, as some may believe. I think that it has been the Jewish religion and the will of the Almighty that has held them together throughout their history. Those that drifted away from their faith have tended to become absorbed among the nations.

Racially, the Jews have tended to intermix with the peoples among whom they have settled throughout their history. In Israel, you will find Jews of all types of ethnic backgrounds. Light skinned, northern European types (including blondes with blue eyes), darker Mediterranean and Middle Eastern types, Slavic types from Russia, Asian types from India and southern parts of the former Soviet Union, and Black Jews from Ethiopia. Many would be indistiguishable from the people of the nations from which they came.

Although Japan's Fugu Plan was never fully implimented, it did put the Jews in a more favorable position with the Japanese, and that helped preserve the lives of thousands of Jews who would probably have perished otherwise.


...as Japan had little history of anti-Semitism and wanted to settle Jews in Manchuria, there probably wasn't any anti-Semitism in the Kwantung Army. :D
-

Probably not :D

-

Cojimar 1945
05-27-2007, 04:47 PM
Why would you say figures don't mean much? I would agree that some are of less relevance than others but some figures seem fairly meaningful. I was referring to casualties suffered by the German military and not civilian casualties.

Cojimar 1945
05-27-2007, 04:54 PM
I would agree that Soviet losses are not relevant to their level of contribution whereas the number of axis soldiers thay killed and captured is. However, they do appear to have an advantage in this area though it is unclear to what degree. There does not seem to be a commonly accepted figure for the percentage of axis who fell in the east.

There seems to be considerable confusion regarding the number of Chinese civilian casualties during the war. Some have suggested that their losses were even higher than those of the USSR while others put it much lower. What are people's thoughts on the number of Chinese civilians killed by the Japanese from 1937 to 1945?

Nickdfresh
03-08-2008, 11:26 AM
Papers on the Soviet-Japanese clashes:

Nomonhan: Japanese-Soviet Tactical Combat, 1939, Edward J. Drea. (http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/content.asp#nom)

August Storm: The Soviet 1945 Strategic Offensive in Manchuria, LTC David M. Glantz (http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/content.asp#aug)

August Storm: Soviet Tactical and Operational Combat in Manchuria, 1945, LTC David M. Glantz. (http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/content.asp#august)

Major Walter Schmidt
03-09-2008, 09:55 PM
Actualy, the pronounciation is more like Kantou Gunn (with long U) (関東軍)kantou is the middle part of japan and gunn means army.

Rising Sun*
03-10-2008, 04:39 AM
What are people's thoughts on the number of Chinese civilians killed by the Japanese from 1937 to 1945?

Who knows?

The Chinese were fighting each other as enthusiastically as the Japanese for much of the time, and moving across the landscape in the same pillaging and homicidal way. It left a lot of bodies without the killers' labels on them.

If one believes what might be propaganda or might be reliable eye-witness evidence, the communists worked out that alienating the civilian population by expropriating and slaughtering them was a bad policy and were at pains to treat them well, which garnered them a lot of grassroots support from people who'd been screwed over royally by government and warlord forces.

Carl Schwamberger
03-30-2008, 08:43 AM
After reading the entire discussion again it appears theres a usefull discussion underneath all the shouting. The joke about elephants mating come to mind.

There were a couple of brief comparisons of the Kwantung Army to some other Japanese groups such as the home islands defense army, or some of the island garrisons. The focus was on comparisons to Japanese armys existing in August 1945, but for a usefull analysis comparison to the army defending he Phillpines, or in a lesser way the army that was destroyed in Burma, could be used. Unlike the armys in Japan or China those two were actually attacked and defeated. And, their scale in numbers and space is somewhat comparable to the Manchurian battle, unlike the small island battles of 1944-45 which hardly touch the division between tactical and operational scale.

Nickdfresh
07-12-2008, 05:10 PM
http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/glantz3/glantz3.asp

The above is the paper by renowned military historian Dr. Glantz on the Soviet steamrolling of Manchuria called "August Storm."