Talk:Soviet invasion of Manchuria/Archive 4

Manchukuo and Mongolia in infobox
There is really no basis of showing Manchukuo and Mongolia differently in infobox. Both were formally independent states which had very little foreign recognition at that time, were fully dependent of their overlord, and were regarded by China as its rightful territory.--Staberinde (talk) 19:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Manchukuo and Mengjiang were not independent sovereign states, they were part of the Empire of Japan. They are described as puppet states. Here is how that is defined (with sources): "a state that is supposedly independent but is in fact dependent upon an outside power. It is nominally sovereign but effectively controlled by a foreign or otherwise alien power, for reasons such as financial interests.
 * A puppet state preserves the external paraphernalia of independence like a name, flag, anthem, constitution, law codes and motto but in reality is an organ of another state which created or sponsored the government. Puppet states are not recognized as legitimate under international law."


 * Mongolia is never described as such and was never considered part of the Soviet Union. Maybe the Russian Empire, but not the Soviet Union. And China already lost control of these territories at this point in time. Sovereign state and autonomous state are also not the same thing. It also makes no sense to list Manchukuo and Mengjiang independently, considering they contributed literally nothing to the conflict and most soldiers simply deserted beforehand, it would make more sense to just remove them. Lucasjohansson (talk) 02:09, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Manchukuo was not part of Empire of Japan, just as other puppets like Slovak Republic (1939–1945) and Independent State of Croatia were not part of Nazi Germany. Having de facto control doesn't make territory part of a country, only annexation does. General wikipedia practice with WW II puppets in battle infoboxes is to show them as separate countries, not as parts of controlling country: Invasion of Poland, World War II in Yugoslavia, Battle of Stalingrad, Operation Barbarossa. Moreover, Mongolia only gained international recognition after WW II, beforehand it was recognized as Chinese territory just like Manchukuo, and while its more commonly described as client or satellite state, puppet isn't completely unheard description either.--Staberinde (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * They were definitely considered colonies / mandates / puppet states / occupied territories of the Japanese colonial empire. Not so for Mongolia and the Soviet Union. It's like comparing apples and oranges. The Kwantung Army was Japanese, and and local troops contributed absolutely nothing to this conflict at all. They were not independent SOVEREIGN states. Lucasjohansson (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't find them being sovereign or not a particularly relevant point, as it would only lead to next question which client states qualify as sovereign and which do not. As you could see from articles I linked earlier, it is generally established practice in WW II infoboxes to show nominally independent de facto puppet states separately from their controlling power, and I don't really see what makes Manchukuo so fundamentally different from lets say Slovak Republic (1939–1945) that we should break that practice here.--Staberinde (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Manchukuo was an actual Japanese colony and Japanese occupied state. More like India with the UK or the Philippines and the US. The prestigious Kwantung Army was Japanese, and the local Manchukuons contributed nothing to the conflict, they were more a support role if anything. Lucasjohansson (talk) 21:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

"Chinese Communist Forces"
The infobox shows the Soviet commanders of 1 person in charge of the entire theatre, and 3 in command of an entire army group each. To include then 2 additional people, from the leadership of a brigade (as part of a division, as part of a corps, as part of an army, as part of one of the aforementioned army groups) is to give way to much emphasis and prevalence, espeially since the brigade didnt even see combat! Its leadership was instead "just" used for administrative roles after the conquest/liberation of Manchukuo.

Information about this is interesting and can/should be included in the article (or the Soviet occupation of Manchuria, since they were only used for the occupation and not the battle), but to included it (and its leadership) in the main infobox, when it was such a small unit and did not actually participate in the battle, is bloated and misrepresenting. --Havsjö (talk) 11:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Please read the sources I linked carefully, the forces entered Manchuria (behind front lines) before the aug 20 1945, when the invasion ended, which means they participated. they played a role in occupation - including reconassaince, sweeping the countryside of leftover japanese forces, etc. Also, the reason why I specifies "CHINESE communist forces" is because the NAJUA was not the only force containing Chinese communists in Red army. As the source I linked, there were ethnic Chinese and Korean members of the CCP who served in the Red army in other factions of the Red army. The NAJUA was the just the main one. Please stop with your deletion of information or I will report you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laputa-skye (talk • contribs) 03:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Also, stop with childish threats about "blocking", you cant just censor your "opposition" here. Get a consensus on the Talk before keeping to make edits.
 * http://zhurnal.lib.ru/g/gawrjuchenkow_j_f/kimirsen.shtml (this the source you have sent multiple times to disprove me) (you also sent another source after I pointed out this source stated the unit did not see combat, which was far less detailed and simply said how the same unit was part of the far eastern front during the hostilities of the Manchuria invasion. but this, in detail, shows how they were not used for combat and only for the occupation afterwards)
 * The source says (and I will have it translated here so other people can see) "However, four days after the outbreak of hostilities, the brigade’s operational plan was canceled, and its redeployment to Manchuria was delayed and the brigade has not been used to date." from the units commander. (This note about the cancellation of deployment was also only received by the fronts commander a few days before the total Japanese surrender)
 * "The result of this appeal was the disbandment of the 88th separate rifle brigade by order of the commander of the Far Eastern Military District? 042 from 10/12/45, the "Stalin Special Forces", which had been preparing for the sabotage reconnaissance throughout the war, was not put into battle. The Chinese and Korean communists, checked by the NKVD, special agencies of military units and counterintelligence SMERSH, regularly raising the moral and political level under the supervision of Soviet officers for several years turned out to be too valuable cadres to send them to bullets. The Chinese comrades found a more reasonable use in leadership positions in the district commandant's offices and police stations of liberated Manchuria." from just the article itself.
 * The unit was part of the Far eastern front, but not sent into action in Manchuria, as per your own source. Even that document from the brigade commander himself talks about how they were not used. This also contradicts your claims here about about reconnaissance, as it said its training as a recon-unit was used and it was not put into the battle, being saved for occupation duties instead.
 * Again: Add info about this to the body article or to the Soviet occupation of Manchuria, since (as you and the source says!) they were used for the occupation and administration. They were simply not used for combat. The Northeast Anti-Japanese United Army, which is linked in the infobox did not exist at that time, they had retreated into the USSR in the early 1940's and became the 88th rifle brigade (the now red army unit which did not see combat and was saved and used for occupation). The source you have sent only deals with this unit. The Koreans who did see action (in Korea!) can be added to the Korean section of the article (or a separate article).
 * Even if the unit would have seen combat, it would still be entirely unsuitable for the infobox. A small, "insignificant" brigade (on the operational level) is given a higher prominence than entire ARMY GROUP COMMANDS by listing multiple leaders for this brigade (and which was not put into combat). Even the koreans who were sent to Korea would be given a way to big of a role, to include such a minuscule group along side army commands for infobox only about Korea.
 * Again, Again: Add info about this to the body article or to the Soviet occupation of Manchuria!! --Havsjö (talk) 08:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I can also add that is has definitely been a precedent set on other articles to clean up infoboxes of commanders of (in this case, extremely) minor units, as their irrelevance bloats up the infobox and obfuscates what really matters. This infobox is about the "Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation" which the listed commander hold essential commands on strategic/operational level.
 * Vasilevsky (theatre command), Malinovsky, Meretskov, Purkayev (army group command), Kuzentsov and Yumashev (overall naval CnC & pacific fleet commander) K. Choilbalsan and L. Jamiyan (CnC/Dictator of Mongolia and Commander in the field of the Mongolian army units).
 * And to add to that... TWO people who held command of a brigade(!) That did not see combat and only used for administration in the occupation. Its giving too much prominence, unsuited for this infobox and bloating. Any small number of Chinese volunteers in the Red Army which would have seen combat despite the brigade not being used in battle (as per your source, even though this contradicts official reports from the brigade commanders own words to his superiors) are definitely not relevant to be listed alongside such commanders, and would themselves just be part of the Soviet army (whos participation and order of battle are already included with the army groups and armies.) --Havsjö (talk) 08:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I added information about the unit into the body of the article. Soviet invasion of Manchuria --Havsjö (talk) 13:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Last campaign of WW2
The lead states that this was the "last campaign of World War II." What about the Soviet invasion of the Kuril Islands later in August? Brutannica (talk) 18:41, 9 August 2020 (UTC)