Talk:Operation August Storm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Operation August Storm article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
More information about this article... ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (nations and regions): Chinese military history task force Japanese military history task force Russian and Soviet military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): World War II task force

To-do list for Operation August Storm:

edit · history · watch · refresh

Someone should definitely get a picture of some Japanese soldiers in Korea or Manchukuo, sort of the Japanese equivalent of the picture of the Soviet soldiers eating. Someone should then place the above picture in the summary of Japanese forces, in basically the same format as the Soviet soldiers eating. Flesh out the summaries of the forces a bit. Add a bit on the Soviet military theory before the invasion. Flesh out the results a bit more. Add a map showing the operation. Much more on the naval forces and their operations with the 25th army in northern Korea. Much more on the operations involving and featuring the Amur River flotilla More on the paradrops, skirmishes and naval landings in Port Arthur and Dairo on the 25th August; when the campaign was mostly over.

I think, a good developing article. --Tomtom 20:59, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Links 2 Port Arthur 3 Casualty estimates 4 About the Opening Paragraph 5 Better dead than red 6 Article title 7 Problem in introduction 8 Soviet Invasion of Hokkaido? 9 More info 10 Number of Soviet attacks on Japan 11 neutrality? 12 Mongolia 13 Map 14 Renaming article

[edit] Links

I placed links in various other articles to this one, esp Great Patrioic War.--Numerousfalx 21:02, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Port Arthur

...entitled to ... pre-eminent interests over Port Arthur and Dairen, with its strategic rail connections. With the exception of Dairen... the other possessions are still administered by the most powerful of the Soviet Union's successor states, the Russian Federation.

The article Lüshunkou (Port Arthur) seems to imply this is fully owned by China and not Russia. Which version is correct, the above or the Lüshunkou article? --203.52.130.139 03:27, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I beleive that the Soviets turned over all of their gains to show friendship with the PRC--Gary123 22:50, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Reports of killing of Japanese settlors will be appropriate, afterall what do the Japanese owe to the Russians, yeah like the Red Army knew about the atrocities against the Chinese and acted in vengeance, yeah righto "four legs good, two legs baaaad"

[edit] Casualty estimates

What're the sources for the (widely divergent, for the Soviet losses) casualty estimates? Given the decisiveness of the victory, and that nothing in the article alludes to them, the Japanese ones seem very surprising. Alai 06:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Check out this link it is a very big article http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/glantz3/glantz3.asp (Deng 23:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC))

According to Krivosheev, Soviet casualties are a bit higher than provided in this article - 12 031 dead, 24 425 wounded/sick Soviet soldiers and 72 dead, 125 wounded/sick Mongolian soldiers. With respect, Ko Soi IX 01:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to know from what source the Japanese estimates came. Although the Soviet sources would have been open to less criticism owing to the style of government and so could be innacurate, from looking at the comparative strengths and that CGSC article it seems that the Soviets might have had little reason to play down the number of casualties they recieved (at least less that people would like to think; people often underestimate the modern fighting capability of the Russians).

[edit] About the Opening Paragraph

Did the Soviets agree not to attack for three months after the defeat of Germany, or did they wait three months? Judging on the dates May 8 and August 8 the former seems more likely. Captain Jackson 04:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Neither, they promised (in Yalta I think) to attack within three months.

Allied leaders continued to press Stalin to commit his forces against Japan in order to complete the destruction of the Axis combination

the anticipated campaign involved extensive planning and preparations stretching over a five-month period from April to August 1945 [1]

--DelftUser 18:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, article is misworded to the effect of stating the exact opposite of what was agreed. The leaders of the three great powers […] have agreed that in two or three months after Germany has surrendered and the war in Europe is terminated, the Soviet Union shall enter into war against Japan on the side of the Allies on condition that:[…](Yalta Protocol) ("two or three"? strangely fuzzy wording for a contract) -corrected--84.188.203.180 10:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Read the link I gave a few lines up it is the big mega super ultra big article about the war made by the US army, It is B I G (Deng 19:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Better dead than red

In particular, it is said that the Japanese were eager to surrender to the United States before they were occupied by the Soviet Union.

I have added a "[citation needed]" to this sentence. For all the Japanese knew the Americans had the capacity to drop any number of atomic bombs on the home islands. What would have been left for the Soviets to occupy if the country had been bombed back into the stone age?

Further as they were asked to surrender unconditionally they could not know in advance who would occupy which parts of Japan, and it was not possible for them to include such terms in surrender document. After all the Western Allies gave up large chunks of East Germany to the Soviets (See section "Rolling the Carpet") and the Soviets gave up chunks of Austria to the western Allies before the Japanese surrender, so for all the Japanese Government knew the Allies might have had a similar deal between themselves for the occupation of Japan.

The whole paragraph in the article seems to me very speculative, so it should have citations to page numbers in reliable references. (See WP:V)--Philip Baird Shearer 19:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Read here http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/glantz3/glantz3.asp it is a study by the american military and here is another one they are not the same read them both http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/glantz4/glantz4.asp (Deng 20:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC))

That the Red Army which had fought the German army to a standstill and driven it back to Berlin had learnt a thing or two about how to fight a war is not surprising or in dispute. But I see nothing in these documents which states that In particular, it is said that the Japanese were eager to surrender to the United States before they were occupied by the Soviet Union. Perhaps I missed that paragraph, can you point me towards it in either of these two documents?

To invade the home island Japan would take a massive amphibious operation and it was the Western Allies who had the experience of landing armies by sea onto a hostile coast (Operation Torch, Operation Husky, Operation Baytown, (the smaller) Operation Shingle, Operation Neptune, Operation Dragoon, Operation Iceberg and many smaller amphibious assalts in the Pacific theatre) and the equipment to carry them out. The Soviets did not have the experiance or the equipment. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Learnt a thing or two? They became the best army on earth. If you want to learn more about the Soviet army during ww2 go here and read what professor Overy has written for the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/soviet_german_war_01.shtml. And if you read all 6 pages you will see that they didnt just learn a thing or 2. Also if you look at this campaign the numbers speak for them selves. In 11 days they destroyed the Japanese army in Manchuria which was 1.1 million strong. But perhaps your headline on this topic describes your state of mind. And forbids you to absorb real fact. And only leaves you with the ability to not see anything that speaks positively about the red army fighting ability during ww2. Anyway will find the lines for you but it will take some time, as you know the texts are long. Also you should take note that I am not the creator of this article I just look in time to time on it. Also you are dead wrong about this : " The Soviets did not have the experiance or the equipment." They hade done it many times and atleast twice on the Crimea.(Deng 04:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC))

Understatement is a common English speaking world, to emphases a point. I forget that I am not always addressing someone from the same culture and have to be more literal. Sorry. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

PBS is objecting to "In particular, it is said that the Japanese were eager to surrender to the United States before they were occupied by the Soviet Union." Which is a statement about the Japanese, not the Soviets, so you're not addressing his point. The phrase "eager to surrender" is hardly an accurate description of the state of mind of anyone in Japan. —wwoods 08:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Apparently the Soviets believed—rightly or wrongly—that they did have the experience and equipment they needed for a limited invasion of the Japanese home islands. One reference is David M. Glantz, "The Soviet Invasion of Japan," Quarterly Journal of Military History, vol. 7, no. 3, Spring 1995, pp. 96–97, which discusses new information indicating that Stalin was ready to land troops on Hokkaido two months before the scheduled American landings in Kyushu. [2]

I haven't read that, but Richard Frank cites it in Downfall (p. 323–324):

  One of the many important revelations to emerge after the collapse of the Soviet Union was that Stalin's ambitions in the Far East in 1945 extended from the outset not only to Manchuria and Korea but also to Japan proper. ...

  The Soviet strategy for the campaign also featured a two-pronged thrust to Hokkaido. On August 11, the Red Army had launched an attack from the north via the huge Sakhalin Island. This endeavor made very slow progress against fanatical Japanese resistance. ...

  For the invasion of Hokkaido, the Soviet First Far Eastern Front intended to assault from Sakhalin. The lead division would seize a bridgehead with only one rifle regiment. The rest of that division would follow, and then two more divisions would land. ... Given the vast size of Hokkaido and its mountainous terrain, the Soviets expected that the Japanese could oppose their landing with only one division. ...

  The Soviets overestimated Japanese strength ... [which was] oriented toward the American threat from the east, ... The Soviet Navy's amphibious shipping resources were limited but sufficient to transport the three assault divisions in several echelons.

  ... In retrospect, it appears that Japanese resistance on Sakhalin would have precluded readiness [to invade] before August 24 or 25 in any event, but Truman's firm reply on August 18 was crucial. Moreover, events soon showed that Truman's refusal to permit Soviet advances to Hokkaido saved hundreds of thousands of Japanese from death.

(p. 356–357):

  Soviet intervention would have very likely shaped the prospects for success of any intervention by the Emperor to end the war, but in what direction is not certain. ... Under an optimistic scenario, ... the spectacle of Soviet troops landing on Hokkaido, ... would significantly increase the incentive for capitulation.

  But Soviet intervention might also have triggered a reaction from the Imperial Army that could have foreclosed peace. The bolt from Manchuria galvanized Japan's soldiers to commence plans to declare martial law, terminate the civilian government, and rule from Imperial Headquarters. Had the Imperial Army seized a position of such absolute ascendancy, it is by no means obvious that the war would have terminated in an organized Japanese surrender.

—wwoods 08:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Also this talk has not addressed the point that I made in the first paragraph: I have added a "[citation needed]" to this sentence. For all the Japanese knew the Americans had the capacity to drop any number of atomic bombs on the home islands. What would have been left for the Soviets to occupy if the country had been bombed back into the stone age? --Philip Baird Shearer 09:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The answer to that can most likely be found if you ask the crator/s of the article and the person who put it there. He/she has perhaps access to material/s that gives a Japanese view on the war and how the leaders of Japan felt at that given time. (Deng 01:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC))

Good idea, the text was merged into this article by User:Charles Matthews as a " further merge from Battle of Manchuria" in "Revision as of 10:02, 28 June 2005". The original text was largly written by User:Algebraist in edits to Battle of Manchuria on 28 June 2005. So I have added a request to Algebraist's talk page, but Algebraist has not edited anything since November last year and does not have an email address set up, lets give it a day or two and see if (s)he replies. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

"Some historians, particularly Soviet and Chinese scholars, have viewed the loss of Manchuria—and the implicit threat of a total collapse of Japanese power in China as a whole—as a decisive factor in the Japanese surrender, perhaps more important than the atomic bombings. In particular, it is said that the Japanese were eager to surrender to the United States before they were occupied by the Soviet Union ^{[citation needed]}." this is the part that was removed to whoever wants to look it up I post it here (Deng 03:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC))

As far as I can remember, that was lifted (and perhaps garbled) from Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They have a bunch of references there, if anyone wants to find out wehat historians have actually said rather than my quick rewrite of it. Algebraist 08:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with a statement that 'Some historians, ... have viewed the [the Soviet attack] ... as a decisive factor in the Japanese surrender, perhaps more important than the atomic bombings'. They may even be right. —wwoods 01:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

A WP:V source is needed. Which historians (weasel words)? and if they exist are they considered respectable and notable in the academic community or are they considered to be revisionists? --Philip Baird Shearer 12:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

From here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki if you scroll down to "Opposition to use of atomic bombs" and almost at the very end you will see this. "Other sources have stated that the atomic bombings themselves were not the principal reason for capitulation. Instead, they contend, it was the swift and devastating Soviet victories on the mainland in the week following Stalin's August 8 declaration of war that forced the Japanese message of surrender on August 15 1945" but before that you have a diffrent view so it does fit the idea of "some historians" (Deng 22:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC))

So what we have to date are two sources that say that the Soviets would have liked to have made amphibious landings on Hokkaido. Wanting to launch an amphibious seaborne assault and succeeding are two very different things as Gallipoli and Dieppe show. Secondly as the Japanese could not know that the Soviets were planning this assault, no one has yet come up with a source which says that the Soviet attack was the decisive factor in the Japanese surrender. It may well be that the Soviet declaration of war was a decisive factor but again that should be sourced. That the Soviet attack on the 8th and possible invasion followup was a decisive issue seems to me to be very speculative (and of a type which occurs regularly in Wikipedia), and as such is an extremely controversial, so it should be linked to the name of a peer reviewed respected historian and not made with a weasel worded phrase such as "Other sources". Because as I said before at the Japanese could not know that the Americans did not have a production line of atomic bombs, and if the Americans did, then worrying about whether the Soviets were going to occupy a land devastated by A-bombs is IMOH not very rational point of view.

That some Soviet historians put forward such views during the Cold war would not surprise me, but are would these still be credible sources? Are there no minutes of the Japanese Cabinet meetings to discuss surrender and in those meetings what was the main perceived threat? From memory in his broadcast the Emperor mentioned the A-bomb as a new an terrible weapon, did he mention the Army's defeat at the hands of the Soviets?--Philip Baird Shearer 23:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I dont know any sources. All I can give is common sense. This is what the Japanese knew. They hade 1.1 million men in manchuria and 2.3 million on the main islands. They knew that manchuria had been run over and the 1.1 million had been destroyed in about a week. So 1 million = 1 week then 2 million must be 2 weeks. And you seem to look at this from only 2 points either the atomic bombings ALONE conviced the Japanese to give up or the Soviet Invasion ALONE did. The real answer must therefore be in the middle that the bombings togheter with the loss of Manchuria and the Kwantung Army and the losses of the whole Japanese Empire, which the americans and other allied forces had taken from the with their island jumping and Philipines campaing and other such campaigns, except the home islands. All these factors togheter and probably in equall terms conviced them that surrender was a must. Fighting to the death wouldnt matter because either they would be boombed or they would be over run. Because no matter how bravely they fought they wouldnt be able to stop the Soviets. A leasson they had learned twice once in 39 and now again in 45. And when we look at it from this point of view we can see that yes probably someone would rather surrender to the americans then the soviets. (Deng 23:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC))

I've readded the paragraph with a copy of the text on Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki including the sources provided on that page by —wwoods [3] --Philip Baird Shearer 00:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article title

Shouldn't this article be moved to Battle of Manchuria? —wwoods 01:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so, reading the article it seems debatable so this is probably the best title.say1988 02:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

For the record, there was never an Operation August Storm--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problem in introduction

It says:

"The invasion began on August 8, 1945, precisely three months after the German surrender on May 8."

But as this is about the the Soviet Union, should it not make referance to the fact that in the Soviet Union the German surrender was and is still remembered in former Soviiet state on May 9? That would make it consistant with being within 3 months. As I read within 3 months to mean less than, which excludes on 3 months.say1988 02:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

---

This paragraph needs work:

Japan's decision to surrender was made before the scale of the Soviet attack on Manchuria, Sakhalin Island, and the Kuril Islands was known, but had the war continued, the Soviets had plans to invade Hokkaido well before the other Allied invasion of Kyushu[1][2]. Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's research has led him to conclude that the atomic bombings themselves were not the principal reason for capitulation. Instead, he contends, it was the swift and devastating Soviet victories on the mainland in the week following Stalin's August 8 declaration of war that forced the Japanese message of surrender on August 15, 1945[3]

It contradict's itself and drops Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's name in without explaining who he is. I think that his name should be left out and mentioned later in the article.

This really needs work, as it completely misses Hasegawa's actual point: the main impact of "August Storm" was not the rapid advance of Soviet forces into the Japanese holdings on the continent; it was the Soviet declaration of war itself which crushed any hopes among the Japanese that they could serve as a mediator in a negotiated peace with the US, instead of accepting the demands for unconditional surrender. 80.219.192.183 (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet Invasion of Hokkaido?

Every World War II history notes the fanatical Japanese defenses and stubborn resistance the US would have faced had it attempted an invasion of the Japanese home islands, and such resistance is frequently given as the justification for the quick ending of the war that the atomic bombs brought. Given this context - that the United States Pacific Forces, with all of its naval and air superiority and the superior firepower of its infantry would expect extremely high casualties in any amphibious landings and invasions - how did the Soviets expect to be able to pull off an invasion of one of the Japanese home islands? The Soviet naval assets paled in comparison with the American ones, not to mention that their troops lacked the experience in amphibious warfare that the Americans had. That it is claimed the Soviets would be able to mobilize enough assets to invade even before the Americans simply boggles me. What kind of navy were they planning to invade with? Fishing boats turned into troop carriers? Did they even have sufficient assets to be able to supply an army by sea? Basically, my question is: did the Soviets ever have a realistic chance of taking Hokkaido had the two a-bombs not been dropped?--Yuje 20:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I sense subjectivity from you.

Yes, Soviets had realistic chances. Nazis troops were serious, not japanese 195.225.160.109 11:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Hehe they had allready taken some Japanese Islands in operation August Storm, what is hard for many to understand and you are no different Yuje, is that the Soviet army in 1945 was the BEST nothing would have stoped it, they blew out the Japanes from Manchuria in less then 2 weeks and the Japanes had 1.1 million troops there. In the home Islands the Japanes had 2.2 million so it would have probably been over in 3 weeks. Study more and you will learn or study nothing and learn nothing it is up to you. The Soviets also had done some amphibious operations the Ilsands for one but more importantly in the Crimea Lokqs 23:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Taking some small islands is a lot different from taking on the Japanese mainland. The former require landing several thousand troops, while the latter would require tens and hundreds of thousands. I don't doubt that the Soviet army was the largest and best during World War II, but without sufficient naval assets, all the troops in the world won't matter if they're only capable of mustering enough ships to send them piecemeal a few thousand at a time against a large defending force, and if they lack ships capable of delivering heavy equipment such as tank divisions and artillery pieces. And supposing a million troops do land in Japan, this would require a huge logistics train. Overland supply was possible in Manchuria, but for Japan, a sufficient navy is needed, or else a million Soviet soldiers would have lacked food and water, fuel for their tanks, and ammunition for their weapons and artillery. Perhaps the Soviets really were capable of conquering the home islands, but they would faced all the same conditions predicted by the Americans in Operation Olympic, and would have had to do it without the US navy and army air corps. --Yuje 23:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Up above I quoted Frank, summarizing his summary of Glantz. Summarizing further, the Soviets were planning a three-division invasion. Not a huge force, but apparently the Japanese had shifted so much of their strength to Kyushu and Tokyo that only one division remained on Hokkaido, and that was on the east side of the island, in case the Americans tried a landing. It seems plausible to me that the Soviets could have successfully landed and occupied a chunk of Hokkaido. Maybe not the whole island, and going on to invade Honshu would be a different proposition, of course.

—wwoods 03:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

They would probably have taken over Japan very easy, but they might have had bad luck like the Mongolian did when they tried many years earlier. It is very difficult to say. Helpsloose 07:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More info

Their si alot of valuable info in the article "Evacuatio of Manchukuo which should be added to the campaign section.

[edit] Number of Soviet attacks on Japan

In the opening paragraph it says "It marked the initial and only military action of the Soviet Union against the Empire of Japan..." In his book Stalin. The Court Of The Red Tsar, Simon Sebag Montefiore writes that Soviet Union attacked Japan in 1939. Though a limited attack, it was effective and reached it purpose: Japan later never attacked Soviet Union, and it allowed a relocation of some 400 000 soldiers to the defense of Moscow in 1941. --JerryC 18:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all it was the Japanes who attackked the Soviets, you are looking for the Battle of Khalkhin Gol and dont take what Simon in his books says so seriously he skips the whole part from 43 and onwards when the Soviets were winning. Lokqs 23:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] neutrality?

This article is hardly neutral at all. It has a far too pro-Soviet feel with borderline racism. Anyone have any ideas on how to fix this up?

05:00, May 10 2007, (UTC)

Give some examples what do you mean?

[edit] Mongolia

Regarding the Mongolian People's Republic's inclusion in the infobox; are the any proves that the Mongolian People's Republic actually provided any military support to Operation August Storm? Regards, --Kurt Leyman 12:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes they did. Their force amounted to about 16,000 men, out of which they lost 72 dead and 125 wounded. The source for this is Krivosheev (http://www.soldat.ru/doc/casualties/book/chapter5_10_1.html#5_10_51). Krivosheev also gives slightly different numbers for the Soviets: 1 669 500 men altogether, 12 031 dead, 24 425 wounded. With respect, Ko Soi IX 12:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map

There is map on the Spanish Wikipedia: es:Image:Manchuria 1945.PNG. --DelftUser (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming article

For the record, the first ever document to call this operation "Operation August Storm" comes from February 1983 and is found in August Storm: The Soviet strategic offensive in Manchuria by David Glantz as a presentation Leavenworth Paper for the US Staff College. I have communicated with Mr.Glantz, and he has confirmed that this was not in fact the name of the operation. The correct me of the operation is the Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation, something that is confirmed in his more recent work The Soviet Strategic Offensive in Manchuria, 1945: August Storm (2003). I can provide the rather humorous story related to me on how the operation was named "August Storm", and it is a sad statement of the ability of other writers and editors to check sources since he assures me I am the first (his bold in the email reply) to ask him about this name since 1983. Subject to comments, I will be creating a [[WP:RM] for this title--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

And, as with the Second Battle of Kharkov, any change you request will have to satisfy WP:V and WP:OR. Unfortunately, we've got repeated reliable sources confirming 'August Storm.' Has Glantz published something saying what he told you? In that case, you might have a case. Buckshot06(prof) 22:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well if mrg3105 is right this must be changed. One note the Battlefield documentary about this battle does not mention the name August Storm anywhere. Either way, unless we find very strong sources proving that this name is wrong I can't support a change. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 18:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

In a personal correspondence with Mr.Glantz, he advised me that originally the name was coined by his 11 year old daughter (at the time) as a good name for the what was then a presentation because the operation took place with torrential rains. Apparently I have been the first to ask him this question on two decades.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you've said that elsewhere. Have you asked Mr Glantz if he's published anything saying that; a letter, a comment, named in conference proceedings, anything? If so it becomes WP:V and we can make the change. Buckshot06(prof) 22:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You are frustrating as all hell Buckshot06. What part of personal correspondence do you not understand? You said previously "we've got repeated reliable sources confirming 'August Storm", what are they? There is NOT ONE SOURCE in the entire history of the Second World War outside of Glantz that uses that operational name--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I know you said personal correspondence. I know what that means. Let me try and be bit more clear. Have you emailed Mr Glantz again and seen whether he has said, now, in any WP:V sources that his 'August Storm' name was an invention? (Yes, our repeated reliable sources for August Storm, are unfortunately in this case, his published work!!) Buckshot06(prof) 00:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I will probably be accused of incivility again, but

In a personal correspondence with Mr.Glantz, he advised me that originally the name was coined by his 11 year old daughter (at the time) as a good name for the what was then a presentation because the operation took place with torrential rains. Apparently I have been the first to ask him this question on two decades

...and no, a title of a book is not a source for anything, and neither is an 11 year old girl. This will forever stand as Glantz's contribution to indictment of all writers who take anything they write about for granted without checking the sources--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Glantz has used the title in multiple works, including the book version of his paper which was published in 2003 (and aimed at a specialist audience given its high price!), which suggests that he, or at least his publishers, regard it as now being a common name for this. That said, I don't see anything wrong with renaming this article to some variant of Soviet invasion of Manchuria as using operational names for semi-obscure operations like this is undesirable and makes the articles inaccessible for non-specialist readers. Nick Dowling (talk) 01:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Nick, do you understand what I'm saying? Have you, Mrg3105, emailed Mr Glantz a second time, after receiving that email about his daughter, asking whether, in any WP:V sources, he has said that this name was only his invention? Maybe you can rephrase my question Nick so Mrg understands me. Buckshot06(prof) 01:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think that I understand you: using only personal correspondence is a violation of WP:OR and a published source where Glantz admits this is needed, especially as there are some WP:BLP-type implications. If Glantz made up the name, he seems to have stuck to it with remarkable (and ill-advised!) tenacity as he's produced two papers (which are now available on the internet and can be easily updated) and two books using the name over the past 20 years, despite the opportunity to make good this error. Moreover, it has been used elsewhere (for instance, Downfall by Richard B. Frank). That said, I agree that it's not a great name for the article, though it is better than something like Soviet strategic offensive in Manchuria as few readers know what a 'strategic offensive' is, and its not a likely search term. Nick Dowling (talk) 06:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Buckshot and Nick. Do you appreciate what I'm saying? Glantz was giving a presentation at the college where he was a lecturer at the time. For that presentation, before the transcript was expanded, and published by the Centre (which I have), he was trying to find a "snappy" title, and this was provided by his daughter at a dinner. That is all it was. From then on it was just used by publishers for a title. The name is not used anywhere INSIDE THE BOOK, either the US Army publication, or the subsequent commercial one. That someone can decide the title of a book to be the name of an operation is called something that I will not use words for because of the incivility PC. He has never been ASKED about inventing the name (including book editors). Every other "author" has UNQUESTIONINGLY accepted this to be the actual Soviet codename for the operation (as is the case with Keitel's rubbish)!!! Quite frankly I don't give too hoots about your "WP:OR". You are doing your own "OR" by using pure figments of someone's imagination, Nazi war criminals, and now 11 year old girls, to foist on the unsuspecting public names of operations that never were. Glantz is not subject to Wikipedia's "rules", and neither are the editors of his publishers or ANY OTHER AUTHOR. If they think the book will sell, they can call it "Debby does Manchuria" for all they care, and then someone will suggest that because its really the Battle of Debby does Manchuria because it was even on the news, they will equally argue under the great Wikipedia common English name guideline to adopt that. For the record Nick, the name of the operation was, is, and ALWAYS will be the Manchurian strategic offensive operation. If few readers know what a 'strategic offensive' is, its because people like you and Buckshot here that actually prevent them being in the literature and reference works in the first place!!! If more "authors" actually used the right terms instead of "Battle of...", more readers may be aware of what a strategic offensive is.

Quite frankly "Use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject as the title of the article, as you would find it in verifiable reliable sources" is a convention and not an etched-in-stone LAW. I choose to disregard it based on COMMON SENSE. My common sense says that if a thing was originally named X, then no matter how many people will always be X. If the population of England was denied the awareness of military operations of their own or other countries' during the war, that is no reason to continue denying this information 60 years later when even the Berlin WALL HAS COME DOWN. I kid you not, this is the last straw. The operations were named by Soviet General Staff in this way for a reason, and they are far more useful then what is used in English, and that is how they will be used. I do not care what English sources you can find. I have read most of them, and anything written before John Erickson's books has been stored in my garage for at least 25 years as useless paper. There is a process of historical research that exists outside Wikipedia. If you are unfamiliar with it, I suggest you address it with your MA supervisor

As for genuine original research, I can tell you that I can delete articles much faster then they can be created just based on you statements here. The vast majority come unsourced. People submitting articles after 4 years in Wikipedia still have no clue what a reliable source is.

I have had enough. Tanking Keitel's word for something is one thing, but taking the work of Glantz's 11 year old daughter is another thing altogether. Next stop will be the ArbCom - I guarantee it as much as I hate it.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

--

Sent this a few moments ago:

Dear Mr Glantz, I've been corresponding with [Mrg3105] in Australia, who has related to me the story of how you named your first piece on the Soviet Manchurian offensive after something your daughter once said, resulting, it seems, in some sources now taking that as the accepted name for the operation.

Have you noted in any of your published work or conference proceedings, etc, that this was a mistaken assumption to make? We would like to amend the article in wikipedia but it would be best if we could refer to something you published saying that your first book title might have created some misunderstanding.

How goes Colossus Triumphant? - I've very keen to see it. Hope all your other work is proceeding well.

Kind regards

[Buckshot06] -- Buckshot06(prof) 21:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I don't what to look as if I am taking sides but:

1. The russian version of Wikipedia doesn't not use the name "Operation August Storm" anywhere, they simply say that in the West this battle is known as "Августовская буря" (August Storm). This means that the Soviets didn't use this name, the West invented it.
2. The russian version of Wikipedia calls this article Советско-японская война 1945 года or Soviet-Japanese War of 1945.
3. We don't know what name the Soviets gave to this operation, but given this it would have to be either a planet or a personality (I know it's silly to conjecture this, still).

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 12:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)