Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

1945 Manchuria Operation

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Psycho1943
    According to Andrey Glantz does not have access to all the information available IIRC. One of the criticisms from the Russian side is that he isn't telling everything so we don't get to know the entire truth. I don't understand their argument because how can he know the full truth if they won't let him see all of it. Plus the fact that it may or may not be the truth. I'm sure our histories are not completely the truth in every case but what else do you go by?

    Jack Radey made wargames mainly during the 70s and 80s. He owned the company People's War Games (PWG). Ever hear of the boardgames Korsun Pocket, Black Sea/Black Death, Kharkov 1943, Aachen, Gazala, and Cossacks are Coming? He is a big Soviet supporter if you listen to his seminars. Like I said, nothing wrong with that but you get a one sided version. Of course to Andrey I guess you are just getting the truth instead of lying Western propaganda.

    Sounds just like my Republican friends that tell me FOX news doesn't take sides like the liberal networks but just tells me the truth. My parents are the opposite, big time Democrats. I just laugh at both sides.
    Good point on the sources. Glantz was a ground breaker in that arena. When he gave presentations in the Soviet Union, he had Russian supporters within the historical institutes who would go down the hall, unlock the access to the one copy machine to give him some copies of material that they could only access--and it was not classified. It was another world. As an intelligence officer, I worried that the Soviet analysts would make an error is their assessments because they did not have the open access to information not only around the world(foreign journals and newspapers would be locked in vaults--could not have it slipping out into the greater society), but also within their country.

    Parenthetically, I should point out when Glantz briefed German audiences, he had eastern front veteran officersbring him unit war journals that they took home at wars end and never trusted to the new Bundeswehr archives. Glantz and I spent a good quarter of our lives standing over xerox machines.


    Thanks for the rundown on Radey. I'm from the early days of Dunnigan. I quit wargaming in 1980 when I began writing--didn't have time to pursue both. Learned alot from wargaming, applied it to U.S. Army wargaming--I usually was head of Red cells to drive division and corps staff exercises.


    There is truth in the saying, "The first casualty of war is truth." My experiences in researching the eastern front taught me that lesson and taught me that the winner does not always write the history.
    Last edited by R.N. Armstrong; 02 Dec 05, 08:12.
    Leadership is the ability to rise above conventional wisdom.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by The Purist
      I think, in this case, that we simply have to accept that we will not convince Andrey that the Kwangtung Army was much reduced in quality since the late 30s. While Soviet sources may include some information not readily available in the west, the evidence available does not lead an objective observer to conclude that the Japanese had a real chance of effectively opposing the Red Army.

      One thought that occured to me when reading one of Andrey's posts. He mentioned the length of the front. Maybe they were calling the army weak because they were thinned out trying to cover the large area? I doubt anything we say can convince him that we are not out to make the Soviets look poorly.
      Check out our webpage for our NFL picks http://members.cox.net/mjohns59/

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Psycho1943
        One thought that occured to me when reading one of Andrey's posts. He mentioned the length of the front. Maybe they were calling the army weak because they were thinned out trying to cover the large area? I doubt anything we say can convince him that we are not out to make the Soviets look poorly.
        That's just it, nothing about the Manchurian operation makes the Red Army look poorly. It was a well planned and executed battle that showed just how far the Red Army had come in four years. That being said, if the Red Army could roll through the Germans with the ease that it did in 1945, the Japanese army was not going to do any better in holding off the attacks.
        Last edited by The Purist; 02 Dec 05, 08:55.
        The Purist

        Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Full Monty
          I've been trying to track down some sources that refer to the quality of the troops in the Kwantung Army. However, finding something that doesn't seem 'tainted' is not easy. This was quite interesting though.

          http://www.geocities.jp/yoshio_osaka...ZooAttack.html
          Did you try Alvin Coox's Nomonhan: Japan Against Russia, 1939? While the vast tome deals primarily with the Khalkin Gol/Nomonhan fight, primarily from the Japanese side, Coox has a good section subtitled "To the Demise of the Kwantung Army". He chronicles the Kwantung Army early 1942 "loan" of aviation, ground combat and supporting strength it gave to use in the south--which never returned because of unexpected reverses from Coral Sea and Midway to Guadacanal and New Guinea.

          He writes, "By now[spring 1945] the Kwantung Army was bereft of its finest divisions--the divisions of the Kantokean period. The oldest remaining division had been organized in the spring of 1944. Sixth Army headquarters (which had directed the last pahse of the Nomonhan war from Hailar) was transferred to China in January 1945. To maintain the appearance of strong field forces, IGHQ directed the Kwantung Army to increase the number of divisions and independent brigades by mobilizing the last available recruits." Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me, let alone a well-honed fighting force.

          Coox's strength is in his Japanese sources, he had "been studying the Kwantung Army and working with its survivors for so long--almost 35 years--that I feel as if I served in Manchuria and fought at Nomonhon." I believe he knew the army right up to its demise.
          Last edited by R.N. Armstrong; 02 Dec 05, 09:10.
          Leadership is the ability to rise above conventional wisdom.

          Comment


          • Thanks for the reference

            I was trawling the web for something that Andrey, bless him, could not just dismiss as being biased. That was the closest I could find in 300 'hits' on Google!
            Signing out.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Full Monty
              Thanks for the reference

              I was trawling the web for something that Andrey, bless him, could not just dismiss as being biased. That was the closest I could find in 300 'hits' on Google!
              Yeah! Good luck to you sir!
              Check out our webpage for our NFL picks http://members.cox.net/mjohns59/

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Psycho1943
                Yeah! Good luck to you sir!
                Thank you

                Debating with Andrey can be hard work at times but I've had to read articles on subjects about which I was previously relatively ignorant - the Japanese biological weaponry and their plans to use it in 1945 being a good example. So even if I fail to convince him in debate I still benefit in other ways and I think that's worth the effort
                Signing out.

                Comment


                • I have bought a book of memoirs of Soviet militaries who fought against Japanese in China in 1937-40, in Khalkhin-Gol in 1939 and in Manchuria in 1945.

                  And I found there the following:

                  Oleg Smirnov, a member of a divisional newspaper:
                  "Before the beginning of the campaign we were vacinated against plague and other diseases as our command supposed that Japanese could use biological weapon."

                  Comment


                  • I'll try to translate something from the memoirs. Some of them are very interesting.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Andrey
                      I have bought a book of memoirs of Soviet militaries who fought against Japanese in China in 1937-40, in Khalkhin-Gol in 1939 and in Manchuria in 1945.

                      And I found there the following:

                      Oleg Smirnov, a member of a divisional newspaper:
                      "Before the beginning of the campaign we were vacinated against plague and other diseases as our command supposed that Japanese could use biological weapon."
                      Now that's interesting. Although it's common for WW2 armies (and sometimes the civilian population too) to take precautionary steps against possible biological/chemical attack. They may have been vaccinated because it was thought they might overrun a weapon centre. But whatever, of itself it doesn't alter my point about them not being battlefield weapons even if the Red Army thought that they might have been in some way.

                      You try to convince me.

                      Try to not convince me but to say arguments which your opponent can not to disprove.

                      I gave you enough arguments which were not disproved by anyone here.

                      I try to answer on any argument and to explain it from my position.

                      And remember that I MUST NOT to believe in your opinion. I'll do it if I see that your position is more correct. Now I do not see it.
                      I'm not sure quite what you're saying here, apart from explaining part of your method of debate - English language again!

                      But then it's not the winning or losing the debate that's really important, it's the knowledge gained on the way that counts
                      Signing out.

                      Comment


                      • The translation:

                        Memoirs1.jpg

                        Dedicated to the 60th anniversary of the Victory over Japan

                        “I fought against Samurais.
                        From Khalkhin-Gol to Porth-Arthur”


                        Memoirs2.jpg

                        The tragic waltz “On hills of Manchuria” which was made exactly 100 years ago, right after the defeat in the first Russian-Japanese War is finished by the following words:

                        “Sleep, sons, you have died for Russia, for Motherland,
                        But trust us, we’ll take revenge for you
                        And shall mourn for you after a bloody battle”

                        Our grandfathers kept those words. Japan had surrendered in September of 1945.

                        This book dedicated to the 60th anniversary of the Victory over Japan contains memoirs of those who fought successfully against Samurais in Khalkhin-Gol, in China and in Manchuria and who hoisted again Russian flag over Southern Sakhalin, the Kurils and Porth-Arthur.

                        “In the summer of 1945 we had came in Porth-Arthur, we made a low bow before the graves of our soldiers who died there in the beginning of the XXth Century, and we said: we have returned, we have settled scores for you.”

                        “In Stalin’s order the day of the Victory over Japan – September, 3rd, - was declared a holiday. Now some forces try to obliterate this date from our people’s memory. But it is impossible to take away from us our Victory, our pride and glory, our great past.”
                        Attached Files

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Andrey
                          You try to convince me.

                          Try to not convince me but to say arguments which your opponent can not to disprove.

                          I gave you enough arguments which were not disproved by anyone here.

                          I try to answer on any argument and to explain it from my position.

                          And remember that I MUST NOT to believe in your opinion. I'll do it if I see that your position is more correct. Now I do not see it.

                          The same also applies to you as well. Your argument is always based on the same thing: Western histories about the Soviets is lying propaganda while Russian sources are correct in all cases. As I mentioned before, I have actually heard Glantz give a seminar about some of the battles. He took neither side and just explained how the battles took place. I need to read some of his books when I get a chance. I have a couple already but they are boxed up with other stuff waiting to be read.

                          Andrey, there is a guy in the Battles and Campaigns folder asking for info on Velikye Luki stuff if you or amvas can help him. Thanks
                          Check out our webpage for our NFL picks http://members.cox.net/mjohns59/

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Full Monty
                            Now that's interesting. Although it's common for WW2 armies (and sometimes the civilian population too) to take precautionary steps against possible biological/chemical attack. They may have been vaccinated because it was thought they might overrun a weapon centre. But whatever, of itself it doesn't alter my point about them not being battlefield weapons even if the Red Army thought that they might have been in some way.
                            I agree in the point of interest and impact as battlefield weapons. We vaccinated for anthrax and took additional preps for nerve agents during the first Gulf War. It was precautionary; operationals plans were not altered.
                            Leadership is the ability to rise above conventional wisdom.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Full Monty
                              Now that's interesting. Although it's common for WW2 armies (and sometimes the civilian population too) to take precautionary steps against possible biological/chemical attack.
                              The author wrote EXACTLY about possible using of Japanese biological weapon and not about natural epidemic threat.

                              They may have been vaccinated because it was thought they might overrun a weapon centre.
                              The author fought in the Trans-Baikal Front. Unit 731 was in the centre of Manchuria in the region of Harbin. I do not berlieve that it was possible to define exactly which unit could reach it first.

                              And if the Soviets wanted to capture unit 731 they could use Airborne Troops for such task.

                              But whatever, of itself it doesn't alter my point about them not being battlefield weapons even if the Red Army thought that they might have been in some way.
                              I wrote that quote because before I have read it I supposed that the Soviet Command didn't know about the Japanese readiness to a large scale germ war.

                              If the quote is correct so it means that the Soviets knew about biological threat and made their plans to prevent enemy to use it successfully.

                              I'm not sure quite what you're saying here, apart from explaining part of your method of debate - English language again!

                              But then it's not the winning or losing the debate that's really important, it's the knowledge gained on the way that counts
                              I wrote that message and them I deleted it as I do not again discuss who is more biased and who is ready to change his opinion.

                              But you were very quickly and answered my message while it existed.

                              The reason of my message is that Psycho1943 again began to speak that it is impossible to convince me and so on...

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by R.N. Armstrong
                                Andrey,
                                Have you read any of Glantz's books besides the August Storm pamphlets? I do not believe your judgments on him are from first-hand knowledge.
                                Glantz's books are not translated in Rusian, English-language books are not selled in Russian book shops. So I didn't read any his book.

                                I heard a lot of good words about Glantz and suppose that he is a very good author who makes mistakes sometimes.

                                I AM NOT AGAINST GLANTZ. I never spoke he is a bad author. I am against those from his opinions that are mistaken according my opinion. I described enough WHY I suppose they are mistaken.

                                Glantz is not a God, but for a long time, he was the only western historian to look in depth at Red Army operations and fully appreciate their impact on the west. The fact that he has found some criticisms in some operations and found some cracks in Zhukov's marble statue is the stuff of history.
                                You offer me to believe in Glantz's words like his books are the same like the Bible.

                                In the question of Operation "Mars" I disagree with him not because he said it was a failure of Zhukov. I disagree with him because he doesn't want to take into account Sudoplatov's memoirs that are available at least for last 5 years. The Russian version of huge diversionary operation looks like more truthful and explainable.

                                Glantz behaves like Sudoplatov's memoirs never existed. If Glantz really wanted to know the truth about Operation "Mars" he had to check the data from Sudoplatov's memoirs. He had at least 5 years for it!!! At least Glantz had to mention about Sudoplatov's data.

                                What surprises me about your position is not only your complacency with Soviet sources but also your inability to recognize any western works.
                                You are incorrect.

                                Give me good proofs and I'll believe. It is not my blame that your sources don't look as a reliable enough sources.
                                Last edited by Andrey; 05 Dec 05, 05:26.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X