Jump to content

Talk:Battles of Khalkhin Gol

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Also the first photo is mislabeled. This is NOT a BT-7. Look more closely

149th Rifle photograph?

I am no military historian, but this looks like a photograph of american soldiers. no unit called the 149th Rifles is mentioned in the text. Should this picture be here? Dil Green — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.172.122 (talk) 16:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Note to future readers) The photo is clearly of Soviets as the Order of the Red Banner is clearly visible on the officer's chest. 149th Regiment was part of the 36th Division. Kges1901 (talk) 12:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Number of captured Japanese soldiers

The Imperial Japanese military records listed in the infobox cannot be right, for the simple reason that it fails to mention the number of Japanese POWs as a result of this battle. We know that Japanese soldiers were captured by the Soviets, as confirmed by the article itself. I'm curious to know, why is it that some editors regard Soviet records as "propaganda", while taking Imperial Japanese records at face value? This seems to be a glaring error of bias in the infobox, unless the number of captured Japanese troops was negligible--something I don't think we can ever know for certain. 2601:200:C100:5CF0:CC28:975A:36ED:5505 (talk) 00:31, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to Soviet/Russian records, there were 227 Japanese and "Bargut" (Barga Mongol) prisoners taken at Khalkhin Gol (p. 96: http://japanstudies.ru/images/books/book-2013-khalkhyn_gol.pdf). On the previous page, it is mentioned that from July 19th, that is, while the battle was still being fought, a camp with a capacity to accommodate an expected 2,000 POWs was created at Ulan-Ude, but this 'expectation' failed to materialize and so the prisoners were kept in a smaller facility in Chita. Probably the Soviet propagandists reported what they wanted the reality to be rather than what the situation actually was. (Additionally, Ru-wiki mentions at least 270 Manchu defectors on top of the aforementioned 227, but I haven't looked at this in detail and information is likely sparse.) The Pittsburgher (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese forces/Japanese casualties

Soviet and Russian sources frequently cite a figure of 75,000 men and 182 tanks as the strength of the Japanese Sixth Army, of whom 61,000 were killed, wounded, or captured during the battle. This is inaccurate. First, "182 tanks" appears to have come from simply taking the number of tank regiments in the Yasuoka group (2) and multiplying that by 91, the number of tanks in an IJA tank regiment that US military intelligence also reported in their "Handbook on Japanese Forces." (Even this did not reflect reality as before 1943 the TO&E of a Japanese tank regiment was about 60 tanks - Leland Ness's numbers in "Rikugun" vol. 1 differ slightly from Takizawa's (linked above) but he provides a figure of 8 reserve tanks in the trains company). However, as we know from Japanese sources, the Yasuoka detachment, the only IJA armored unit at Khalkhin Gol, had only 73 tanks and 19 tankettes/armored cars. This force was actually withdrawn from combat after the unsuccessful Japanese offensive in July and was not available to face the Soviet counteroffensive in August. Page 315 of the Japanese Monograph dealing with this battle simply refers to this decision as "an error." (Source: JSOM vol. XI, part 3, book B, p. 315. Book C, covering the end of the battle and lessons learned, can be found here, while Book A, covering the earlier Battle of Lake Khasan, can be found here.)

Additionally, the entire Japanese force that faced the Soviet offensive in August consisted of the 23rd Division, 8th Border Guards Unit, elements of the 7th Division, a Manchukuo cavalry unit, and a separate artillery unit. These totaled about 25,000 men. After the defeat, the Kwantung Army made grandiose plans to gather up a large force and push the Soviets back over the river. This would have involved the 2nd and 4th Divisions, half the 1st and part of the 8th Division, the unscathed 5th Tank Regiment, 12 AT batteries (48 guns), a motorized mountain artillery regiment (24 guns), 17 regimental gun platoons (34 pieces), two 150mm howitzer regiments (the 4th and 9th - 48 guns total), 9 AA batteries (36 75mm guns?), 3 engineer platoons (36 flamethrowers), 21 transport companies, and the Manchukuo Railway Bureau motor units (1,500 vehicles). (Source, Coox, "Nomonhan p. 848) Elements of this force began arriving by 8/9 September, but there was no counteroffensive and fighting was relatively small-scale: the most serious losses were incurred by the 2nd Division's "Katayama" and the 4th Division's "Goto" detachments, both of which attacked the Soviets' outer ring before a truce was declared. Hence, these forces should not be included in the total for the Sixth Army.

As for casualties, according to Appendix J of Coox's book, the Kwantung Army compiled the following internal record (The odd names are due to phonetic designations and are reproduced "as is"):

Unit Number Participated Killed Wounded
23rd Division 14,137 5,224 5,561
7th Division 10,308 1,505 1,851
8th Border Guards Unit 4,883 779 603
2nd Division 11,800 200 110
4th Division 8,315 5 6
Independent Guards Unit 3,012 38 59
1st Division 4,980 70 100
"Ta-bi" Heavy Artillery 380 96 ?
3 [?] Heavy Field Artillery 2,092 256 177
3rd "De" [sic] 1,165 14 29
Truck Unit (Kwantung Army) 2,536 31 86
AA HQ 2,641 16 61
AA Unit 935 7 29
Ka-ho [sic] 1,125 200 143
Mortar Unit 401 20 44
Tank Corps 1,627 77 83
Air Force 3,307 55 [?][From article, 152] 58 [From article, 66 "seriously wounded"]
Unidentified 744 ? ?
Miscellaneous 1,350 39 50
Total 75,736 [75,738?] 8,629 [8,729?] 9,087 [9,058+?]

61,000 casualties was not possible because there were not 61,000 men there.
The Pittsburgher (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reviving this section 12/2/2024 due to recent edit conflict. There is no data from Japanese military records that indicates anything near 30,000+ casualties. The largest number for dead was the revised total as of September 1942, which came to 9,471 Japanese and 202 Manchurians (9,673 total). Compare with 8,717 dead and missing from 6th Army's total and 8,629 from Kwantung Army. The Pittsburgher (talk) 13:49, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the reason for removing content from the article is all that you have listed below, then this is a violation of several rules at once: WP:ONUS (citation in the infobox contradicting the text of the article), WP:OR (Personal determination of the credibility of sources) and WP:NPOV.
Do not delete the sources if they seem wrong to you, the article has already worked out all the instructions about the number of losses on the Japanese side, our readers should see all the options, including the assessment of an independent sources. Dushnilkin (talk) 13:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum related to this edit [1], the source is definitely independent, because it was published quite recently, the text of the article names the direct primary source to which it refers, so your reason for deletion does not correspond to reality. In addition, the verdict of the source is that the official sanitary reports are not complete to restore the full picture of the losses of Japanese forces, I repeat once again, the removal of such content from the article for the reason "well, it seems to me that this is authoritative, but this is not" violates WP:NPOV (In more detail - WP:VOICE). Dushnilkin (talk) 14:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ONUS - if anything, the 35,000 number contradicts the text of the article, which enumerates Japanese records in detail. Likewise, the determination of reliability is not mine but the view of the main expert on this subject, Alvin D. Coox (p. 915, "The most authoritative data, prepared by the Sixth Army's medical bureau, indicate that the Japanese lost a total of almost 20,000 men."). It is not NPOV to exclude it on the grounds of being mathematically impossible - there is no reason to put it in the infobox other than to give the impression that Japanese losses were 2x higher than their own data shows. Therefore, the onus is on you to demonstrate why hearsay should be presented on the same level as military records. The Pittsburgher (talk) 14:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The text of the article contains all possible estimates of losses, clearly refuted data (Soviet) are excluded from the infobox and the most mundane estimates are mostly left. Sanitary reports are not always the most reliable source, they may also contain information gaps or some data may be missing. In any case, the dispute is not about this, in my edit I even specifically redirected to WP:VOICE, the fact that you refer to an obviously knowledgeable military historian is fine, but this is not a reason to delete other data, is it so difficult? If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements - state your position based on this rule. Dushnilkin (talk) 14:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the paper (a Master's degree dissertation - not exactly heavyweight scholarship) mentioned nothing that I saw about sanitary losses being understated by 3x. If it did, where is the evidence? Moreover, who is to say that Harada's number - explicitly introduced as hearsay "from a cabinet member" - is reliable? If you feel it is on the same level as military data (which all agree within about 10% of each other), the burden is on you to prove it. The Pittsburgher (talk) 14:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1.75 to be precise, but I do not claim that these data are more authoritative than medical reports of losses, in this case my opinion, like yours, does not matter much, we write articles based on the verdicts of the source and indicate them based on this as well. I do not mind making appropriate notes in the infobox about the data, but I am against deleting the content. Your appeal to authority is clearly inappropriate in this discussion, I am not defending a certain position, but trying to explain to you why it is not necessary to delete content.
I have not read the French work in full, with the exception of p. 77, but if this is the verdict of the author, then we leave it because the source meets the criteria WP:RS. Dushnilkin (talk) 14:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would have to be 3x, since if the dispute is about sanitary losses then 35000 - 8500 irretrievable = 26,500 sanitary, which is 3 times higher than the 9000 in Japanese medical records (or 11,000 if sick are included with wounded). By your own argument you are defending the position that 35000 or 36000 Japanese casualties (or as you have now written - 30,000, without explanation for the change) deserve to be in the infobox along with military records apparently for the sole reason that the claim exists. By that logic you should also defend Soviet numbers (29,000, 52-55,000, 61,000, and now 45,000 by RU MOD) but admit that they are clearly refuted. What is the difference? Why do you insist on such an inconsistent position? The Pittsburgher (talk) 15:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, from WP:RS, "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." The "Scholarly Influence" of this paper is zero (zero citations outside this wiki article); Harada's numbers are also only mentioned in passing by Coox - that is, literally one sentence - before actual military records are examined (an entire chapter plus appendices.) The Pittsburgher (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in the case of specifying 30,000 losses in the infobox, it's really my mistake, it needs to be removed. Further along the points:
  • a) Firstly, it is not necessary to Firstly, it is not necessary to allocate losses by category, the ratio of 1.75 is the ratio of 20,000 to 35,000, and even more so, this source does not name the number of irretrievable losses. By the words "sanitary report" I meant personal names loss reports.
  • b) Why is it not necessary to leave Soviet data in the infobox? Everything seems to be simple here, if you read the article. The data is somewhat marginal and, as I understand it, has been criticized by individual historians, moreover, it has increased sharply from the first estimate of 29,000 to 60,000. Despite this, the figures perhaps can violate WP:PSCI. (If the estimate of 29,000 had been preserved, it would have been possible to include it, but not taking into account the replacement of the position by 2 times) In this case, I would generally expand the infobox, where I left an extreme figure of 45,000 losses (see the source I indicated, the figures refer to total losses, and not only those killed, as it was in the text before). I will probably edit this later, if there are any contradictions, then write here.
  • c) In the case of a dissertation, it is not about quoting the original source, but about the dissertation itself.
In general, I propose to redo the infobox as here with with great explanations in notes. Dushnilkin (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I do not see strength in the argument about the strength of the opposing army, losses could be replenished with rear reserves or non-combat units could suffer from losses. Dushnilkin (talk) 16:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am open to collaborating on revising the article. In the meantime, since you mentioned replacements I can share the information I have immediately on hand as well as an interesting observation on the effects of a disrupted front on casualty rates:
RE: Replacements - a partial summary:
  • On 27 July 1939 General Komatsubara requested 1,600 replacements for the 23rd Division and 600 for the 7th Division.
  • In anticipation of the Soviet offensive, a draft prepared on 31 July called for an additional 4,300 replacements to be brought from Japan.
Casualties per time period:
  • As of 25 July 1939 the Japanese reported 4,400 battle casualties and 800 sick. Casualties throughout August came to an average of 40 wounded per day, implying another ~20 killed and missing. This would suggest that Japanese battle casualties were ~6,000 by the time of the Soviet general offensive on 20 August, meaning that the remaining ~12,000 were lost after 20 August.
  • According to Zhukov's after action report, Soviet battle casualties from 20-30 August were 9,284. Taking this number from the total throughout the campaign it means their battle casualties were ~15,000 for the rest of the fighting. Thus, during the final phase of operations the ratio of losses went from approximately 2.5 to 1 in Japan's favor to 1.3 to 1 in the USSR's favor as Japanese forces were surrounded and destroyed.
The Pittsburgher (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This can definitely be taken into account when writing an article. Based on the fact that you clearly understand this topic more than I do, and also have good literature at hand, I will leave you complete freedom in the text. The discussion is most likely coming to an end, so can I hear your verdict on the design of the infobox? Dushnilkin (talk) 17:49, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that Japanese casualties be listed according to their records. Other estimates can be mentioned in the body of the text or in a note as they currently are. I can also put them as standalone items in the infobox but it may be giving them too much credibility vis a vis the military records.
For non-Soviet sources, other than Harada's 35,000 to 36,000 (which came from Yukio Sakurauchi, Agricultural Minister), there was also the American consul in Mukden who reported on 3 November 1939 that he had "authoritative" information that Japanese troops suffered 30,000 battle casualties, excluding sick. In the 1980s Kwantung Army staff officer Yutaka Imaoka also listed total casualties as 5,834 dead, 3,000 missing, and "more than 10,000 wounded." There was also the Japanese war monument from September 1942 that listed 9,471 Japanese and 202 Manchus who had died by name. The Pittsburgher (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khalkyn or Khalkhin?

On https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalkhyn_Gol I read the spelling, "Khalkhyn", in the current article it is "Khakhin". https://mn.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A5%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%85%D1%8B%D0%BD_%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8B%D0%BD_%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BD has "Халхын". Can a common ground be found by the specialists?Redav (talk) 00:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol&oldid=1260802230"