Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:44, 19 July 2008

China Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Japan Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 11:17, January 10, 2025 (JST, Reiwa 7) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Japan to do list: edit history watch purge Peer review: None A-class review: None Featured content candidates –  Articles: None Pictures: None Lists: None Good article nominations: Vinland Saga (TV series), Godzilla Minus One Add requested images to articles that need them. Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions. Improve and expand Japan-related stubs. Create some requested articles. Help translate an article from the Japanese Misplaced Pages into English. Assess unassessed articles

Military history: Asian / Chinese / Japanese / Russian & Soviet / World War II B‑class

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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history B This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale. 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 and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force Chinese military history task force Japanese military history task force Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force World War II task force

To-do list for Soviet invasion of Manchuria: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2021-05-26 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Japanese sources for defence of islands Expand : the "Campaign" section to include the operations outside Manchuria such as the contemplation to "using the arid wastes of eastern Mongolia as a launching pad" Infobox : add Soviet Fronts' commanders, and Commander of the Soviet Pacific Fleet Wikify : citations and reference sections

/Archive 1

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 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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(prof) 21:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Any words from him? I really hope he answers but if he doesn't how should we proceed?⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 18:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

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

1. The russian version of Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

No reply yet?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The name of the operation used everywhere in Soviet literature, throughout Glantz's publications and any publications before his "August Storm" in English is Manchurian strategic offensive operation--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Question, if I may. Glantz uses the wording "August Storm" as a book title. Do I get it correctly that he does not call the operation this way anywhere in the book? Is this assertion by Mrg disputed? --Irpen 05:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Small comment about Soviet/Russian historiography

Soviet-Japan War (August 9 – September 2) include a number of operations including Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation (August 9–20). // Wilderr (talk) 17:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No, the other operations are part of the Manchurian operation, which is why it is strategic--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Letter to Mr Glantz is answered

My apologies. I received an answer within about 24 hours (I also asked him when Colossus Triumphant was scheduled to be ready):

"Dear :

Koone has ever heard that story -- and it is the only one I know of. Colossus Triumphant is years away. I have just completed volume one in Year of Stalingrad, and hope to finish volume two by 1 August. Volume three will have to wait until after I complete my teaching chair next academic year (at the Citadel in Charleston, SC). The two-volume Barbarossa study *1,760 pages) is also on hold for at least a year."

which has the benefit of telling us about his research/writing plans as well. It seems nowhere in any public forum has Colonel Glantz said that 'August Storm' was a misnomer. Buckshot06(prof) 05:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Which part is the answer to the question on the name of the operation?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

First sentence: 'Koone has heard that story' - looks like he hit the 'k' key instead of the 'n' key on the keyboard. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 09:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

So I take it that now you believe me that none have heard that story until I asked him?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Mrg, I tried to tell you five or six times that I believed you. I could not make myself understood. I sent that email not because I disbelieved you, but because you were having difficulty understanding what I was saying. Buckshot06(prof) 01:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Your first answer was a question, "Has Glantz published something saying what he told you?"

Now, if I was the only person he has told me about this, he had not published it anywhere. And since it was in a private communication, then essentially you were saying - because Glantz has not published it anywhere, therefore the declaration by you Mrg3105 is not believable since it can not be backed up by an independent source. That means you did not believe me. My problem was only that I had read the original basic research 25 years ago, and although I had seen the two recently published books that are essentially the old reports merged into one volume, it just never entered my mind that no one in 25 years would actually question the operational name. This is why my initial approach to suggestion of renaming was so casual. I assumed, something I generally do not do, that whoever wrote the original article, had in fact read the original publications which were linked in the original created by an IP (?) according to the history. What is more interesting is that the 2nd registered editor to lay his eyes on the article was Philip Baird Shearer who just made an effort to "teach " me about references, and the 3rd was Oberiko currently overseeing the completion of the World War II article. They, and numerous other editors had edited the article had edited it, but apparently failed to read the core sources that the operation "name" came from. And in the end, I have to jump through hoops to prove I am telling the truth? This is PRECISELY why I will continue to demand that all article be properly referenced and cited to an academic standard regardless of the purported experience or authority of any given editor--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(od). I have significant problems in trying to communicate with you Mrg, or, you do not WP:AGF, rather, assuming I'm trying to pervert your words. I KNEW YOU WERE SAYING IT WAS UNPUBLISHED - I BELIEVED YOU!! But I also knew that it hadn't been publicly published. Are the two statements not able to be held at the same time? Please assume good faith here!! On the substantive question below Irpen, I haven't looked at it; follow up with Mrg I think's the best course. Buckshot06(prof) 12:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing can be assumed in Misplaced Pages, particularly good faith, as my experience has shown. I am not into mantras of political correctness, and avoidance is not my style either as the next article will possibly explain why it is that you find me so difficult to get on with. AGF is a mantra so far as I am concerned. I have seen more dishonesty and conflict in less then one year of Misplaced Pages editing than in 25 years of my professional working life!

No, the two statements are not able to be held at the same time because they are logically contradictory. Something that had only been discussed once between two people in 25 years, is obviously not available to the public--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I will try to defuse the situation. Conflict in Misplaced Pages is inevitable, I too have been involved in too much conflict here, in fact conflict is one of the reasons I edit little now. So much stress, arguments and ill will that I started to wonder "why bother?"

Thankfully, this present conflict seems to be resolved, from what I've been reading there seems to be a consensus that the article's title should be changed. So if my understanding is correct could someone, please, rename the article so we can put this issue to rest?

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 03:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Guys, seems like my question above was again lost in your resolving your past differences. May I repeat it. While Glantz uses the wording "August Storm" as a book title, do I get it correctly that he does not call the operation this way anywhere in the book? Is this assertion by Mrg disputed? Because if this is correct, we are fighting a wrong battle. We are not arguing about a book title but about the operation title. So, does Glantz call the operation "August Storm" inside his voluminous book? TIA, --Irpen 17:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I was actually referring to the original Leavenworth Papers publications both linked in the article, on which the two recent books have been largely based. However, this from the 2003 verion

from Front Flap:

"... A generation of US Army officers has carefully studied the Manchurian offensive, which has come to be known as Operation `August Storm',

(note that 20 years is a generation)

and

In short, they study the Manchurian offensive because it was an impressive and decisive campaign. More recently, Western study of `August Storm' provided inspiration, concrete guidance,

And the original reason for the naming by Glantz that should have made the naming and my correspondence with Mr Glantz beyond doubt

Rain storms also impeded the march of Danilov's forces, requiring his forces to take two days to pass through the mountains. Danilov's forces finally entered Tapanshang on 14 August, after dispersing its small Japanese garrison in a brief fight.

But my point was same, the basing of the article title on a publication title

1. August Storm: The Soviet 1945 Strategic Offensive in Manchuria, Leavenworth Papers No. 7, LTC David M. Glantz, 1983 and August storm: Soviet tactical and operational combat in Manchuria, 1945: Leavenworth Papers No. 8. LTC David M. Glantz, 1983

--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Article is renamed

I've just restored a mention of this operation sometimes being called Operation August Storm to the lead para. Correct or not, this is a not-uncommon name for the operation (for example, Frank uses it in his book Downfall) and is a very likely search term, so it should be mentioned. Nick Dowling (talk) 23:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sure. It should be a good reference to those writers who never bothered to do research--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that is a little unkind Mrg; the misapprehension has been made by many, often with a great detail of research background. Buckshot06(prof) 07:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there a WP guideline that says I have to be kind to people who edit without reading primary sources?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I agree with the new sentence. We are now making it explicit that the name Operation August Storm was coined by David Glantz and that it was not used by the USSR or by the Soviet military.

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 05:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Nor by any academicians in Western militaries as has been implied by some authors--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The current article title is lousy. I suggest renaming it to 'Soviet Invasion of Manchuria'. Raul654 (talk) 21:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the introduction, you will see that the operation was not just an invasion of Manchuria, but also of Japanese-held islands--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 21:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of the fighting in the Kuriles - but that was a tiny portion of the overall fighting. More to the point - the same argument can be made against the current title. Raul654 (talk) 22:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Only people with a detailed knowledge of military history know what a 'strategic offensive operation' is and its hardly a common term. 'Soviet Invasion of Manchuria' is much better. Nick Dowling (talk) 23:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Nick, even fewer people know what Manchuria is today :)

Raul, what does being a small part have anything to do with the name? This is a reference work, and Soviet invasion of Manchuria never existed, so maybe you need to write an article on Fictional wars in Manchuria? :)

I appreciate that in English there are many wartime events that have been completely obscured for operational security, or indeed dumbed-down for the public either by authorities or the subsequent authors and editors. I'm also aware that in the USA everything needs to have a "catchy title" which is how "August Storm" came about. However, the operation under discussion is a part of the Soviet military history, and has no catchy title. Please don't dumb it down for the users of Misplaced Pages...again--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

"the operation under discussion is a part of the Soviet military history" - that's only one side of the conflict, which is also an important part of Japanese military history. The invasion of Manchuria led to the defeat of Japan's single largest field army and played a major role in the Japanese decision to surrender. Nick Dowling (talk) 23:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Just so we are clear, there was a defensive plan for the Kwantung Army, and that is another article. The Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation can not be a part of the Japanese military history because it was not planned or executed by the Japanese military, but was inflicted on it. Its just that you Nick, like many other English speaking military history enthusiasts, tend to think military history is written only from the English versions of the story. I need go no further then the previously-raised Battle of Britain, which was neither of Britain, nor a battle, and the German side, despite them being the aggressors, is barely mentioned, and is not even linked, seemingly not even deserving a stub status despite representing the operations of Luftwaffe forces at least equal to those of the RAF.

I will have to congratulate you when you write the article on the Japanese defence of Manchuria as Raul would have it.

By the way, Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation was the second "invasion" of Manchuria, the first resulting in the 1924 Mongolian People's Republic.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles on all battles should cover both sides, and there shouldn't be seperate articles for each side. Despite your claim, the Battle of Britain article tries to do this and includes fairly extensive coverage of the German side of the battle. Anyway, this article isn't about the Soviet plan - much of it is about the Japanese forces, the course of the fighting and the Japanese reaction to the operation. If you want to start an article on the Soviet planning and preparations for the invasion then do so, but don't claim this this article covers that topic just because you renamed it. Nick Dowling (talk) 00:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

But I didn't "rename it" Nick, I simply corrected the name it was given in 1945, despite opposition.

I think that using "common" names for military operations in a reference work is "journalistic". Wiklipedia is not a wartime tabloid, and the readership is somewhat more sophisticated than during the Second World War. Its the promulgation of the Second World War "speak" to continue using this style. What is the result of this? Misplaced Pages ends up with one large summary article on the Battle of Britain, and four pitiful Fighter Group articles that say nothing about fighter operations in their areas of operation.

If you must know, the operation was a part of the Soviet-Japanese war in 1945, of which this operation was a major, but not the only part. All battles should cover both sides; all smallish battles before 19th century maybe.

When you get into the strategic operations, something you claim no one understands, but I hope you do, covering all sides in a reference article becomes somewhat difficult. Battle of Atlantic (1939-1945) is a case in point.

This is why I have been seemingly battling to get into the heads of some editors in Misplaced Pages that the militaries of the World prefer to divide really large combat events into their constituent and eminently more manageable parts so they can be planned, executed and later analysed in manageable works, and not glossed over in summaries that are so titled, e.g. Battle of Britian, Battle of Kursk, Battle of the Bulge, and other "battles".

There is also a consideration of "where to start" in creating any article about military history. This is seemingly trivial for many editors who start with the title of a book. I know you will tell me that Misplaced Pages is for a general reader and not a specialist (but many articles will prove your wrong), but to write something, one has to be somewhat above the "general level" in the knowledge of the subject area. Many moons ago I suggested that all articles about combat events should be, for consistency's sake, written from the starting point of the point of view of the side that conceived the offensive. That fell on deaf ears. And yet that is how operations start, with the concept of the offensive briefing.

Undoubtedly the reaction of the Kwantung Army to the offensive is important. I wish that the view from the other side was a part of editing policy in the MilHist Project since many articles simply lack it. By all means if you can improve the article, do so. However I see no reason to rename the article into something else because the current article somehow leaves the Japanese out of it. Political correctness does not apply in history, and military history in particular. The suggested "Soviet invasion of Manchuria" really sounds journalistic (tabloid) to me. I guess to fully contextualise it, maybe rename it to Soviets invade China!--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Endorse 'Soviet invasion of Manchuria.' Buckshot06(prof) 00:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Buckshot06, the epitome of a "yesman"--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll

Please indicate what you believe the name of the article should be:

Soviet invasion of Manchuria

1. Endorse as creator of straw poll. Buckshot06(prof) 02:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Support, though Soviet invasion of Manchuria (1945) may be better still. Nick Dowling (talk) 03:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation

Other alternatives

• Unassessed China-related articles
• Unknown-importance China-related articles
• Unassessed China-related articles of Unknown-importance
• WikiProject China articles
• Unassessed Japan-related articles
• Unknown-importance Japan-related articles
• WikiProject Japan articles
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class Asian military history articles
• Asian military history task force articles
• B-Class Chinese military history articles
• Chinese military history task force articles
• B-Class Japanese military history articles
• Japanese military history task force articles
• B-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
• Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force articles
• B-Class World War II articles
• World War II task force articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists