Talk:Battles of Khalkhin Gol/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Language and style

There is some truly horrible writing in the article. While I appreciate that someone sits down and writes what is no doubt comberehensive, it is also at times almost unreadable. Someone seems to have decided to compress it by removing all definite articles, all pronouns and most of the consonants in some words. I tried editing two paragraphs, but much work remains. As it stands, parts of this reads like a military report written by a shell-shocked, tired private with a head wound.


The text was written by a japanese dude and well he dosent know english all that well :D
What puzzled me was the use of terms like "fgtr" and "lgt bmr" where just typing it out and making it much more readable would have been no more work. But ok. There is also a lot of duplication of information within the text. I guess we'll jhave to help this gentleman with his style, as he has worked so hard on the content.
The "dudes" name is "Torb37" and one more thing dont post new topics at the top of the page but at the bottom Robertoad 01:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Soviet-Japanese Border War

This article is really about the entire war and ought to be titled Soviet-Japanese Border War of 1939. Alrees

It appears that this content is highly repetitive considering the entire body is duplicated in the article on the town. I think this is the proper place for it.

Also the article here states that this was blitzkreig. This is incorrect, the tactics he employed were entirely "classic", using tanks in place of cavalry in a traditional multi-prong frontal assault and encirclement. I'll change that.


Blitzkrieg was the tactic of envelopment and deep penetration, via a surprised attack. Tanks were not used in "classic" warfare. In "classic" warfare the cavalry was used to harass the enemy rear and disable their guns; Zhukov used his tanks at Khalkin Gol to surround the enemy in a circle, and launch a multi-strike, i.e. strike, surround, strike; this feat was NEVER used with "classic" warfare of cavalry, simply because horses aren't as resilient as tanks and can't take that much of a beating. So the Blitzkreig reference was correct. 68.164.148.147 (talk) 09:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

An error?

"...then crossed the river on August 20 to attack the elite Japanese with three infantry divisions (70,000 men in all), massed artillery, a tank brigade, and the best planes of the Red Air Force."

"Of the 30,000 troops on the Japanese side, 8440 were killed and 8766 wounded."


70,000 or 30,000? Which one? And if two surrounded division were "wiped" out I think the KIA would be higher than 8,440? And I believe two different authors did those becasue the use of commas in one number and the lack of use in another. --CorranH96

It's true that this article is the combination of work by two authors, but those figures were written by one, using the principle of using commas for figures of 10,000 or more, and not for fewer. Read the article as saying that the three infantry divisions (70,000 men in all) was the figure for Zhukov's attacking force, not the Japanese; this does contradict the other figure of 57,000 men being deployed on the Soviet side which comes from the US Army document cited in the external links, although the discrepancy could be accounted for by the difference between the theoretical strength of the Soviet formations and their actual strength. I personally wouldn't use "wiped" as a description, but with over 50% of their strength killed or wounded they were severely mauled. -- Arwel 11:15, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

From Soviet "History of WWII 1939-1945" Vol.2. Japanese losses were 61,000 killed, wounded, prisoners. Soviet losses were 18,500 wounded and dead. Also, it may be wise to include the effect of signing USSR-Germany non-aggression pact on mainly political side of it and as a cause for a political crisis in japan. May I thank authors involved in writing this article. Really nothing to pick on besides minor additions :) [xiaoxiong]

From Kwantung army 23rd & 7th Division participated in the battle. Their losses were immense quantity but 61,000 KIA is obviously overestimated. Official record is ; Participant from 6th Army 58925, KIA 7696, WIA 8647, MIA 1021, disease 2350. Note that some Japanese sournces question these figures. How's about in Coox's? I didn't check yet.- Ideru 23:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe the following statement "The Marco Polo Bridge Incident also was a direct result of Japan concentrating on expanding into China after their rebuff into Mongolia at Khalkin-Gol. " under the "Influence on World War II" section has a factual error: the Marco Polo Bridge Incident happened in 1937, two year before the Battle of Khalkhin Gol. --mememe

refs

user:Vlad k added the following links (and some others) to "ext refs" section

While done improperly, these terms are worth to keep in mind as topics of future articles, so I copied them here. Mikkalai 18:07, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Moved material

This is from Japanese strategic planning for mainland Asia (1905-1940). It really belongs here. I'll try to clean it up and merge some of it, over time. Charles Matthews 15:51, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

This arose from border problems involving Japan-Manchukuo and the Soviet Union-Outer Mongolia. In April 1939, the Kwantung Army laid down regulations to guide frontline units with frontier troubles. "The principles for the Settlement of Soviet-Manchurian Borders Dispute" stipulated:

  1. the basic policy is never to invade and never to be invaded.
  2. if an enemy violates the frontiers, he must be wiped out at once.
  3. where the borders are not precisely defined,the area defense commander will assume responsibility for demarcation and will so advise the front line units, in order to avoid disputes and to facilitate troops movements.
  4. an intolerable dilema confronts border garrison units: they are considered cowardly if they are overly prudent in the actions, but will be called to task if they act too boldly or aggressively. In view of these apprehensions, it will hereafter be regarded as the responsiblity of higher headquarters to deal with the final consequences of situations which may arise from the positive actions of forward elements.

In the Nomonhan region of west Manchuria, the Japanese and the Manchoukoans contend that the border line ran along the Halha River (known in Russian as Khalkhin-Gol), which flows into Lake Buir Nor. the Soviets and Outer Mongoliams insisted however,that the frontier lay about 30 Kilometers east of Nomonhan Town.

on May 12,1939,some 700 outer mongolians horsemen crossed the Halha River.the Kwantung Army considered this action how one violation of Manchuokouan Frontier and repelled these raiders in conformity with the current Border Defense Guide Regulations mentioned above.the Outer Mongolians,however,received reinforcements,re-crossed the river ,and attacked again.in the course of sucesive engagements,both sides gradually build up their forces-the Russians and Outer Mongolians Vs. Japanese and Manchuoukoans.by the middle of August,greatly reinforced Strength confronted each other.Kwantung Army forces were build around the Lieutenant General Michitaro Komatsubara 23d Division,with Hq in Hailar,Tsingan Province,over 100 miles from the site of the figthing, the Soviets had three infantry divisions and five mechanized brigades, (430 tanks and same number of armored cars) while the Outer Mongolian posseses two Cavalry Divisions and Japan poses only the 3th Tank Regiment,unit of Yasuoka s Detached Armored Forces and somes armored Car units.(Yasuoka s Units poses the new Medium Tank Type 97 "Chi-Ha" ,just at Nomonhan incident,joining at Ligth Tank Type 95 "Ha-Go",the standart tank in this times).

before the arrival of Kwantung Army reinforcements,the soviet Army Launchered an offensive on August 20, and inflicted severe losses to Japanese.the Russians employed encircling tactics and made skillful use of their superior artillery and armor.of the august 15,140 men in the Komatsubara Force,of which the 23 Division was core,11,124 were killed or wounded in action.during the period between july 1 and september 16 which cover most the figth at Nomonhan casualities totalled no less than 73%,as a percentage of the force engaged.most of these losses incurred during Soviet August Offensive.by way of com parison,the percentage of casualities suffered by the Japanese during the bloody figthing in major battles of Russo-Japanese war of 1904-1905 had approximated:

  • in 5 days of figth at Liaoyang:17%
  • in 7 days of figth at Sha-ho:17%
  • in 13 days of figth at Mukden:28%

still awaiting the arrival of reiforcements,the Kwantung Army girded for a counteroffensive,but on september 15 an armistice was arranged in Moscow,the troops stopped figthing next day.

among certain Japanese authorities,the most widespread opinion was that the nomonhan incident had been a maneouver instigated for Soviet Union in order to Restrain the Japanese Army from disposing of a "China Incident".after the negotiations of Nomonhan Armistice, the Newly appointed Commanding General Staff of Kwantung Army,General Yosihiro Umezu,took inmediatelly steps to prevent further border troubleshe pulled back to Japanese troops some what behind the frontiers where demarcation lines where not precise.a fundamental principle designed to prevent border incidents was General Umezu s order that,in the event of Soviet or Outer Mongolian penetration of at disputed area,only the Commander of Kwantung Army himself from Ryojun hq could to decide whether japanese migth counterattack. the new measures represented a fundamental revision of the old Border Defense Principles.bold and positive front-line attacks the enemy,which had been formerly stressed,were not to be sanctioned now. as a result,a more pacefull atmosphere thereafter prevailed in vici- nity of the frontiers.

The "Nomonhan Incident" gave the japanese Army an opportunity to realize the actual ability of Soviet Army. Seeings was Believing:

  1. The bulk of Soviet Ground forces-Artillery and Armor- were far superior to the Japanese Army in terms of firepower and Mechanized equipment.
  2. The Japanese were exeedingly surprised to Soviet Capability of transporting and Storing war materiel at battlefront 600 Kilometers away from a railroad Terminal (Japanese previously during Changkufeng battle saw the same situation, but Russians used one Fortified sistem of Highways between hills)
  3. Having rid itself of the inflexiblity which characterized Czarist forces (see some similar situation in first figths of Lake Khasan Battle and Changkufeng incidents), the Soviet Army had proved able to change tactics from battle to battle. at begining of incident,for example, most of the Soviet Tanks were ignited by Gasoline bottles hurled at them by Japanese troops. a month later,however the Russians were using Crude oil-fuel or covering the tank chassis with wire netting. other cases of Soviet field improvisation were numerous.
  4. The Soviet Army was more tenacious than had been expected.

After the end of the Nomonhan figthing, the Army High command set up a experts Commitee to investigate the whole incident. The commision was to evaluate the abilites of the Soviet Army, and reexamined the performances of Japanese Armaments and its operations against Russians( from this if obseved the deficience of low 57mm AT Cannon in Favour of Rapid Fire 47mm AT Cannon), where military equipment was concerned, japanese firepower proved far inferior.

Heated debates ensued about two basic alternatives: whether to effect a thoroughgoing reorganization, or whether to go only as far reinforcing current firepower materiel. The second alternative was selected. Lurking in the background of the controversy was the problem of abandoning the principle of hand-to-hand figthing (these principle are used with limited sucess during Lake Khasan first incursions in Soviet lands), tradition of the Japanese infantry. the higth Command did not awaken to remarkable progress of material potentials in modern warfare, but instead continued to esteem the superiority of spiritual figthing strength. this atitude could perhaps be traced to the fact that Japanese Army did not progress beyond comprehending firepower at levels of 1904-1905. it had never received a baptism of fire on the modern scale of World War I. now the second world war had just broken out, Japanese Military autorities admiring the brilliant sucess of German Army operations, began to cherish a desire to learn from german experiences rather tham from that of the Nomonhan Incident.this desire cristallized into the dispatch of the Yamashita Military Team to Germany.

The higth ranking officers of Army Staff of Kwantung Army Hq,were called to account for defeat of Nomonhan.in Tokio,Deputy Chief of general Staff Tetsuzo Nakajima and Chief of First Bureau Gun Hashimoto were ordered to retire from service.in Hsinking enforces retirements were imposed upon Commander of Kwantung Army in incidents days,Kenkichi Ueda,and your his Chief of Staff Renzuke Isogaya.despite the shake-up most of the staff officers in 1st section of Operations at Kwantung Army Hq officers,who were allegued to have been really responsible and to have exerted major influence during the Nomonhan incident-were transferred to sinecures. Moreover,the transferred officers afterwards obtained important posts withing Higth-Command unnoticed.Some of them,indeed ended up by occuping key positions within the Operational Bureau at Imperial Headquarters itself. in other terms the "Shake-up" was merely for sake of appareances,such were the workings of military administration.its generally acknowledged by those who held contemporaneous Higth Command post that officers responsible for the "Nomonhan Debacle" became strong advocate for launching the Pacific War(some of theirs pass to the band of "Strike South" Group of Japanese Navy).

The actual number of losses

Can anyone provide reference to the following claim?

After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, new documents about the battle changed the numbers considerably. The actual number of losses in the battle was 23,926, of whom 6,831 killed, 1,143 reported missing and 15,952 wounded. While the Red Army did win the battle, it was not as one-sided a battle as previously believed.

Igny 18:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Id Check with AMVAS's site: http://rkkaww2.armchairgeneral.com/battles/khalkhin_gol39.htm

Also Maps: http://rkkaww2.armchairgeneral.com/maps/maps1938_40.htm#Khalkhin_Gol Asiaticus 05:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Contradictions with Red Army article

I've noticed that the information (especially the body counts) for this battle given on the Red Army article disagrees dramatically with that available here. I'm not especially familiar with the incident, so I would appreciate it if someone with some knowledge of it would bring the two articles into agreement. -David Schaich Talk/Contrib 19:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Japanese Conclusions (redundant sentences)

Theres two repeated sentences in this section:

"The Nomonhan Incident gave the Japanese Army an opportunity to realize the actual ability of the Soviet Army. Seeing was believing."

Appears twice in this section. Once at the top and again repeated at the bottom. I removed the last two redundant sentences but it was reverted - probably because the reverter Gipornm thought I just blanked it. I'll leave a remark here and in his user page. --Eqdoktor 10:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You can put a comment in the text so editors will see it and readers won't. For example:
Jim.henderson 15:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
And now it is totally gone because user Detruncate deleted the last remaning sentence. So I am putting both back so to have a reserve and to stress what the Japanese learned and that they learnt it the hard way. Gipornm 13:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
It needn't be said twice. Especially it needn't be said twice using the exact same sentences. If you must repeat the idea for inattentive readers, better to repeat it using different words. For example, "They had learnt the hard way what kind of army they were dealing with" would repeat the idea without repeating the words.
Jim.henderson 15:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Gipornm, I see that you have reverted the changes to where it was originally - repeating the same two sentence at the end of the article. Looking at your past contributions and the message you left me in my talk page, I suspect that you may not be a native speaker of English. With that in mind; I have to point out: to repeat the exact same sentences twice in an article or essay is considered very bad style in English writing - even if the sentences are correct grammatically. It is something that is taught at the very basic level of English writing lessons. Redundancy is unnecessary. While I appreciate that in other languages, redundancy can be used to emphasize a point, its not needed in English as it is a very compact written language compared to other eastern scripts like Japanese or Chinese (that certain important points can be on different pages). Since the article is in the ENGLISH Wikipedia, we need to conform to a high standard of English writing.

If you do feel that the point bears repeating, I agree with Jim.henderson, use different words to describe the idea. For a fluent or native speaker/reader of the English language, seeing redundant sentences in the article is very jarring. Its an obvious and very basic (low level) mistake in English writing. I will correct the problem of redundancy, if anyone needs to add to the article to emphasize the lessons learnt by the Japanese facing a reinvigorated Soviet Red Army, feel free to do so.

PS: While we're at it, the phrase "Seeing is believing" has pronoun issues. "Who" is doing the seeing? The reader?, the Japanese? Japanese armed forces? Japanese leaders? the soviets? Taking that out too. --Eqdoktor 07:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The whole Wikipedia article needs to thoroughly cleaned up IMHO. Redundant sentences is the least of it's problems. I take it on faith that the facts presented are correct BUT the grammar, word structures and word choices themselves throughout the article is atrocious. It was obviously written by a non-native English speaker and there are far too many literal translations (from the Japanese? From the Russian?) that read very oddly. I guess thats a project for someone... --Eqdoktor 08:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
As it says at the top of the talk page, this article is rated start-class. That means, as a poor translation about an interesting topic, it still needs plenty of editing. No, in this context "Seeing is believing" does not need pronoun improvements. It is clear, and it is useful once, even if slightly trite. Not twice. After using it at the beginning of the section, one should either use a less idiomatic phrase at the end, or use a different aphoristic English idiom such as "Once bitten, twice shy." Besides, many other sections need more work than this one does. If you know more about English style than about the topic, it's a project for you.
Jim.henderson 18:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


Now it is gone again we need to keep it once, It was the Japanese who learnt. It was for them that seeing was believeing and you must have it in the text atleast once. You can see above in this talk page that alot of it was written by a japanese guy Torb37 Gipornm 20:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed or you would like to help spread this message contact us on this page. Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 03:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Needs to be considerably shorter and more succinct

As a casual user, I would highly recommend making this article much shorter. Limit it to historical/political information leading up to and caused by the battle as well as a brief overview of the battle itself. Most users will be looking to place this battle in a historical context. While impressive in it's level of detail, the current style makes the article difficult to use for this purpose. Point those who have interest in more detail towards outside resources. Most readers will be casual IPs, just like me.

A great deal has been added to the original article, particularly in the detail of the battle, which has resulted in considerable duplication of information, e.g. linking to Gen Komatsubara's name three times in just a few paragraphs (and some direct contradictions, such as where the disputed frontier ran). While I take it on trust that the information provided is generally correct, the article needs a thorough copyedit for style, spelling, and wikilinking of dates. -- Arwel (talk) 14:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Many battle articles are much longer, including Austerlitz and Gettysburgh. Long can be good, if it is well organized, which this one is not. This is one of those wars which had only one interesting battle, and the original editorial scheme seems to have been to write separate articles on the war and the battle. Perhaps someone less competent in the subject matter, and more competent in editing, can make it neat by carrying out this project, moving the political and historical background to a new war article and leaving the actual combat in this one. Each smaller article then would be easier to straighten out.
Jim.henderson 14:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, no, don't do that. There's no reason to make a separate article for the "war" and the "battle", because effectively there was no "war". There was some skirmishing and sparring, then a full-scale battle at Khalkin Gol, and that was it. I'll get around to checking this article out sometime for editing, but there really should be one article, about the battle at Khalkin Gol, in the World War II category. Vidor 01:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Minor edits

I've run through this piece correcting minor spelling and grammar errors as well as resolving UK/US spelling inconsistencies. As to the content, I found it interesting but cumbersome. It's not an easy read and there do appear to be some inconsistencies with numbers etc. Referring to the first entry at the top of this page, I'm still trying to find the definition of comberehensive. People who live in glass houses etc...Greenglen 10:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you resolved the US/UK spelling the wrong way. According to MOS, editors are supposed to use spelling "used by the first major contributor". If you look at the article's history, the first variant of the article where US/UK differences appear uses the US spelling. Other than that, thank you for your copyediting efforts.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Lots and lots of edits

This article was a complete mess. Paragraph after paragraph of poorly written material, repetition, boring lists of airplanes, etc. I have been hacking out lots and lots of stuff to try and boil it down to a good punchy article that summarizes the actions of the battle. Am not finished with it yet. After I'm done clearing out all the mess I might use that Army analysis in External Links to reintroduce more detail about the actual battle itself. Research for this article is a little problematic because the Khalkin Gol battle is still mostly unknown in the west. Vidor 22:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Your edits are nothing short of pure and absolute vandalism, you have no right to delete 99% of the article just because you do not like what it says, all your vandalistic deletions have been restored and please do not continue in your quest for destruction in this article. Just because you find something "boring" does not give you the right to delete the whole article, stop this insanity now!Handsthere 08:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Handsthere, as long as you can't give rational explanations as to why specific parts removed are important to the understanding of the topic, your reverts are unlikely to stand. The article is a mess, and an uncommented list of tank types (just as an example) doesn't help the reader to understand the outcome of the battle. If you are willing to contribute to turning this into a readable text, then you're very welcome. But just calling any change "vandalism" won't get you anywhere. Please assume good faith and bring some of your own. --Latebird 09:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is the place to ADD information not remove it, people can not remove pages and pages of information, that is just plain vandalism. If something is "too long" then create a sub article and move it there, but to delete all the information is just pure and absolute destruction. This is a military article written about a military battle and that is why it is written in a military tone. If the problem is the tank list then move the tank list into a "tank list of tanks in the battle of khalkhin gol", but not just the list was removed tones and tones of information, good information, solid information, reliable information was removed. Other military campaigns spanning the same time frame have much longer articles. Just look at the invasion of Poland it is a little more then a month long campaign which is a bit shorter then this battle and yet the article there is much longer and has many times more sub articles. Handsthere 10:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is a place to add relevant information, and to remove everything else. it is NOT an "indiscriminate collection of information". Not every detail is important enough to keep. This article is not written in a "military tone" (and it shouldn't). It is written without a concept of relevance, without reasonable structure, and with a lot of redundancy.
Vidor has explained what he plans to do to improve this situation. Accusing him of "vandalism" after that explanation is very bad style and unnecessarily hostile. If you want to help improve this article, then please explain why the details he removed are important, and how they are "reliable". The relative volume of other articles is not relevant.
If you want to salvage the tank list, feel free to create a seperate article with it, but expect it to be deleted by other editors as listcruft. Personally, I don't see how this list helps anyone understand the history and outcome of this battle, so you'll have to answer the question of noteability. --Latebird 11:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Latebird understands what I'm getting at. Khalkin Gol was hugely important, and it deserves a good article. It doesn't deserve long, pointless lists of kinds of tanks and artillery. The article should be an account of what occurred, not a roll call of weapons. Handsthere should create a Wikipedia article on Japanese military weaponry during World War II if he feels the information is important. Maybe even break it down by which tanks were used at which times and in which theaters. But don't go listing lots of weapons. Should the article have a list of all types of firearms that Japanese officers and men carried? Further, besides being boring, the article is badly written; there are redundancies (check out the second redundant sentence saying "This battle is known as the Nomohan incident in Japan" in the body of the article) and plain bad English that sounds like it was written by a non-native speaker.
  • My plan for the article is to edit out all the crap, and then base it off the Army paper listed in the external links, emphasizing the sequence of events, as any article should. The handicap, as I wrote above, is that there isn't a lot of reference material out there. If anybody can point me to additional internet material similar to the Army paper, or has material themselves to use for editing, then please do so. But let's not list tanks. Vidor 17:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Stop the deleting you are not just deleting the weapons list but 99,99% of the article. What you find as crap I find very intersting you have no right to destroy the information so stop the deletion. Stop editing this article leave it alone. I can never allow such a huge amount of good information to be destroyed because you think it is crap. Go and destroy some other article but not this one. You find this article boring then leave it alone you think it is crap then leave it alone you have no bloody right in destroying real, good and solid information because you find it boring, your plan might be to destroy this article but then my plan is to keep it alive. Handsthere 18:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "Stop the deleting"--No.--"you are not just deleting the weapons list but 99,99% of the article."--This is obviously false. I have not deleted 99.99% of the article; I have EDITED and streamlined the article, because it's horribly written.--"I can never allow such a huge amount of good information to be destroyed"--Pretty sure you aren't in charge of Wikipedia, so you aren't in a position to allow or disallow anything.--"You find this article boring then leave it alone"--No, I think I'll make it better instead.--"your plan might be to destroy this article but then my plan is to keep it alive"--Why don't you calm down? You have done NOTHING to improve this article. Have you fixed the many grammar errors? No. Have you deleted the redundant information, like the two different sections both purporting to examine the "aftermath" or "influence" of the battle? No. You have done zero to make this article better. All you've done is erase the work I've put into it. Read this discussion page. Several users for some time have been saying that the article was badly written and needed editing. I've chosen to do that. Have you? Vidor 19:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • No one said it must stay exactly the same way as it is now, but deleting facts and removeing them forever just because someone finds them "boring" is wrong, re write the sections that are bad but do not destroy the information in them. It is as simple as that, if something is to long then make a sub artcile about it but do not delete it.Handsthere 00:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
You continue to say things that are not true. I have written quite a bit as well as deleting the excess and badly written material. You evidently are not paying any attention to what I am doing, but instead are repeatedly coming back to the article and wiping out any changes I make. Saying all I have done is "destroy, destroy, destroy" is, frankly, a lie. Vidor 00:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Handsthere, so far you haven't given us a single rational argument why the article must stay exactly as it is now. Secondly you haven't responded to any of our very specific arguments why it should change. And thirdly you make obviously incorrect statements in this discussion. In other words, you're acting in a clearly disruptive manner with no constructive input. If you don't change your behaviour, then that may easily get you banned from editing at Wikipedia. Please work with your fellow editors, not against them. --Latebird 21:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • What I have done is keept information in the article unlike you Vidor who just deletes. If the grammar is poor then fix it but do not delete the whole article. It is you have have made zero to make this article better I on the other hand have done a million by not deleteing it all. The only thing you have chosen to do is destroy, destroy and destroy. If you can not make the article better or if the only way you can make it better is by destroying it then go away. Handsthere 00:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Reliable source?

Do we actually have a reliable source for the weapons list and the other trivia? --Latebird 01:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea. Vidor 01:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Regarding Handsthere's list of units engaged, I think I found the source it came from. Here is the home page, and here is a description of the battle which contains long lists of units engaged, very similar to the ones that were in the article. I don't have the academic expertise to judge this source's reliability, seeing as how it appears to be an amateur translation of a Russian paper (although the map section is excellent), but in any case I still don't think the lists of weapons and units add anything to the article. Vidor 02:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
That site looks like the private hobby of someone, despite the enormous amount of work they must have put into it. It's a nice link, but I don't think we should treat it as a reliable source. This is what the author has to say about it: Some figures may vary, as I take them from different sources and unfortunately I can't pay time to analyze each one to make sure they are 100% correct. Except some cases I try to use more or less believable sources. In other words, we have no idea where the information actually comes from or how reliable it is. --Latebird 08:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Editing done

FINALLY DONE with the editing. Maybe somebody with access to the Coox book, which I do not have at this time, can add more to the article or lessen the dependence on the Army paper. I sincerely hope Handsthere actually reads the article instead of continuing to revert it. Vidor 02:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

  • If you would, could you fix your references so they follow proper formatting for references. They should include the author if possible, the name of the article, date and date retrieved fromt he net. --Lendorien 15:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Reverting Edits by Stepswung

On 13 April 2007, User Stepswung systematically stripped all the sourcing out of this article without explanation. It's probably actually an RV. It's very possible that it was done by Handswung as referenced in discussion above under an assumed name. User Stepswung lacks a talk page or user page. I'm reverting it to the previous version before his edits as that version is superiour to what it was changed to.-- Lendorien 21:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Solution to "tanks" issue

Since this seems to be a bone of contention. Can't we just add an Order of Battle section or another page? It is relevant to the subject, though doesn't need to be included inthe article maintext. --Lendorien 15:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Article title

What is the rationale for the article's current title, Battle of Khalkhin Gol? All of the cited English-language sources use Nomonhan. Plus, the article on the river is under Khalkhyn Gol. — AjaxSmack 01:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, if we're going to name it after the river, it's far more common to spell it as Khalkhin in this context. Though Nomonhan Incident is even more common:
Anyway, regardless of what we call it, this paper from Japan Focus has an extensive discussion of the name and explains the political implications of all the different ways of referring to it, which should probably be mentioned in our article. cab (talk) 06:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Added coordinates

I used the map linked from the article, and holding that map against Google Earth I found what seems to be the river and the approximate location of the area the battle was fought over. Ulflarsen (talk) 13:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

A bit of editing

This paragraph contains a few mistakes:

The Russians dispatched a new Corps commander, Comcor Georgy Zhukov, who arrived on June 5 and brought more motorized and armored forces (I Army Group) to the combat zone.[10] Together with Zhukov arrived Comcor Yakov Smushkevich with his aviation unit. On 27 June, the Japanese launched an air attack. The Japanese 2nd Air Brigade struck the Soviet air base at Tamsak-Bulak in Mongolia. The Japanese won this engagement, destroying half as many Soviet planes as they lost,

It should read "The Soviets dispatched..." and "destroying twice as many Soviet planes as they lost" OR "The Japanese lost this engagement..."

AThousandYoung (talk) 04:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Zhukov here, Zhukov there, Zhukov, damn, everywhere!

What about the Front commander? What did he do? Zhukov was a Corps commander and was not in position to lead Air Force, commander of which was another Comcor Yakov Smushkevich and under subordination of the front commander. For references purposes if Comcor - Comandarm ranks a little bit confusing, one should be aware that Zhukov was a Lieutenant-General, while Shtern was a Colonel-General. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 07:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Initial Illustration Deletion

Hi everyone

I have removed the picture that purports to portray the battle from the top of the page, since it featured a T-34 tank. These didn't enter Red Army service until September 1940! if you're going to illustrate the battle in some way, don't use pictures that can be proven to be wrong!BlackMarlin (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Hi. It is not T-34 - you were mistaken. It is BT-7. At T-34 are 5 axes, at BT-7 are 4. As you can see, here at the tank are 4 axes. May be it is necessary to return a picture back? Григорий А. Харьков (talk) 02:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

"Russian" vs "Soviet"

I have fixed many areas where the text inappropriately referred to (then) non-existent entities such as "the Russian armed forces" and replaced this with the correct "Soviet." References to "Russia" i have left intact where appropriate - that is, when referring to the territory of the RSFSR. While I understand that this Russian/Soviet error is an easy one to make - Coox's book even makes this blinder IN THE TITLE, it is worth to GET IT RIGHT. You should no more tolerate references to the "Russian" army or "Russian commanders" or whatnot in the 1917-1991 period than you should listen to hearing a description of World War two in the pacific being about Japan vs California. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.7.28 (talk) 09:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Maybe this info will help you out alittle bit; in the US Army during the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, the Soviets were also referred to as "Russians" during briefings and war maneuvers. "Soviets"/"Russians"...to the American fighting man, there was no difference. However, in the OPORD (Operation Orders-peace time war game versions) the terms; Warsaw Pact or Soviet 43rd Motorized Division (example, etc.) would be used. Seldom did one see the word "Russian" in the paper work orders, but they probably did exist there too. But in the field, days, weeks, months at a time...Russians or Soviets, same same. Bear in mind that the cold war was still on, and there were NOT that many Russian immigrants living in the US during those times. And some non-Russian American Servicemen who enjoyed utilizing the Russian language in the field (war games) tried NOT to get carried away with their interest, they tried to use some "common sense" caution...lest they be suspected of being a "commie" ("commie" was the actual words used while in the field). When the USSR collapsed in 1990, and Russian immigrants began their new lives in the US...as the years passed (about 20 years now), many of these new Americans might be questioning those "Soviet" & "Russian" terms.

The US civilians were also affected; although not related to the "Russian" question, they constantly call the M60 a Patton tank...it never was designated such a thing. But the civilians are adamant (as is Wikipedia) in calling the M60 Combat Tank a "Patton." Consequently, there should be no surprise in Russian or Soviet terms either; or far worse topics and titles.

If this is any help: US personnel are also called Americans. But this might be offensive to Canadians who are North Americans, or people from Central America, or people from South America, all of whom may or may not consider themselves to be "Americans." Which is why, by the way, the "US Immigration Service" (in the 20th century) used to ask people if they were "US citizens" and not "American citizens." In time, however, the term "Soviets" will most likely transition to the term "Russians", as future generations take over the helm down the road (years from now). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.104.160.54 (talk) 02:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Weakest links

This & this, to pick just two, are coming back "not loading"... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 05:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

"Communist forces"

"..., would advance across the Khalkin Gol, destroy Communist forces on Baintsagan Hill on the west bank, ..." and "They had suffered over five thousand casualties to this point but still had 75,000 men and several hundred planes facing the Communist forces."

Minor issue: The supposed ideology of the forces is irrelevant here, isn't it? Why not call the Japanese forces "Fascist forces", US forces "Capitalist forces" etc? Or am I taking this too seriously? I just think it's not an accurate or elegant term. "Soviet and Mongolian forces" would be fine, or not? Ricbep (talk) 21:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I agree. Communist forces doesn't sound right, for several reasons. Should be replaced with Soviet forces. I will do the edits.
In general, we can take this one step further by noting that there were never a communist country in the world (so an adjective communist with reference to countries, their armed forces, etc. is wrong). Those that are usually called communist countries, in reality were socialist ones. There was a communist ideology present (as in "communism is our goal") but there was never a claim made that communism as a political state was ever reached anywhere.
Looks to me though, that the confusion of these terms is a perennial theme in English language sources, just like the aforementioned "Soviet"/"Russian" confusion. cherkash (talk) 04:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

"Archival research" was a casualty?

Is there any particular reason why archival research is listed as a casualty? I know warfare can often be quite destructive, but was unaware of any archives being destroyed by this conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.252.191 (talk) 09:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

That's not what it means... It's unclearly done, but it's supposed to indicate the casualty figures are from archival sources. (I'm not going to change it, 'cause I'm not absolutely sure about that...) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 10:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Autonomous Japanese Army?

This appears in the "Background" section of the article: "Additionally, the Kwantung Army, which had long been stationed in Manchuria far from the Japanese home islands, had become largely autonomous and did not need to seek approval from the Japanese government before acting aggressively against the Soviets.[5]" I'm sorry, but this seems extremely unlikely. The Japanese government would probably not risk a war with the Soviet Union by letting their army run around autonomously making attacks. Does the sourced article really say this? Is it a reliable source?114.161.253.11 (talk) 12:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The wording is clumsy, but the sense is not that far off. It nicely illustrates the mess Japanese politics had become at the time. Kwangtung Army was nominally under the control of the Army General Staff in Tokyo, but its commanders became increasingly prone to act on their own authority. The General Staff were reluctant to rein them in, in part because of the loss of face involved in admitting Kwangtung Army had gotten out of hand in the first place, and in part because a lot of the General Staff were secretly sympathetic with the Kwangtung Army's aggressiveness against the Russians. The civilian Cabinet had very little control over the General Staff, let alone the Kwantung Army, because the General Staff reported directly to the Emperor and not the Cabinet. The Emperor's role in all this remains murky; the conventional post-World War II interpretation is that the Emperor had become little more than a figurehead, so that the General Staff could pretty much issue the orders they wished in the Emperor's name. The revisionist interpretation is that the Emperor supported the Army much more than the conventional interpretation admits. I don't claim to know which interpretation is correct; I suspect the truth lies between.
In any case, the bottom line is that Kwangtung Army showed a considerably willingness to defy Tokyo. Yaush (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The Kwangtung army had been used several times to act 'autonomously' notably during the invasion of Manchuria and allegedly totally against the wishes of central command (see i.a. the wiki entry for Kwangtun or Kantogun army). After so many such incidents the Kwantung leadership familiar with the politisiced IJA came to believe their own myth and really believed themselves to be independent. So much so that several times during the conflict the High Command was not able to control them. TrustyJules (talk) 10:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Conditions of the IJA

Ok, the IJA was in fact inferior to the Soviet one, but still this article puts this inferiority much more than it really was. The Japanese forces could have won this conflict despite such inferiority. Japanese strategy of surround the Soviets was very good, and if the Army was gived the proper logistics, reserves, artillery and aerial support, it could have defeated Zhukov's forces as well as they did with them.

Now on the topic: this article should provide the conditions in which the Kwantung Army operated in this battle with not contradiction. It can't say they didn't have engineers, didn't have the required bridges, didn't have the required air support, reserve troops, and proper logistics and keep saying the Japanese were simply beated and never wanted to come back again by "fear". This is totally partial and contraditory. And was not the vision of the Japanese minds above all.

There are too many iffs in the statement regarding the alleged state of the Japanese forces. The reality is they attacked with numerically inferior but what they considered to be high quality forces with a deeply thought through strategy. They were defeated by an enemy whose position was inferior, had a communication/supply line 500 miles long to the nearest rail head (no roads in that area either) and who was not the equal of the Japanese on a 1-1 basis. The Japanese attack plan may look brilliantly conceived in theory but was impossible to execute in practice as it relied on split second coordinated timing of the attacks that did not take into account any delay or setback. They committed their numerically inferior forces on a piecemeal and unconcentrated basis allowing the enemy to rip them apart with artillery (of which the Japanese had almost none to start with) and tanks. Only under cover of darkness was there any moment in the battles where morale and troop quality allowed Japanese to gain an upperhand. Zhukov's plan by contrast was simplicity itself - a double envelopment - and he didnt attempt to crush pockets he created by frontal assault he simply pounded them into dust with artillery. Therefore Japanese forces were inferior and whats worse they didnt learn their lesson - no amount of courage can overcome a tank attack when your infantry has no anti-tank guns. The heroics of attacking with mines mounted on wooden sticks and molotov cocktails to destroy armour is more a sign of desperation than superior arms.

As regards their so called difficulties in supply - first of all they did have access to airplanes and the closes railhead was very close to the front. They simply failed to put them to use correctly and grossly underestimated Soviet resolve to supply their own troops whose logistical and reserve position was to start with inferior to the Japanese one. The conclusion of the Japanese was that if a well prepared and supplied attack on an unprepared and little regarded opponent could be so bloodily defeated it was best to leave well enough alone. Furthermore the Southern Army advocated attacking the weak Dutch East Indies instead of Siberia for the same type of resources Japan was looking for. So yes, they never came back becase of Khalkin Gol. TrustyJules (talk) 10:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

B*!

The Japanese couldn't change their tactics, eh?

The Red Army could take a beating from the Finns and learn. The IJA could not. Very imparial view... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcelo Jenisch (talk • contribs) 19:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

At the time of initial attack the Japanese weren't numerically inferior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.45.187.209 (talk) 06:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Spelling

Someone with knowledge on the subject needs to go through this document and iron out the variant spellings. Khalkhin Gol or Khalkhyn Gol should be used consistently throughout. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.74.92.193 (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

"Khalkhin" is a transliteration from Russian; "Khalkhyn"—from Mongolian. Either is correct. You are, however, right that it should be spelled consistently throughout (and preferably with the article's title as well).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 20, 2012; 22:14 (UTC)

Aircraft Losses

The aircraft losses we have right now compare apples to oranges. For the Soviets, the 208 number is not "aerial combat", but total loss in combat, including write-offs of combat damaged plane. The 42 "non-combat loss" consist of accidents and write-offs of older aircraft. For the Japanese - the 142 total losses (162 in my source) - do not include non-combat losses. It's a number compatible to the Soviet 208 number, also including total losses in battle and write-offs due to combat damage (there were 74 of those). There were also 436 cases of repair for Soviet aircraft (385 fighter, 51 bomber) with some aircraft getting repaired numerous times. For the Japanese - 220 aircraft were combat damaged, but repaired. Not sure if those numbers are directly compatible. The author also states airforce personnel losses were at 174 dead and missing, 113 wounded for the Soviets, while the Japanese lost 152 dead and 66 seriously wounded; the numbers involved are given as over 900 for the Soviets (maximum 580 at once) and over 400 for the Japanese (up to 200 at once). Source: (http://militera.lib.ru/h/kondratyev_v/09.html).Tvoi Ded (talk) 11:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Combat comparative charts are supposed to simplify things and make them understandable without going thru a lot of "red tape." For example, Russian aircraft losses to operational causes such as landing accidents, running out fuel, crashing due to pilot error, parts falling off in flight, etc. should equally be documented for Japanese aircraft losses. In a combat zone these would be classified as "operational losses." These operational losses would then be compared to Japanese aircraft losses...etc. Then the next column would be "losses in air to air combat" for BOTH adversaries...not just one combatant. The next column would be "aircraft lost to ground fire", again, listed for BOTH adversaries. The reverted charts showed that comparison (although they might not have been that itemized (detailed), these charts do not. They must both be equal...otherwise they are not comparing both opponents. The original two adversary graphs were simple to read and understandable, and they reflected losses equally to both combatants.

What I recommend, is that the two old graphs (charts) be combined into these current graphs. How many Russian planes were shot down in aerial combat? How many Japanese planes were shot down in aerial combat? How many Russian planes were downed by AAA (Anti-Aircraft Artillery)? How many Japanese planes were downed by AAA? How many Russian and Japanese planes were shot down by small arms fire (rifles and machine guns)? These charts need to show those figures. March 2013

I disagree. The focus on aircraft loss is really over the top. Why so much attention on every detail on these, while other losses aren't described at all (for instance tanks or artillery). Also what's the fuss about the Japanese personnel losses? One might get the feeling that in this article attention is drawn to aircraft losses to take it off the other combat losses of this war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.151.197.231 (talk) 17:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Recent addition of Soviet casualty estimates to summary box

I've left them in place for now, but does Glantz actually quote these figures? And how important is it to quote a figure that beggars belief? --Yaush (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Conclusion Section

I recently deleted the following paragraph but the edit was reverted, so I'm posting here to bring it up for discussion:

"The Japanese, however, made no major strategic changes. They continued to underestimate their adversaries, deploying piecemeal units instead of mass units, emphasizing the courage and determination of the individual soldier to make up for the lack of firepower, protection, or overwhelming numbers. The problems that faced them at Khalkhin Gol, most importantly their deployment of only two light infantry divisions, and two tank regiments, would plague them again when the Americans and British recovered from their defeats of late 1941 and early 1942 and turned to the conquest of the Japanese Empire.[17][50]"

My problem with this paragraph is that it appears to be a very generalized analysis that has very little to do with the actual battle covered by this article. "Continued to underestimate their adversaries" is fairly POV. Additionally, "deploying piecemeal units instead of mass units" is a generalization that doesn't take into account other factors (such as the logistics needed for mass deployment, availability of forces, etc) which are unique to the circumstances of engagements, especially on isolated Pacific islands. Similarly, I'm not sure I understand how "their deployment of only two light infantry divisions, and two tank regiments, would plague them again..." ?

In short, I just feel like this paragraph is unnecessary. It attempts (through somewhat POV style) to negatively contrast the Japanese with the Soviet victors in this battle, but does so only by very loosely, imprecisely, and rather incorrectly projecting the events/characteristics of this battle on all other Japanese engagements throughout the remainder of the war. 159.18.26.96 (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Having read that paragraph I'd be inclined to agree. The prose is choppy and inconsistent, and contrary to what it says the IJA did make significant improvements to its tactics and equipment, while piecemeal attacks were not at all part of Japanese doctrine. Their reliance on the courage of the individual soldier was not due to an ignorance of modern firepower but rather as a way to compensate for Japan's lack of production capacity and population vs. the USA, USSR, and China. Such generalizations seem to be the result of poor research or the influence of pre-war propaganda. I'd say a major amendment would be in order. Good call.
Cheers, The Pittsburgher (talk) 15:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I'd say it needs tuning, not deletion. "Overwhelming number" & the "tank regiments" needs deletion for clarity, but the rest is correct. The lessons learned here were not carried over into IJA doctrine, training, or operations later on. Why they weren't may need explaining, but mentioning this, & contrasting with Pacific War experience (the next major IJA conflict) isn't amiss, IMO. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 22:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I'd agree that significant editing is necessary at a minimum, however the observations on the IJA are incorrect. Following the battle the IJA introduced a new anti-tank gun (the Type 1 47mm) to combat more advanced enemy armor which the 37mm round proved inadequate against. They also began to upgrade their tank fleet to the Type 97 "ShinHoTo" model, with an improved turret and high-performance 47mm gun based on the aforementioned weapon. Japanese doctrine did not stress the piecemeal deployment of armor but rather the "mobile mass:" an armored fist meant to punch through a weak spot in an enemy's line "at the critical point in the battle." The importance of superior firepower was also recognized: Prior to their final offensive on Bataan the Japanese 14th Army concentrated 300 guns supported by 100 medium bombers on an 18-20 mile front. The subsequent bombardment and armored assault led to the fall of that peninsula 6 days later. Similarly, to support the amphibious assault on Singapore island (Feb. 7, 1942) General Yamashita massed 440 heavy guns to pound the British/Commonwealth defenses. Later on May 4, 1945 during the Battle of Okinawa the 32nd Army's 5th Artillery Command coordinated a barrage of 12,000 rounds in a single 30-minute period. Building on this, in preparation for the anticipated Allied invasion of southern Kyushu Japanese leaders after the war told US interrogators point-blank:
The principle object in defending Kyushu was to defeat the Allied landing forces near the shorelines. Therefore, in order to accomplish this purpose, we put great stress on artillery. According to the military experience gained in fighting on islands of the Pacific, especially that on the Philippine and Okinawa islands, the use of superior artillery was absolutely necessary in order to crush the establishment of beach heads.
While the Japanese militarists undoubtedly emphasized their own "spiritual superiority" over their enemies, it was as an 'in addition to,' not an 'instead of' measure with regard to technological and doctrinal advances. Japan's leaders realized they could never outproduce the USSR or USA, so they focused on the intangibles to compensate.
Cheers, The Pittsburgher (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Number inconsistency

According to one of this article's main sources, the Japanese only brought 28,000 men to this battle. But the modern western estimate- in other words, the one most likely to be correct- lists 45,000 Japanese casualties (killed and wounded). How is that supposed to work? Was 28,000 just for the initial attack? Seems like it, since another source cited here, "Nomonhan: The Second Russo-Japanese War", lists the Japanese as committing 60,000 men at one point. Plus 75,000 at another. Though it also goes with the exaggerated figure of 45,000 killed.--Nihlus1 (talk) 07:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe the 45,000 figure comes from (exaggerated) Soviet data. 'Western estimate' is probably a misnomer in that it likely was just Western Literature taking the Soviet claim at face value: Japanese sources (there are several) all place their casualties at under 20,000. On the 60-75,000 Japanese, this is probably Soviet exaggeration as well: the Japanese committed the equivalent of a reinforced mechanized inf. Division to the battle (with a few auxiliaries and elements of the 7th Division), while the USSR/MPR had over 5 divisions and as many brigades. In my opinion the higher estimates should de-emphasized or even removed entirely in favor of the more accurate post-Soviet data as well as the IJA medical records. --The Pittsburgher (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
That's very interesting. Do you have any sources that are superior to the ones in the article, i.e. the claims of the IJA and Red Army? That modern Western estimate should probably be removed too; its citation is a mess and no page number is given.--Nihlus1 (talk) 10:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
The mongolnow.com article pretty much covers most of the claims/counterclaims by both sides: Japanese casualties are given in several slightly differing but largely congruent figures such as the internal medical record, the Bureau 6A count you already posted, and the Kwantung Army official count. No matter which is used, all come out to under 20,000. The Soviets initially estimated 29,085 Japanese casualties, but the 1st Army Group later inflated this to 44,768, and then to 52,000-55,000. The official Soviet history then recorded 61,000 Japanese losses. Thus, while their initial estimate was not far off the Soviets gradually exaggerated Japanese losses to the point where their history books showed a number twice that of the 1939 figures. The mongolnow article, Drea's paper, and the Strategic Studies Institute analysis also do a good job establishing the numbers that took part in the battle, that is, 60,000 or more Soviet-Mongol vs 30,000 or fewer Japanese-Manchu.
Cheers, The Pittsburgher (talk) 12:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks. One last question: on the number of Japanese AFVs, were those two tank regiments all the armor they deployed? If so, that'd clearly mean they only had 73 tanks and 14 tankettes. The page currently uses a source citing 135 tanks and tankettes, and I don't want to permanently remove it in favor of the cited number for the two regiments until I know whether or not that's all the armor they brought.--Nihlus1 (talk) 02:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
The number of Japanese AFVs involved in the battle is probably the trickiest figure of all to pin down. In their official (exaggerated) history, the Soviets described the IJA forces thusly:
On August 10, all the Japanese-Manchurian forces concentrated in the captured part of Mongolian territory were combined into the Sixth Army under the command of General O. Rippo; the army, comprising two infantry divisions, one infantry brigade, two tank regiments, four detached battalions, and three cavalry regiments, numbered 75,000 men, 500 guns, 182 tanks, and more than 300 aircraft.
So the Soviets were claiming 182 tanks, but the real numbers were probably closer to 100: the Yasuoka Detachment (87 tanks and tankettes) was the largest armored force the Japanese committed, but was withdrawn after failing to destroy the Soviets. The Japanese mechanized infantry formations had their own organic armor, but their quantity was not enough to account for the 180-200 vehicles the Russians claimed. In my opinion the figure of 135 is probably accurate.
Cheers, The Pittsburgher (talk) 04:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

i question this article's impartiality

the numbers of japanese losses here are taken from the japanese records without any questioning while the numbers of the russian losses are thought to 'be reduced for the propaganda purposes' and then only the highest estimation is taken into the account 82.162.0.202 (talk) 08:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I doubt it's a matter of bias, since there is genuine confusion over the numbers. However, I think your Fort Leavenworth source is probably better. --Yaush (talk) 19:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I also doubt it's intentional bias. Chances are good both sides minimized their own casualties & inflated the enemy's. Sometimes, there aren't good, reliable numbers. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Losses on both sides come from the secret medical records of the respective militaries. They are about as accurate as it can get with regards to this topic. The Pittsburgher (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

cease-fire agreement needs more

This article states that the opposing forces signed a cease-fire in Moscow. This was canceled when a cease-fire was signed in Moscow.

To this agreement is also found a reference at Invasion of Poland: following the Molotov-Tōgō agreement that terminated the Russian and Japanese hostilities in the east on 16 September

But I could not find an article about to this agreement. can somebody write a section or article about it? WillemienH (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Participant numbers

Anonymous user 139.216.222.224 just changed most of the figures in the order of battle without explanation. Before reverting these changes, I thought I'd ask if anyone has the cited sources for these figures and can check whether this is, in fact, a legitimate correction to bring the figures in line with the sources? --Yaush (talk) 17:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I reverted one of those edits since it contradicted the reference. I was tempted to revert them all, but then I saw your post here on the talk page. At least some of the others appear to be discussed in the "Aftermath" section of the article. Mojoworker (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

External Links

The first link seems to be a karate magazine that has nothing to do with the battle. I can't seem to be able to edit the section for some reason, but someone should delete it.

Cameron Nedland (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

You're right. Perhaps LIFE exercised its copyright and forced Google to take the article down, and the book ID was reassigned. Regardless, I've deleted it. --Yaush (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battles of Khalkhin Gol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Lacking source for biological warfare

So in the this article it says "Furthermore, up to 30% of the total casualties were due the dysentery which Japanese believed was delivered by Soviet biological-warfare aerial bombs, as confirmed by laboratory testing."

But there is no source or citing for this "laboratory testing". Do we have any sources as to this Soviet biological-warfare? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.121.208 (talk) 11:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

What if the Japanese Had Won ?

It might add to the importance of the article if there was some mention of the outcome if the Japanese had won this battle. 86.135.11.20 (talk) 13:12, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

At best that would be loosely based guesswork which I don't think fits in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.121.208 (talk) 11:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

"Total defeat"

The statement in the introduction that "The battles resulted in total defeat for the Japanese Sixth Army" seems a bit strong to me. The Russians kicked 6 Army out of the disupted territory, certainly, which makes them the nominal victors. However, they were content to stop there and not escalate the conflict, suggesting they felt their own noses had already been sufficiently bloody.

The article as a whole seems to overemphasize the idea that the Japanese were permanently traumatized by the outcome and unwilling to take the Russians on again until August 1945. This is inconsistent with a lot of other sources I've read that emphasize that the Japanese Army still considered Russia the principal enemy and Siberia the principal target for expansion, only choosing to move against southeast Asia in quest of autarky as preparation for a renewed effort to seize Siberia. Reverses in the Pacific and the continuing resistance of the Chinese meant this never took place, but I'd hardly say the Japanese Army had abandoned the idea. Yaush (talk) 23:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

There was nothing to escalate. Japanese cabinet resigned, "naval party" came to power and ultimately took a turn to confrontation with USA. Win/win in political and military aspects. Tbma (talk) 05:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

"There was nothing to escalate"

No?

So, why do you think the Japanese governement put brakes in the Kwantung Army when they bombed the soviet airfields in 27 june without requesting permission? (something present in the article, btw).

And about the "naval party" came to power, in fact the Emperor was very angry about Nomonhan, not because at last part of the 6th Army was lost there, but because the Kwantung iniciated a small war without permission. So, even before what I will call the russian diagnosed "Zhukov's sindrome" appear, it was not the intention of Tokyo to escalte the conclict. Still, this was only one among various reasons that resulted in the attack in the pacific. In short, Yaush is absolutely correct, the pacific war was a necessity, not a wish, the Japanese never feared the soviets and their intention was always attack them, as this article explains: http://wikibin.org/articles/ja...of-the-far-east.html

In The World at War, Matsuoka's secretary claims the key points presented in the article. From the japanese side, I personally never heard about the "Zhukov's sindrome". Unfortenetly, this is present not only here in Wikipedia, but in nearly all texts about the battle. Maybe let the japanese doctors help with the "diagnosis" would be nice, isn't?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.30.216.253 (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Not sure what are you refereing to. Tbma (talk) 20:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
It is true that the Japanese were considering invading the Soviet Union as late as the summer of 1941, so the idea that the Japanese were "traumatized" by losing Khalkhin Gol is incorrect, but is true that the defeat at Khalkhin Gol changed their assessment of the Red Army. Based on their experiences of the war of 1904-5, the Japanese regarded the Russian military as a joke and went into this war expecting easy victories. They did not think that way after Khalkhin Gol. It might be better to say that after Khalkhin Gol the Japanese took the Red Army more seriously, which is part of the reason why the "strike south" fraction that wanted a war with the USA and the UK triumphed over the "strike north" fraction that wanted a war with the USSR.--A.S. Brown (talk) 06:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Battles of Khalkhin Gol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol/Archive_1&oldid=1140572529"