DOCSLIB.ORG

The “Маnchurian Blitzkrieg” of 1945 and Japanese Prisoners of War in the Soviet Union

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The “Маnchurian Blitzkrieg” of 1945 and Japanese Prisoners of War in the Soviet Union The “Маnchurian Blitzkrieg” of 1945 and Japanese Prisoners of War in the Soviet Union Alekseĭ A. Кirichenko and Sergey V. Grishachev The USSR and Japan established diplomatic relations in 1925, yet the ties between them remained tense for the next two decades, at times leading to armed conflicts such as the battles at Lake Khasan (1938) and Khalkhin Gol River (1939). The powers would ultimately sign the Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact on April 13, 1941, which came into force for five years after its ratification on April 25. From 1941 to 1945 both parties observed neutrality, which each interpret- ed in accordance with the international situation dictated by the events of World War II. The Japanese command abandoned their initial plans to attack the USSR after the defeats in the battles of Midway (1942) and Guadalcanal (1942–1943) but the Soviet Union, as an ally of the United States and the United Kingdom, began its own war preparations. The Kremlin made its final political decision regarding the war with Japan on August 16, 1944, at a private meet- ing that was attended by the Soviet People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs, Vyacheslav M. Molotov; chief of the political department of the Workers’ and Peasants’ Red Army (RKKA), Aleksandr S. Shcherbakov; chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the Russian SFSR, Andreĭ A. Zhdanov; and USSR ambassa- dor to Japan, Yakov A. Malik. Joseph Stalin, it should be noted, also participated in the meeting. The probability of war with the USSR may have already been evident to the Japanese government following Stalin’s speech at the solemn commemora- tion of the 27th anniversary of the October Revolution on November 6, 1944, when he referred to Japan as an “aggressor” (агрессор). Such suspicions sig- naled the real possibility of war with the Soviet Union after the unilateral denouncement by Moscow of the Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact on April 5, 1945. Although Molotov assured the Japanese ambassador Satō Naotake that the Soviet Union would faithfully comply with the terms of the treaty before its termination on April 25, 1946, Japan remained unconvinced, and it freneti- cally began to strengthen its Kwantung Army. In actual fact, the Soviets ad- opted several decrees in the first half of 1945 dealing with the preparation of war with Japan, and in the summer vast military forces were relocated to the Far East. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004400856_017 The “Маnchurian Blitzkrieg” of 1945 AND Japanese pows 335 1 The Entry into War with Japan, a “Manchurian Blitzkrieg” The Potsdam Declaration of July 26, 1945, outlines the terms of Japan’s uncon- ditional surrender; however, there were still segments of the Japanese com- mand that refused to accept the terms of surrender and claimed that they would fight to the last soldier. This unsound decision provoked the American atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and 9, respectively, as well as the entry of the USSR into the war against Japan. At 5 p.m. on August 8, 1945,1 Molotov conveyed to Ambassador Satō the news that the Soviet Union would go to war with Japan the following day. Although Soviet leaders had formally given Japan advance notice about the beginning of war, it was only on August 9 that the Soviet chief diplomat re- ceived the Japanese envoy in the Far East. The Soviet army invaded Manchuria (Manchukuo), taking the Japanese troops by surprise in what could be de- scribed as a “Manchurian Blitzkrieg.” Russian historians have demonstrated that the Soviet action complied with international law, proving that Japan was not the subject of aggression in World War II (Kuz’minkov 2010, 121). The Japanese historian Yokote Shinji has challenged its legality, claiming that the USSR ignored the provisions of the Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact that should have remained in force until April 25, 1946 (Yokote 2003, 193). The well-mobilized, well-trained Soviet troops were already experienced from fighting the forces of Nazi Germany and were equipped with state-of- the-art weapons. They also greatly outnumbered the Japanese, and the Soviet units invading Manchuria encountered almost no resistance. Seventy percent of the Soviet’s infantry troops and ninety percent of the tanks and artillery were concentrated along the main axis of advance at the Transbaikal front. In the first three days of the campaign, for example, the 6th Guards Tank Army under command of Colonel General Andreĭ G. Kravchenko advanced by 450 km with no opposition and halted only because the transport aircraft had not been able to supply the necessary fuel (Vnotchenko 1971, 187). Their ammuni- tion reserve remained intact due to the absence of the enemy. The swift advance of the Soviet troops was also facilitated by the command of the Kwantung Army, which ordered its troops to retreat and not to engage in 1 It must be remembered that with the seven-hour time difference, 5 p.m. on August 8, Moscow time, was already midnight in the Far East; this was precisely the moment when Soviet troops crossed the border into Manchuria. Formally, Molotov presented the document the day be- fore entering the war, but in actual fact he presented the document at the same time as the beginning of the invasion..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Potsdam Declaration from Lisa Bastien
    TEACHING AMERICAN HISTORY PROJECT Lesson Title - Potsdam Declaration From Lisa Bastien Grade: 9-12 Length of class period: 86 minute block period Inquiry: (What essential question are students answering, what problem are they solving, or what decision are they making?) Why would the terms of the Potsdam Declaration deter the Japanese from giving an unconditional surrender? Objectives: (What content and skills do you expect students to learn from this lesson?) Students will be able to: • explain the events leading up to the dropping of the atomic bombs • provide examples as to why Japan refused to except the unconditional surrender presented to them prior to the use of the atomic bombs Students will: • analyze a primary source to use as support in response to a given question Materials: (What primary sources or local resources are the basis for this lesson?) Potsdam Declaration (see attached) Activities: (What will you and your students do during the lesson to promote learning?) • Start class by doing a class lecture/discussion on the war in the Pacific (WWII) including specifics on: the Philippines, the battle of Midway, Island Hopping, Guadalcanal, Kamikazes, Iwo Jima, Okinawa and ultimately the Manhattan Project. • Ask the class "what are some ways the US could have warned the Japanese of the nuclear bomb and/or it’s affects without dropping it on a city?" (students may make many suggestions including staging a demonstration so that Japan could understand what the bomb was capable of doing.) • Discuss with the students that staging a demonstration was a consideration that was made. Have them analyze through discussion why it was decided against.
    [Show full text]
  • The Starvation Myth: the U.S. Blockade of Japan in World War Ii Christopher Clary
    DOUGlAS L. BENDELL AWARD THE STARVATION MYTH: THE U.S. BLOCKADE OF JAPAN IN WORLD WAR II CHRISTOPHER CLARY At 8:16 a.m., on August 6, 1945, the world changed. Fifty-seconds earlier, the Enola Gay had dropped an atomic bomb, "Little Boy", from 31,600 feet above Hiroshima, Japan. The world was ushered into the nuclear age. After seeing the "initial burst and 'ball of fire,'" co-pilot Robert Lewis questioned aloud, "My God, what have we done?" 1 Lewis, nearly six miles above the devastation, was responding to the pyrotechnic display. He could only imagine the very real damage the bomb had caused. While disagreements exist concerning the exact figures, it is undeniable that the bomb and its radioactive effects killed at least 70,000 people 2 Though he was one of the first to see its effects, Lewis was not the first to question the decision to use the atomic bomb nor would he be the last. The decision still sits at the center of one of the most debated historical (as well as historiographic) questions. The focus on this episode is justified. This singular event divides the Twentieth Century in numerous ways, but perhaps most relevantly it ends a hot and bloody war, and marks the beginning of a colder conflict. And since we examine the event in the year 2000, we must try to avoid the biases of the post-Cold War era. This paper tries to focus on two different realities: the first is what actually, really happened, the true state of affairs, then secondly the perceptions of that actuality.
    [Show full text]
  • Manchuria Documents to Examine
    Source 1 Source Information: The Legacy of the Soviet Union Offensives of August 1945 https://amti.csis.org/the-legacy-of-the-soviet-offensives-of-august-1945/ ____________________________________________________________________________ THE LEGACY OF THE SOVIET OFFENSIVES OF AUGUST 1945 BY JEFF MANKOFF | AUGUST 13, 2015 JAPAN, RUSSIA, UNITED STATES The Second World War was an unparalleled calamity for the Soviet Union. As many as 27 million Soviet soldiers and civilians died as a result of the conflict that started with the German invasion of Poland in September 1939 and ended with the Japanese surrender in August 1945. Consumed by this existential struggle along its western border, the Soviet Union was a comparatively minor factor in the Pacific War until the very end. Yet Moscow’s timely intervention in the war against Japan allowed it to expand its influence along the Pacific Rim. With the breakdown of Allied unity soon heralding the onset of the Cold War, Soviet gains in Asia also left a legacy of division and confrontation, some of which endure into the present. By the 1930s, Stalin’s Soviet Union and Imperial Japan both viewed themselves as rising powers with ambitions to extend their territorial holdings. In addition to a strategic rivalry dating back to the 19th century, they now nursed an ideological enmity born of the Bolshevik Revolution and the ultraconservative military’s growing hold on Japanese politics. In 1935, Japan signed the AntiComintern Pact with Hitler’s Germany, laying the foundation for the creation of the Axis (Fascist Italy would join the following year). The two militaries engaged in a series of skirmishes along the frontier between Soviet Siberia and Japanese-occupied Manchuria (Manchukuo) during the late 1930s.
    [Show full text]
  • Primary Source Document with Questions (Dbqs) the POTSDAM DECLARATION (JULY 26, 1945) Introduction the Dropping of the Atomic Bo
    Primary Source Document with Questions (DBQs) THE POTSDAM DECLARATION (JULY 26, 1945) Introduction The dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki remains among the most controversial events in modern history. Historians have actively debated whether the bombings were necessary, what effect they had on bringing the war in the Pacific to an expeditious end, and what other options were available to the United States. These very same questions were also contentious at the time, as American policymakers struggled with how to use a phenomenally powerful new technology and what the long-term impact of atomic weaponry might be, not just on the Japanese, but on domestic politics, America’s international relations, and the budding Cold War with the Soviet Union. In retrospect, it is clear that the reasons for dropping the atomic bombs on Japan, just like the later impact of nuclear technology on world politics, were complex and intertwined with a variety of issues that went far beyond the simple goal of bringing World War II to a rapid close. The Potsdam Declaration was issued on July 26, 1945 by U.S. President Harry Truman, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and President Chiang Kai-shek of the Republic of China, who were meeting in Potsdam, Germany to consider war strategy and post-war policy. Soviet leader Joseph Stalin also attended the Potsdam Conference but did not sign the Declaration, since the Soviet Union did not enter the war against Japan until August 8, 1945. Document Excerpts with Questions From Japan’s Decision to Surrender, by Robert J.C.
    [Show full text]
  • The Atomic Bombs and the Soviet Invasion: What Drove Japan's Decision to Surrender?
    Volume 5 | Issue 8 | Article ID 2501 | Aug 01, 2007 The Asia-Pacific Journal | Japan Focus The Atomic Bombs and the Soviet Invasion: What Drove Japan's Decision to Surrender? Tsuyoshi Hasegawa The Atomic Bombs and the SovietFrank, have recently confronted this issue Invasion: What Drove Japan’s Decision to head-on, arguing that the atomic bombing of Surrender? Hiroshima had a more decisive effect on Japan’s decision to surrender than did Soviet Tsuyoshi HASEGAWA entry into the war.[4] This essay challenges that view. It argues that (1) the atomic Almost immediately following the end of World bombing of Nagasaki did not have much effect War II, Americans began to question the use of on Japan’s decision; (2) of the two factors—the the atomic bomb and the circumstances atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Soviet entry surrounding the end of the Pacific War. More into the war—the Soviet invasion had a more than half a century later, books and articles on important effect on Japan’s decision to the atomic bomb still provoke storms of debate surrender; (3) nevertheless, neither the atomic among readers and the use of atomic weapons bombs nor Soviet entry into the war served as remains a sharply contested subject.[1] As the “a knock-out punch” that had a direct, decisive, 1995 controversy over the Enola Gay exhibit at and immediate effect on Japan’s decision to the Smithsonian’s National Air and Space surrender; (4) the most important, immediate Museum revealed, the issues connected with cause behind Japan’s decision to surrender the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and were the emperor’s “sacred decision” to do so, Nagasaki continue to touch a sensitive nerve in engineered by a small group of the Japanese Americans.
    [Show full text]
  • The Issues of War with Japan Coverage in the Presidential Project «Fundamental Multi-Volume Work» the Great Patriotic War of 1941 - 1945 «»
    Vyatcheslav Zimonin Captain (Russia NAVY) Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor of Military University, Honored Scientist Of The Russian Federation and Academy of Natural Sciences The issues of war with Japan coverage in the Presidential project «Fundamental multi-volume work» The Great Patriotic War of 1941 - 1945 «» Fundamental multi-volume work «The Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945» is being developed in accordance with the Decree № 240-рп of May 5, 2008 of the President of the Russian Federation. The work is developed under the organizational leadership of the main drafting committee headed by the Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation Army General Sergey Shoigu. Major General V.A. Zolotarev, well-known Russian scientist, Doctor of Historical and Legal Sciences, Professor, Academician of the Academy of Natural Sciences, State Councilor of the Russian Federation Deputy Chairman of the GRK is appointed as scientific director of the multi-volume work. Fundamental structure of a multivolume work: Volume 1 - «The main facts of the war,» Volume 2 - «The origin and the beginning of the war» Volume 3 - «Battles and actions that changed the course of the war,» Volume 4 - «Freeing of the USSR, 1944 « Volume 5 - «The final victory. Final operations of World War II in Europe. War with Japan « Volume 6 - «The Secret War. Intelligence and counterintelligence in the Great Patriotic War « Volume 7 - «Economy and weapons of war» Volume 8 - «Foreign policy and diplomacy of the Soviet Union during the war» Volume 9 - «Allies of the USSR in the war» Volume 10 - «The power, society and war» Volume 11 - «Policy and Strategy of Victory.
    [Show full text]
  • Unit I Spiral Exam – World War II (75 Points Total) PLEASE DO NO
    Mr. Huesken 10th Grade United States History II Unit I Spiral Exam – World War II (75 points total) PLEASE DO NO WRITE ON THIS TEST DIRECTIONS – Please answer the following multiple-choice questions with the best possible answer. No answer will be used more than once. (45 questions @ 1 point each = 45 points) 1) All of the following were leaders of totalitarian governments in the 1930’s and 1940’s except: a. Joseph Stalin b. Francisco Franco. c. Benito Mussolini d. Neville Chamberlain. 2) In what country was the Fascist party and government formed? a. Italy b. Japan c. Spain d. Germany 3) The Battle of Britain forced Germany to do what to their war plans in Europe in 1942? a. Join the Axis powers. b. Fight a three-front war. c. Put off the invasion of Britain. d. Enter into a nonaggression pact with Britain. 4) The Nazis practiced genocide toward Jews, Gypsies, and other “undesirable” peoples in Europe. What does the term “genocide” mean? a. Acting out of anti-Semitic beliefs. b. Deliberate extermination of a specific group of people. c. Terrorizing of the citizens of a nation by a government. d. Killing of people for the express purpose of creating terror. 5) The term “blitzkrieg” was a military strategy that depended on what? a. A system of fortifications. b. Out-waiting the opponent. c. Surprise and quick, overwhelming force. d. The ability to make a long, steady advance. 6) In an effort to avoid a second “world war”, when did the Britain and France adopt a policy of appeasement toward Germany? a.
    [Show full text]
  • Ending the Pacific War: the New History
    CHAPTER TWENTY-THREE Ending the Pacific War: The New History RICHARD B. FRANK In 1945, and for approximately two decades thereafter, no significant American controversy attended the use of atomic weapons to end the Pacific War. A national consensus assembled around three basic premises: (a) the use of the weapons was justified; (b) the weapons ended the war; and (c) that in at least a rough utilitarian sense, employment of the weapons was morally justified as saving more lives than they cost (Walker 1990 , 2005 ; Bernstein 1995 ). The historian Michael Sherry branded this as “The Patriotic Orthodoxy” (Sherry 1996 ). Beginning in the mid-1960s challenges appeared to “The Patriotic Orthodoxy.” The pejorative label “revisionists” was sometimes pelted at these challengers, but a more accurate term is just critics. The critics developed a canon of tenets that, in their purest incarnation, likewise formed a trio: (a) Japan’ s strategic situation in the summer of 1945 was catastrophically hopeless; (b) Japan ’ s leaders recognized their hopeless situation and were seeking to surrender; and (c) American leaders, thanks to the breaking of Japanese diplomatic codes, knew Japan hovered on the verge of surrender when they unleashed needless nuclear devastation. The critics mustered a number of reasons for the unwarranted use of atomic weapons, but the most provocative by far marches under the banner “atomic diplomacy”: the real target of the weapons was not Japan, but the Soviet Union (Walker 1990 , 2005 ; Bernstein 1995 ). These two rival narratives clashed along a cultural fault line most spectacularly in the “Enola Gay” controversy in 1995 over the proposed text of a Smithsonian Institution exhibit of the fuselage of the plane that dropped the first atomic bomb.
    [Show full text]
  • Limited Vs. Total War Brian W Brennan Armor; Sep/Oct 2002; 111, 5; Proquest Direct Complete Pg
    Limited vs. total war Brian W Brennan Armor; Sep/Oct 2002; 111, 5; ProQuest Direct Complete pg. 8 Limited vs. Total War by Captain Brian W. Brennan retain its dominant role in world af­ tie and to break his will to continue the fairs, it will have to look back at past conflict. total war strategies and incorporate Limited war is entirely different. At them into future operations. Since 1776, the U.S. Government and, the dawn of the Cold War, when the more specifically, the U.S. Army have Soviet Union entered the nuclear age, The concept of total war is fairly sim­ struggled with how best to fight our na­ the Truman and Johnson administra­ ple. Total war is best defined by the old tion's wars. tions were concerned that a war of any Soviet definition for a "Total 'Naya kind would risk global nuclear annihi­ Though the terms "total war" and Voyna," or "foreign or total war," lation, so a limited warfare policy was "limited war" are relatively new and which states that a total war is "an all­ developed. were developed to describe the United embracing imperialist war, waged by States' efforts to minimize civilian ca­ all manner of means, not only against The policy's goal was "to exact good sualties, prevent global nuclear annihi­ enemy armed forces, but against the behavior or to oblige discontinuance of lation, and engage the enemy only in entire population of a nation, with a mischief, not to destroy the subject specific, politically driven battlefields, view to its complete destruction."2 It is altogether."3 This type of warfare, how­ their concepts have been debated for in this kind of war that almost every ever, was not at all in accordance with centuries.
    [Show full text]
  • World War II
    World War II 1. What position did George Marshall hold during World War II? A. Commanding General of the Pacific B. Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army C. Army Field Marshall of Bataan D. Supreme Officer of European Operations 2. Which of the following best explains why President Harry S. Truman decided to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II? A. He wanted the war to last as long as possible. B. He wanted to wait for the USSR to join the war. C. He wanted Germany to surrender unconditionally. D. He wanted to avoid an American invasion of Japan. 3. What impact did the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor have on World War II? A. Italy surrendered and united with the Allies. B. The Pacific Charter was organized against Japan. C. Japan surrendered to the Allies the following day. D. It pulled the United States into World War II. 4. The picture above is an iconic image from World War II and symbolizes which of the following? A. the women who ferried supplies into combat areas during the war B. the millions of women who joined the workforce in heavy industry C. the important work done by Red Cross nurses during World War II D. the women who joined the armed forces in combat roles Battle of the Bulge The Battle of the Bulge, initially known as the Ardennes Offensive, began on December 16, 1944. Hitler believed that the coalition between Britain, France, and the United States in the western region of Europe was not very powerful and that a major defeat by the Germans would break up the Allied forces.
    [Show full text]
  • Records of the Far Eastern Commission, 1945-1952
    http://gdc.gale.com/archivesunbound/ RECORDS OF THE FAR EASTERN COMMISSION, 1945-1952 All the activities of the multinational Far Eastern Commission (FEC), which oversaw the postwar governing and reconstruction of Japan, are fully documented in this publication. The establishment of FEC was decided upon in late December 1945 at the Moscow Conference of Foreign Ministers. It represented the Allied Powers led by the U.S., the U.K., China, and the U.S.S.R. as the top-level policy formulating body with regard to the occupation of Japan. The FEC was charged with the task of producing policies, principles, and criteria to which Japan would have to fully conform in order to implement the terms of surrender stipulated by the Potsdam Declaration. Date Range: 1945-1952 Content: 187,990 images Source Library: U.S. National Archives Detailed Description: All the activities of the multinational Far Eastern Commission (FEC), which oversaw the postwar governing and reconstruction of Japan, are fully documented in this publication of the records now held by the National Archives. Founded in Moscow in 1945, the FEC was composed of representatives from 11 countries, including the United States, the USSR, Great Britain, and Nationalist China. The body’s two main functions were to formulate policy in accordance with Japan’s obligations under the terms of surrender and to consult with the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, who was in effect the country’s military governor. The FEC set up seven committees: Reparations, Economic and Financial Affairs, Constitutional and Legal Reform, Strengthening of Democratic Tendencies, War Criminals, Aliens in Japan, and Disarmament of Japan.
    [Show full text]
  • USAFA Harmon Memorial Lecture #6 “Mr. Roosevelt's Three Wars: FDR As War Leader” Maurice Matloff, 1964 It Is a Privilege To
    'The views expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the US Air Force, Department of Defense or the US Government.'" USAFA Harmon Memorial Lecture #6 “Mr. Roosevelt's Three Wars: FDR as War Leader” Maurice Matloff, 1964 It is a privilege to be invited to the Academy, to participate in the distinguished Harmon Lecture series, and to address the members of the Cadet Wing and their guests from Colorado College. This occasion is particularly pleasurable since it brings back memories of my own introduction to the field of military history during my service in World War II- as a historian on the staff of the Fourth Air Force Headquarters. The early interest of your service in military history has now become a tradition fittingly carried on here in the Academy and in this series, which bears your founder's name. I welcome the opportunity to speak to you this morning on the important subject that your Department of History has selected-one that has long interested me, that has affected all our lives, and that has bearing on your future careers.' Let me begin by going back to March 1, 1945, when a weary President, too tired to carry the ten pounds of steel that braced his paralyzed legs, sat down before the United States Congress to report on the Yalta Conference-the summit meeting in the Crimea with Marshal Stalin and Prime Minister Churchill-from which he had just returned. "I come from the Crimea Conference," he said, "with a firm belief that we have made a good start on the road to a world of peace… "This time we are not making the mistake of waiting until the end of the war to set up the machinery of peace.
    [Show full text]