Abe eyes Moscow visit in May for WWII anniversary

Good for him.

Germany was all but defeated by the Soviets well before the Allies landed troops on the continent. D-Day was not the decisive battle.

Most of Europe went from being under Hitler’s boot to being under Stalin’s. Why is Abe attending a ceremony celebrating that?

Does he think the Russians will then return the islands to Japan?

"Does he think the Russians will then return the islands to Japan?"

Probably

It is true that most of the land fighting in Europe took place on the Eastern Front. Most of the fighting on the ocean and in the air occurred in the West. The American 8th Air Force, based in Britain, suffered more casualties than all the US Marine casualties in the Pacific during the war. The Allied invasion in Normandy ensured that half of Europe would not be ruled by Stalin, and also ensured that the Soviets would aide in the invasion of Japan. The threat of Russian troops invading the Japanese homeland may have helped sway the Japanese leaders into accepting defeat, and thus preventing that invasion. When Imperial Japan surrendered, it helped prevent the division of Japan into North and South, the way Europe was divided into East and West, and Korea was divided into North and South. Japan today owes part of its greatness to the fact that it avoided invasion and partition at the end of World War II. Instead of being upset that a few barely habitable islands are occupied by the Russians, how would Japanese feel if Hokkaido had also been ceded to Russia, as payment for its assistance in defeating Japan? Stalin did indeed ask for half of Japan at the end of war, but he was denied by President Truman. That would have been much more difficult to do if the Russians had invaded and occupied Hokkaido.

Stalin did indeed have his eyes on Hokkaido if not the northern half of Japan. But right after the US used the A-bombs he was unwilling to take on the US. So the odds of all Hokkaido having become Russian is pretty much zero.

Being close to Russia is like being close to the devil himself.

He will promise you many things... he will give you nothing! Russia only knows how to take, they don't give back!

Japan renounced it sovereignty over the Kurils in the 1952 San Francisco Peace Treaty. Why is japan try to reneg on an internationally recognized treaty that it freely signed?

Gambare:

Well, I don't see Japan giving Okinawa back to the Ryukyu people, or Hokkaido back to the Ainu people. No, I don't trust Russia either, but you're being very selective, aren't you?

Japan renounced sovereignty to the 49 Nations that signed the 1951 San Francisco Treaty, thereby concluding a Peace Treaty with those nations. The USSR was not a signatory and no peace treaty with Japan exists. The 1951 San Francisco Treaty and it's 49 signatory nations do not recognize Russian administration of those islands.

He will promise you many things... he will give you nothing! Russia only knows how to take, they don't give back!

in many ways that's representative of America also

Japan renounced sovereignty to the 49 Nations that signed the 1951 San Francisco Treaty, thereby concluding a Peace Treaty with those nations. The USSR was not a signatory and no peace treaty with Japan exists. The 1951 San Francisco Treaty and it's 49 signatory nations do not recognize Russian administration of those islands.

Cool. This doesn’t change the fact that Japan renounced its sovereignty over these islands. This means a Japan does not own these islands.

Your argument is hilarious I it’s logic failure. “These 49 countries say Japan doesn’t have sovereignty over these islands, so Japan must have sovereignty over these islands when it comes to Russia.”

Whether any country recognizes the Russian administration of these islands doesn’t matter because Russia is currently administering those islands.

You have absiolutely no idea what you're talking about. Is it so hard to understand that Japan ceded sovereignty to the 49 signatories of the 1951 Treaty, but the USSR is not a signatory, and the 1951 Treaty never assigned any administration rights to the USSR/Russia?

As far as the signatory nations are concerned, which includes the United States and Unted Kingdom, Russian administration is not authorized by tje 1951 Treaty and is tantamount to illegally occupying Japanese territory.

Whether any country recognizes Russian administration certainly matters to Russia as evidenced by the fact that they were prepared to split the four islands with Japan. If it didn't matter, they would never have bothered, nor would they still even be talking about it now.

OssanAmerica Today 06:01 pm JST

You have absiolutely no idea what you're talking about. Is it so hard to understand that Japan ceded sovereignty to the 49 signatories of the 1951 Treaty, but the USSR is not a signatory, and the 1951 Treaty never assigned any administration rights to the USSR/Russia?

First, I notice you use the word "cede" a lot. That is incorrect. The word chosen is "renounce". In Japanese it was 放棄 (abandon). Cede implies a transfer, as if those 49 signatories had joint sovereignty over the islands. That is not the case.

I agree the 1951 Treaty never assigned administration rights to Russia. Though it'll be nice, it is not really essential. The moment Japan renounces its rights, those lands are terra nullus all over again, and the Russians, who are sitting on it can just acquire it by prescription.

@kazushuizaki

I did not start with the word "cede". It was started by chip star. Maybe you want to correct him.

The moment Japan renounces its rights, those lands are terra nullus all over again, and the Russians, who are sitting on it can just acquire it by prescription.

" Britain and the United States agreed that territorial rights would not be granted to nations that did not sign the Treaty of San Francisco, and therefore the islands were not formally recognized as Soviet territory."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuril_Islands_dispute

"In 1855, Russia and Japan signed the Treaty of Shimoda, which gave Japan ownership of the four southern islands and Russia ownership of everything to the north. Communities developed on three of the islands and by the time World War II began, There were 17,000 Japanese residents. Russia took control of the islands at the end of the war, and by 1949 it had deported all residents to Japan."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-11664434

terra nullius (Latin, land belonging to no one) 

"Land that is unoccupied or uninhabited for legal purposes. "

You have absiolutely no idea what you're talking about. Is it so hard to understand that Japan ceded sovereignty to the 49 signatories of the 1951 Treaty, but the USSR is not a signatory, and the 1951 Treaty never assigned any administration rights to the USSR/Russia?

I’m not disagreeing with you. I am merely stating Japan has no dog in the fight over sovereignty of these islands because Japan disclaimed sovereignty. Is it so hard to understand that once a country cedes sovereignty, that country has no claim to the territory it has ceded.

Why can’t you accept that Japan has zero right to these islands?

" Britain and the United States agreed that territorial rights would not be granted to nations that did not sign the Treaty of San Francisco, and therefore the islands were not formally recognized as Soviet territory."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuril_Islands_dispute

Wikipedia, sweet cite. Nothing here supports the contention that Japan retains rights to these islands.

Nothing anywhere, besides Russian sources support Russian administratuion, occupation or ownership of the four islands in question. No other nation other than Russia supports this position.

Why can't you accept that Russia has no legal grounds to be occupying these four islands? Even the Russians themselves are aware of this as they were willing to return two of them previously.

Japan most certainly has a dog in this fight because;

-The definition of "Kuriles" and "Southern Kuriles" has been at odds because the four islands in question were not in the category of territory to be taken away as they were negotiated with Russia in 1855. In other words, they were exempt under the rules established by the WWII Allied powers.

-The 17,000 Japanese inhabitants were wrongfully rounded up and deported.

-The 49 signatories of the 1951 Treaty have never resolved nor appointed an administrator, due to the USSR, a non-signatory, taking unauthorized action on it's own.

Instead of repeating that Japan gave up ownership, how about showing proof that the USSR/Russia gained ownership?