politics

Abe hits out at Russian PM's visit to disputed islands

68 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2015 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

68 Comments
Login to comment

Abe hits out at Russian PM's visit to disputed islands

from his very own black truck?

9 ( +13 / -4 )

What a big loss for Russia......not.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

Rattle those sabres. Wag the dog while the economy’s tanking. Pull out your memes to trump theirs and show that your culture’s myths and fictions are better than theirs. Cherrypick nits from history to make your point and ignore theirs. Play the old stupid song ‘The beat goes on’.

16 ( +18 / -2 )

Abe just going through the usual rhetoric.

7 ( +10 / -3 )

Like a fart in a thunderstorm.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

They've got a new airport, seaport, infrastructure and factories. You've got ... hurt feelings and vague memories. It might be time to face the reality of the situation.

12 ( +13 / -1 )

Seizing the Kurils after Japan's defeat was pure opportunism on the part of Russia. It is tantamount to theft.

One would think the Russians would have been satisfied with their crushing of the Japanese Imperial Army at Khalkha River.

-9 ( +3 / -12 )

I thought the people there self identify more with Russia than Japan?

6 ( +6 / -0 )

It is Japan's national RIGHT to feel butthurt from such unfeeling and insensitive behaviour.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Let's redirect people's attention away from HIS crashing economy.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

The Russians stile those islands. The Cairo and Potsdam declarations made clear that Japan when defeated would lose territory it took by war. The four islands in question were always Japanese, never Russian by a Treaty between them going back to 1855. In others words the USSR took these islands in violation of the Allied Powers declarations, AND they took them by force after Japan surrendered. That's why the US and UK do not recognize these islands as Russian. They are recognized as Japanese islands under Russian administration (read; occupation). A remnant of the WWII territory grabbing party that USSR carried out everywhere on the globe where the Red Army were.

-2 ( +10 / -12 )

"......aggravating a long-running dispute....."

I think the PM and his cabinet ministers may know a thing or two about "aggravating" situations. Reflection time me thinks!

5 ( +9 / -4 )

An honest poll would probably reveal that most Japanese couldn't care less about this event amid all the other problems this country faces, like the economic mess, Fukushima, an ever-rising bill for the 2020 Olympics, etc.

7 ( +10 / -3 )

Nice to be reminded that we are technically still at a state of war with Russia over a dispute over 4 rocky outcrops...makes me sleep well at night..

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Be as it may, the danger of giving those islands to Japan is that they could become U.S. military bases. After Japan's war crimes, which Abe and the LDP are trying to obscure, the loss of those rocks are a small price to pay.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

throwing a rock inside a glass house

2 ( +3 / -1 )

@gaihonjin "Seizing the Kiriles after Japan's defeat"

This is not true. History says that Soviets seized the Kuril Chain in a battle, taking advantage during wide-scale Manchuria offensive operation. Japanese garrison fought back but was overpowered.

@OssanAmerica "the USSR took these islands in violation of the Allied Powers declaration".

No. All Soviet offensive operations, in Manchuria, Sakhalin Island, Kuril Chain were performed according to Yalta agreements of Allies. Soviets weren't obliged to listen any additional declaration of Americans.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

The visit “conflicts with Japan’s position and hurts the feelings of the Japanese people. It is extremely regrettable,”

Oh shut-up & deal with it Abe. Action speak louder than words.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

This is not true. History says that Soviets seized the Kuril Chain in a battle, taking advantage during wide-scale Manchuria offensive operation. Japanese garrison fought back but was overpowered.

The Soviets invaded the Kuril Islands a full three days AFTER Hirohito announced the Japanese surrender. The Japanese garrison was not overpowered but ceased combat operations under direct orders from Tokyo. Unlike the Manchuria operation, the Japanese inflicted far more casualties on the Soviets in the Kurils as the Soviets did on the Japanese.

The Japanese defenders of the islands would then spend the next 5 years in Siberian slave labor camps.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Maybe you should have done same thing for your wife the other week?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

What a difference a year makes?

I seem to remember that Abe was rather enthusiastic to get his nose in the IOC trough at last year's Olympics in Sochi, despite the protests of Japan's allies vis-a-vis giving undeserved legitimacy to the world's most well-known homophobic. Is his love affair with the judo-throwing, bear-wrestling, tiger-shooting, bare-chested, gay icon at an end? Unfortunately, for Japan, in international affairs possession is nine-tenths of the law. Perhaps it is time for Abe to get down off his hobby horse before he hurts himself. He might consider appointing Muneo Suzuki to resolve this issue, given the latter’s wealth of experience (guffaw).

0 ( +3 / -3 )

History says that Soviets seized the Kuril Chain in a battle, taking advantage during wide-scale Manchuria offensive operation

There is a vast distance between the islands in question and Manchuria.

As for Russia's lose they want Japanese investors to help them finance development in Siberia but are blocked because of Japan's reluctancy in tying a peace treaty between the two nations. The Russian's attitude changes with the Mainland China's economic status. China had agreed in purchasing so NG so the Russians were more bullish but as the PRC economy is showing fatigue Russia is again trying to persuade Japan. Russia always show a strong stance first before showing a more softer approach believing it will gain a more favorable acceptance at both domestic and foreign fronts.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@Kabukilover"the danger of giving those islands to Japan is that they could become U.S. military bases".

Besides that, with the existense of American bases on Japanese soil, Russia consider Japan a vassal state of the USA. Nobody would seriously speak about any sort of territorial problem with a state that has limited sovereignty. Abe and his LDP crooks may dance under US instructions any prolonged time, but they should forget about positive dialogue with Russians. Simple as that.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Why can't the Japanese government come to grips with the simple fact that their argument about Takeshima/Dokdo and the Norther Territories directly contradicts their Senkaku argument? It's a waste of diplomatic capital that will never achieve anything other than to keep the black vans away from the Diet, and that is probably the real reason for these "protests." The Russians don't even pretend to care, (they are straight up, repeatedly throwing it in Japan's face) and the SK government can't even pretend to consider it if they don't want a revolution at home, and the Japanese government knows it. All while strengthening China's Senkaku argument. What brilliant diplomacy...

7 ( +7 / -0 )

OssanAmerica

The Cairo and Potsdam declarations made clear that Japan when defeated would lose territory it took by war.

They should work on that first, because there are territories they have not returned yet. You know, Abe could just send his SDF and "retake" the Northern Territories from Russia. Good luck with that.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

“conflicts with Japan’s position and hurts the feelings of the Japanese people. It is extremely regrettable,”

So Abe LITERALLY said EXACTLY the same thing as Kishida did the other day?? Do they have a "please repeat this phrase in a regrettable voice" manual?

They are Russian islands. The war was not over when Russia took them. Japan should be thankful they did not take more. And Japan agreed they were Russian in the SF treaty. Since then Russia has lived on them and administered -- the same rationale Japan uses to claim sovereignty over the Senkakus, minus the living on part.

Abe knows he's losing popularity big time and needs to pass his personal legislation. So he steals others' phrases on sovereignty issues to push them.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

@Upgrayedd"The Japanese garrison was not overpowered".

You may check any historical source. Even Wikipedia says that Japanese garrison fought back and Kurils were seized after significant human losses from both sides in combat. Check Battle of Shumshu, for instance. Japanese soldiers destroyed five Soviet landing crafts and the total amount of Soviet cadualities surpassed Japanese ones.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I was up in Rausu recently (east coast of Shiretoko peninsula, Hokkaido) from where you can get a great view of Kunashiri on a clear day. It's right there, so close you feel you could hop over there in 30 minutes if you had a boat. Which you could; but you would get shot, because those islands have been a de facto part of Russia for 70 years. Whatever the rights and wrongs of how the USSR originally took them (and they did in fact break their treaty with Japan), the fact is that the thousands of people who live there today are Russian and want their homes of 3 generations to remain in Russia; and given that they live there, I think their feelings are more important than the feelings of Abe or Putin or idiots in black vans. Furthermore how many Japanese would actually choose to go and live on those islands if they were returned? No more than a handful. Russia has previously offered to return the two smaller (uninhabited) islands to Japan while retaining the two larger (inhabited) ones; I think Japan should be pragmatic and accept this deal (if it still stands), because that is the best they are ever going to get and it's daft to have poor relations with a neighbour over islands that nobody in Japan actually wants to live on, and it's daft to undermine their own claims re Senkakus by making opposite claims re Kurils.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

The emperor Hiroito's announced surrunder on the morning of 15th August has NO MEANING at all, so far we know the japanese army has NO basic respects of ethics of engagement, they should mednedics with a red cross flag,faking surrunder and shoots... etc. The japanese army were notorious being savages and worst combat manner. You cannot treat this enemy as a "Gentleman's War"! The soviets keep attacking until 2nd September 1945 when the japanese delegates signed the surrunder documents onboard US warship Missouri, now there is the offical surrunder. BUT that document needs to be "BOOKED"! That is subjected to STALIN 's feelings when he feels good. Thats why the soviet red army was legitimated to keep attack until STALIN says: Enough! Actually the soviet red army kept attacking IJA until 30th September 1945 due to some stubborn japanese soldiers feared of vengeances. So what can Japan blame for losing those isles after 8/15/1945?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Soviet Russia forcefully deported some 17000 Japanese inhabitants from their communities. Certainly the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty, Japan a signatory, renounced 'all right, title and claims', including possessions, but never concluded because the then Soviet government refused to sign.

'Offers' of returning the two islands adjacent to Japan, representative of a small percentage of the disputed island chain, just adds insult to injury, technically at no point has Japan and Russia signed a peace declaration ending the second world war

There are rich fishing grounds and quantifiable offshore levels of oil and gas fields, as well as indefinable deposits of scarce minerals. The administration costs of these islets are a headache and one overriding aspect is the clear psychological and political anguish that has been inflicted upon the relatives of the people of Japan, to governments present and past unable to pray before their ancestral shrines.

The question also remains as to what future for present 30,000 Russian communities? 70 years cannot just be brushed aside, under international law and the rights of self determination, just to forcibly evict them would be unthinkable.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

throwing a rock inside a glass house

Really? Precisely what territories does Japan currently hold that belonged to other countries before the war. I'm not aware that there are any.

Meanwhile, to the number of posters who thumbed down OssanAmerica's post regarding how the Soviets violated a number of agreements, treaties, and international conventions in what was a pure and simple land grab: Thumb-downs don't diminish the truth of his post, no matter how much you personally can't reconcile that truth with your own personal convictions about how Japan did, could, or should pay for its role in the East Asia War.

The Soviets behaved badly, and Putin perpetuates the bad behavior on behalf of the Russian Federation by quite conspicuously choosing not to address any of Japan's legally legitimate complaints.

Anyone who feels Japan has no right to these islands does so not because of any sound understanding or belief in international law, but rather in some sense of, "Well, Japan did XYZ during the war, so this is what they deserve" warped morality.

You cannot on the one hand rage against Japan for violating international law and conventions on their destructive path to war, then on the other hand maintain that it's okay for international law to be flaunted and ignored if it means Japan will feel some sort of comeuppance for its crimes, satisfying your entirely subjective sense of moral justice.

This isn't how law works. You either believe in the application and inherent fairness of law and order or you don't. You can't have it both ways, and there most certainly should not be one set of rules for you and one set for them. Law has to be applied fairly and equitably in order for it to have any degree of meaning or efficacy in the modern world. Otherwise, we all may as well go back to being hunter-gatherers scrambling for our next meal.

Putin needs to stop d#cking around and give the islands back. But when we're taking about a man who is the quintessential thug, the odds of reason prevailing here are next to nil.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

The visit “conflicts with Japan’s position and hurts the feelings of the Japanese people. It is extremely regrettable,”

One could say the exact same thing for Yasukuni

3 ( +4 / -1 )

The question also remains as to what future for present 30,000 Russian communities? 70 years cannot just be brushed aside, under international law and the rights of self determination, just to forcibly evict them would be unthinkable.

They can become citizens of Japan.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

@elephant, not that I'm a grammar police or good in English but why mixed your present and past tenses? "..we know, has no, were notorious, keep attacking, etc". Seems you're branding a group based on the past. But I agree with letting it go. The Russians might just be upping the bargaining because they know Japan wants the islands very much. Both China and Russia are comrades in arms.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

You may check any historical source. Even Wikipedia says that Japanese garrison fought back and Kurils were seized after significant human losses from both sides in combat. Check Battle of Shumshu, for instance. Japanese soldiers destroyed five Soviet landing crafts and the total amount of Soviet cadualities surpassed Japanese ones.

I'm just armchair general-ing and pointing out that it wasn't a rout. The Japanese were putting up a fight against the Soviets and were dealing out 2x as many casualties as they were taking. The battle didn't end because the Soviets defeated them Kurils but because the Japanese merely finalized their surrender decided on days before the battle began. If the battle continued it's very possible that the Soviets would have been unable to capture the Kurils without greatly extending their schedule and resources.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Recent history has proven time and time again, deals and treaties with Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Government will amount to nothing.

“What is significant for our country’s national interests is to solve the territorial issue of the Northern Territories and sign the peace treaty,” Abe said Monday

What does this practically entail?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

There existed an example where a fully sovereign island kingdom which was taken by force and latter under foreign occupations which has no legitimated reasons to do so. That island had a monarch righteous to exist but ceased to exist due to foreigners "Land Grabbing"! So unfortunately that place being forgotton, I tell you people where it is: Hawaii ! The Kurils was irrelevant to the "Land Grabbing"scenario, just a consequence of war. It was mentioned because it was a myth needed to be blown for political purposes and so does Hawaii… a state of the U.S. was also a myth!

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

These islands are as Japanese as is Hokkaido. So on that basis Russia should give them back or whatever. wish they would as would lead to less racket every sunday morning gat the Russian embassy.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

These islands are as Japanese as is Hokkaido actually theyre now Russian, so unless Japan is willing to give a substantial monetary or political gift to Russia I dont see them coming back to Japan anytime soon. Russia will just milk Japan for all shes worth on this topic. Russia has Japan by the nads on these islands

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Mr Abe good to see that Mr Abe is showing his teeth--Japan cannot be an apologist forever Russia was alwaysa thief even to its own people ! Russia by the way--is a THUG OCRACY not a government

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

The chances of Japan getting back the Kuril islands are about the chances of Cuba getting back Guantanamo, i.e. give it up!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@Thomas Crane "Mr Abe is showing his teeth"

Lol. Where and when?

"always a thief even to its own people"

Do you insist than all nationalities in Russia live in reservations just like American Natives ?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Anyone who feels Japan has no right to these islands does so not because of any sound understanding or belief in international law

@LFRAgain

Exactly, based on what international law Japan has the right on the islands after it renounced these rights in San Francisco peace treaty in 1951?

The battle didn't end because the Soviets defeated them Kurils but because the Japanese merely finalized their surrender

@Upgrayedd

Not correct. In the northern part of the Kurile islands Japanese were defeated in open fight. The Japanese put up spirited resistence (as usual), but were defeated. The garrisons on the southern part of the islands then surrendered.

These islands are as Japanese as is Hokkaido. So on that basis Russia should give them back or whatever

@Kaerimashita

Voice from a black van? Do you really think that you sound menacingly? Come and take these islands!

Russia was alwaysa thief even to its own people ! Russia by the way--is a THUG OCRACY not a government

@Thomas Crane

Very strange, but the Russians think otherwise. All polls, even by Western media, show Putin' support about 90 percent. It's fun to see the huge difference between reality and the distorted picture in minds of some Westerners.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

If Abe needs a translator if he lands there, it's no longer a part of Japan. Hasn't been for a long time now. Let it go.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The AFP is always putting a heavy handed negative spin on Japan related stories. I would like to know why.

Read the Japanese version and it's much milder. Nothing happened.

Executives of a dozen of major Japanese corporations planned to accompany Kishida, and expectations were also high among Russian officials for closer economic cooperation between the two countries.

But since mid-July, the Kremlin has orchestrated a series of “provocative actions,Since mid-July, the Kremlin has orchestrated a series of “provocative actions.”

A senior Foreign Ministry official said Japan has no intention of terminating talks with Russia

Other do wrong but Japan gets the blame.

It seems the statement was actually made by Hajime Hayashi, director-general of the Japanese Foreign Ministry’s European Affairs Bureau.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@LFRAgain

Precisely what territories does Japan currently hold that belonged to other countries before the war. I'm not aware that there are any

Part of the problem is, which war? I know you meant WWII, however the disputed islands with China & Korea date back to earlier conflicts i.e. from 1895. Japan says the WWII-end treaties don't cover that far back; China & Korea say the islands were taken as spoils of war and so should be returned. (I'm not yet convinced by any of their arguments)

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@kurumazaka

Why can't the Japanese government come to grips with the simple fact that their argument about Takeshima/Dokdo and the Norther Territories directly contradicts their Senkaku argument?

That's not actually true. There are very different legal grounds in each of the three cases.

Japan has clear soverneignty over the Senkakus. It was acquired legally.

Takeshima and the Northern Territories are more similar, they were both occupied and held illegal by force. In the Northern Territories there were establish Japanese communities.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Instead of hit out Abe should hop out for the good of all Japan.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

As God is my witness there will never be peace between Japan and Russia unless those islands are returned. Japan does not need their gas or oil. As for their military, Japan can beat then in any non atomic war. Any atomic attack on Japan will get Russia attacked by the USA. Putin can bear his chest and thump, he is a cheap thug.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

@YuriOtani"there will never be peace between Japan and Russia"

With such a stubborn attitude Japanese politicians will never get the islands. As for peace treaty...well, de facto there is a state of peace between Russia and Japan. Besides, you should know that many Japanese think positively about Russia. People don't care about those cold islets, called "Northern Territories".

"will get Russia attacked by the USA". You are duped by US propaganda. And I can never understand a Japanese person who worships Americans after their actions towards Okinawans and Japanese.

"As for their military, Japan can beat them in any non atomic war". I seriously doubt it. Physical condition and skills of Russians are much more higher, let alone combat experience. When barbarians of ISIS were cutting throats of Japanese hostages, no Japanese SDF elite forces appeared to save victims. In 90ies and later Russians completely exterminated similar Moslem terrorists in Chechnya.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

there will never be peace between Japan and Russia unless those islands are returned

There is peace between Japan & Russia, right now. You're not fighting and you're not going to. You'd better hope not:

As for their military, Japan can beat then in any non atomic war

I really don't think so

Japan does not need their gas or oil

It would be very useful though!

Any atomic attack on Japan will get Russia attacked by the USA

And lead to WW3. Sorry but those little islands are not remotely worth a world war.

Putin can bear his chest and thump, he is a cheap thug.

Yes, he is. In fact he is a lot wore than that. But when it comes to Kunashiri et al, Russia is not chest thumping; they already have what they want. A little pragmatism from Japan would be a much better idea than talking about war.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Yoshitsune,

. . . however the disputed islands with China & Korea date back to earlier conflicts i.e. from 1895 . . .

. . . China & Korea say the islands were taken as spoils of war and so should be returned. (I'm not yet convinced by any of their arguments)

Neither am I. I'd even go so far as to call those claims petulant and absurb. If international law were in any way predicated on the idea of an eternally nonexistent statute of limitations, the geopolitical map of the world today would be an unmitigated mess.

I like your standpoint. Clear and sensible.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@YuriOtani

As God is my witness there will never be peace between Japan and Russia unless those islands are returned

You think Russians are going to lose sleep about that? They are happy with the present situation. There is no formal peace treaty, but peace de facto, normal diplomatic relations and normal trade.

Japan does not need their gas or oil

Japan government and big business think otherwise. Mitsui is very active at Sakhalin gas projects.

Japan can beat then in any non atomic war

Really??? Very doubtful. But sleep peacefully - Russia has absolutely no intentions to attack Japan

Any atomic attack on Japan will get Russia attacked by the USA

Why on earth you think that Russia will attack Japan? With nukes?? Why, what for?

Putin can bear his chest and thump, he is a cheap thug.

Ugh, not classy words for a lady! Putin does not beat his chest and thump - according to media, he is very well-mannered. And why "cheap thug"? I think Obama, Merkel and Holland won't meet with a thug.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Hey Russia do not visit your own territory or Abekun will get upset and send you a letter telling you so. And that is all Abe will do besides go to the corner and sulk and suck his thumb.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Asakaze

Putin does not beat his chest and thump - according to media, he is very well-mannered.

May be, but he's the only world leader I know of who has the habit of stripping naked to his waste, hanging out with biker gangs, and going hunting with bows.

He'd get on really well with Ted Nugent.

I know nothing about Russian politics but I'm sure he's fun to have a friend and can outdrink any Diet members.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think Japan needs to have an embargo against Russian Products. There is a massive surplus of both gas and oil. Remember do not feed the Russian Bear!

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

YuriOtani "do not feed the Russian Bear!" Yes, feed Uncle Sam. Your Okinawa relatives are spinning in graves.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

My Okinawa relatives are not in graves as per the American sense. Then again the Americans destroyed the family graves and my relatives that survived the war on on the shelf in a Buddhist shrine. So you suggest we embargo the USA. Well unlike Russia there is too many economic ties and it would just not work. The best Japan could do is kick their military out. Again the Americans have some special hold on Japan. Politicians that try to get rid of them are thrown out of office. However Russia does not have these abilities. However you are right my parents did not like Americans. Charity for them was letting my father go through their garbage to put food on the table.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Back@home

May be, but he's the only world leader I know of who has the habit of stripping naked to his waste, hanging out with biker gangs, and going hunting with bows

As far as I know, Putin is not in the habit of "hunting with bows", but anyway, what's wrong with being naked to the waist on summer family vacation or meeting with voters, even bikers? At least Putin does not smoke pot or, umm, doing stuff with young interns Levinski-style.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

A world leader to be photoed going out bare chested with high power rifles hunting and killing has to be a deliberate PR act -- and says a lot about the demographics he is appealing to.

He actually went whale hunting with a bow and arrow, so you are wrong!

The bikers in question not only smoke pot but deal in harder stuff.

http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/photo-gallery-putin-takes-on-a-whale-fotostrecke-58614.html

I am sure he is fun to hang out with, if you agre with his authoritarian politics, but some of his PR stunts are as ridiculous as North Korean leaders.

I have no idea what the politics between him, China and Japan are. As with most political leaders, their stunts are aimed primarily at entertaining the voters that keep them in power and wealth.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Putin is a politician, of course he likes good publicity. May be you'd find some of his photos bizarre, but at least his PR stunts are harmless. He does not have sex with subordinates and lies about it while under oath (Clinton), he does not invade other countries to show his "toughness", killing tens of thousands of innocents (Bush and Obama), and he is not caught on photo on a bike while enroute to his mistress (Hollande).

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

he does not invade other countries to show his "toughness",

Ukraine might disagree.

And, likewise, part of Japan is under occupation, which is what this is all about.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Ukraine might disagree. And, likewise, part of Japan is under occupation, which is what this is all about.

Never heard about invasions of Ukraine.

If you mean by "part of Japan" southern Kuriles, then according to international law they are Russian territory, Japan repudiated this land in 1951. That's what is all about.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Asakaze

Never heard about invasions of Ukraine.

I'm sorry, so Crimea was invaded, it was just "annexed" !?!

No, after WWI, the Soviet Union violated the Neutrality Pact that was still in force between it and Japan and continued its offensive against Japan to illegal occupy the Four Northern Islands.

The Soviet Union unilaterally incorporated the territories under occupation into its own territories without any legal grounds and forcibly deported all Japanese residents.

The Government of the United States of America supports Japan's position.

As is its habit in such matters, Japan has follow the law scrupulously. Russia has acted illegally.

The Yalta Agreement, having no basis in international law, did not determine the final settlement of the territorial problem.

That's the bottomline.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Back@home

I'm sorry, so Crimea was invaded

Crimea just returned where it belonged since XVIII century, returned without bloodshed, to delight of its populace. If you're looking for invasions and agressions, you better look at US actions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.

The Government of the United States of America supports Japan's position.

So what? Who cares? By the way, US specifically asked USSR to declare war on Japan, in return US promised Stalin the whole Kurile islands. By the memorandum number 677 of 29 January 1946, signed by general McArthur, the whole Kurile islands, including the four northern islands, were excluded from the territory of Japan (you were talking about US support?). Only several years later, during the Cold war, the US changed its stance on the subject. Anyway, in 1951 peace treaty Japan repudiated its rights on the whole Kurile islands. You can't just say "Oh, we changed our mind, now we want these islands".

That's the bottomline.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I hope you are just trolling for fun, otherwise it's amazing what you're coming out with - and mirroring the dynamics of the Chinese/korean script.

The Northern Territories have been under illegal occupation by the Soviet Union, and then Russia, since the Soviet Union occupied them in 1945 in violation of the Neutrality Pact that was in force between Japan and the Soviet Union, including the forced deportation of all Japanese residents (approximately 17,000 people).

At the very least, Russia owes compensation to them.

Unfortunately, the Soviet Union refused to sign the San Francisco treaty and so, legally, has no claim on the basis of it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I give you facts, you give me emotions. Who's trolling after that?

But I like your talk about compensation. It would be nice if Japan first pay compensation for thousands of Soviet citizens killed during the occupation of parts of Soviet Far East and Siberia by Japanese troops in early 20s.

USSR did not sign the San Francisco treaty, but anyway, Japan repudiated the Kuriles. It's a fact.

So, legally, Japan has no right to demand the northern islands back. No flip-flopping

End of story. Tired of your empty talk.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hokkaido is where the Ainu people lived before it was occupied by Japanese.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites