politics

Russia begins military exercises around Pacific islands also claimed by Japan

175 Comments

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

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2014.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

175 Comments
Login to comment

Maybe an enormous US-JPN exercise off NE Hokkaido would be a good idea.

-11 ( +10 / -21 )

"“If they are conducting a military exercise on the Northern Territories, we can by no means accept that in light of Japan’s stance on the islands. We’ve already informed the Russian side of that stance and asked for clarification,” the official said.

And what could you POSSIBLY do about it because saying "it's regrettable"? They are Russian islands.

7 ( +17 / -10 )

Since the islands in question have belonged to Russia for 70 years, and Japan was unable to sign a peace treaty even though Japan was the aggressor leaving its hands empty and Russia's full with the spoils of war. I wonder what the people living on those islands actually think, Russia or Japan? Why hasn't Japan taken it to the ICJ?japan. There are no Japanese people living there.

15 ( +20 / -6 )

Maybe Japan should rethink their redeployments of SDF tanks from Hokkaido to west Japan.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Since the islands in question have belonged to Russia for 70 years, and Japan was unable to sign a peace treaty even though Japan was the aggressor leaving its hands empty and Russia's full with the spoils of war. I wonder what the people living on those islands actually think, Russia or Japan? Why hasn't Japan taken it to the ICJ?japan. There are no Japanese people living there.

Soviets took them after Japan's surrender and by breaking the neutrality pact. After the occupation, the Soviets kicked the Japanese out and forced her own citizens to relocate their. Japan has requested this issue to be settled via ICJ but was refused.

European Parliament 2005

"Urges all countries in the Far East to seek bilateral agreements to resolve the outstanding territorial disputes in the region, in particular:

a) the return to Japan of the 'Northern territories' that were occupied by the then Soviet Union at the end of World War II and are currently occupied by Russia, .."

-5 ( +12 / -17 )

OssanAmericaAug. 13, 2014 - 07:15AM JST Maybe an enormous US-JPN exercise off NE Hokkaido would be a good idea.

Japan Goverment is still pushing for Russia's LNG deal. This deal is still a top priority for many Japanese politicians. The pipeline would stretch from Sakhalin Island to Japan. The Russian gas will cost much less than the massive amounts of LNG it imports from tankers. A deal like this is highly foreseeable when one considers Japan’s energy needs. If the pipeline is to be used to its full capacity, Japan will double the LNG imports from Russia. The agreement with Russia will tie the countries together, energy-wise, for a long time to come, no matter the economic sanctions.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

We’ve already informed the Russian side of that stance and asked for clarification,” the official said.

till then watch 'minano taiso' on NHK !

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

zichi, you know very well that the terms of Japan's surrender in WWII including having territories that were gained by greed or force to be taken away. That's how Japan lost Taiwan, the Spratleys, etc. But the Southern Kuriles were never taken by greed or force, as they became Japanese by a Treaty with Russia in 1855. The USSR took advantage of a defeated Japan by taking these 4 islands that were NEVER THEIRS, and they did so AFTER Japan declared surrender. Then they rounded up the Japanese inhabitants who had always lived there and deported them, and followed up with transplanting Russian inhabitants. As you can see, what the USSR did was not in keeping with the WWII Allied intentions and because of this the Unied States, the United Kingdom, and the European Parliament consider the Southern Kuriles to be Japanese territory under Russian administration, ie; occupation.

-7 ( +10 / -17 )

OssanAmerica

You also know that possession is nine tenths of law so Japan were refused by the ICJ, according to nigelboy?

Since no Japanese have lived there for more than 60 years, give them up in return for a LNG gas pipeline and a good price on the gas.

8 ( +13 / -6 )

I don't think Russia will ever return the islands. It expands their territorial waters. Quite strategic.

When you look at the WW2 history Russia/Japan conflict was minimal. They have no right to keep them.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Russia holds the territory and therefore has an advantage. Russian leaders have repeatedly made clear that the transfer of all four islands to Japan will never happen. The only way for any progress to be made is for Japan to take a step of dropping its insistence on an all or nothing solution and offering to negotiate the parameters of territorial compromise. Then Russia would face pressure to confirm its willingness to actually give up territory. Given that Russia has previously on several occasions declared its willingness to give up two islands it may be difficult for Russian leaders to stick to their recent statements that the southern Kuril Islands are indisputably Russian territory and not subject to negotiation. However, such a compromise is extremely unlikely.

There might be a non-traditional solution, such as joint sovereignty by both countries over all or some of the four disputed islands. Such a solution would allow the Japan and Russia to focus on joint economic development projects in the region, rather than arguing about territorial issues. This move would have to be combined with Japanese investment in Russian energy or other economic incentives.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

They are Russian islands

But of course. And Takeshima belongs to Korea, Senkaku belongs to China. When will the stupid Japanese learn?

2 ( +7 / -5 )

Given the peak extent of territory forcibly annexed by Japan in WWII, including Manchuria (1937)*, they were lucky to keep anything, including Honshu, let alone Hokkaido or the Kurils. That is the measure we should be looking at, not what the other Allies said Russia should be allowed or not allowed to take.

If Japan really wants the Kurils back they should try making a cash offer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II#Chronology

The start of the war is generally held to be 1 September 1939 ... Other dates for the beginning of war include the start of the Second Sino-Japanese War on 7 July 1937.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

turbotsatAug. 13, 2014 - 08:10AM JST they were lucky to keep anything, including Honshu, let alone Hokkaido or the Kurils.

Problem is that Russia broke the treaty with Japan by invading Kurile Islands after the Japan surrendered. The Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact was signed between Russia and Japan in 1941. The treaty called for the two nations to observe neutrality when any one of the two signing nations was invaded by a third nation.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Nigelboy

European Parliament 2005 "Urges all countries in the Far East to seek bilateral agreements to resolve the outstanding territorial disputes in the region, in particular:

so you are interested in what the European Parliament states, um? Are you still interested when it states,

European Parliament (Resolution B60525/2007) on 13 December 2007. The resolution, which was passed with a clear majority, contributes to the global voice calling on Japanese authorities to take the concrete step of apologising to the survivors of Japan’s military sexual slavery system before and during the World War II.

4 ( +11 / -7 )

European Parliament 2005

What do they have to do with anything. This is an issue between Russia and Japan in Asia.

3 ( +4 / -2 )

You also know that possession is nine tenths of law so Japan were refused by the ICJ, according to nigelboy

Nine tenths of what specific law, Zichi? And no. It's the Soviets that refused to go to ICJ. It appears you have a comprehension problem.

so you are interested in what the European Parliament states, um? Are you still interested when it states,

Yeah. And she did.

-4 ( +8 / -12 )

zichiAug. 13, 2014 - 07:50AM JST OssanAmerica You also know that possession is nine tenths of law so Japan were refused by the ICJ, according to nigelboy?

Refused by USSR/Russia or refused by the Court? Please make that clear,

Since no Japanese have lived there for more than 60 years, give them up in return for a LNG gas pipeline and a good >price on the gas

The islands were Japanese for 90 years, and have been illegally occupied for 70 years. The Japanese who have not lived there for 60 years were forcibly removed. The issue isn't Japan and Russia. Do you support that kind of conduct by any country zichi?

-1 ( +9 / -10 )

ossandaddy:

The islands were Japanese for 90 years, and have been illegally occupied for 70 years.

Ryukyu was stolen by Japan and lost its independence. Oh, that's right, shoe on the other foot!

1 ( +8 / -7 )

sfjp330

Uno. If you're going to call treaty-breaking, why not start with Manchuria? http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1499&dat=19321121&id=SqhQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=1iEEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1490,515184 "Japan's Treaty Breaking", The Milwaukee Journal, Nov. 21, 1932, p. 5. And http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/tr22-01.asp, (Nine-Power Treaty), 1922, "ARTICLE I The Contracting Powers, other than China, agree: (1) To respect the sovereignty, the independence, and the territorial and administrative integrity of China; "

Dos. Given that Russia has violated a much more recent agreement made with Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons, don't know how far your going to get with that.

Tres. Also it appears Japan gave up the Kurils in the Treaty of San Francisco.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuril_Islands_dispute#1956_Soviet-Japanese_Joint_Declaration_and_dispute_over_the_composition_of_the_Kuril_islands

The question of whether Etorofu and Kunashiri islands are a part of the Kurils, and thus whether they are covered by Article (2c) of the Treaty of San Francisco, remains one of the main outstanding issues in the Kuril Islands dispute. Based on a 1966 book by a former Japanese diplomat and a member of the 1956 Japanese delegation for the Moscow peace talks, Clark traces the first Japanese claim that Etorofu and Kunashiri islands are not a part of the Kurils to the 1956 negotiations on the Soviet-Japanese Joint Declaration of 1956. The Soviet Union rejected the view at that time, and subsequently, Russia has maintained the same position since then.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Thanks to Douglas MacArthur, who threatened to "arrest them," the Russians were kept out of all of Japan after WWII.

7 ( +7 / -1 )

Nigelboy

Yeah. And she did.

Not to the satisfaction of the European Parliament which issued its directive in 2007?

7 ( +9 / -2 )

Oh no....you mean after Japan put sanctions on Russia over Ukraine , the damn Russians are being so nasty and conducting military exercises on the Kuriles as a payback. How "extremely regrettable ".

As for the right wingers here harping on about this great injustice of Russia taking the islands from defeated Japan at the end of the war - whats are the lines that you guys use so often when talking about the other WW2 injustices such as the comfort women?..."get over it ? it was 70 years ago so move on ?"......right.

Remember that Putin was meant to be coming to Japan to have a meeting with Abe and the expectation was there was going to be a deal regarding the Kuriles. That was until Japan started slapping sanctions on Russia over Ukraine. Regrettable.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

It was Truman negotiating with Stalin who kept Hokkaido for the Japanese. Although Russians might have felt that that was what they could get away with. Also, according to the link the Russians claimed they had completed occupation of Kurils by Sept 1, a day before signing the surrender documents with Japan on Sept. 2, they actually completed it over Sept 3 - 5. Russia's Southern Kuril garrison totaled 9,400, while 50,400 Japanese troops in the Kurils surrendered, so doesn't look like Russia had the wherewithal for any invasion of Hokkaido without violating the surrender more than they did for the Kurils.

Discussion of Truman and Stalin's negotiation and Russia's occupation of the Kurils, in a few paragraphs of Eiji Takemae's "Allied Occupation of Japan" at Google Books: http://tinyurl.com/m46ruhx

2 ( +4 / -2 )

OssanAmerica

The islands were Japanese for 90 years, and have been illegally occupied for 70 years. The Japanese who have not lived there for 60 years were forcibly removed. The issue isn't Japan and Russia. Do you support that kind of conduct by any country zichi?

Well, 90 years isn't a very long time, you mean they and were not always Japanese who took it away mostly from the Ainu? You choose to over look, even forget when this even happened.

In a brutal war and occupation which the Japanese troops killed more than 30 million and occupied most of SE Asia, in the end it lost the war but lost very little of its own territories except for four very small islands in the North.

Japan could have lost so much more.

Russia has offered to return two of the islands in return for Japan giving up it s claims on the other two. Considering the events and history of the times, Japan needs to accept that offer and move on.

6 ( +11 / -5 )

Russia has offered to return two of the islands in return for Japan giving up it s claims on the other two. Considering the events and history of the times,

When did this happen?

Are there any documents and/or treaties marking this event?

Sorry but Japan had not given up or conceded anything.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

0 ( +2 / -2 )

zichiAug. 13, 2014 - 09:42AM JST OssanAmerica "The islands were Japanese for 90 years, and have been illegally occupied for 70 years. The Japanese who have not lived there for 60 years were forcibly removed. The issue isn't Japan and Russia. Do you support that kind of conduct by any country zichi?"

Well, 90 years isn't a very long time, you mean they and were not always Japanese who took it away mostly from the >Ainu? You choose to over look, even forget when this even happened.

Oh please...I'm not going to wastetime talking about giving this country back to the Natve Amercan tribes, or giving Australia back to the Aborigines or New Zealand to the Maoris, ok?

Please answer the question zizchi, do you support the actions that the USSR/Russia took? Because the other WWII Allied powers do not, If it were Japan that did he same thing to another country would you support it? I doubt it,

In a brutal war and occupation which the Japanese troops killed more than 30 million and occupied most of SE Asia, >in the end I Japan could have lost sot lost the war but lost very little of its own territories except for four very small >islands in the North. much more.

The number of people killed or what the Japanese Empire did in WWII is not relevant to the question of whether the USSR/Russa violated the Potsdam and Cairo declarations by taking territory from Japan that had not been taken by greed or war,

Russia has offered to return two of the islands in return for Japan giving up it s claims on the other two. Considering >the events and history of the times, Japan needs to accept that offer and move on.

That almost happened except that the United States threatened not to return Okinawa if Japan accepted it, Today it may be a different ball game. Russia may no longer be interested as they have reversed their economic abandonment of the southern Kuriles and have invested heavily in development, Still it is not just Japan but Russia as well who needs to settle this issue, sign a peace treaty and move on,

Pukey2Aug. 13, 2014 - 09:00AM JST ossandaddy: "The islands were Japanese for 90 years, and have been illegally occupied for 70 years. " Ryukyu was stolen by Japan and lost its independence. Oh, that's right, shoe on the other foot!

pukeboy: And who is arguing for Okinawan independence from Japan? And of what relevance is your comment to the southern kuriles?

0 ( +7 / -7 )

How we go again.

Japan "deserved" to lose territory as a form of compensation.

So by that logic, let's divide up Europe (including Russia), China, etc, etc, as compensation for all of the things they have done.

Good luck.

(Zichi, maybe the Isle of Wright should be left to give the current population of the UK somewhere to live?)

-1 ( +7 / -8 )

Japan needs to focus on other things...let it go already. As Zichi said Japanese haven't occupied the islands for 60 years.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

OssanAmerica

you continue to beat your drum but as is the case often with the wrong tune!

The San Francisco Peace Treaty with Japan from 1951 states that Japan must give up all claims to the Kuril islands. In 2006, well after Okinawa was handed back Putin offered to return two of the islands but Japan refused.

7 ( +11 / -4 )

zichi

The northern territories were not included within the Kuril islands as agreed upon the Shimoda peace treaty between Russia and Tokugawa shogunate. The boundaries were stipulated between the two nations through this treaty which both nations agreed. The SF peace treaty cannot and will not over turn a treaty of mutual agreement that was not a result of war.

Go bark up another tree if you want false pretense as an argument.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

zichi; "The Treaty of San Francisco was officially signed by 49 nations, including Japan and the United States, on September 8, 1951. Article (2c) states: "Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Kurile Islands, and to that portion of Sakhalin and the islands adjacent to it over which Japan acquired sovereignty as a consequence of the Treaty of Portsmouth of 5 September 1905." The State Department later clarified that "the Habomai Islands and Shitokan ... are properly part of Hokkaido and that Japan is entitled to sovereignty over them". 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.["

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Japan should be pretty careful dealing with Russia. While China's always just buzzing around just beneath the line, I always felt Russia's pretty direct in aggression and mean business. And it'd be wise to have a positive relation with at least one neighbour country than engaging in territorial dispute with all three of them.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

It appears Zichi assumed this was just like any other territorial dispute with Japan for now he's deduced to regurgitating wiki entries which has been refuted countless times on this site.

Give back to Ainu? Is this guy for real??

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

VincehwrAug. 13, 2014 - 11:50AM JST Japan should be pretty careful dealing with Russia. While China's always just buzzing around just beneath the line, I >always felt Russia's pretty direct in aggression and mean business.

The U.S. has bases in Japan, Russia does not, And they know it,

And it'd be wise to have a positive relation with at least one neighbour country than engaging in territorial dispute with >all three of them

Who cares about South Korea?

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Not to the satisfaction of the European Parliament which issued its directive in 2007?

You mean the resolution? I suppose most members doesn't have the faintest clue of AWF.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

OssanAmerica

The U.S. has bases in Japan, Russia does not, And they know it,

Russia does not need bases in Japan since it has its own military bases right on the doorstep of Japan. Russia and China have also signed a peace pact.

nigelboy

Give back to Ainu? Is this guy for real??

I never said that!

First the four islands were occupied by Soviet Russia and then taken over by the Republic of Russia which has remained in occupation for more than 60 years. Japan will never be able to retake those islands by military force which mostly likely it would start a war which it would lose.

Russia offered to return two of the islands and that seems likely to ever be the best offer that's going to be on the table. Japan needs to take that offer and move on with its locked in wartime history.

On the question of the Ainu, the Japanese have never given them an apology for trying to wipe out their culture unlike Australia with its Aborigines or New Zealand its Maoris.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

Since no Japanese have lived there for more than 60 years, give them up in return for a LNG gas pipeline and a good price on the gas.

Sure, what could go wrong with Japan depending on Russia for much of their energy needs far into the future?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

zichiAug. 13, 2014 - 12:14PM JST OssanAmerica "The U.S. has bases in Japan, Russia does not, And they know it," Russia does not need bases in Japan since it has its own military bases right on the doorstep of Japan. Russia and >China have also signed a peace pact.

Japan has a peace pact with the Russians too, And look how much that was worth.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

"had"

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Yogi Zuna

Japan's dependency of energy resources from Russia is less then 10%. If price of natural gas goes up Japan can easily change source to methane hydrate which is in abundance around the seabeds of Japan.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

First the four islands were occupied by Soviet Russia and then taken over by the Republic of Russia which has remained in occupation for more than 60 years. Japan will never be able to retake those islands by military force which mostly likely it would start a war which it would lose.

What's amazing is that you completely ignore and excuse how the Soviets took them. This isn't about making "deals" bud. It's about Russia having the maturity to return the territories that were taken by force if they are serious about having a normal relation with Japan. That's the only real reason why Japan is asking for all four.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

nigelboy

What's amazing is that you completely ignore and excuse how the Soviets took them.

Imperial Japan created the brutal history of occupying most of the countries in SE Asia and killing more than 30 million on the way. You and others ignore those facts too and at the end of the war, and in the fog of war. Soviet Russia occupied the northern islands without killing any Japanese, who were transported back to the mainland.

It has occupied those islands for more than 60 years and will never give in to Japanese demands that they are returned, so the offer of returning two of the islands seems like the best deal on the table which Japan should accept and move on from its wartime history, which never seems to end and just churns and churns on nonstop.

so BUD what's your answer for getting them back?

0 ( +7 / -7 )

Imperial Japan created the brutal history of occupying most of the countries in SE Asia and killing more than 30 million on the way. You and others ignore those facts too and at the end of the war, and in the fog of war. Soviet Russia occupied the northern islands without killing any Japanese, who were transported back to the mainland.

Irrelevant. Please stick to the facts which starts with Soviets violating the neutrality pact and occupying/looting territories after surrender.

It has occupied those islands for more than 60 years and will never give in to Japanese demands that they are returned, so the offer of returning two of the islands seems like the best deal on the table which Japan should accept and move on from its wartime history, which never seems to end and just churns and churns on nonstop.

Reading comprehension again. This isn't about cutting a deal for the territory itself is just a bunch of poor fishing villages.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

Ossan America

The Treaty of San Francisco was officially signed by 49 nations

but not by Soviet Russia and China, the two countries which suffered the most during WWII with more than 40 million of its citizens killed by the Nazi and the Japanese imperialist troops.

Japan has a peace pact with the Russians too, And look how much that was worth.

signed in what year, again?

1 ( +6 / -5 )

but not by Soviet Russia and China, the two countries which suffered the most during WWII with more than 40 million of its citizens killed by the Nazi and the Japanese imperialist troops.

Good. So with the new alliance with the signatories, the status of Sakhalin and Kuriles are still up in the air.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

nigelboy

you didn't offer any resolutions except to state the history leading up to the occupation of the islands is irrelevant?

This isn't about cutting a deal for the territory itself is just a bunch of poor fishing villages.

If you did your homework you would know its much more than that!

0 ( +5 / -5 )

zichi

The Soviet Union did not suffer any casulties from Japan after they had signed the neutrality pact with Japan. On the otherhand Japan had suffered much when the Soviets unilaterally broke off the treaty capturing many Japanese both military and civilian that were trapped in Manchuria and placed into hard labor in Siberia with the last Japanese not returned till the mid 60's.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

you didn't offer any resolutions except to state the history leading up to the occupation of the islands is irrelevant?

I thought I did. If Russia wants to be the only nation not to have a peace treaty with Japan, by all means.

If you did your homework you would know its much more than that!

Elaborate.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

What comes around goes around. Think about it. Those who did bad deeds to others someday others will do the same to them. I see a correlation why the Russians took the 4 islands.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

SamuraiBlue

At the Tehran Conference in Nov 1943 and at the Yalta Conference in Feb 1945, Joseph Stalin had agreed declare war on Japan three months after Germany would be defeated. On 5 Apr 1945, the Soviet Union informed Japan that the Soviet Union would not renew the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact of 1941, which ensured non-aggression between the two nations through 13 Apr 1946. At 2300 hours Transbaikal time on 8 Aug 1945, Soviet foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov informed Japanese ambassador Sato that the Soviet Union was revoking the neutrality pact with a declaration of war effective on 9 Aug; at this point, the neutrality pact was still six months from its natural expiration.

Soviet Russia invaded Manchuria on that date and by Aug 22, 1945

Japanese forces in the Manchuria region of northeastern China surrendered. In the two-week campaign, the Japanese had lost 80,000 killed and wounded and 54,000 taken prisoner, including 143 generals. The Soviets had lost 8,200 dead and 22,000 wounded.

The taking of Manchuria was a step in Japan surrendering.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

As usual, wiki response from Zichi that most everyone who had participated in the related article knew already.

What's amazing is that Zichi had mistakenly given the details of the fact that not only Soviets broke a binding agreement, they literally try to loot by force after formal surrender. For some unknown reason, he considers this a "step in Japan surrendering"

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

What comes around goes around. Think about it. Those who did bad deeds to others someday others will do the same to them. I see a correlation why the Russians took the 4 islands.

@decibel I wish that were true. But the Japanese forced to leave their homes after the war did not start the war. And they were not the ones who stole the islands from the Ainu. And the Soviets did not give them back to the Ainu.

There is not justice here, poetic or otherwise. Even if some country took them by force from Russia, no Russian alive today has anything to do with taking them during WWII.

Even going back to the Neutrality Pact makes no sense in the context of making this about nations rather than the individuals who actually do the suffering. Japan attacked Russia first during the period, got beaten, then signed that pact. Later, they prepared to Russia again, actually mobilizing troops, which is a violation of the pact even without bloodshed. Japan at the last moment turned those troops elsewhere. And why did the Soviets attack Japan? They were asked to by Churchill and Roosevelt and they only did so on the very last day in the time frame they promised they would.

Anyway, my sympathy is not for Japan in this issue. Japan continues to hold the Senkakus and continues to belly ache about Dokdo. All my sympathy is reserved for the people who lost their homes and land. All governments involved can go to hell.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Haha, so nice of nigelboy to want to start the count of treaty violations and pillaging only in the last week of WWII !!! When the Japanese were in no condition to do either!

Irrelevant. Please stick to the facts which starts with Soviets violating the neutrality pact and occupying/looting territories after surrender.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

nigelboy

As usual, wiki response from Zichi

no wrong, BUD its not sourced from wiki, which by the way you too have often quoted from!

only Soviets broke a binding agreement,

its only binding while the countries continue agree but both America and Britain need the Soviet Union to enter the war against Japan,

amazing is that Zichi had mistakenly given the details

wrong! no I just stated the facts.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

Russia annoys whole world nowadays. They're bother to everyone, thinking they can do what they want. Who will stop this madness? It's time to give back what they've stolen!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

They're bother to everyone, thinking they can do what they want

Because time of US hegemony has ended. Russia is strong now, and she will ask to pay debts from everyone. You people have no idea how many money and gold was stolen from Russia. She will not rest until all of them will be collected.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

zichi, read Cairo Declaration. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_Declaration

They (the allies) covet no gain for themselves and have no thought of territorial expansion.

Then Potsdam declaration. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Potsdam_Declaration

(8) The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out and Japanese sovereignty shall be limited to the islands of Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku and such minor islands as we determine.

Then, Japanese instrument of surrender. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Instrument_of_Surrender

We, acting by command of and in behalf of the Emperor of Japan, the Japanese Government and the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters, hereby accept the provisions set forth in the declaration issued by the heads of the Governments of the United States, China, and Great Britain on 26 July 1945 at Potsdam, and subsequently adhered to by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which four powers are hereafter referred to as the Allied Powers.

The question is if "territorial expansion" should be allowed for Russia.

By the way, you say "You also know that possession is nine tenths of law". We do not have such policy in Japan. I think most of the civil law countries do not have such policy. Is it something peculiar to the US?

1 ( +4 / -3 )

SamuraiBlue The Soviet Union did not suffer any casulties from Japan after they had signed the neutrality pact with Japan. On the otherhand Japan had suffered much when the Soviets unilaterally broke off

OK Let's discuss it (I'm from Russia by the way and this theme is quite popular here)

So first of all - let's look on Russian - Japanese relationships through whole 20 th century

Anno 1904.... Japan suddenly started war against Russia sad but truth

Nobody in Russia belive that this is possible , including tsar Nicolay II

It was a shock for Russian society , Russia was unprepared for this war

And Russia lose this war and after that it was a political crisis and first Revolution in Russia.....

And Russian also remember Thushima...

You will be surprised, but Russian also remember Port - Arthur (Russian Pearl - Harbor)

( Russian love history VERY much)

Anno 1918 ..... Japan suddenly invaded Russian Far East

And tried to keep it...

It was during civil war in Russia

Sad but truth

And it was 1 World War and Russia and Japan theoretically were allies

And this occupation lasted till 1925

Anno 1938 Japan start a little war against Russia at Far East : Lake Khasan and Khalkhin Gol

And lose THIS war

In the four years since pakt signing (1941)

Japanese warships stopped and inspect Soviet merchant and fishing vessels about 200 times

(often with the use of weapons) , some of them were taken away in their ports, and at least 8 sank.

In August 1945 Hummer was fallen .....

Russian have showed how they can fight and take upper hand over enemy

But can you blame Russian for this ?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

zichiAug. 13, 2014 - 01:12PM JST Ossan America "The Treaty of San Francisco was officially signed by 49 nations"

but not by Soviet Russia and China,

Which is one MAIN reason why the rest of the signatories do NOT recognize Soviet/Russian sovereignty of the four 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."

the two countries which suffered the most during WWII with more than 40 million of its citizens killed by the Nazi and >the Japanese imperialist troops.

Why do you persist in throwing out anti-Japan twerps that are totally irrelevant to the topic at hand?

"Japan has a peace pact with the Russians too, And look how much that was worth."

signed in what year, again?

Of what relevance is the year? The significance is that Japan and USSR had an non-aggression pact, ie; a peace treaty, which USSR unilaterally broke in he last days of the war.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

OssanAmerica Which is one MAIN reason why the rest of the signatories do NOT recognize Soviet/Russian sovereignty of the four 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."

It was AFTER the war and AFTER capitulation of Japan before USA UK China ...and USSR !

A little bit too late ?

The significance is that Japan and USSR had an non-aggression pact, ie; a peace treaty, which USSR unilaterally broke in he last days of the war.

Japan never showed any respect toward this treaty

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@ Zichi Japan will never be able to retake those islands by military force which mostly likely it would start a war which it would lose.

Don't under estimate the Japanese military and their arsenal. The Japanese have more than what they are letting the people know they have! The cat will come out of the bag soon and the people mouths will drop. No government is going to tell the people everything they are doing or what weapons they have! I know but can't say more just as most JP say they don't have nuclear weapons I look at them and say OK!! That is because they are so far out of the loop and that is where the government want them to be.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Kaimycahi,

So you are saying Japan would be willing to start a war with Russia over four empty islands. I think it would be a war that Japan would lose? Besides, starting a war would currently be against the constitution. I don't believe Japan has nuclear weapons but does have the potential to make them.

OssanAmerica

Soviet/Russian sovereignty of the four islands

I have never said Russia has sovereignty of the northern islands. I just stated that for more than 60 years it has occupied those islands and is not willing to hand back all four of them, but it offered to hand back two of them, which Japan declined. Japan can't take back those islands by military force.

Why do you persist in throwing out anti-Japan twerps that are totally irrelevant to the topic at hand?

Stating the history of WWII and the lead up to why the Soviet Union occupied the islands is not being "anti Japan". I know how you like to ignore the past or even try to white wash the history to show Japan in a better light but you are the one who is anti Japan by not accepting what actually happened which would allow Japan to move on from its wartime past. That's the problem caused by all the people like you.

Of what relevance is the year? The significance is that Japan and USSR had an non-aggression pact, ie; a peace treaty, which USSR unilaterally broke in he last days of the war.

I have already explained the history with America and Britain needing the Soviet Union to enter the war against Japan which helped to end the war quicker and therefore saved lives. The pact was signed in 1941 but imperial Japan did a lot of bad stuff after that date.

You are blind to the history which makes you no friend of Japan.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

J-govt just lodged its strongest protect on Russian military exercise, but Russia as expected turned a deaf ear.

It seems that Japan has been spending too much its energy on territorial disputes with all of its neighbors (no exception) yet, it misses the big point in terms of building a constructive environment for future of Japan. (Hostility from its neighbor countries have left huge negative implications for Japan's economic and diplomatic strategies.

I hate to break it to people who might still live in the dilution and denial that the prospect for Russia to return NT to Japan is unlikely to happen anytime soon giving the armed conflict in Ukraine, which is already shaping the cold war II.

In addition, please wake up to smell the reality that the US troops are not mercenary soldiers at Japan’s disposal, shedding blood and fighting for Japanese territorial gains.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

"Since the islands in question have belonged to Russia for 70 years,"

The Russians have just controlled the islands for 70 years, they don't belong to them. If you steal something, you may have it, but it doesn't belong to you.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

zichiAug. 13, 2014 - 10:10PM JST OssanAmerica "Soviet/Russian sovereignty of the four islands" I have never said Russia has sovereignty of the northern islands. I just stated that for more than 60 years it has >occupied those islands and is not willing to hand back all four of them, but it offered to hand back two of them, which >Japan declined. Japan can't take back those islands by military force.

So you recognize that Russia has no basis whether it be the Cairo, Potsdam, Yalta declarations and agreements, or the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty to be continuing to occupy these four islands?

"Why do you persist in throwing out anti-Japan twerps that are totally irrelevant to the topic at hand?"

Stating the history of WWII and the lead up to why the Soviet Union occupied the islands is not being "anti Japan". I >know how you like to ignore the past or even try to white wash the history to show Japan in a better light but you are >the one who is anti Japan by not accepting what actually happened which would allow Japan to move on from its >wartime past. That's the problem caused by all the people like you.

Stating what Imperial Japan did or didn't in WWII as a whole has no bearing on this territorial issue. Your persistent revival of such irrelevant issues exposes your anti-Japan bias. The determining factors behind the current Kuriles dispute lie ENTIRELY in the agreements made by the WWII Allied powers, not Japan's actions.

"Of what relevance is the year? The significance is that Japan and USSR had an non-aggression pact, ie; a peace treaty, which USSR unilaterally broke in he last days of the war."

I have already explained the history with America and Britain needing the Soviet Union to enter the war against Japan >which helped to end the war quicker and therefore saved lives. The pact was signed in 1941 but imperial Japan did a >lot of bad stuff after that date.

"A lot of bad stuff" is not exactly descriptive, at least not beyond third grade. Furthermore, it still has no bearing on the USSR unilaterally breaking the Non-Aggression pact it had signed with Japan. That the USSR broke it's agreement is pointed out only because you asserted that Russia and China has a peace treaty, as if it was engraved in stone.

You are blind to the history which makes you no friend of Japan.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Bottom line is as much as they hate it Japan has no trump cards in this dispute with Russia and since Japan turned down the Russian offer of the 2 islands return, they will get zilch. As you so often say to others " get over it " :-)

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Russia should completely strip the islands clean of any natural resources, including the seas surrounding them, and then give them back. Basically, preempt what the Japanese will do to them.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Generally, I stand on Japan's side on territorial disputes, but they really don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to the Kuriles. The West mostly stands by Japan for this because as a whole, the West has severe Russophobia which causes a large number of hypocritical thoughts and decisions (which we see in the whole Ukraine crisis).

First, the whole little problem of August 9 ... well, the Soviets managed to clean it up by making sure the Tokyo Trials scribbled something about the insincerity of the Pact to begin with - something that's not so far from the truth. Anyway, even in a world of Russophobia, there will be no way you can get even the West to retract this part.

Second, the Japanese ostensibly agreed to surrender by the 15th ... but when the Soviets started landing on those Kurile islands (and also in Manchuria) ... the Japanese shot at them! Well ... that means they are not surrendering, then. Generally in Japanese works, this is justified as "self-defence", but Japanese clearly are hoping no one will remember that surrender means just that. The enemy can deliberately kill you the second after you surrender and it may be a breach of the Geneva Convention, but still no justification to fight back. The fact that people really completely stop resisting after surrender is the only thing that keeps surrender even somewhat viable.

Third, the problem really has to do with the Americans agreeing to let the Russians have the "Kuriles" after the war at Yalta, then playing Orwell 1984 with the words.

Fourth, Japan gave up those islands at San Francisco. It is possible to argue that because Russia is a non-signatory, the territories were not transferred. But the treaty says nothing about transfer. It says Japan gives them up. At that point, they become effectively terra nullus, and since they became terra nullus at a point when Russians were sitting on the islands... well, that's the end.

Or should be. Except the West plays Orwell again and tries to redefine Kuriles to shrink it - you can see why the Soviets weren't impressed. Maybe tomorrow we can redefine Honshu to mean the world, too.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

There are solutions already used before.

Like UK and Argentina. Let the people are living there vote for this.

Raise them to ICJ, just like Japan advise China to do.

After this, There should be no disputes or questions here.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

In trying to please the rightwingers with their extreme wishes, the LDP are ruining the future for the younger generations. I agree with Zichi's post above.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

no wrong, BUD its not sourced from wiki, which by the way you too have often quoted from!

Whatever. Another copy/paste job without the source. You basically put up what I stated @Aug. 13, 2014 - 07:39AM JST when you were scrambling to "learn" what this was all about.

its only binding while the countries continue agree but both America and Britain need the Soviet Union to enter the war against Japan,

It's a binding agreement that the Soviets unilaterally broke.

wrong! no I just stated the facts

Which assessed properly mean that Soviets waged an aggressive war per London Charters which is a clear violation of section A which commonly known as "Class A".

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

OssanAmerica

So while imperial Japan murdered, raped, beheaded, tortured, experimented on people, killing more than 30 million people in its war and expansion in SE Asia, and attacked America, Canada and Australia, you are only interested in the part of Stalin/USSR breaking its 1941 pact with Japan, even though they were forced to by Roosevelt and Churchill and by entering the war against Japan by entering Manchuria saved the lives of the Allie troops and helped Japan end its brutal war. But none of that is of interest even though it also led to Stalin occupying the northern islands. For you its not about the actions and spoils of war, its about some illegal action, which in itself remains open to debate.

Just like nigelboy, you have no solution to offer to resolve the problem, a problem that has caused 60 years of bad relationships which cost Japan much more than Russia. Russia could have been a major trading partner for many decades. But none of that is of interest to you?

1 ( +5 / -4 )

So while imperial Japan murdered, raped, beheaded, tortured, experimented on people, killing more than 30 million people in its war and expansion in SE Asia, and

There's zichi again, claiming big numbers without substantiation, using emotion to justify his argument.

What Japan is offering is simple. Give back the islands you took as a result of breaking a binding agreement if you want a new one (in Peace Treaty). Show Japan that you are not going to unilaterally break a state to state agreement.

bad relationships which cost Japan much more than Russia

How do you come up with this? Do you realize how much the former Soviet Union crumbled?

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

nigelboy

There's zichi again, claiming big numbers without substantiation, using emotion to justify his argument.

My comment was a reply to a question by OssanAmerica. But you are welcome to give your own numbers for those killed by the imperialist troops.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

zichiAug. 14, 2014 - 12:32AM JST OssanAmerica So while imperial Japan murdered, raped, beheaded, tortured, experimented on people, killing more than 30 million >people in its war and expansion in SE Asia, and attacked America, Canada and Australia, you are only interested in >the part of Stalin/USSR breaking its 1941 pact with Japan, even though they were forced to by Roosevelt and >Churchill and by entering the war against Japan by entering Manchuria saved the lives of the Allie troops and helped >Japan end its brutal war. But none of that is of interest even though it also led to Stalin occupying the northern islands. >For you its not about the actions and spoils of war, its about some illegal action, which in itself remains open to debate.

That's right ,this is a territorial issue, it about legal and illegal actions, the terms of Japan's surrender and the Allied powers agreements and treaties. It is NOT about "all the bad things Japan did" much of it having absolutely nothing to do with the USSR in the first place. I guess you are so anti-Japan that you just can't help but repeat irrelevant tripe. The terms of the Cairo Declaration made it clear that the Allied powers were not to increase their territory, and no country did, other than the USSR. This already negates your "spoils of war" argument from the outset.

Just like nigelboy, you have no solution to offer to resolve the problem, a problem that has caused 60 years of bad >relationships which cost Japan much more than Russia. Russia could have been a major trading partner for many >decades. But none of that is of interest to you?

Firstly YOU have no solutions either. Second, Russia HAS and Continues to be a major trading partner of Japan. And it certainly didn't cost Japan anything when the USSR was in existence because they had little value as a trading partner to anybody as a state run economy. The fact is that there exist sound, rational., legal reasons why the US, UK, and the European Parliament consider these islands to be Japanese under Russian administration ie; occupation). All of your irrelevant arguments about how total people died or "spoils" of war are irrelevant.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

My comment was a reply to a question by OssanAmerica. But you are welcome to give your own numbers for those killed by the imperialist troops.

Useless to play such a game when you consider that the Allieds bombed the living daylights on SE Asia without regard for civilian population and such toll are added on to the Japanese side of the ledger to inflate the numbers.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Back on topic please.

nigelboy What Japan is offering is simple. Give back the islands you took as a result of breaking a binding agreement if you want a new one (in Peace Treaty). Show Japan that you are not going to unilaterally break a state to state agreement.

As a result a Second World War my dear friend

AND USSR Britain and USA were allies in that war

Germany Italy and Japan were axis

Axis have LOST the gaime - so please no special version of history

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

As a result a Second World War my dear friend

As Ossan explained, the Allieds themselves decided not to engage in "spoils of war". Your government didn't comply hence the condemnation from other Allied members and most recently EU.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

nigelboy

1 As Ossan explained, the Allieds themselves decided not to engage in "spoils of war".

Sorry - US have taken some ISLENDS from Japan

Is it so ?

US have some intention to return them ?

Your government didn't comply hence the condemnation from other Allied members and most recently EU

1 Josef Stalin has a good ageement with US UK BEFORE entering the war on Far East

2 EU does not exist at that time....

May be EU have some ideas about Meiji Restoration ??

.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

arguing wont solve I guess japan just fight russia to settle. winner takes all loser takes picture.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Both Japan and China have devoted to improving ties with Russia is a reflection of Russia’s potential importance to the balance of power in Asia. Both countries need Russia for its energy and as a source of profitable investment. It’s also a fairly significant military power. For Japan, the context of the China dispute over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands, Russia’s greatest importance is geostrategic. Russia is key to China’s ability to project power outwardly toward the sea. Because Russia shares a significant border with China, and because it is a sizeable military power, a Moscow that is hostile toward Beijing would force China to devote more of its military resources to ground forces at the expense of the navy and air force. As one of the major targets of China’s maritime expansion, Japan sees winning Russia’s allegiance as a way to reign in Beijing’s naval and air buildup.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

It's only binding while the countries agree but both America and Britain need the Soviet Union to enter the war against Japan.

Well then Zichi if a treaty is only binding while both countries agree, then all treaties are useless in the fullness of time.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Olgek you seem to be spouting an awful lot of Russian propaganda. Aka misinformation.

OlegekAug. 13, 2014 - 09:17PM JST So first of all - let's look on Russian - Japanese relationships through whole 20 th century Anno 1904.... Japan suddenly started war against Russia sad but truth

Wrong. Japan did not "suddenly start a war". Multiple western nations including Russia and Japan had troops in China to quell the Boxer Rebellion in1900. Afterwards while other nations pulled out their troops, Russia kept theirs in Manchuria with the goal of securing Port Arthur as a second warm water port besides Vladivostock. Japan offered to accept Russian control of Manchuria if Russia would accept Japanese control of the Korean Peninsula. Russia refused leading to hostilities.

And Russian also remember Thushima... You mean "Tsushima" where the Russian Baltic Fleet was decimated by a just created just modernized Japanese Navy. Back then Russia was the laughing stock of the western world.

You will be surprised, but Russian also remember Port - Arthur (Russian Pearl - Harbor) ( Russian love history VERY much) Pearl Harbor? Because the Japanese attacked 3 hours before the declaration? Do you know history enough to know that declaration prior to commencing hostilities didn't became a "rule" until 1907?

Anno 1918 ..... Japan suddenly invaded Russian Far East Yes, along with the United States, Great Britain, France, Italy, Canada, Poland, Czechoslovakia, China to support the White Russians against the Bolshevik Red Army. THat sounds like a "sudden Japanese invasion" to you?

legekAug. 13, 2014 - 09:45PM JST "OssanAmerica Which is one MAIN reason why the rest of the signatories do NOT recognize Soviet/Russian sovereignty of the four 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." It was AFTER the war and AFTER capitulation of Japan before USA UK China ...and USSR ! A little bit too late ?

Japan surrendered accepting the Potsdam agreement on August 14, 1945. No allied owers took further offensive action against Japan after this. Yet the USSR invaded the Southern Kuriles (which had never been Russian territory) between August 18 and September 3rd. The USSR violated the terms of the Cairo Agreement. Nobody but Russia supports the occupation of the four islands.

"The significance is that Japan and USSR had an non-aggression pact, ie; a peace treaty, which USSR unilaterally broke in he last days of the war."

Japan never showed any respect toward this treaty

The Non-Aggression pact was signed by Japan and USSR in 1941. Please post evidence to support your claim. Border conflicts between Japan and USSR ended in 1939 and there were no hostilities between them until 1945 when the USSR unilaterally broke the Pact.

OlegekAug. 14, 2014 - 02:07AM JST nigelboy "1 As Ossan explained, the Allieds themselves decided not to engage in "spoils of war". Sorry - US have taken some ISLENDS from Japan Is it so ? US have some intention to return them ?

What islands are you talking about? If you mean Okinawa we gave it back to Japan in 1971.

"Your government didn't comply hence the condemnation from other Allied members and most recently EU"

1 Josef Stalin has a good agreement with US UK BEFORE entering the war on Far East

And the USSR violated the Cairo Accord terms of not taking spoils of war.

2 EU does not exist at that time.... May be EU have some ideas about Meiji Restoration ??

The USSR no longer exists either. So soviets should have handed the islands back to Japan, instead of passing bogus internal laws transferring control to "Russia"

0 ( +5 / -5 )

OssanAmerica Aug. 14, 2014 - 05:23AM JST Wrong. Japan did not "suddenly start a war". Multiple western nations including Russia and Japan had troops in China to quell the Boxer Rebellion in1900. Afterwards while other nations pulled out their troops, Russia kept theirs in Manchuria with the goal of securing Port Arthur as a second warm water port besides Vladivostock.

Then can you tell me about the Port Arthur massacure? The Russo-Japanese War began 1904, when the main Japanese fleet launched a surprise attack and siege on the Russian naval squadron at the harbor of Port Arthur. Only ten years earlier Japan's military chose Port Arthur as a place to pioneer the tactic of surprise attack . After the Chinese had mutilated several Japanese bodies and displayed them at the entrance of the city, this infuriated the Japanese. The Japanese military had massacure the remaining population of Port Arthur, between 2,000 to 3,000, without distinction of age or sex. They resume on a far more massive scale during WWII when Japanese forces massacred Asian nationals and Western prisoners of war.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

On the neutrality pact between Japan and Russia, the right-whiners who have constantly mentioned it also failed to inform us that in the pact, Article 3, both Japan and Russia had the right to denounce the pact one year before it was due to end, so

On April 5, 1945 the Soviet Union denounced the pact, informing the Japanese government that "in accordance with Article Three of the above mentioned pact, which envisaged the right of denunciation one year before the lapse of the five-year period of operation of the pact, the Soviet Government hereby makes known to the Government of Japan its wish to denounce the pact of April 13, 1941."

Six hours later, the Soviet Union were at war with Japan and invaded Manchuria.

The Soviet Union invaded the Southern half of Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands before Japan surrendered. Soviets troops arrived in the Kurils on Aug 18, 1945.

Japan surrendered on Sept 2, 1945.

While the right-whiners on this post think the history leading up to the surrender of the war by Japan, and the involvement of the Soviet Union is irrelevant, I don't see how we can just leave out the history and jump to the final days of the Second World War, which would seem something of an insult to all those brave souls who died fighting it?

If Japan had not started a brutal war, and signing a death pact with Nazi Germany, which took the lives of more than 50 million, then the history today, for Japan would have been a different one.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

On the neutrality pact between Japan and Russia, the right-whiners who have constantly mentioned it also failed to inform us that in the pact, Article 3, both Japan and Russia had the right to denounce the pact one year before it was due to end, so

Fail. It simply means they exercized the option not to renew it (another five years). Hence, the expiration still remain at April of 1946.

This is confirmed by Foreign Minister Motolov to the Japanese counterparts during the time frame this was informed.

Japan surrendered on Sept 2, 1945.

Japan signed the instrument of surrender on September 2, 1945, a mere formality when Kanto Army (Otozo Yamada), on August 18th requested a cease fire but the Soviet unit lead by Mikhaylovich Vasilevsky rejected and informed that they will keep on fighting.

Zichi, I know you basically started to inform yourself of this issue just recently so whatever you come up with is nothing new. Name calling and inflating the numbers is simply your sign of desperation.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

The status of the Kurils is what it is. Russia is not giving it up any time soon, and Japan is not taking it back by force any time soon. Calling out treaty-breaking at end of WWII seems specious when ignoring that it was Japan's treaty-breaking that started it all.

So make cash offer, bribe some of Putin's friends. See what happens.

And BTW, Russian takeover of Kurils was much more humane than Japan's conduct during the entire breadth of WWII, from invasion of Manchuria onward. Nothing like what Japan did in rest of Asia. See Eiji Takemae's "Allied Occupation of Japan", http://tinyurl.com/m46ruhx

Article 1 of the Nine Power Treaty, signed by Japan in 1922, broken by Japan in 1931 with the Mukden Incident and invasion of Manchuria, from the full text at link:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/tr22-01.asp

ARTICLE I The Contracting Powers, other than China, agree: (1) To respect the sovereignty, the independence, and the territorial and administrative integrity of China; "

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

The Mukden Incident, also known as the Manchurian Incident, was a staged event engineered by rogue Japanese military personnel as a pretext for the Japanese invasion of the northeastern part of China, known as Manchuria, in 1931.[1][2][3]

On September 18, 1931, a small quantity of dynamite was detonated by Lt. Kawamoto Suemori[4] close to a railway line owned by Japan's South Manchuria Railway near Mukden (now Shenyang).[5] Although the explosion was so weak that it failed to destroy the track and a train passed over it minutes later, the Imperial Japanese Army, accusing Chinese dissidents of the act, responded with a full invasion that led to the occupation of Manchuria, in which Japan established its puppet state of Manchukuo six months later. The ruse was soon exposed to the international community, leading Japan to diplomatic isolation and its March 1933 withdrawal from the League of Nations.[6]

0 ( +2 / -2 )

OssanAmerica,

Japan's major trading partner is China, and for Russia, its the EU. Russia is only about Japan's 14th trading partner. In 2010, Japan exported $8 billion to Russia, but imported the double at $16 billion. If the territorial dispute could be resolved the trade between the two nations could also improve.

Because I disagree with the period of Japan's imperialist wartime history does not make me "anti Japanese" which you frequently sprout against myself and anyone who does not agree with you. I have lived here for more than 20 years and make my contributions to the society while you sir, don't even live here and so what is it that you actually contribute? The Japan of today is not the Japan of yesterday, and if it was, then we'll probably still be at war?

nigelboy

When it comes to the numbers killed during WWII! You can run but can't hide. Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan together killed more than 50 million people. The fire bombing of Japanese cities and Dresden was wrong, and in my opinion so was the atomic bombing but even with those events, the numbers of Japanese killed is very small when compared with the numbers of Soviet and Chinese citizens, which were more than probably 50 million, alone. Compared with an estimated 2.6 - 3.1 million Japanese, from a war started by it?

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

zichi: Russia has offered to return two of the islands in return for Japan giving up it s claims on the other two. Considering the events and history of the times, Japan needs to accept that offer and move on.

Are you totally blinded to the fact that it was RUSSIA that abrogated the most recent 'offer' to return the stolen islands.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Putin offered to return two of the islands in 2006, Japan declined.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

The status of the Kurils is what it is. Russia is not giving it up any time soon, and Japan is not taking it back by force any time soon. Calling out treaty-breaking at end of WWII seems specious when ignoring that it was Japan's treaty-breaking that started it all.

And Japan paid for it by returning them. We're talking about the Soviets now so please dispense with this brutality pi$$ing contest.

Zichi,

Again with the unsubstantiated numbers. Can you stick with the subject at hand or is this a sign of you waving a white flag?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

texasdaddy:

And who is arguing for Okinawan independence from Japan? And of what relevance is your comment to the southern kuriles?

And which person, living in the Southern Kuriles, is asking for the islands to go back to Japan? The people in Okinawa hardly speak their own language anymore, have been lumbered with the US military and their prefecture is still one of the poorest, if not the poorest. They deserve more if they're to be treated as part of Japan - but then again we all know how they were treated during the war.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

And which person, living in the Southern Kuriles, is asking for the islands to go back to Japan? The people in Okinawa hardly speak their own language anymore, have been lumbered with the US military and their prefecture is still one of the poorest, if not the poorest. They deserve more if they're to be treated as part of Japan - but then again we all know how they were treated during the war.

The latter is called assimilation and I don't see any independence movement. Their was a candidate for Okinawa governor who called for independence but got less than 1% vote. As to the former, you do realize that the Soviets kicked out the Japanese residing there and forced immobilized her citizens to move there?

So no. Your analogy is way out in left field.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

zichiAug. 14, 2014 - 06:44AM JST On the neutrality pact between Japan and Russia, the right-whiners who have constantly mentioned it also failed to >inform us that in the pact, Article 3, both Japan and Russia had the right to denounce the pact one year before it was >due to end, so "On April 5, 1945 the Soviet Union denounced the pact, informing the Japanese government that "in accordance with Article Three of the above mentioned pact, which envisaged the right of denunciation one year before the lapse of the five-year period of operation of the pact, the Soviet Government hereby makes known to the Government of Japan its wish to denounce the pact of April 13, 1941." Six hours later, the Soviet Union were at war with Japan and invaded Manchuria.

You don't understand contract wording, do you? Article 3 states that unless one of the parties denounces the pact at least one year prior to the 5 year termination (Aoril 13, 1946) the Pact will automatically renew for another 5 years. When the USSR denounced the pact on April5, 1945 all it did was give notice that the current pact would expire on April 13, 1946 and would NOT automatically renew. In other words when the Soviets commenced war against Japan on April 27, 1945 they unilaterally broke the terms of the Pact,

"The Soviet Union invaded the Southern half of Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands before Japan surrendered. Soviets troops arrived in the Kurils on Aug 18, 1945."

Japan surrendered on Sept 2, 1945.

Wrong, Japan declared acceptance of the Postdam declaration terms (ie;unconditional surrender) on August 14, 1945, All allied offensive operations ceased at that time. The USSR invaded the Southern Kuriles from August 18th to September 3, 1945. September 2, 1945 was the date of the Surrender Ceremony aboard the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay and signing of documents. Those who argue that the Soviets were justified in continuing their attack and invading Japanese territory on the grounds that the Surrender Ceremony was not until September 2nd are saying the equivalent of justifying the shooting of a criminal who has surrendered, dropped his weapon and in handcuffs, on the grounds that he hasn't been "booked and processed" at the police station yet,

While the right-whiners on this post think the history leading up to the surrender of the war by Japan, and the >involvement of the Soviet Union is irrelevant, I don't see how we can just leave out the history and jump to the final >days of the Second World War, which would seem something of an insult to all those brave souls who died fighting it?

You are completely wrong because the actions that the USSR took occurred AFTER Japan surrendered, Furthermore the USSR violated the terms of he Cairo agreement, Eve further they did not sign the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty so they had no authorization from any international body to take control of these islands. Anything else has nothing to do with this issue. The Allied powers were prohibited from taking "spoils of war" by their own decision- which the Soviets violated.

If Japan had not started a brutal war, and signing a death pact with Nazi Germany, which took the lives of more than >50 million, then the history today, for Japan would have been a different one.

How many people died is no more relevant to this dispute than the fact that Mao Tse Tung killed 25 to 100 million people.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Soviet Japan Neutrality Treaty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Japanese_Neutrality_Pact

Article two. Should one of the Contracting Parties become the object of hostilities on the part of one or several third powers, the other Contracting Party will observe neutrality throughout the duration of the conflict.

Soviet Union was at war with Germany since June 1941, and Japan was not neutral to Germany in that it provided weapons for Germany which was prohibited by the Hague Convention on Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land (Hague V) or the Hague Convention on Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War (Hague XIII). http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague05.asp, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague13.asp

This breach of neutrality of Japanese side can be the grounds for denunciation of the pact.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

OssanAmerica,

But it was Japan which was the first to break the neutrality pact with the Soviet Union by siding with Nazi Germany which was at war with the Soviet Union. It was Japan which didn't remain neutral but both you and nigelboy are ignoring the facts. The Soviet Union entered the Kirils before Japan signed the surrender. The fact remains, that first the Soviet Union and now Russia occupy and control the northern islands and it seems Japan is unable to do anything about that except maybe seek the best solution and move on.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Japan signed the instrument of surrender on September 2, 1945, a mere formality when Kanto Army (Otozo Yamada), on August 18th requested a cease fire but the Soviet unit lead by Mikhaylovich Vasilevsky rejected and informed that they will keep on fighting.

That's because a "cease-fire" is very different from a surrender. In a "cease-fire", both sides stop firing but keep their weapons, the parts of territory they retain ... etc. Surrender means you throw yourself at the mercy of the victor, immediately hand over your weapons, and let them free reign into the part you still control.

This failure to understand what surrender really means has led to a certain number of Japanese books singing the praises of Japanese troops which continued resisting.

Japan declared acceptance of the Postdam declaration terms (ie;unconditional surrender) on August 14, 1945,

Very well. Japan surrendered. Now, here's the problem though, Ossan. After this surrender, Japanese here and there continued resisting the Soviets in as much as brigade and divisional strength. So if you say Japan surrender ... Japan broke its surrender. Read: Treachery.

That the Russians are "continuing their attack" indicates that Japanese were defending, something they are NOT supposed to do after surrender. After surrender, you put all your weapons down, your hands up, and await the victor's occupying troops, and you grin and bear with whatever they do.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

zichi:Putin offered to return two of the islands in 2006, Japan declined.

The only source of information regarding that so-called offer was from Moscow. There is no proof that this was offered. There is also no proof that the Russians would have kept the promise to return two of the islands to Japan without asking for something that it knows Japan will not give them, like abrogating the Security Alliance with the US

1 ( +1 / -0 )

As with any territorial dispute, this discussion can go on ad infinitum.

The obvious fact is that Russia currently holds the islands and apparently intends to keep them.

Perhaps Japan could buy them back.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

zichiAug. 14, 2014 - 01:54PM JST OssanAmerica, But it was Japan which was the first to break the neutrality pact with the Soviet Union by siding with Nazi Germany >which was at war with the Soviet Union. It was Japan which didn't remain neutral but both you and nigelboy are >ignoring the facts.

OK, show us the following two and I will accept your argument, (1) Which article in the Russo-Japanese Non-Aggression Pact stipulated that neither party may "side" with any country that is hostile to the other? (2) Where does it state that "siding" with an enemy of the other country automatically negates ad terminates the Pact? (3) Please least the Japanese offensives carried out against the USSR between April 13, 1941 and Aug 14, 1945. Surely if Japan had "broken the neutrality pact" as you claim, they would have attacked the USSR right? If you can not answer these questions, then it is YOU zichi who is ignoring the facts.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

That's because a "cease-fire" is very different from a surrender. In a "cease-fire", both sides stop firing but keep their weapons, the parts of territory they retain ... etc. Surrender means you throw yourself at the mercy of the victor, immediately hand over your weapons, and let them free reign into the part you still control.

No. "Surrender" in a situation like Manchuria where there already exists a substiantial amount of forces in at that time, an established territory of Japan where several hundred thousand troops and residents there require a "cease fire" first, then the negotiation in steps to disarmament for it's stupid to assume that the opponents got the same instructions considering the fact that the opposition was mobilizing her military units in masses.

As for the islands, there is no 'gray area'. This is simply looting.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Burning Bush:As with any territorial dispute, this discussion can go on ad infinitum. The obvious fact is that Russia currently holds the islands and apparently intends to keep them. Perhaps Japan could buy them back.

Japan offered to buy them back, but the illegal occupiers in Moscow refused

0 ( +0 / -0 )

unfortunaelt the return of those islands is a long way off, concessions toward Russia has basically tripled since those sanctions started. Japan will end up paying for the economic losses that the sanctions cost Russia, and interest. Putin has Japan by the nads on this topic

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Kazuaki ShimazakiAug. 14, 2014 - 02:28PM JST Japan signed the instrument of surrender on September 2, 1945, a mere formality when Kanto Army (Otozo Yamada), >on August 18th requested a cease fire but the Soviet unit lead by Mikhaylovich Vasilevsky rejected and informed that >they will keep on fighting.

Japan surrendered by accepting the Potsdam Agreement terms (ie; unconditional ) on Augst 14th. On August 15th the Emperor gave the famous "Gyokuon Housou" to the entire nation of Japan including it's military forces within and without Japan. No allied actions against Japan were taken after this declared surrender. By August 28th the first Allied troops had entered Japan proper. That the Red Army unit rejected the Kanto Army's request for a cease fire, an unavoidable first step in the surrender process, only goes to show the utter disregard the Soviets had for the rules of war.

That's because a "cease-fire" is very different from a surrender. In a "cease-fire", both sides stop firing but keep their >weapons, the parts of territory they retain ... etc. Surrender means you throw yourself at the mercy of the victor, >immediately hand over your weapons, and let them free reign into the part you still control.

Ridiculous. No surrender process occurs without a cease-fire first. How can you conduct a surrender in the middle of a firefight?

This failure to understand what surrender really means has led to a certain number of Japanese books singing the >praises of Japanese troops which continued resisting.

I do not believe that is the reason. The IJA was filled with "fanatics" who believed absolutely without a shadow of a doubt that the Great Japanese Empire could not lose. Many officers failed to accept their superiors orders to cease hostilities, so,me refusing to accept the Gyokuon Housou as being the "Tennou" his godship himself. There were incidents whereby some Japanese officers and heir men had to be stopped at gunpoint by their superiors and other IJA troops from their desire to continue to fight. Look at some of the former IJA members who were repatriated from the PI and other islands decades after WWII ended. They had "heard" that Japan surrendered but didn't believe it.

"Japan declared acceptance of the Postdam declaration terms (ie;unconditional surrender) on August 14, 1945,"

Very well. Japan surrendered. Now, here's the problem though, Ossan. After this surrender, Japanese here and there >continued resisting the Soviets in as much as brigade and divisional strength. So if you say Japan surrender ... Japan >broke its surrender. Read: Treachery.

You contradict yourself. You stated that the IJA Kanto Army requested a ceasefire, the first step to surrender, on Aug 18th but that the Soviet Red Army rejected it. The soviets deliberately put the IJA into a positon whereby they could NOT put down their arms least they simply got shot. How is this "treachery" on the part of the IJA? It is obviously treachery on the part of he Soviet Red Army who couldn't give a rat's rearend about rules of war or surrender since their objective was to invade Japanese territory and take as much as they could as "spoils of war". Their goal then was Japan itself.

That the Russians are "continuing their attack" indicates that Japanese were defending, something they are NOT >supposed to do after surrender. After surrender, you put all your weapons down, your hands up, and await the victor's >occupying troops, and you grin and bear with whatever they do.

Again. a Cease-Fire is a necessary first step to a surrender process. The soviets deliberately rejected the Japanese request for a cease-fire so that a surrender could take place. Simply because they didn't want a Japanese surrender, they wanted Manchuria and ultimately Japan. Or at least as much as they could get of it despite US intervention.

The Soviet invasion of the Southern Kuriles starting from August 18th is clear evidence of their true intent.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

nigelboy

And Japan paid for it by returning them. We're talking about the Soviets now so please dispense with this brutality pi$$ing contest.

Japan was kicked out of Manchuria! They didn't "return" it! And returning isn't enough payment, do you think?

Japan took over a lot of territory exactly by breaking treaties, and ended or otherwise screwed up millions of lives doing it. And now they're saying "kindly observe the treaty and return our little islands".

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Japan was kicked out of Manchuria!

As a result of surrender.

They didn't "return" it!

Eventually, they did.

And returning isn't enough payment, do you think?

To the Soviets?

Japan took over a lot of territory exactly by breaking treaties, and ended or otherwise screwed up millions of lives doing it. And now they're saying "kindly observe the treaty and return our little islands".

Exactly. Japan did their part, you do yours. That was decided among the Allieds and many other nations who were signatories to the Treaty of Peace. It's the Soviets who decided to act counter to what was agreed by the majority, hence the condemnation.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

The Soviets didn't sign the San Francisco Treaty. Condemn all you want.

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

Of the 51 participating countries, 48 signed the treaty;[16] Czechoslovakia, Poland and the Soviet Union refused.[17]

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

The Soviets didn't sign the San Francisco Treaty. Condemn all you want.

I know. It's been covered already. Please do keep up.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Russia begins military exercises around Pacific islands also claimed by Japan

Manly man Putin must be angry since Japan slapped him with sanctions. So he has to play games.

Hey, I wonder if he will dress-up and play soldier again? Maybe this time he can make a new video of him beating up 5 or 6 soldiers at once? Or better yet, how about Putin dressing up and single handedly attacking an enemy force?

I get a hoot out of his "I'm manly" propaganda flicks, almost like he is trying to compensate with something he lacks or maybe for something he likes.

http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2011/09/vladimir-putin-action-man/100147/

But, don't get me wrong, I actually like Putin. I just wished he would tone it down a bit and work to improve Russia rather than try and reconquer the old Soviet Union.

nvna5ux02Aug. 15, 2014 - 05:34AM JST Putin does not like traitors. Abe has patronized Putin so much in the recent past, and now makes a 180 turn to sanction Russia. Putin does not like that.

A traitor, interesting, but Abe was at best friendly with Putin, Abe wasn't on Putin's team. But, that all ended when Putin decided to play the part of Stalin. If anyone has betrayed anyone it's Putin and his ambitions.

If Putin decides to be a friend again, then the world will give him a big hug, hell, they will even let him back into the G8.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

I know. It's been covered already. Please do keep up.

So if condemnation was going to get the islands back, Japan would have them back a long time ago.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Its called Karma.

Russian took some islands from Japan, Japan took some islands from China, and China is going to take a whole bunch of islands from Vietnam and Philippines.

That's how it goes.

Since when have treaties stop countries from invading and taking things from another? Japan most certainly didn't care when it was the aggressor and appeared to be winning. Peace Treaty? With the Russians? Even the Chinese will laugh at you. Look at Ukraine. Ask them how they feel right now and what NATO and US is doing to help.

I think Japan should be thankful that all it lost was 4 islands. Japan is lucky that the Soviets didn't take half of Japan and split Tokyo into two and shares it with US the German style.

I've always said Japan was the luckiest loser in WWII. You still had your country as a whole and benefited from taking a few islands away from the Chinese. Things could've been much worst. If US didn't drop those 2 A bombs on you and actually have to land troops on Japan's mainland, you're looking at North Japan and South Japan controlled by Russian and Americans respectively as we speak. And neither side will ever let good as Russia just acquired a bunch of pacific warm ports. And US has a foothold against Russia and China.

Just be thankful you are still intact. But I don't blame you from wanting to get those islands back. Every nation want to get back what they lost. Ask the Chinese, they sure know how you feel. Its fair to say that without Japan's aggression, you will still have those 4 northern islands and China will still have those uninhabited islands. Guess who the denominator is in both disputes?

So, just let it go. Its not like you have a growing population that depends on those islands.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

So if condemnation was going to get the islands back, Japan would have them back a long time ago.

True. As I stated before, Russia isn't ready to sign a peace treaty with Japan.

Does it really matter to Russia? Maybe it doesn't. Maybe Japan doesn't care either for Abe was quick to pull a trigger on the sanctions.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Does anyone here actually think that Russia will EVER return any of the islands back to Japan? Because this latest stunt from Moscow has me thinking that they wont

0 ( +0 / -0 )

OssanAmericaAug. 14, 2014 - 11:46PM JST

Read here. http://www.japantoday.com/category/politics/view/russia-begins-military-exercises-around-pacific-islands-also-claimed-by-japan#comment_1830179 To answer your questions.

(1) Which article in the Russo-Japanese Non-Aggression Pact stipulated that neither party may "side" with any country that is hostile to the other?

Article 2.

(2) Where does it state that "siding" with an enemy of the other country automatically negates ad terminates the Pact?

The obligations of a neutral country are written in the Hague 5 and Hague 13 conventions. The links are in my previous comment. A neutral country may not side with a belligerent country.

(3) Please least the Japanese offensives carried out against the USSR between April 13, 1941 and Aug 14, 1945.

The obligations of a neutral country are not limited to "not attacking". Siding with an enemy is breach of neutrality.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

OssanA Olgek you seem to be spouting an awful lot of Russian propaganda. Aka misinformation.

As you see I understand English a little - but US UK papers give only propaganda about Russia

Sorry

I have exact info 'cause I live here

Wrong. Japan did not "suddenly start a war". Multiple western nations including Russia and Japan had troops in China to quell the Boxer Rebellion in1900. Afterwards ....Japan offered to accept Russian control of Manchuria if Russia would accept Japanese control of the Korean Peninsula. Russia refused leading to hostilities.

There are a lot of political conflicts at that time

between British Empire and Russian Empire

between French Empire and German Empire

between Russian Empire and Austro-Hungarian Empire

between USA and British Empire

a LOT of political conflicts.

But to have a conflicts - is a one thing , to start a war by without prevention one beautiful morning - other thing

and sorry - Russia - not a Western nation - funny thing - today even Japan IS Western nation

Russian is NOT (like China or India) and proud of this !

Wrong, Japan declared acceptance of the Postdam declaration terms (ie;unconditional surrender) on August 14, 1945, All allied offensive operations ceased at that time. The USSR invaded the Southern Kuriles from August 18th to September 3, 1945. September 2, 1945 was the date of the Surrender Ceremony aboard the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay and signing of documents.

1 After 14 August and after 2 September US troops invaded in Japanese territory...

And took part of it away forever...

2 14 August Imperial Army NOT surrender before USSR

the battles continue till September...

3 Returning of Kuril islands was a condition of entering USSR in war against Japan

Y, Furthermore the USSR violated the terms of he Cairo agreement,

What do you means ?

Eve further they did not sign the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty so they had no authorization from any international body to take control of these islands.

USA does not mean "International" 1951 - this was during Cold War - declared to USSR - SO San Francisco (USA) Peace Treaty (not signed by Russia or China - this is "Internal" Western Peace Treaty with Japan)

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

@Ossan,

I think half the points you answered to were not from me per se, but the guy I was quoting. Anyway, the Cease Fire as a Buffer to Surrender is a common Japanese excuse, and it doesn't wash.

The cease fire is a "first-step" to surrender, but as you say, it isn't surrender itself, and in fact may not lead to it at all. You may remember that Japan's international reputation was at the bottom of the sea at that moment.

It isn't hard to surrender without a cease fire. Stop firing yourself. Throw your weapon out. Put up the white flag, with two hands, not one. Any hands that aren't holding white flags should be up where the enemy can see them. Now hope the enemy doesn't kill you.

Anyway, it is not hard to understand why the Soviets were not impressed, especially as brigades of Japanese troops fired on them. I have a book that's entirely about some random Japanese brigade stopping a Russian motorized rifle brigade (no tanks) from advancing down some road in Manchuria. This cannot be excused away by calling it a few fanatics.

No less a guy than Churchill said that surrender is by people that tried to kill you and failed. So accepting surrender is very much against human nature and the only reason to is because the side that surrender really stops resisting. Japan is urinating on that practice.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Kazuaki Shimazak The cease fire is a "first-step" to surrender, but as you say, it isn't surrender itself, and in fact may not lead to it at all. You may remember that Japan's international reputation was at the bottom of the sea at that moment. It isn't Anyway, it is not hard to understand why the Soviets were not impressed

So may be I can explain a little : from the end of 19 th sentury Japan took desicion to orient on Anglo-Saxon countries

And to be hostile toward Russia

It was a choice

So even during WW II - for Japanese US & UK were not so hostile like Russia

US&UK were competitors Russia was absolute alien and hostile country even in 1944-1945

when Japanese Empire was on the brink

US&UK - was and is - a " civilised world" where Japan pretend to be on the first roles

Russia was "bad guy" , outsider

So in August 1945 Japan was ready to surrender to US Army and Navy

But NOT to Red Army

It was a BIG difference

The same thing with German Wermacht - these guys easily surrendered to Western Allies in the spring of 1945

But even after 8 May 1945 they try to fight against Red Army (at some places)

Or trying to move to US &UK controlled zone by force

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Russia will never give up there islands, this is a great measure to contain down Japan. For the sack of this, Japan will lost these places for ever.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

If Putin will not return any of the islands to Japan, then he can kiss better relations with Japan goodbye

1 ( +1 / -0 )

So much disgust, shame and delusions in this topic. Have humility, this is one-way "war" here.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Daniel Naumoff: So much disgust, shame and delusions in this topic. Have humility, this is one-way "war" here.

Stick to the topic at hand please

0 ( +1 / -1 )

CH3CHOAug. 15, 2014 - 11:48AM JST OssanAmericaAug. 14, 2014 - 11:46PM JST Read here. http://www.japantoday.com/category/politics/view/russia-begins-military-exercises-around-pacific-islands->also-claimed-by-japan#comment_1830179 To answer your questions. (1) Which article in the Russo-Japanese Non-Aggression Pact stipulated that neither party may "side" with any country >that is hostile to the other? Article 2. 2) Where does it state that "siding" with an enemy of the other country automatically negates ad terminates the Pact? The obligations of a neutral country are written in the Hague 5 and Hague 13 conventions. The links are in my >previous comment. A neutral country may not side with a belligerent country. (3) Please least the Japanese offensives carried out against the USSR between April 13, 1941 and Aug 14, 1945. The obligations of a neutral country are not limited to "not attacking". Siding with an enemy is breach of neutrality.

The USSR itself did not invoke "Japan's violation of Article 2" as a cause to terminate the pact. The USSR pointed out the changes in alliances which has occurred since April 1941 making Article 2 untenable. What it did was to denounce the Pact in accordance with Article 3, ensuring that it would not renew for a further 5 year period.

"" Today at 3 p.m. People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs of the USSR Mr. V. M. Molotov, received the Japanese Ambassador, Mr. N. Sato, and made the following statement to him in the name of the Soviet Government:

'The neutrality pact between the Soviet Union and Japan was concluded on April 13, 1941, that is, before the attack of Germany on the USSR and before the outbreak of war between Japan on the one hand and England and the United States on the other. Since that time the situation has been basically altered. Germany has attacked the USSR, and Japan, ally of Germany, is aiding the latter in its war against the USSR. Furthermore Japan is waging a war with the USA and England, which are allies of the Soviet Union. In these circumstances the neutrality pact between Japan and the USSR has lost its sense, and the prolongation of that pact has become impossible. On the strength of the above and in accordance with Article Three of the above mentioned pact, which envisaged the right of denunciation one year before the lapse of the five-year period of operation of the pact, the Soviet Government hereby makes know [sic] to the Government of Japan its wish to denounce the pact of April 13, 1941"

Globally accepted history recognizes that just as Germany broke it's non-aggression pact with the USSR, the USSR broke it's non-aggression pact with Japan. At least outside of Russia. However this is merely a side issue. The USSR had every right to break it and act in accordance with the Allies. But it did not have the right to occupy territory for the purpose of gain, territory which was exempt from being taken away, and had never been Russian territory before.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

It would be good to remind Russia that Japan is not weak by having exercises of our own. The Self Defense Force is very good at protecting Japan from our foes. As for buying gas and oil from Russia say NO! Becoming dependent on them for our energy will lead them to use it as a weapon just like what they have done in Europe. As for their exercises I say "You may draw when ready pardner".

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The USSR itself did not invoke "Japan's violation of Article 2" as a cause to terminate the pact.

Interesting, Ossan. You don't deny that Japan has conducted sufficient acts to legitimately be a violation of Article 2, just that the Soviet Union decided not to bring it up. So maybe Molotov wasn't the best lawyer in the world (a mistake the Soviets fixed by making sure the Tokyo Trials mentioned violations of neutrality by Japan), but substantively it hardly means Japan did not violate and void the treaty.

But it did not have the right to occupy territory for the purpose of gain, territory which was exempt from being taken away, and had never been Russian territory before.

Please do remember that both Cairo and Potsdam Declaration were made without the Soviet Union. The "Three Great Allies" may 'covet no gain for themselves and have no thought of territorial expansion'. The other Great Ally might just think differently.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Kazuaki ShimazakiAug. 16, 2014 - 05:43AM JST "But it did not have the right to occupy territory for the purpose of gain, territory which was exempt from being taken away, and had never been Russian territory before."

Please do remember that both Cairo and Potsdam Declaration were made without the Soviet Union. The "Three Great >Allies" may 'covet no gain for themselves and have no thought of territorial expansion'. The other Great Ally might just >think differently.

Which is why the United States, UK and the European Parliament consider the 4 islands to be Japanese territory under Russian administration (read; occupation). You can argue till the cows come home but there is no country on the planet other than Russia that thinks they were justified in taking these four islands and deporting the inhabitants,

0 ( +3 / -3 )

The fact remains, whatever is said and stated, Russia are in occupation of the four northern islands and there's no way that Japan can use to get them back. If they are willing to hand back two of them, that would be better than zero, and if not, well then at least for the near future or while Putin remains in power, Japan will just have to grin and bear?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

zichi:The fact remains, whatever is said and stated, Russia are in occupation of the four northern islands and there's no way that Japan can use to get them back. If they are willing to hand back two of them, that would be better than zero, and if not, well then at least for the near future or while Putin remains in power, Japan will just have to grin and bear?

The problem is getting Putin to offer 2 of the islands without any conditions. But he can not be trusted to keep his word so any promises he makes are worthless

0 ( +1 / -1 )

That is fine with me, so there will not be a peace treaty. Second no fuel imports from Russia. Putin has chosen the path for Russia and they have to live with it. So it is come full circle, no northern territories no peace. Your war games do no scare the free people of Japan.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

FernandoUchiyamaAUG. 16, 2014 - 11:26AM JST

Second, Russia is enemy number one of US. Japan will never be in peace with the Russians while the US x Russia relationship stays broken as today.

Another way is possible if Japan will choose a certain independent political course.

YuriOtaniAUG. 16, 2014 - 11:35AM JST

That is fine with me, so there will not be a peace treaty. Second no fuel imports from Russia.

Are you ready to freeze and die of starvation just to follow political ideas imposed to current Japanese authorities by EU and USA ?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@YuriOtani, To me you are wrong. Japan and Russia must live together, do things for mutual benefit.

Shouldn't it be much better if both countries were friends? If people from both countries could share culture, go to bar to have some drink, do business together and learn to enjoy life in a better way?

Japan is so big economically. It is very said it don't have enough political influence to spread wealth and good things to East Asia.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

alex, we can buy our fossil fuels from other countries and restart the atomic plants. Second we can trade with the USA which has lots of food.

Fernando the Russians are making threats against Japan. I do not see a way toward peace. As for having a drink with them ah no, would rather have a drink with a "censored".

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@FernandoUchiyamaAUG. 16, 2014 - 11:54AM JST

Shouldn't it be much better if both countries were friends? If people from both countries could share culture, go to bar to have some drink, do business together and learn to enjoy life in a better way?

Couldn't agree with you more. Close neighbours MUST live in peace, making trade relations longer and stronger, day by day. While watching news or reading papers, I have never seen any hostility from Russians to Japanese . And at the same time China and South Korea condemn almost every step of Japan. The USA use Japan as a sort of political tool while protecting US interest in the region.

@YuriOtaniAUG. 16, 2014 - 12:43PM JST

we can buy our fossil fuels from other countries and restart the atomic plants. Second we can trade with the USA which has lots of food.

Could you elaborate exactly, for what reason? You have a close neighbour who has never said anything bad about visits of Japanese politicians into Yasukuni Shrine or "comfort women" issue and you are going to break all relations. "The Russians are making threats against Japan.", you said. Which "threats", could you explain? Besides, I think buying fossil or food from the USA will be too much expensive for you. Prove me wrong, please.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

YuriOtani

so you actually hate the Russians more than the Americans but you hate the Chinese and Koreans most of all? Besides occupying the four northern islands what has Russia done against Japan?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The fact remains, whatever is said and stated, Russia are in occupation of the four northern islands and there's no way that Japan can use to get them back. If they are willing to hand back two of them, that would be better than zero, and if not, well then at least for the near future or while Putin remains in power, Japan will just have to grin and bear?

No Zichi. The fact remains that the Japanese government (Honne) doesn't really care about getting the islands back or signing a long overdue peace treaty with Russia. As stated before, the fact that they had broken a treaty in the past is a very reason why they want a 'deposit' from Russia to make sure that they don't pull this stunt again. If Russia is not prepared to get their ego's hurt, then so be it. Japanese government has no problem pulling a trigger on sanctions when their allies decides to do so.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

nigelboy

As stated before, the fact that they had broken a treaty in the past

A treaty it would seem which was also broken by Japan according to CH3CH0

http://www.japantoday.com/category/politics/view/russia-begins-military-exercises-around-pacific-islands-also-claimed-by-japan#comment_1830775

2 ( +4 / -2 )

A treaty it would seem which was also broken by Japan according to CH3C

I disagree. The mere fact that the Soviets NEVER addressed this alleged 'assistance' to Germany to the Japanese Consulate in Moscow proves it. This is also supported by FM Motolov's statement as per Ossan's post above which NEVER touches this accusation.

Stop relying on others to help your lost cause. It's pathetic.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

You might remember, Nigelboy, that for four years the Soviet Union was busy fighting Germany and so it is reasonable that they decide to not try to give any reason for the Japanese to turn their more subtle support into a full blown attack using the remaining Japanese formations in the Kwantung Army.

And Nigelboy, if you broke your word, you broke your word. You don't "not break the law" just because the other person didn't explicitly accuse you of it. The Tokyo Trials recognized this fact of life.

Japanese government has no problem pulling a trigger on sanctions when their allies decides to do so.

You mean Ally (one). Or can you really name a close ally of Japan in Europe? Anybody willing to send even a squadron of fighters to help if the Chinese make their move? I don't think so.

And that one Ally is arguably a Protector, which makes it hard for the Japanese government to refuse the request.

Except it is still dumb for Japan to do so because while Europe only loses a bit of trade by antagonizing Russia, Japan is making a decision on whether it has to guard its northern front. This one move meant Japan has to guard twice as much borderline.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

YuriOtani: That is fine with me, so there will not be a peace treaty. Second no fuel imports from Russia. Putin has chosen the path for Russia and they have to live with it. So it is come full circle, no northern territories no peace. Your war games do no scare the free people of Japan

Well said my friend. Japan should also scrap the easy entry into Japan for the Russians who occupy the Northern Territories. Japan should also hold "training excersises" on Hokkaido's Nemuro Peninsula; let's see how those barbarians in Moscow like that

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Jay Wilson AUG. 16, 2014 - 05:21PM JST

Japan should also scrap the easy entry into Japan for the Russians who occupy the Northern Territories. Japan should also hold "training excersises" on Hokkaido's Nemuro Peninsula; let's see how those barbarians in Moscow like that.

Correct me if I am wrong but "training exercises" of SDF would hardly impress anyone. They weren't organized to seize any large parts of foreign land. As for relations of Japanese to neighbors, they should stop all relations with real barbarians who bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki by most brutal weapon of mass destruction.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

You might remember, Nigelboy, that for four years the Soviet Union was busy fighting Germany and so it is reasonable that they decide to not try to give any reason for the Japanese to turn their more subtle support into a full blown attack using the remaining Japanese formations in the Kwantung Army.

And Nigelboy, if you broke your word, you broke your word. You don't "not break the law" just because the other person didn't explicitly accuse you of it. The Tokyo Trials recognized this fact of life

I don't think it's "reasonable" at all. You keep this 'Tokyo Trial' as some sort of evidence but what exactly is it?

.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Kazuaki ShimazakiAug. 16, 2014 - 04:58PM JST "Japanese government has no problem pulling a trigger on sanctions when their allies decides to do so." You mean Ally (one). Or can you really name a close ally of Japan in Europe? Anybody willing to send even a >squadron of fighters to help if the Chinese make their move? I don't think so.

I think you are mot thinking hard enough, If China actually takes an action which invokes Article 5 of the US-Japan Mutual Defense Treaty, watch what happens. You ignore the fact much of the world is connected by strategic alliances, both bilateral and collective and that the United States leads most of them., In other words, if China actually started a war with Japan, the US would be involved. If the US is involved so is Australia. If Australia is involved so is UK, If UK is involved so is NATO, It s no joke that China "starting a war" could conceivably have the entire democratic world against them.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

zichi I do not hate Americans but like the Russians are very frustrating. Do not hate Peoples Republic of China or Republic of Korea as well. I do find them both rude and overbearing. It is hard to be friends with people that hate you because of your birth country.

Now the Russians are having military exercises not far from Japan. There has to be a message of threat to Japan. After all they can be done in so many places and could be practice for landing troops inside Japan. Then add the TU-142 flights and a pattern emerges. The flights are done to measure the SDF response time to the incident. It also watches how it is responded thus allowing a knowledge if and when the attack is real.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@YuriOtaniAUG. 17, 2014 - 05:10AM JST

Now the Russians are having military exercises not far from Japan. There has to be a message of threat to Japan.

If they were having military exercises on their territory, it does not mean a threat to neighbours. Rather it was about defence of their territory in case of possible invasion.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

alex rockstone: Correct me if I am wrong but "training exercises" of SDF would hardly impress anyone. They weren't organized to seize any large parts of foreign land. As for relations of Japanese to neighbors, they should stop all relations with real barbarians who bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki by most brutal weapon of mass destruction.

If it were not for the Americans, then Stalin would have stolen part of Hokkaido proper or maybee even all of it. And still no one here can show me not one SHRED of proof of this so-called ''offer' by Moscow to return two of the STOLEN and ILLEGALLY occupied Japanese islands back to their rightful owners.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@ Jay WilsonAUG. 17, 2014 - 06:20AM JST

If it were not for the Americans, then Stalin would have stolen part of Hokkaido proper or maybee even all of it.

The key word is "would". I'd prefer to see facts instead of baseless assumptions. Sorry. There were not any reasons for Stalin to invade Hokkaido. If you think that Stalin was afraid of "mighty Americans" and therefore refused to go in Hokkaido, please, tell why "mighty Americans" didn't stop Soviets on Sakhalin and Kuriles.

And still no one here can show me not one SHRED of proof of this so-called ''offer' by Moscow to return two of the STOLEN and ILLEGALLY occupied Japanese islands back to their rightful owners.

Hmmm.... you need to read historical articles and you'll get all proofs. Soviets fought Imperial Japanese Army for Kuriles as well as they fought Japanese Army for Northern China. In short, the islands were seized in a battle. The very term "stolen land" may be applied to historical territory of American Natives, not to Kuriles.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

If China actually takes an action which invokes Article 5 of the US-Japan Mutual Defense Treaty, watch what happens.

Ironically Ossan, even Article 5 of the Treaty gives the US plenty of room to not get involved in a fight it doesn't want to. Remember the bit about Constitutional provisions and processes? Now, technically, to go to war the US Executive must get the legislature (Congress) approval. Now normally the US executive steers around such rules any way it can ... but obviously if the US doesn't want to get in a fight, it is all too easy to suddenly find a need to follow the rules.

As for Australia, what are you using? The ANZUS Treaty? Maybe if we can get the Chinese to mistakenly attack a US vessel or similar first. But suppose that doesn't happen. Then the US is not really the victim of an "armed attack", is it? If anything, it chose to attack the Chinese. Supposing we somehow get past this, there is (again) that Constitutional bit that can jam the works to infinity.

Now, how are you going to link Australia and UK?

@Nigelboy

I don't think it's "reasonable" at all. You keep this 'Tokyo Trial' as some sort of evidence but what exactly is it?

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/PTO/IMTFE/IMTFE-6.html

And yes, Japan agreed to accept this Tribunal's judgment in the San Francisco Treaty. Which means nodding to the line:

It has certainly been established that the Neutrality Pact was entered into without candour and as a device to advance Japan's aggressive intentions against the U.S.S.R.

@Yuri

Now the Russians are having military exercises not far from Japan. There has to be a message of threat to Japan.

Yuri, Japan is right next to Russia. As soon as a Russian plane takes off and flies a bit, even just to the sea, it is getting close to Japan.

@night knight

Sorry. There were not any reasons for Stalin to invade Hokkaido. If you think that Stalin was afraid of "mighty Americans" and therefore refused to go in Hokkaido, please, tell why "mighty Americans" didn't stop Soviets on Sakhalin and Kuriles.

Actually, there will be substantial advantages to Russia if it got Hokkaido. Another chunk of population in a relatively undevastated zone. It would also be a nice port that's far less trapped than Vladivostok and far more robust than Petropavlovsk. I'd grab it if I could.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

And yes, Japan agreed to accept this Tribunal's judgment in the San Francisco Treaty. Which means nodding to the line:

I know Japan accepted the judgment of the tribunals where the Allieds were the judge, jury and executioner but it seems as though you are hiding from the question which is "at anytime did the Soviets convey their displeasure in regards to the possible violation of the Neutrality Pact to the Japanese Consulate in Moscow?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

The Russians made a significant contribution to the surrender of Japanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Manchuria. Contrary to what western propaganda would have believe, the atomic bombs were not enough to persuade Japan to surrender. The Japanese understood the willingness of the Russians to invade the Japanese islands at whatever price with the same savagery as they themselves employed in their conquests in Asia. Imagine the effect of Russian brutality (think of the Russians in Berlin) on Japanese culture and society. Japan got off very lightly with only the loss of a few islands.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Kazuaki Shimazaki the distance from the nearest Russian Airfield is more than enough. The planes Russia sends are on a mission and not "innocent passage". Suguest you look at Google Earth. As for Russia taking Hokkaido, well come and get it.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I know Japan accepted the judgment of the tribunals where the Allieds were the judge, jury and executioner but it seems as though you are hiding from the question which is "at anytime did the Soviets convey their displeasure in regards to the possible violation of the Neutrality Pact to the Japanese Consulate in Moscow?

First, there is no possible.

Sometimes, whether a treaty is violated is debatable. For example, the Soviets built a site that had the technical potential to be used as a ABM radar in Krasnoyarsk (but they say the purpose is different). Or the Soviets decided to follow the US (Marine Corps) example and shuffled a few divisions towards the Naval Infantry so they won't be covered under CFE. In such cases, it is appropriate to jaw-jaw first.

However, unless you really think the entire Kan-Tokuen or the seizure of Soviet merchant ships is not a violation of neutrality, then there is little to debate about whether Article 2 was violated and in a gross manner.

Second, I plead nolo contendere to the idea that the Soviets did not file a diplomatic protest. Nevertheless, I do not see this as very important. The Japanese broke the rules. The Soviets decided not to make a fuss of it while they are fighting Germany. When they are done, they decided to take advantage. The world (even the West, which by then was growing increasingly anti-Soviet) agreed this is legitimate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sometimes, whether a treaty is violated is debatable. For example, the Soviets built a site that had the technical potential to be used as a ABM radar in Krasnoyarsk (but they say the purpose is different). Or the Soviets decided to follow the US (Marine Corps) example and shuffled a few divisions towards the Naval Infantry so they won't be covered under CFE. In such cases, it is appropriate to jaw-jaw first.

That's why I'm debating. What you and basically the Tokyo trials offered are, in essence, "let's dissect the actions of Japan that may have breached the pact" after the fact when Japan had surrendered and were at the mercy of the Allieds.

However, unless you really think the entire Kan-Tokuen or the seizure of Soviet merchant ships is not a violation of neutrality, then there is little to debate about whether Article 2 was violated and in a gross manner.

Simulation exercises nor seizure of merchant ships based on possible violation of commerce rules does not constitute violation of Article 2. Again, why was not this addressed to the Japanese consulate?

Second, I plead nolo contendere to the idea that the Soviets did not file a diplomatic protest. Nevertheless, I do not see this as very important. The Japanese broke the rules. The Soviets decided not to make a fuss of it while they are fighting Germany. When they are done, they decided to take advantage. The world (even the West, which by then was growing increasingly anti-Soviet) agreed this is legitimate.

It is important for if this was a normal court case with neutral judges, the defense could easily claim "Look your honor! There is no violation to the agreement because even the plaintiff didn't bother to file a complaint.!!"

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@Kazuaki ShimazakiAUG. 17, 2014 - 10:48AM JST

Actually, there will be substantial advantages to Russia if it got Hokkaido.

Please, pay attention to a certain important detail of Soviet offensive operations on Far East. Soviets fought Imperial Japanese Army, not japanese civilian population as Americans did at that time. You know that units of Imperial Japanese Army were deployed on Kuril islands and in Manchuria. Soviets attacked Japanese forces having a main goal to defeat a military machine of Japan. They had no intention to make japanese population as bloody enemies of Russians. Therefore, Stalin had no any reasons to invade Hokkaido. Stories like "some American general warned Russians not to go further" belong to sphere of stupid myths.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

night knight:Hmmm.... you need to read historical articles and you'll get all proofs.

And where is this proof? Can you show it to me; of course you can't because there is NONE

1 ( +1 / -0 )

According to Mr Sato Masaru, an ex diplomat dubbed Japanese Rasputin, the Japanese Foreign Ministry is getting tired of being caught in dilemma between Russia and the US who may glower if Japan proceeds with the Norther territory issues and gas pipeline project off Sakhalin particularly when the Ukrainian situation is so acute. The Foreign Ministry may well jump and bite at the Russian military drill which Russia had decided to do more than six months ago as an ordinary small scale exercise so that they (the J-Foreign Ministry) may look compelled to defer progression with Russian agenda. He suggests however that Putin still sends signals by delisting Japan from the list of countries to lay under an import embargo.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Japan is not indefensible. There's no way it can stop an invasion of any kind. It can wage war but it would be invaded somewhere.

HEY!!! Where are all those complaints about American military? Oh wait.....I get it.....Japan could be stomped if left all alone. Look at what happened to Iraq when the Americans rolled out.

Japan: We better rethink our strategy.

America: Turns around and exposing a partial area of the buttocks. (Keep it real, tomodachi!!)

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Japan is not indefensible. There's no way it can stop an invasion of any kind. It can wage war but it would be invaded somewhere.

It depends on who is doing the invading. None of N. Korea, S. Korea or China have a navy even remotely near the strength of Japan's, so Japan could easily repel an attempted invasion from any of these countries.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Putin is, in my opinion, completely insane. But, that aside, if there are no Japanese living on the islands, and no ongoing gathering of resources from those islands by Japan, what the hell difference does it make?

Plus, it's not a good idea to piss off Russia these days. Putin has delusions of once again being a world power with himself at the helm, despite the fact that the country isn't there anymore and what is there seems to be slowly sinking into the sunset. They're starting to remind me a lot of North Korea.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

if there are no Japanese living on the islands, and no ongoing gathering of resources from those islands by Japan, what the hell difference does it make?

International law sets a country's territory based on it's land - in Japan's case, its islands. If the islands belong to Japan, it increases their territory, which in turn increases the available resources, even if they are not currently being used. So having the islands is attractive to both countries.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

A military drill has to be prearranged at least 6 months before. Even one year maybe. It is not something to be conducted suddenly anyway. If so, we better not jump at a conclusion and join the Western condemnation of Russia yet, although to do so might suit the convenience of some people. We better take note of the fact that Putin delisted Japan from the list of import embargo even though Medvedev had included Japan in it.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Strangerland It depends on who is doing the invading. None of N. Korea, S. Korea or China have a navy even remotely near the strength of Japan's, so Japan could easily repel an attempted invasion from any of these countries.

1 I don't think that any of these countries planning such invasion

2 Even now Chinese Air Forces and Navy bigger (but use not so modern weapons) comparing to Japanese

In ten years situation gonna change dramatically ....

3 To say the truth Russia need ally on the Far East

(Russian population and industry consentrated in Europe not in Asia )

USA is out if question by obvious reasons

China is good but TOO big

So Japan or Korea

Each option has its pros and cons

(and I'm serious because China Korea and Japan badly need Russian resourses

and Russia is a great military power )

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

No matter what happens, you all need to remember that Russia has no intention of returning the islands back to Japan. If they had any intention of returning two of them, then they would not be building infrastructure on Shikotan and letting more people move there. This is just an example of Russia's "screw Japan" attitude

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@Jay WilsonAUG. 18, 2014 - 05:56PM JST

This is just an example of Russia's "screw Japan" attitude.

You sound like a real spokeperson from U.S. State Department. Russians show their attitude to Japan by removing japanese consumer goods from ban list. U.S. and EU food and consumer good were and still are in that list, in response to western sanctions. Also Russians offered to Japan a joint venture, to build a gas pipe from Karafuto to Hokkaido. This is a real attitude, not U.S. propaganda !

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

night knight:You sound like a real spokeperson from U.S. State Department. Russians show their attitude to Japan by removing japanese consumer goods from ban list. U.S. and EU food and consumer good were and still are in that list, in response to western sanctions. Also Russians offered to Japan a joint venture, to build a gas pipe from Karafuto to Hokkaido. This is a real attitude, not U.S. propaganda !

So the Russians have removed Japanese consumer good from a ban list, this solve this dispute how? And as for this supposed pipeline from Sakhalin to Hokkaido, IF it exists, there will be conditions attached such as dropping this dispute or allowing the Russians who occupy the islands to enter Japan with no visas; again this does NOT solve the problem of the stolen and illegally occupied islands.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

That's why I'm debating. What you and basically the Tokyo trials offered are, in essence, "let's dissect the actions of Japan that may have breached the pact" after the fact when Japan had surrendered and were at the mercy of the Allieds.

Actually, the Tokyo Trials ruled that the actions are indeed breaches. Which is not very hard, Nigelboy. If you are intellectually honest, you should recognize that there is no good, neutral reasons to stage a Kan-Tokuen and seizure of merchant ships that are not heading into Japanese jurisdiction given the circumstances.

Again, why was not this addressed to the Japanese consulate?

It makes no substantive difference, and only increases the risk that Japan would decide to use the divisions in Manchuria for an attack.

It is important for if this was a normal court case with neutral judges, the defense could easily claim "Look your honor! There is no violation to the agreement because even the plaintiff didn't bother to file a complaint.!!"

They might be able to try. The court, however, will not necessarily accept that argument, and one would expect neutral judges to take into consideration the circumstances (such as the plaintiff really, really not being able to risk offending the defense at that moment).

In any case, even if you worm out of it, you've only exploited a loophole in the legal process. It does not change the substantive fact of whether you had breached or not. If you breached and your lawyer managed to make your case pass through in court, you've successfully exploited the legal process. It doesn't mean you are right.

In any case, if we are to talk up the legal process - it has spoken. And Japan signed a treaty accepting the judgment. End of story.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Actually, the Tokyo Trials ruled that the actions are indeed breaches. Which is not very hard, Nigelboy. If you are intellectually honest, you should recognize that there is no good, neutral reasons to stage a Kan-Tokuen and seizure of merchant ships that are not heading into Japanese jurisdiction given the circumstances.

And you still haven't given me a convincing reason of any kind as to why this was not notified to the Japanese embassy in Moskow. I repeat, it appears the "reasoning" is "let's find something that may be interpreted as breach after the fact". Heck. You could very well state that Japan AIDED the Soviets and breached the alliance with Germany as a result of the neutrality pact for the Soviets were able to shift their forces Westward.

It makes no substantive difference, and only increases the risk that Japan would decide to use the divisions in Manchuria for an attack.

Of course it does. It goes to the heart of the argument.

They might be able to try. The court, however, will not necessarily accept that argument, and one would expect neutral judges to take into consideration the circumstances (such as the plaintiff really, really not being able to risk offending the defense at that moment).

??? Makes no sense at all. And I hate to break it to you but Japan did offer to settle this case via ICJ which the Soviets refused. There is a reason why U.S. as well as European Parliament recognizes the sovereignty of the islands belonging to Japan.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

All readers back on topic please.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Let me ask you all this; how would YOU solve this dispute?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How did Europeans from Russia come to posses territory so far out of Europe?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

ndwariga: How did Europeans from Russia come to posses territory so far out of Europe?

Russia took Siberia from a remnant of the Mongolian empire. Similar to colonization of the Americas, apparently (outnumbered but target peoples were fractured, had out-of-date military, etc.)

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

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

The Sibir Khanate was the northernmost Muslim state in recorded history. Its conquest by Yermak Timofeyevich in 1582 was the beginning of the Russian conquest of Siberia.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Let me ask you all this; how would YOU solve this dispute? What would you consider to be a fair settlement?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How did Europeans from Russia come to posses territory so far out of Europe?

The same ways some man from Italy (Colombo) came and posessed territory far out from Europe.

Your hypocrisy is anything but new. Everything you do is right and everything we do is wrong, that's your way of thinking.

And we're not Europeans. We're Asians, we're Scythians.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Stick to the topic at hand please Arthur Dumbolov

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

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