Talk:Kuril Islands dispute

Dubious; Russian POV?

The Pact had no provisions on denunciation before expiry. Its Article 3 provided either party can refrain from automatic renewal of another five years by notifying the other party one year before. Therefore, it remained effective until the original expiration date, 25 April 1946. 220.147.88.128 (talk) 11:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Access to Sea of Okhotsk

There is a gap of at least 40 miles between the islands of Shiashkotan and Raikoke. Hence, the gap is wide enough so that there is an international waters corridor allowing access to the Sea of Okhotsk. Therefore, I don't see how giving Japan control of the 4 islands in dispute would reduce Russia's ability to control the access of foreign vessels to the Sea of Okhotsk. Russia cannot control that international waters corridor. Banana Republic (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Maybe, but if you want to chang this prase, bring another rs. Also, the corridor will be wider - so, ability reduced. --Smeagol 17 (talk) 09:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Japan has no right to claim Iturup and Kunashir

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The Japanese prime minister at the 1951 treaty put his foot in his mouth and referred to these two islands as the Southern Kurils. He signed that treaty, which prevents Japan from claiming the Kurils. Southern Kurils is, logically, part of the Kurils. So Japan has no legal basis to claim Iturup and Kunashir. Enough said.

69.166.123.87 (talk) 03:58, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It is irrelevant the San Francisco treaty does not recognize Sakhalin and Kurils as Russian land

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Russia considers them Russian land. No other country considers them their land (Japan included unless Japan withdraws from the treaty). It goes without saying. Sakhalin and Kurils are Russian land.

Therefore, I suggest deleting this part but it also does not recognize the Soviet Union's sovereignty over them.[4] from the article's lead section. It serves no purpose and has an anti Russia bias.

208.72.125.2 (talk) 15:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

You are commenting on an article literally about the dispute, and how Japan does claim parts of the Kuril Islands, so to assert that Japan doesn't claim them is false. It may be incongruous with their still being a party to the treaty, but that type of incongruity is hardly unique in international relations. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

If there is no objection I will remove the part but it also does not recognize the Soviet Union's sovereignty over them.[4] from the article's lead section. Russia claims it. No other country claims it (unless Japan withdraws from the treaty). It goes without saying. Kurils is Russian land. The treaty does not have to recognize Kurils as Russian land anymore than the treaty has to recognize the sky is blue and water is wet. -208.72.125.2 (talk) 14:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Again, Japan does claim at least some of the islands, hence this entire article on the dispute existing. You may find that in conflict with their being party to the treaty, but your personal opinion is not relevant. We have sources stating, contrary to your claim, that Japan does claim at least part of these islands. It is also a fact that the Treaty of San Francisco did not grant them to the Soviet Union, and therefore doesn't to Russia. I am reverting your removal. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

What does it matter if the San Francisco treaty does not grant Kurils to Russia? The treaty does not forbid Russia from claiming sovereignty over Kurils. The treaty prevents Japan from claiming sovereignty over Kurils. Russia claims sovereignty over Kurils. No other country does so. Unless some other country like Ukraine or Georgia which do not have peace treaty with Russia claims sovereignty over Kurils. It goes without saying, unless countries other than Russia claims sovereignty over Kurils, Kurils is Russian land according to San Francisco treaty even if the treaty does not explicitly state so. The treaty's purpose is not allowing Japan to claim Kurils. The treaty's purpose is not about forbidding Russia from claiming Kurils. Russia claiming Kurils or not has nothing to do with the treaty. Just as what color apples are or how big the moon is has nothing to do with the treaty. This article should only contain what is on the treaty, not what is not on the treaty. The treaty is not about Russia. The treaty is about Japan. So I am deleting the part in the lead which mentions the San Francisco treaty not granting Kurils to Russia. Regards.

208.72.125.2 (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@208.72.125.2: It matters because the Soviet Union was present but refused to sign the treaty. Several of the Kuril Islands were and are claimed by both Japan and the Soviet Union (now Russia), so it's an important clarification for this article in order to present all the facts. WHether you think it's relevant or not is actually irrelevant. Consensus is that it matters. Unless you can change consensus through a discussion, you may not change the article (as you've done now twice). Do it again and you will be blocked for being disruptive. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Treaty of San Francisco only mentions 1 country. Japan. It does not mention any other country. This treaty states Japan cannot claim Taiwan, Korea, Sakhalin, Kurils, Hong Kong, Antarctica. This treaty is all about Japan. This treaty has nothing to do with Russia anymore than it has to do with Fiji. By the time this treaty was signed in 1951, Sakhalin and Kurils were already annexed by Russia years ago. It goes without saying, Sakhalin and Kurils are Russian lands according to this treaty because when this treaty was signed, Russia claimed Sakhalin and Kurils and no other country did so. It goes without saying, this treaty implicitly recognizes Sakhalin and Kurils as Russian land. You cannot say, just because no treaty explicitly says Moscow is Russian land, therefore Moscow is not Russian land. As I said, this article should state what is on this treaty, not what is not on this treaty. So I am deleting the part in the lead which mentions the San Francisco treaty not granting Kurils to Russia. Regards. As for Japan claiming some of the Kuril islands. This is incorrect. Japan cannot claim any Kuril unless Japan withdraws from San Francisco treaty. Japan claims Iturup on the basis Japan does not consider Iturup a Kuril.

208.72.125.2 (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

This is not the place to debate the ins and outs of the treaty. You've had two different editors tell you that you are incorrect as to what should and should not be included in this article. If you want to debate what every sentence in a treaty means, go set up your own site or host an international forum to debate the issue. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Whatever floats your boat. You may edit it back. But I remind you. What you say is not logical. Not according to western logic. Regards. Saying San Francisco treaty does not grant Kurils as Russian land is the same as saying San Francisco treaty does not grant Moscow as Russian land. No treaty mentions Moscow as Russian land, so according to your logic Moscow is not Russian land.

208.72.125.2 (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It is redundant to mention the San Francisco treaty does not recognize Sakhalin and Kurils as Russian land

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

While the treaty does not explicitly say so, it implicitly does. When Japan signed the treaty in 1951, Sakhalin and Kurils were annexed by Russia back in 1946, so unless a country other than Russia lays claim to them, they are as Russian land as Moscow is Russian land. Here in the west every map colors Sakhalin and Kurils in Russian color, and I don't think there's any slight notion that any western country does not consider Sakhalin and Kurils as Russian land. So I suggest changing the following section in the lead:

The San Francisco Peace Treaty,[2] signed between the Allies and Japan in 1951, states that Japan must give up "all right, title and claim to the Kuril Islands",[3] but it also does not recognize the Soviet Union's sovereignty over them.[4]

to this:

The San Francisco Peace Treaty,[2] signed between the Allies and Japan in 1951, states that Japan must give up "all right, title and claim to the Kuril Islands".

For example, the treaty does not explicitly say Hong Kong is British land when Japan renounces claim to Hong Kong, yet it is taken for granted Hong Kong is British land since 1951 when Japan renounced claim to Hong Kong. And every map colors Hong Kong in British color since 1951 when Japan renounced claim to Hong Kong. So just because the treaty does not explicitly say Kurils is Russian land, that does not mean Kurils is not Russian land.

RusPow (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the United States deliberately designed the treaty to avoid acknowledging Soviet sovereignty over Kuriles in the case the USSR won't sign it: early drafts explicitly provided that Japan shall cede the islands to the USSR, but as it was became clear that USSR won't sign it (mostly due to China and Korea conflicts: USSR wanted for PRC and DPRK to be recognised as China and Korea respectively, while the US wanted to avoid that, hence neither PRC nor ROC, neither DPRK nor ROK were invited to SF Conference in 1951) the US dropped wording about cession of islands to the USSR. And this is exactly what happened, so was the immediate effect. The further effect is debatable, however. One interpretation (advanced by the US themselves during the Cold War to impede Japanese-Soviet negotiations of 1955-6, when Japanese government was apparently ready to recognise all Soviet territorial acquisitions of 1945 in exchange for regaining Shikotan and Habomais (Lesser Kuriles) promised by the USSR to be transferred to Japan after conclusion of the S-J peace treaty) was that the treaty forbade any recognition of Soviet sovereignty over any annexed territory because "if Japan gave better terms to Russia we could demand the same terms for ourselves" (albeit i cannot non-notice the fact that underlying claim of "the Kuriles and Ryukyus were handled in the same manner" is not so true: Kuriles were renounced, albeit ostentibly "in favor of nobody", while Ryukus, placed under trusteeship, were not among renounced territories), albeit, as Panov noted, both contemporary and subsequent practice (Japan recognition of China's - ROC in 1952 and PRC in 1972 - sovereignty of Taiwan, renounced by same art. 2 of the SFPT as the Kuriles) a bit undermines the claim that SFPT categorically forbade recognition of Soviet/Russian sovereignty over the Kuriles; Japan's recognition of Russian sovereignty over South Sakhalin by virtue of opening consulate in Yuzhnokurilsk is also seen as damaging SFPT-related argument that Soviet-annexed territories are of "undetermined status", see Hara, Kimie. Japanese-Soviet/Russian Relations since 1945: A Difficult Peace (1998). Others (such as Brown) consider the arrangement as transforming Kuriles into Terra nullius with open possibility for USSR/Russia to gain sovereignty independent of SFPT terms (by "solvents other than this treaty"), such as by virtue of long-term posession (via prescription (sovereignty transfer): as Russia posessed the territory and no other state laid claim to it, Russia hence acquired sovereignty) – and, as noted in the book, this was also a possibility expected by the US (see Sebald comments mentioned by Brown). Moreover, there is also a point by the same Brown that, while treaty "might be seen to damage the Russia's legal authority" it still leaves intact the renunciation, meaning that in any case Japan cannot claim Kuriles, a point also implied in Soviet/Russian references to SFPT) And finally, Soviet/Russian claim is that a) Yalta terms, postulating Soviet acquisiton of territories subsequently annexed in 1945 (South Sakhalin and Kuriles) take precedence over anything, due to article 107 ("Nothing in the present Charter shall invalidate or preclude action, in relation to any state which during the Second World War has been an enemy of any signatory to the present Charter, taken or authorized as a result of that war by the Governments having responsibility for such action.", which, as Brown noted, might be seen as creating Japan's legal obligation to recognise Soviet acquisition of certain Imperial Japan territories in 1945) of the UN Charter, and also b) that S-J Joint Declaration of 1956 also confirmed that sovereignty ("transfer" of [Soviet/Russian] Shikotan and Habomais, rather than "return" of [occupied] Shikotan and Habomais - see Brown, 143 and recent explicit comment by Russia on that matter). It can be argued endlessly over any interpretation of any treaty, incongruity and other stuff. But, regardless of any interpretation, reliable sources do note SFPT's vagueness on the Japanese renunciation of Kuriles. So it might (and apparentyl will, given that many sources note that, giving that too much weight to be overlooked) still remain in the lead, with details on implications should be leaved for body. We are not righting great wrong, we are reporting what RS say. See also replies above (in particular, section "It is irrelevant the San Francisco treaty does not recognize Sakhalin and Kurils as Russian land") Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 06:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Whatever the US's position was in the 1940s to 1960s during the Cold War is not relevant today. Today every country except Japan recognizes Iturup, Kunashir, Shikotan as Russian land. US foreign policy from decades ago should not be in the lead of the article. --RusPow (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I think you'd have an extremely difficult time proving that "every country except Japan recognizes Iturup, Kunashir, Shikotan as Russian land." That's simply not true. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The name of this article does not make sense

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As per terms of San Francisco treaty, because Japan lost war, Japan cannot claim Kurils. The only way Japan can claim Iturup, Shikotan, Kunashir is if Japan does not consider them Kurils. They say the Kurils were given to Japan in 1875 Saint Petersburg treaty in exchange for Sakhalin going to Russians, so according to Japan Kurils are Shumshu to Urup. In 1964 Japan renamed Iturup, Kunashir, Shikotan from Southern Kurils to Northern Territories so they can claim them without violating the terms of San Francisco treaty. So I suggest changing the name of the article to Russia Japan dispute. --RusPow (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Nope. The dispute covered in this article is over parts of the Kuril Islands. Hence, the name. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It seems Shinzo Abe does not want Iturup and Kunashir?

If they go with the 1956 Joint Declaration and sign a peace treaty (really a friendship treaty, since the war was ended by the 1956 Joint Declaration), the terms of the treaty would be neither country can claim land of the other. China and Russia signed such a treaty in the early 2000s which has the same terms too. What do you think? Should the article be changed to reflect Shinzo Abe not wanting Iturup and Kunashir?

--204.197.178.36 (talk) 22:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

You've not presented a source on Shinzo Abe saying anything at all. You haven't even presented a source of him talking about the 1956 Joint Declaration. So no. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 05:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

submarines

From Miller-Jordan, Modern Submarine Warfare, Tiger 1987, page 188

Above: soviet submarines leaving Vladivostock are forced to transit the Sea of Japan and the Kunashir Passage between Kunashir island and Hokkaido before they can reach the Pacific. This is one reason why the Soviets retain the Kurile Islands so tenaciously

Of course, today this is an old source and may be wrong. But if is true, it seems interesting to know why they must pass here and cannot use the northern passages.

pietro151.29.10.36 (talk) 17:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Utterly ridiculous. While the Pacific fleet HQ is at Vladivostok, most of the fleet especially the subs are based at Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky due to very easy unrestricted access to the Pacific and much milder climate due to warm currents. --204.197.178.125 (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky indeed, and certainly the subs can sail any of the archipelago straits in any direction. Apcbg (talk) 06:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

And they can always sail south near Korea to reach center of Pacific. They don't have to sail north to reach center of Pacific. --208.72.125.2 (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

thank to all you. pietro151.29.10.36 (talk) 06:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Does 1956 joint declaration still hold?

Considering USSR is long gone. Russia is successor of RSFSR, not USSR. My guess is the 1956 joint declaration is no longer valid. --208.72.125.2 (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

We need reliable sources, not anonymous guesses. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 05:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Why is the issue not settled at the International Court of Justice?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Considering the International Court of Justice has a history of dividing up the disputed territories and assigning part of them to one country and part of them to the other, it appears Iturup and Kunashir would go to Russia considering these are legit Kuril islands while Shikotan and Hamomai would go to Japan. It is possible this verdict is not acceptable to both countries. --45.58.89.29 (talk) 03:45, 21 January 2020 (UT)

Please read WP:NOTAFORUM: "article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article." Unless the thread relates to the article content, it should not be on the talk page. Meters (talk) 04:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Opinions of neighboring countries?

Other than Russia and Japan, I'm sure we all agree the other powers in East Asia are South Korea and China. Considering South Korea and China's hostility to Japan due to Japan's past invasions and atrocities, it isn't surprising South Korea and China blackmail Russia into not giving any island to Japan. Below is an article describing such blackmail. Opininions from regional countries other than Russia and Japan should be included in the article.

https://www.russia-briefing.com/news/kuril-islands-to-remain-russian-with-chinese-and-south-korean-support.html/

--206.176.144.115 (talk) 04:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact is a nonstarter

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Breaking the Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact was Russia's payback for Japan starting the 1904 Russia Japan war to grab South Sakhalin which Japan considered Japanese land due to Ainu inhabitation. An eye for an eye. A tooth for a tooth.

--208.72.125.2 (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

this statement under Japan's view section is incorrect

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Russia had not previously claimed the disputed islands since it began diplomatic relations with Japan in 1855. Therefore, the disputed islands could not be considered part of the territories acquired by Japan "by violence and greed".

Japan took these islands from Ainu in war. So they were acquired by Japan "by violence and greed".

No land is ever acquired by a country without blood. God created land for Man to fight over. Man has fought over land every day for the past 200,000+ years. --208.72.125.2 (talk) 15:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Japan was a major ally of Hitler and Nazi Germany

There is a biased opinion that Japan was not hostile toward USSR at all. Even though there is an undeniable fact Japan was a major ally of Hitler and Nazi Germany, which broke non-aggression pack and invaded USSR. Stop labeling it a vandalism and deleting it liars! Your lies won't last a second. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.139.37.238 (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I heard Russia is amending constitution to ban giving land to other countries

Does this mean Japan will never get back Kuril islands?206.176.149.134 (talk) 02:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

"you heard" is not a Reliable Source, additionally WP:FORUM

8th or 9th of May 1945?

The difference between the western date (8th of May) and the Soviet date (9th of May) stems from the fact that the surrender on the 8th of May was to the forces of UK and USA. Though meant as a surrender to all allied forces, the USSR demanded a surrender signed to the Red Army, which was done on the 9th of may 1945. Same time zone (Germany) for both events.

Therefore, I removed the wrong hint at time zones.

--Helmut w.k. (talk) 10:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Purchase of Alaska

How is it that the United States recognized the ownership of Alaska, therefore purchasing it, but did not recognize the Russian ownership of other territories? Russia saw land and just said, hey that is ours. It seemed to be the way things were done back then, regardless of people already living there. Why would the United States recognize their ownership of this land that was acquired by Russia when Russia acquired the Kuril Islands in the same manner? 75.146.19.5 (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)