Yevgeny Primakov or Russian art of demagogy
ichikawa
Here is an excerpt of the first press conference of Mr. Primakov,
freshly nominated Russian foreign minister:
... speaking on Russia's relations with Japan, Primakov admitted
outright that "the so-called territorial problem does exist",
referring to the two-states' old controversy over the ownership of
four southern Kurile islands.
"When one of the sides denied the presence of this problem, that
was not a very productive practice," he said. He recalled the similar
debate between Japan and China and called on Japan to "show wisdom" by
consenting, like in that debate, to "put off the issue until the
advent of successor generations and in the meantime develop the
relations to create the best conditions for the resolution of the
issue in the future."
He is referring to a territorial dispute between Japan and China about
Senkaku archipelago: the 2 countries have agreed to put aside that
problem in order to promote a good relationship between them and he
wants to do the same between Russia and Japan. But he is simply
ignoring the following fact:
surface of Senkaku archipelago is 6 km2 and populated only by sea
birds and snakes, while the territorial dispute between Russia and
Japan bears on a much larger area: surface of Kuril islands is 10,000
km2 and Sakhalin island, 80,000 km2. Before the WWII there were
400,000 Japanese living at the southern part of Sakhalin. So Mr.
Primakov, if you want really to promote a good relationship with
Japan, I advise you, first, to stop to tell the demagogy.
Sincerely Yours,
--
Please visit http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/flsoft
in order to learn more about the territorial dispute
between Russia and Japan.
s.dmitriev
>Dear readers,
>Before the WWII there were
>400,000 Japanese living at the southern part of Sakhalin. So Mr.
>Primakov, if you want really to promote a good relationship with
>Japan, I advise you, first, to stop to tell the demagogy.
Dear Mr Ichikawa,
Before Russo-Japanese war the island of Sakhalin had been Russian for
several centuries and hundreds of thousands of Russians lived there
(including its southern part). Therefore, the fact that there lived
some Japanese within the period of fourty years does not say much.
If not for American pressure, Russia will not give away its territorial
possessions in the Portsmouth treaty (1906) simply because Japan was
too exhausted by the war and would be quite satisfied by the Russian
concession of interests in Corea. If it was up to Witte, Japan would
receive nothing from Russian territories. However, after the war was
over Russia as a civilized state concluded a peace treaty with Japan
where it agreed to give these territories to Japan.
During Russian Civil War the Japanese military contingent in the Russian
East was much bigger than those of America or Britain. Japanese military
forces went deep into the Russian main-land and reached the region of
near-Baikal. They busied themselves with the plundering of local
population and mineral resources. Japanese forces were the last foreign
military contingent to leave the Russian soil - 1922, while the rest
(American, French, British, Italian etc.) did it already in 1919.
After Russo-Japanese war of 1945, won totally by Russia, Russia returned
its old lands (the four Curil islands and the southern part of
Sakhalin). However, despite the fact that Japan lost the war it did not
want to conclude peace treaty with Russia, though Russia did not claim
any genuinely Japanese lands. The fact that Japan did not want to
conclude such treaty with Russia remains the problem not of Russia but
of Japan because:
- in contrast with Russia in 1906 Japan in 1945 behaved in an
uncivilized manner without wishing to admit the reality,
- Russia will develop its Far East and Siberian lands with the help of
Corean, Taiwan, and Australian businesses which will get profits from
it while Japan will be settling its disputes with the US.
Therefore, "if you want really to promote a good relationship" with
Russia, it is better not to think about old Russian lands which you
took for fourty years and then had to return, but to promote mutually
benefitial cooperation till there is still place for Japan on the
Russian market.
The best.
ichikawa
>Dear Mr Ichikawa,
>Before Russo-Japanese war the island of Sakhalin had been Russian for
>several centuries and hundreds of thousands of Russians lived there
>(including its southern part). Therefore, the fact that there lived
>some Japanese within the period of fourty years does not say much.
Dear Mr. Dmitriev,
There are well known methods that have brought huge territorial
gains to Russia: terror and atrocity during a war period and
falsification and forgery of the history during a peace period in
order to consolidate the above gains. It seems that you haven't failed
in this Russian tradition.
Here is an excerpt of the timetable of ownership of Sakhalin until
1905 (cf. http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/flsoft). I wonder
where you have found the figure "several centuries".
Before 1855 (Shimoda's treaty), Sakhalin belonged totally to Japan.
From 1855 to 1875 (St Petersburg's treaty), Sakhalin was a
condominium between Russia and Japan.
From 1875 to 1905 (Portsmouth's treaty), Sakhalin belonged totally to
Russia. During this period, Russia operated a penal colony. Total
population was several thousands and not several hundreds of thousands
as you affirm. If you want to know more about Sakhalin at that period,
I advise you to read the Russian writer, Anton Chekhov's work, "trip
to Sakhalin", because he has been incarcerated there.
It should be also noted that it is the Japanese explorer, Mamiya
Rinzo who proved for the first time in 1808 that Sakhalin is an island
and not a peninsula as the westerns believed at that period.
If you held Sakhalin for centuries without knowing its insularity, you
were really crazy.
>If not for American pressure, Russia will not give away its territorial
>possessions in the Portsmouth treaty (1906) simply because Japan was
>too exhausted by the war and would be quite satisfied by the Russian
>concession of interests in Corea. If it was up to Witte, Japan would
>receive nothing from Russian territories. However, after the war was
>over Russia as a civilized state concluded a peace treaty with Japan
>where it agreed to give these territories to Japan.
Reading your posts, I feel that it would be Russia who has won the
war. You have to know that in the famous battle of Tsushima, Japan has
destroyed all Russian war ships, the second world largest fleet at
that period, so there remained no chance for Russians to invade Japan.
At the end of war, Japan had occupied the whole Sakhalin but under the
American's pressure, and also for the world peace, we withdrew the
army from the north Sakhalin. Tsar accepted to give up South Sakhalin,
by saying that Sakhalin had belonged to Russia not for a long time.
>During Russian Civil War the Japanese military contingent in the Russian
>East was much bigger than those of America or Britain. Japanese military
>forces went deep into the Russian main-land and reached the region of
>near-Baikal. They busied themselves with the plundering of local
>population and mineral resources. Japanese forces were the last foreign
>military contingent to leave the Russian soil - 1922, while the rest
>(American, French, British, Italian etc.) did it already in 1919.
You should remember that, contrary to the WWII, Germany was going to
win the WWI. After the surrender of Russia to Germany in 1918
(Brest-Litovsk's treaty), she was shifting the whole troop from the
East front to the West. Panicked, Great Britain and France pushed
Japan to send her troop deep into the Siberia in order to protect
Czech soldiers who had been just freed and were going to go to the
West front in Europe via Vladivostok. Japan has stayed longer than
other countries, because the Soviet government refused to endorse the
responsibility of the murder of 700 Japanese by Bolsheviks in the
prison of Nikolayevsk upon Amur, town located in South Siberia near
Sakhalin.
>After Russo-Japanese war of 1945, won totally by Russia, Russia returned
>its old lands (the four Curil islands and the southern part of
>Sakhalin). However, despite the fact that Japan lost the war it did not
>want to conclude peace treaty with Russia, though Russia did not claim
>any genuinely Japanese lands. The fact that Japan did not want to
>conclude such treaty with Russia remains the problem not of Russia but
>of Japan because:
>- in contrast with Russia in 1906 Japan in 1945 behaved in an
>uncivilized manner without wishing to admit the reality,
>- Russia will develop its Far East and Siberian lands with the help of
>Corean, Taiwan, and Australian businesses which will get profits from
>it while Japan will be settling its disputes with the US.
On August 8 1945, denouncing the pact of neutrality between two
countries, still valid at that time, Russia entered the war against
Japan. The Red Army crossed the 50th parallel, frontier between 2
countries in Sakhalin, and went down to the south. On August 15,
Japan accepted the declaration of Potsdam to end the war. Feared that
the cease-fire line becomes the definitive frontier (they advanced
only 100 km in Sakhalin and even worse no Russian in Kurils), they
continued to bombard Japanese towns and military positions, and even
prepared to invade Hokkaido. During this period, several thousand
civilians were killed by Russians. The worst case is the attack, by
Russian submarines, of the 3 Japanese ships transporting refugees from
Sakhalin and made 1700 victims. Finally they stopped to fight, on
August 22. Then, 600,000 Japanese, mostly soldiers from Sakhalin and
Manchuria have been brought to Siberia's labor camps and 60,000 among
them have never returned to the homeland.
If there is a need to criticize the war ethic, the problem should be
rather invoked at the Russian side. It should be also noted that South
Kurils had never belonged to Russia in any time of the history before
1945, so using the word "return" is a pure forgery.
>Therefore, "if you want really to promote a good relationship" with
>Russia, it is better not to think about old Russian lands which you
>took for fourty years and then had to return, but to promote mutually
>benefitial cooperation till there is still place for Japan on the
>Russian market.
>The best.
>
PRC (Mao Tse-Tung/Deng Xiaoping) always wanted to settle a military
alliance with Japan against Russia but we declined the offer in order
to safeguard the tranquility of the region and also we thought that
Russia should be stronger. But now the military balance is changing
quickly to the Chinese adventage.
Recent crisis of orphanage in China shows a great need of "Lebensraum"
for that country.
If Russia persists in annoying Japan (and also Baltic States and
Chechenia), we might accept the military corporation with China and it
should be really the end of Russia.
Sincerely Yours,
---
Mr Heikki M. Uusilehto
>1001...@compuserve.com (ichikawa) wrote:
>>Dear readers,
>>Before the WWII there were
>>400,000 Japanese living at the southern part of Sakhalin. So Mr.
>>Primakov, if you want really to promote a good relationship with
>>Japan, I advise you, first, to stop to tell the demagogy.
>Dear Mr Ichikawa,
>Before Russo-Japanese war the island of Sakhalin had been Russian for
>several centuries and hundreds of thousands of Russians lived there
>(including its southern part). Therefore, the fact that there lived
>some Japanese within the period of fourty years does not say much.
>If not for American pressure, Russia will not give away its territorial
>possessions in the Portsmouth treaty (1906) simply because Japan was
>too exhausted by the war and would be quite satisfied by the Russian
>concession of interests in Corea. If it was up to Witte, Japan would
>receive nothing from Russian territories. However, after the war was
>over Russia as a civilized state concluded a peace treaty with Japan
>where it agreed to give these territories to Japan.
>During Russian Civil War the Japanese military contingent in the Russian
>East was much bigger than those of America or Britain. Japanese military
>forces went deep into the Russian main-land and reached the region of
>near-Baikal. They busied themselves with the plundering of local
>population and mineral resources. Japanese forces were the last foreign
>military contingent to leave the Russian soil - 1922, while the rest
>(American, French, British, Italian etc.) did it already in 1919.
>After Russo-Japanese war of 1945, won totally by Russia, Russia returned
>its old lands (the four Curil islands and the southern part of
>Sakhalin). However, despite the fact that Japan lost the war it did not
>want to conclude peace treaty with Russia, though Russia did not claim
>any genuinely Japanese lands. The fact that Japan did not want to
>conclude such treaty with Russia remains the problem not of Russia but
>of Japan because:
>- in contrast with Russia in 1906 Japan in 1945 behaved in an
>uncivilized manner without wishing to admit the reality,
>- Russia will develop its Far East and Siberian lands with the help of
>Corean, Taiwan, and Australian businesses which will get profits from
>it while Japan will be settling its disputes with the US.
>Therefore, "if you want really to promote a good relationship" with
>Russia, it is better not to think about old Russian lands which you
>took for fourty years and then had to return, but to promote mutually
>benefitial cooperation till there is still place for Japan on the
>Russian market.
>The best.
>
If the long lasted possession is the argument for to own the land
there is no doubt who is the right owner of the territory (12% of
Finland) Soviet Union robbed from Finland in the WWII. Most of that
area has been inhabited by finnish people as far as one knows.
Finland got it's independence 1917. FINLAND made it's FIRST and ONLY
treaty on it's borders with Soviet Russia 1920, in Tartu. Earlier
treaties were between Russia and Sweden. That "Tartu peace" Soviet
Union broak down 1939 (the population of SU was about
150 million corresponding with 3,5 of Finland), League of Nations
sentenced Soviet Union and discharged it. The peace treaty after that
so callaed Winter War in Moscow 1940 was written "the knife on the
throat of Finland". The war 1941-1944 was continuation of the Winter
War. And the peace treaty after it took place same way as the
previous, ie."the knife on the throat of Finland".
So, is it right that Russia still occupies that stolen land?
Heikki M. Uusilehto
Allon Kesselman
>"s.dmitriev" <dmit...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>>Dear Mr Ichikawa,
>>Before Russo-Japanese war the island of Sakhalin had been Russian for
>>several centuries and hundreds of thousands of Russians lived there
>>(including its southern part). Therefore, the fact that there lived
>>some Japanese within the period of fourty years does not say much.
>Dear Mr. Dmitriev,
>There are well known methods that have brought huge territorial
>gains to Russia: terror and atrocity during a war period and
>falsification and forgery of the history during a peace period in
>order to consolidate the above gains. It seems that you haven't failed
>in this Russian tradition.
>If Russia persists in annoying Japan (and also Baltic States and
>Chechenia), we might accept the military corporation with China and it
>should be really the end of Russia.
>Sincerely Yours,
Dear Mr. Ichikawa,
I agree with you completely. As someone whose family was persecuted
by the Russians, I am very happy to see the Chechens frustrate them.
The way things are going there, I would say that they are very
vulnerable to a Chinese invasion. It could not happen to a more
deserving country, with the possible exception of North Korea or Iran.
Shimpei Yamashita
>Then, I have to make several remarks.
I feel rather stupid even bothering to refute this, but....
>Firstly, please make distinction between "Russian" and "Soviet". What do
>you mean by *huge territorial gains*? Siberia? It was very thinly
>populated. And, besides, your pathetic remarks about "atrocities" etc.
>have nothing to do with it. Let me remind you about Russian lands given
>by the Bolsheviks during the Soviet period to Kazakhstan and the
>Ukraine. It was really a huge territorial loss by Russia.
Of course, Kazakhstan and Ukraine were autonomous, freely ruled region
that just happened to go along with Russia for everything because the
folks in Kremlin were such nice people. I find it rather astonishing
that anyone older than seven actually buys this story. So what did
Bolsheviks lose in the process, anyway? Nothing. They ruled USSR, USSR
ruled Kazakh and Ukraine. To speak of this as a magnanimous act is
just a doublespeak.
>Secondly, what do you mean by *terror and atrocity during a war period*
>and *falsification and forgery of the history*. Think about Japanese
>treatment of Chinese or of Koreans. What *terror* and what *atrocities*
>and in what *war*? The Soviet Union was the main anti-Hitler force and
>saved the world from Nazism. After that, the Soviet Union urged by its
>Allies, destroyed Japanese Quantun Army which was, by the way, stationed
>in China, and thus secured the victory in the war against Japan.
>For *falsification and forgery of the history* look in Japanese books.
You forgot to mention "selective recording of history." The above
glowing account of Soviet's record against Japanese imperialism
conveniently forgets to document the fact that Japan and Soviet Union
actually had a non-aggression pact until August 1945, when USSR broke
it, invaded the already weakened Japanese-occupied territories and
took what it could before Japan surrendered. Oh, and Stalin never
did kill any of his own people, right? And those Chechens are so
happy being part of Russia, right?
>>>If Russia persists in annoying Japan (and also Baltic States and
>>>Chechenia), we might accept the military corporation with China and it
>>>should be really the end of Russia.
>
>You are a fine person. What do you mean by *annoying*? Not giving to
>Japan our own? What do you mean by *accept*? Do they offer you
>something? It would be really amusing to see such a cooperation. Good
>luck! If you are such an opponent of forgeries in history, please remind
>them the usual treatment of Chinese by the Japanese military.
Ah, yes. The "war atrocity" bait-and-switch tactic. The trump card to
pull out any time you can't wiggle out of an argument against a
Japanese. Too bad it's been used so often in this group that some of
us have actually recognized that it's just a cowardly way to get out of
a losing debate.
Soviet Union never gave a whit about Chinese peasants, and it showed
its true colors when it signed the non-aggression pact with Imperial
Japan. Nothing USSR ever did after the Bolshevik revolution indicates
that it was ever interesed in anything but territorial expansion and
geopolitical superiority. This is what every imperial power is about,
and I don't necessarily condemn the Soviet Union in that respect, but
it's revolting to hear someone trying to justify such actions while
condemning others. I don't know if you actually believe all this or
you're training to be a publicist for Zhirinovsky, but your capacity
for doublespeak certainly would have earned you a high spot in the
old hierarchies of Soviet Union. Do you miss those good ol' days when
the Russians reigned supreme? When everybody was equal and the Russians
were the equalest of them all?
>The end of Russia you will never see. Sorry.
Funny. Who was talking about destroying Russia? Is Russia such a pitiful
country that it will crumble if Japan takes back the four tiny islands
far east of any major population center in Russia?
>While Japan will be trying
>to please China and settle the anger of the US (the only actual
>purchaser of Japanese technology), Russia will develop its vast and rich
>Siberian land and give a fair share to foreign businesses on the basis
>"first come first served". So, let us wait and see.
And you take another gratuitous potshot at Japan's political status.
I'm not so stupid as to fall for the bait, but you really should
consider being a political campaign manager. Forget Russia; I think a
lot of American presidential candidates will be happy to get you on
board.
--
Shimpei Yamashita <http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~shimpei/index.html>
s.dmitriev
>1001...@compuserve.com (ichikawa) wrote:
>
>>There are well known methods that have brought huge territorial
>>gains to Russia: terror and atrocity during a war period and
>>falsification and forgery of the history during a peace period in
>>order to consolidate the above gains. It seems that you haven't failed
>>in this Russian tradition.
Dear Mr. Ichikawa,
I am very happy that you resorted to personalities: it is the last
argument of those who have nothing to say. It is the reason why you said
nothing about my information on Japanese activity on Russian territory
during 1918-1922, for example.
About "Russian tradition". Please, remind yourself about *terrible*
atrocities of Japan in China, Korea as well as in those territories
captured by Japan during WW II. This all, as far as you may know, come
out of exceedingly xenophobic character of Japanese culture as such.
With this you can compare the openess of Russian society which adopted
the peoples of those cultures which populated the territories conquered
by Russia: such peoples were not isolated as in the case of Japan but
incorporated into Russian society and could achieve there the highest
posts and ranks. Compare this with Japanese tradition of cultivating
ferocity in regard to foreigners.
Then, I have to make several remarks.
Firstly, please make distinction between "Russian" and "Soviet". What do
you mean by *huge territorial gains*? Siberia? It was very thinly
populated. And, besides, your pathetic remarks about "atrocities" etc.
have nothing to do with it. Let me remind you about Russian lands given
by the Bolsheviks during the Soviet period to Kazakhstan and the
Ukraine. It was really a huge territorial loss by Russia.
Secondly, what do you mean by *terror and atrocity during a war period*
and *falsification and forgery of the history*. Think about Japanese
treatment of Chinese or of Koreans. What *terror* and what *atrocities*
and in what *war*? The Soviet Union was the main anti-Hitler force and
saved the world from Nazism. After that, the Soviet Union urged by its
Allies, destroyed Japanese Quantun Army which was, by the way, stationed
in China, and thus secured the victory in the war against Japan.
For *falsification and forgery of the history* look in Japanese books.
>>If Russia persists in annoying Japan (and also Baltic States and
>>Chechenia), we might accept the military corporation with China and it
>>should be really the end of Russia.
You are a fine person. What do you mean by *annoying*? Not giving to
Japan our own? What do you mean by *accept*? Do they offer you
something? It would be really amusing to see such a cooperation. Good
luck! If you are such an opponent of forgeries in history, please remind
them the usual treatment of Chinese by the Japanese military.
The end of Russia you will never see. Sorry. While Japan will be trying
to please China and settle the anger of the US (the only actual
purchaser of Japanese technology), Russia will develop its vast and rich
Siberian land and give a fair share to foreign businesses on the basis
"first come first served". So, let us wait and see.
My very best wishes to you.
>
ichikawa
Dear Mr. Dmitriev,
Definitively, every Russian masters the art of rhetoric. When they
feel difficulty to convince the adversary about the
genuine subject (here, territorial dispute between Russia and Japan),
they change quickly the subject to the another field. Because we know
very well your method, I don't let myself trapped by your argument.
Nevertheless, I put here an element of my arguments for the members of
this newsgroup who are not familiar with the Russo-Japanese
relationship.
1) Difference between Soviet and Russia
>Firstly, please make distinction between "Russian" and "Soviet". What do
>you mean by *huge territorial gains*? Siberia? It was very thinly
>populated. And, besides, your pathetic remarks about "atrocities" etc.
>have nothing to do with it. Let me remind you about Russian lands given
>by the Bolsheviks during the Soviet period to Kazakhstan and the
>Ukraine. It was really a huge territorial loss by Russia.
For us, there is few difference between Tsar's regime and
communist one: they have always wanted Japanese lands. Certainly,
Tsars have been aggressive but at least tried to preserve the human
face, i.e. resolution of our disagreement within the framework of the
international laws.
On the contrary, Stalin was not only aggressive but used cynical
methods and gave no importance to the international laws, for example
unilateral annexation of the Japanese territory and deportation of the
Japanese POW to the Siberia's labour camps after WWII.
Then, difference between Stalin and Yeltsin?
Stalin is an active bear who aggressed other countries and stole huge
lands while Yeltsin is a hibernating bear: he doesn't dare to go out
but keeps fiercely the lands stolen by Stalin while waiting for the
next spring.
Then why Russia gave huge territories to Ukraine and Kazakhstan? It is
because Russia could always take back those lands but if she makes
concessions to Japan, it could be impossible to take them back,
excepting a miracle.
2) Annoying Japan and Baltic States
>>If Russia persists in annoying Japan (and also Baltic States and
>>Chechenia), we might accept the military corporation with China and it
>>should be really the end of Russia.
>You are a fine person. What do you mean by *annoying*? Not giving to
>Japan our own? What do you mean by *accept*? Do they offer you
>something? It would be really amusing to see such a cooperation. Good
>luck! If you are such an opponent of forgeries in history, please remind
>them the usual treatment of Chinese by the Japanese military.
Russia sends delegates to the commissions that should resolve
peacefully our border disagreement but they have the instruction not
to give up one inch of the territory. She accepts to discuss or
pretends to discuss because she wants Japanese money (Before
Gorbachef, she refused even to discuss it!). In the same manner,
Russia pretends to discuss the frontier with Estonia because she fears
that Estonia should use Russian citizens as hostage.
3) Relationship between Japan and China
When Japan and China concluded a peace treaty in 1978, Russians
accused us to conspire against them, although mentioning Russia as a
potential enemy was dropped out in the final document. In fact, after
border crushes with USSR in 1969 at Ussuri River and with Vietnam in
1979, China has understood the necessity for the modern military
technology. So, any approaches between Japan and China make Russians
very nervous: they fear that Japan should help China to build up a
modern army.
For example, former Japanese prime minister, Tanaka Kakuei has been a
fervent partisan for the Sino-Japanese alliance so Russia gave
compromising documents to a Japanese journalist in order to oust him
from his function (cf. Lockheed scandal).
Because the territorial dispute between Japan and China is about a
group of tiny islands of 6 km2 and China has never taken any genuine
Japanese land, the friendship between us is possible despite
difference of our regimes. On the other hand, Russia took from Japan
nearly 100.000 km2 of lands and from China more than 1 million km2
(Outer Mongolia, Amur Region and Maritime Province etc.), our
reconciliation is impossible for the moment.
4) South Siberia 18-22
>I am very happy that you resorted to personalities: it is the last
>argument of those who have nothing to say. It is the reason why you said
>nothing about my information on Japanese activity on Russian territory
>during 1918-1922, for example.
It concerns a dispatch of Japanese and other Allied's troop at the end
of WWI to the South Siberia. It is nothing to do with the Japanese
aggression because, primo, we have never thought that the South
Siberia should be a genuine Russian land (Russia stole it from China)
secundo, Japan has been mandated by the Allied power, tertio, after
the operation, Russian frontier has not been modified (Japanese
frontier after WWII, yes).
Your first post being plenty of errors, I had to select the most
grave ones to retort arguments. Don't imagine that I should be unable
to discuss the subject. I put my account at the end of this post
because the history is very complex.
Now I would like to have your answers to the following three questions
that you have avoided intentionally.
1) Owning an island for several centuries without knowing its
insularity?
>Before Russo-Japanese war the island of Sakhalin had been Russian for
>several centuries and hundreds of thousands of Russians lived there
>(including its southern part). Therefore, the fact that there lived
>some Japanese within the period of fourty years does not say much.
It was Japanese explorer, Mamiya Rinzo who discovered for the first
time in 1808 a narrow strait that separates it from the continent and
he made a precise map of the island. Then, Mamiya's map has been
edited in the western countries including in Russia (cf.
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/flsoft). Russia discovered
its insularity much later by Nevelskoi who passed through that strait
with a ship in 1848.
2) A penal colony of several hundreds and thousands prisonners?
The main activity of Sakhalin between 1875 and 1905, when Russia
controlled entirely the island, was operating a penal colony. Famous
Russian writer, Danton Chekhov has been a pensioner of that
establishment too. Russian population of the island should have been
only several thousands and not several hundreds of thousands as you
affirm. It is only after 1945 that the Russian population of Sakhalin
has grown because Stalin promised the double of the salary from the
continent (for Kurils, triple salary)
3) Glance at an island and you are already its owner?
>After Russo-Japanese war of 1945, won totally by Russia, Russia returned
>its old lands (the four Curil islands and the southern part of
>Sakhalin)...
There are only 3 treaties related to Japan-Russia border agreement:
Shimoda's treaty in 1855, St Petesburg's treaty in 1875 and
Portsmouth's treaty in 1905. In any case, the Japanese possession of
South Kurils has been confirmed. So, perhaps you are referring to the
following event.
In 1989, Russians have celebrated the 250th anniversary of the
discovery of Shikotan, one of the tiny island of South Kurils, by
Russian explorer Spanberg. Nevertheless, he has never landed to the
island so ignored that it had belonged already to Japan. If you think
that to see the trace of an island is enough to claim its ownership,
everyone could claim the ownership of the Moon too!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is my account about what happened in the South Siberia.
In Russia, the communists took the power in October 1917, and in spite
of a fierce opposition, Lenin signed an armistice (Treaty of Brest-
Litovsk) with Germany in march 1918. At this time, violent fights
always continued in the northern France. The Allied Force, mostly
composed of Great Britain and France, needed more manpower and
asked Japan to intervene from Siberia in order to keep Russia in
their side.
Japan wanted to accept this demand provided that she could get
mining and forest concessions in Siberia. Feared that Japan should
stay forever after the war, the US government gave a veto (this is a
very old American tactic to oppose Russia to Japan) to that plan
in spite of the assurance of the Allied Power that the integrity of
Russian territory should be respected and the expedition should be
internationally organized. Because this seemed her too
cumbersome, Japan refused to participate in spite of their economic
interests in this area: at that time many Japanese were working in
Siberia.
In May 1918 a big news arrived to the Allied headquarter. Many
Czech POW (ca. 70.000 persons) had been liberated by Russia and tried
to get the West Front in Europe via Vladivostok: the Allies have
promised them to create an independent state (future
Czechoslovakia) if they participate to the war against Germany and
Autria-Hungary. In order to save these soldiers, the whole Allied
Power decided to organize a common expedition in Siberia provided
that Japan should not take part to the Russian civil war and go to
west as far as possible along Siberian railroad.
In July, the Allied troops , mostly composed of Japanese,
disembarked at Vladivostok in order to help Czechs to go out and
reached even Chita in November, amongst hetmen who were killing
Russian civilians and looting their houses. There, the Japanese
government wanted to get in contact with Admiral Aleksandr
Kolchak, head of White rebellion. This is too much for Americans
because they wanted to give up whole Russia to Bolsheviks and
threaten to withdraw from Siberia. Because not only these areas
were very near to Japan and her colonies, Korea and Manchuria (at
that time, Manchuria had been not yet annexed, and Russia and
Japan divided it in their influence zones) but also there were many
Japanese working there, the Japanese government wanted to keep
the Allied troops for a while.
Totally isolated from Russian mainland, fierce fights, not only
between Whites and Reds but also between small hetmen and
bandits continued in Siberia and Far-East until 1920. Because of the
death of Kolchak in February 1920, it appeared clear that there was
no chance to win the war for royalists and the Allied Force decided
to pull out their troops from Siberia and Japan would like to do the
same. At this very moment a hideous event happened at
Nikolayevsk upon Amur.
The town, guarded by Whites has been attacked in January 1920
by thousands of Bolsheviks, and Whites accepted to lay down
weapons on condition that they should be treated as POW. Instead
of respecting the international law, Reds began to slaughter them and
this provoked a fierce protest of Japanese community: there were
several hundred Japanese working in this town and the cease-fire
has been concluded through them. Bolsheviks attacked Japanese in
turn and many were killed, including the Japanese consul and his
family and the rest were jailed.
The Japanese government decided to rescue them and sent a troop
to North Sakhalin without reaching Nikolayevsk because of ice and
snow. When rescue team arrived at the town in May, they
discovered several hundred burned corpses: Bolsheviks set fire to
the prison just before the arrival of Japanese troop and about 800
Japanese perished with only one survivor. In reprisal, Japan has
occupied North Sakhalin and this provoked in turn a protestation of
Americans and Soviets.
Meanwhile Japanese began to evacuate Siberia because the war was
over: they left Khabarovsk in September and Vladivostok in
October 1921, but Soviet Union continued to reject the
responsibility of the massacre of 1920. Problem of North Sakhalin was
complicated because this was also linked to the recognition of the
Soviet regime by Japan. Finally in January 1925, the two countries
signed a treaty and the Japanese army withdrew from North
Sakhalin in exchange of a right of petroleum's mining. The Soviet
government expressed a sincere regret to the massacre of
Nikolayevsk.
Michael Fester
: "s.dmitriev" <dmit...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
: 1) Difference between Soviet and Russia
: For us, there is few difference between Tsar's regime and
: communist one: they have always wanted Japanese lands. Certainly,
: Tsars have been aggressive but at least tried to preserve the human
: face, i.e. resolution of our disagreement within the framework of the
: international laws.
Actually, the Tsars were not really aggressive vs Japan. Certainly not any
more so than any other nation. In fact, over the course of at least the
Tokugawa Era, Russia was rather anxious to begin friendly relations with
Japan.
: On the contrary, Stalin was not only aggressive but used cynical
: methods and gave no importance to the international laws, for example
: unilateral annexation of the Japanese territory and deportation of the
: Japanese POW to the Siberia's labour camps after WWII.
Stalin was not aggressive WRT Japan. Had he wished to be so, the Soviet
victory at Nomonhan would have given him more than enough cause to seize
territories recognized as Japanese; there is no reason to believe the
Japanese, having serious difficulties with the inferior Chinese armies,
could have dealt well with the modern soviet forces.
As for "unilateral annexation of the Japanese territory", the terms of
Japanese surrender CLEARLY state that Japan's sovereignty is to be limitted
to the 4 main islands and other such small islands as the ALLIES (*NOT*
Japan) decide. If nobody gives them to Japan, they are not, by Japan's
agreement, Japanese territory.
: Russia sends delegates to the commissions that should resolve
: peacefully our border disagreement but they have the instruction not
: to give up one inch of the territory. She accepts to discuss or
: pretends to discuss because she wants Japanese money (Before
: Gorbachef, she refused even to discuss it!). In the same manner,
: Russia pretends to discuss the frontier with Estonia because she fears
: that Estonia should use Russian citizens as hostage.
When Yeltsin first took power, before the Russian backlash against release
of territory, Yeltsin had indicated that he would be willing to relinquish
control of at least 2 of the islands, in return for Japanese aid. Japan made
several pointed remarks that all 4 islands must be returned first, THEN
Japan would discuss aid. Yeltsin cancelled his visit to Japan, and Japan
lost their best chance to regain any territory for the forseeable future.
: 1979, China has understood the necessity for the modern military
: technology. So, any approaches between Japan and China make Russians
: very nervous: they fear that Japan should help China to build up a
: modern army.
China HAS a modern army.
: Because the territorial dispute between Japan and China is about a
: group of tiny islands of 6 km2 and China has never taken any genuine
: Japanese land, the friendship between us is possible despite
: difference of our regimes. On the other hand, Russia took from Japan
: nearly 100.000 km2 of lands and from China more than 1 million km2
: (Outer Mongolia, Amur Region and Maritime Province etc.), our
: reconciliation is impossible for the moment.
Russia also returned Manchuria to Chinese control; I believe Japan had
taken that from China.
: It concerns a dispatch of Japanese and other Allied's troop at the end
: of WWI to the South Siberia. It is nothing to do with the Japanese
: aggression because, primo, we have never thought that the South
: Siberia should be a genuine Russian land (Russia stole it from China)
Actually, Japan had invaded Siberia earlier, ca. 1921, for other reasons.
: There are only 3 treaties related to Japan-Russia border agreement:
: Shimoda's treaty in 1855, St Petesburg's treaty in 1875 and
: Portsmouth's treaty in 1905. In any case, the Japanese possession of
: South Kurils has been confirmed. So, perhaps you are referring to the
: following event.
4 documents, if you include the Japanese surrender. That CLEARLY relin-
quishes all Japanese claim to lands not of the 4 main islands.
Mike
ichikawa
Mike Fester is a member of the white supremacy movement and spends his
time to post totally wrong messages to our newsgroup in order to
bother Japanese: he is afraid that his posterity should eat Natto or
Umebosh for breakfast in a near future.
Here are samples of his forgery already posted to our newsgroup but
you will soon discover others.
1) He pretends that it was Russians who discovered first Kamchatka
peninsula while it had been already in the Japanese map before they
discovered the Pacific cost.
2) He pretends that Japan annexed Okinawa in the late 19th century
while the reality took place in 1609.
3) He wants an independence of Okinawans and Ainu while nobody among
them wants it.
>Actually, the Tsars were not really aggressive vs Japan. Certainly not any
>more so than any other nation. In fact, over the course of at least the
>Tokugawa Era, Russia was rather anxious to begin friendly relations with
>Japan.
I said that Tsars were not more aggressive than other colonial powers
but never said that they were not aggressive. Here are samples of
Russian aggressiveness against Japan (for Mike, expression of their
anxiety?)
In 1806, Russian frigate Junona directed by Chvostoff attacked the
Japanese trading post of Ootomari in the south Sakhalin and burned
warehouses after looting them. They brought then Japanese to Kamchatka
as prisoners. Next year, they attacked Etorofu Island (Iturup in
Russian) of the South Kurils then Rutaka of the south Sakhalin.
In 1859, Admiral Muravieff, governor of East Siberia entered in the
bay of Tokyo with 7 battle ships and threatened Japanese to destroy
Tokyo if they don't accept the Russian belonging of Sakhalin.
As soon as Russians had annexed the Maritime Territory and build the
military harbor of Vladivostok, they occupied in 1861 by force
Tsushima (small Japanese island between Korean peninsula and Kyushu)
in order to secure the exit to the Pacific Ocean. Japan asked the aid
of Great Britain in order to oust them.
>Stalin was not aggressive WRT Japan. Had he wished to be so, the Soviet
>victory at Nomonhan would have given him more than enough cause to seize
>territories recognized as Japanese; there is no reason to believe the
>Japanese, having serious difficulties with the inferior Chinese armies,
>could have dealt well with the modern soviet forces.
In 1937, a border clash took place at Nomonhan in Manchuria-Russia
frontier, (Kalkhin Gol for Russians) between Japanese reservists and
Soviet elite troop. This incident, organized by Stalin, had a
political goal and he had no plan to directly attack Japan: he wanted
to make a strong impression to Japanese in order to conclude a neutral
pact with them and keep a free hand against Germany.
>As for "unilateral annexation of the Japanese territory", the terms of
>Japanese surrender CLEARLY state that Japan's sovereignty is to be limitted
>to the 4 main islands and other such small islands as the ALLIES (*NOT*
>Japan) decide. If nobody gives them to Japan, they are not, by Japan's
>agreement, Japanese territory.
Yes it was clearly said that Japan could keep 4 main islands and small
islands attached to them, so South Kurils should be Japanese. By the
way, the decree 677 of the Supreme Allied Commandment published in
1946 said that the current frontier was temporary and a definitive one
should be settled by an international conference. When it took place
in San Francisco in 1951, the Soviet delegates headed by Andre Gromiko
fled from the conference table because Americans didn't want a free
annexation of Japanese northern territory (South Sakhalin and the
whole kurils) by Russia. So the frontier between the two countries
remain undecided and it is a godsend for Japanese because it gives us
the right to claim the whole northern territory.
>When Yeltsin first took power, before the Russian backlash against release
>of territory, Yeltsin had indicated that he would be willing to relinquish
>control of at least 2 of the islands, in return for Japanese aid. Japan made
>several pointed remarks that all 4 islands must be returned first, THEN
>Japan would discuss aid. Yeltsin cancelled his visit to Japan, and Japan
>lost their best chance to regain any territory for the forseeable future.
The total surface of Japanese northern territory lost after WWII is 50
000 km2. The Japanese government asks to give back South Kurils (total
surface 5000 km2) which corresponds to 10% of those lands while the
Russian government proposes to give back 2 islands (total surface 500
km2) which corresponds to 1% of those lands. So everyone understand it
is not a serious proposition.
>China HAS a modern army.
When a border clash took place with Vietnam in 1979, China was
defeated because Russia gave all information about the Chinese army's
movement, collected from her spy satellites, to Vietnamese. At that
time the Chinese government realised the need to build a modern army.
>Russia also returned Manchuria to Chinese control; I believe Japan had
>taken that from China.
Manchuria has been never annexed by Russia but merely a sphere of
influence excepting the point of Liaodong peninsula between 1898 and
1905. I don't understand your way of speaking. I was speaking of the
territory of Khabarovsk and Vladivostok that Russia stole from China
in 1858.
>Actually, Japan had invaded Siberia earlier, ca. 1921, for other reasons.
Japan remained longer than other allied powers after the incident of
Nikolayevsk upon Amur: 800 Japanese had been murdered in the prison of
that town and the Japanese government was seeking a financial
compensation. Considering the occupation of the south Siberia as a
Japanese aggression is a Soviet view point of the history. If you use
always books from the Soviet era, I advise you to throw them out
because they contain only lies. Here are samples of such a forgery.
One week after the Japanese capitulation, the Soviet submarines sunk 3
Japanese ships and killed 1500 civilians, then they accused American
submarines as responsible. The massacre of at least 10,000 Polish
officers at Katyn during WWII is another example of forgery because
the Soviet government accused Germany as responsible.
>4 documents, if you include the Japanese surrender. That CLEARLY relin-
>quishes all Japanese claim to lands not of the 4 main islands.
Because the Soviet delegates didn't signe the Treaty of San Francisco,
there are only 3 border agreements between Japan and Russia. The
surrender of Japan after WWII is NOT a border agreement. I advise you
to go back to the school to learn again the meaning of those terms.
Tad Perry
>mfe...@pge.com (Michael Fester) wrote:
>
>Here are samples of his forgery already posted to our newsgroup but
>you will soon discover others.
>
>1) He pretends that it was Russians who discovered first Kamchatka
>peninsula while it had been already in the Japanese map before they
>discovered the Pacific cost.
>2) He pretends that Japan annexed Okinawa in the late 19th century
>while the reality took place in 1609.
>3) He wants an independence of Okinawans and Ainu while nobody among
>them wants it.
My wife is Okinawan and she says she wants independence. Please change
the above to read "...while few among them wants it." Avoid absolute
terms whenever possible.
Tad Perry t...@eskimo.com
Mike Fester
: For us, there is few difference between Tsar's regime and
: communist one: they have always wanted Japanese lands. Certainly,
Actually, this isn't true. There was certainly a time when Russian could
have outright taken Japanese lands; they didn't.
: Tsars have been aggressive but at least tried to preserve the human
: face, i.e. resolution of our disagreement within the framework of the
: international laws.
For their trouble, they were unilatereally attacked by the Japanese.
: On the contrary, Stalin was not only aggressive but used cynical
: methods and gave no importance to the international laws, for example
: unilateral annexation of the Japanese territory and deportation of the
: Japanese POW to the Siberia's labour camps after WWII.
Actually, the Japanese first launched attacks on Stalin's positions in
Mongolia in 1939.
Mike
Mike Fester
: mfe...@pge.com (Michael Fester) wrote:
: Mike Fester is a member of the white supremacy movement and spends his
You are a coward, and a liar, Mr Ichikawa.
: time to post totally wrong messages to our newsgroup in order to
: bother Japanese: he is afraid that his posterity should eat Natto or
: Umebosh for breakfast in a near future.
:
: Here are samples of his forgery already posted to our newsgroup but
: you will soon discover others.
: 1) He pretends that it was Russians who discovered first Kamchatka
: peninsula while it had been already in the Japanese map before they
: discovered the Pacific cost.
Do show that I have posted this.
: 2) He pretends that Japan annexed Okinawa in the late 19th century
: while the reality took place in 1609.
Okinawa was a Chinese tributory state until the 19th century.
: 3) He wants an independence of Okinawans and Ainu while nobody among
: them wants it.
Mr Ichikawa, you are a liar. Show where I have posted that.
: >Actually, the Tsars were not really aggressive vs Japan. Certainly not any
: >more so than any other nation. In fact, over the course of at least the
: >Tokugawa Era, Russia was rather anxious to begin friendly relations with
: >Japan.
: I said that Tsars were not more aggressive than other colonial powers
No, that is not what you said.
Mike
ichikawa
>ichikawa (1001...@compuserve.com) wrote:
>: "s.dmitriev" <dmit...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>: For us, there is few difference between Tsar's regime and
>: communist one: they have always wanted Japanese lands. Certainly,
>Actually, this isn't true. There was certainly a time when Russian could
>have outright taken Japanese lands; they didn't.
>: Tsars have been aggressive but at least tried to preserve the human
>: face, i.e. resolution of our disagreement within the framework of the
>: international laws.
>
>For their trouble, they were unilatereally attacked by the Japanese.
>: On the contrary, Stalin was not only aggressive but used cynical
>: methods and gave no importance to the international laws, for example
>: unilateral annexation of the Japanese territory and deportation of the
>: Japanese POW to the Siberia's labour camps after WWII.
>
>Actually, the Japanese first launched attacks on Stalin's positions in
>Mongolia in 1939.
>Mike
During the Edo period, Tokugawa clan (Lord of Tokyo region) asked each
Japanese lord to give the information of their lands (map, number of
villages, tax collected etc.) in order to grant their suzerainty. So
we see that the most northern located lord, Matsumae, has had
Kamchatka peninsula, Sakhalin, Kurils, and Hokkaido as their lands
BEFORE THE ARRIVAL OF RUSSIANS. Now Russia has taken everything
excepting Hokkaido. The total surface lost is more than 100 000 km2!
So the statement of Mike is the following.
Japan has lost lands because she is an aggressor.
Russia has won lands because she is a victim.
Everybody understand there is something wrong in Mike's reasoning...
Mike Fester
: mfe...@asoko.iisc.com (Mike Fester) wrote:
: >Actually, the Japanese first launched attacks on Stalin's positions in
: >Mongolia in 1939.
: During the Edo period, Tokugawa clan (Lord of Tokyo region) asked each
That's nice, but the Japanese surrendered under terms of the Potsdam
Declaration, which clearly states that Japanese authority is limitted to
the 4 main islands and whatever islands the Allies deem to grant them.
So, what the Japanese claimed during Edo-jidai really doesn't mean much,
does it?
: BEFORE THE ARRIVAL OF RUSSIANS. Now Russia has taken everything
: excepting Hokkaido. The total surface lost is more than 100 000 km2!
Then Japan should most likely refrain from starting things she can't
finish.
: So the statement of Mike is the following.
Oh, DO learn to speak English in your spare time. I might even render
your posts comprehensible.
: Japan has lost lands because she is an aggressor.
Nope (I shall use tiny words.)
Japan lost land because she surrendered under terms that granted the
victors the right to take certain lands from her authority.
: Russia has won lands because she is a victim.
Nope (again, tiny words.)
Russia "won lands" because she asserts that the lands are theirs, and
Japan agreed to an end of the war on those terms.
: Everybody understand there is something wrong in Mike's reasoning...
Well, if you mean that I am treating you as a sentient being, for no
real reason, you may have a point.
Mike