Russia, Japan trade insults over Kurils

Perhaps it is you sir , who are the hypocrit. Please read the treaty of St Pertusburg that clearlly states the Kurils are Japanese territory.
(truthiness, 12 February 2011 19:51)

That became null and void with underhanded Japanese attack on Port Arthur. Japanese went to war without declaration and in conflict with their samurai tradition twice: Port Arthur and Pearl Harbor. They got punished for both - once with every disputed territory ever taken by Soviet Union and once with two nuclear bombs. The first can be regarded as just punishment - the second was a war crime.

Seated next to the Russian diplomat at a press conference in Moscow Friday, Japanese Foreign Minister Seiji Maehara responded icily: "The Northern Territories are age-old Japanese territory."

Seiji,you should have told the Russians: "The Northern Territories are age-old Japanese territory like Kosovo is to Serbia"
Next time,If you are nice,non-hypocrite, and polite little paper tigers, maybe Putin will let you come and vacation on his islands.

"The Treaty of San Fransisco (1951) applies to the territories north of the disputed islands.
The islands in question - ie :Kunashiri, Etorofu, Shikotan and Habomai were never under Russian soveignty and not considered by law to be part of the Kuril chain. The islands at the centre of the dispute were never included in the Treaty of San Fran ('51). It was a blatant land grab by Stalin. Outside of any treaty or law.
(truthiness, 13 February 2011 10:55) "

So I suppose you now admit that you made a mistake in your first post when you stated that the Kurils belonged to Japan.

As for the Japanese-Russian dispute, it is actually a matter of different interpretation by the 2 sides. Japan considered the 4 disputed islands (which it called the Northern Territories) not to be part of the Kurils. Russia however considers them to be part of the southern Kurils. The Treaty of San Francisco did not make clear whether the 4 islands are part of the Kuril chain or not. And I always suspected this lack of clarity to be a Yankee plot to ensure that this territorial dispute remains a bone of contention between Moscow and Tokyo to this day.

"Perhaps it is you sir , who are the hypocrit. Please read the treaty of St Pertusburg that clearlly states the Kurils are Japanese territory.
(truthiness, 12 February 2011 19:51)"

I couldn't find your "treaty of St Pertusburg" anywhere. Can you clarify?

In any case, the Japanese gave up their claims to the Kuril islands in the Treaty of San Francisco in 1951.

@(Karma Wheel, 12 February 2011 14:24)

Perhaps it is you sir , who are the hypocrit. Please read the treaty of St Pertusburg that clearlly states the Kurils are Japanese territory.

The Treaty of San Fransisco (1951) applies to the territories north of the disputed islands.
The islands in question - ie :Kunashiri, Etorofu, Shikotan and Habomai were never under Russian soveignty and not considered by law to be part of the Kuril chain. The islands at the centre of the dispute were never included in the Treaty of San Fran ('51). It was a blatant land grab by Stalin. Outside of any treaty or law.

"The Kuril Islands dispute is a generic term to identify the disagreement between Russia and Japan about said islands. Hence , when anybody wants to research or argue a certain piont , they refer to the Kuri Isldands. I stand by my view that they Islands in question , never were and are legelly not now part of Russian territory and are by Stalins actions - theft and against international law. You know that thing you love to quote so much regarding Kosovo.
Oh and by the way , the kosovo situation is differant , you see , unlike Stalins actions , no army invaded and occupied any foriegn nation. That is what is called "self determination"

You have a nice day now:)
(truthiness, 13 February 2011 19:45) "

I disagree with you that the Kuril islands is a "generic" term. The Japanese refers to the disputed islands as the Northern Territories while Russia calls them the Southern Kurils. If you care to look at the map of the entire Kuril chain, you will easily see that the disputed islands form only a relatively small portion of the entire chain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Demis-kurils-russian_names.png

In any case, the fact remains that your claim that "the treaty of St Pertusburg that clearlly states the Kurils are Japanese territory" is wrong and false.

This thread is not about Kosovo. But since you brought it up, I must voice my disagreement again. It is not true that no army invaded Kosovo. Kosovo is Serbia's province in 1999. Nato went in and militarily forced Serbian troops to leave. To me that IS invasion!

As for "self-determination", that right should extend to the K-Serbs in the north of Kosovo too right? Or are we talking double standards here?????

@(lowe, 13 February 2011 13:09)

The Kuril Islands dispute is a generic term to identify the disagreement between Russia and Japan about said islands. Hence , when anybody wants to research or argue a certain piont , they refer to the Kuri Isldands. I stand by my view that they Islands in question , never were and are legelly not now part of Russian territory and are by Stalins actions - theft and against international law. You know that thing you love to quote so much regarding Kosovo.
Oh and by the way , the kosovo situation is differant , you see , unlike Stalins actions , no army invaded and occupied any foriegn nation. That is what is called "self determination"

You have a nice day now:)

Seated next to the Russian diplomat at a press conference in Moscow Friday, Japanese Foreign Minister Seiji Maehara responded icily: "The Northern Territories are age-old Japanese territory."

Seiji,you should have told the Russians: "The Northern Territories are age-old Japanese territory like Kosovo is to Serbia"
Next time,If you are nice,non-hypocrite, and polite little paper tigers, maybe Putin will let you come and vacation on his islands.

@(lowe, 13 February 2011 13:09)

The Kuril Islands dispute is a generic term to identify the disagreement between Russia and Japan about said islands. Hence , when anybody wants to research or argue a certain piont , they refer to the Kuri Isldands. I stand by my view that they Islands in question , never were and are legelly not now part of Russian territory and are by Stalins actions - theft and against international law. You know that thing you love to quote so much regarding Kosovo.
Oh and by the way , the kosovo situation is differant , you see , unlike Stalins actions , no army invaded and occupied any foriegn nation. That is what is called "self determination"

You have a nice day now:)

@(Karma Wheel, 12 February 2011 14:24)

Perhaps it is you sir , who are the hypocrit. Please read the treaty of St Pertusburg that clearlly states the Kurils are Japanese territory.

The Treaty of San Fransisco (1951) applies to the territories north of the disputed islands.
The islands in question - ie :Kunashiri, Etorofu, Shikotan and Habomai were never under Russian soveignty and not considered by law to be part of the Kuril chain. The islands at the centre of the dispute were never included in the Treaty of San Fran ('51). It was a blatant land grab by Stalin. Outside of any treaty or law.

"The Treaty of San Fransisco (1951) applies to the territories north of the disputed islands.
The islands in question - ie :Kunashiri, Etorofu, Shikotan and Habomai were never under Russian soveignty and not considered by law to be part of the Kuril chain. The islands at the centre of the dispute were never included in the Treaty of San Fran ('51). It was a blatant land grab by Stalin. Outside of any treaty or law.
(truthiness, 13 February 2011 10:55) "

So I suppose you now admit that you made a mistake in your first post when you stated that the Kurils belonged to Japan.

As for the Japanese-Russian dispute, it is actually a matter of different interpretation by the 2 sides. Japan considered the 4 disputed islands (which it called the Northern Territories) not to be part of the Kurils. Russia however considers them to be part of the southern Kurils. The Treaty of San Francisco did not make clear whether the 4 islands are part of the Kuril chain or not. And I always suspected this lack of clarity to be a Yankee plot to ensure that this territorial dispute remains a bone of contention between Moscow and Tokyo to this day.

Perhaps it is you sir , who are the hypocrit. Please read the treaty of St Pertusburg that clearlly states the Kurils are Japanese territory.
(truthiness, 12 February 2011 19:51)

That became null and void with underhanded Japanese attack on Port Arthur. Japanese went to war without declaration and in conflict with their samurai tradition twice: Port Arthur and Pearl Harbor. They got punished for both - once with every disputed territory ever taken by Soviet Union and once with two nuclear bombs. The first can be regarded as just punishment - the second was a war crime.

"Perhaps it is you sir , who are the hypocrit. Please read the treaty of St Pertusburg that clearlly states the Kurils are Japanese territory.
(truthiness, 12 February 2011 19:51)"

I couldn't find your "treaty of St Pertusburg" anywhere. Can you clarify?

In any case, the Japanese gave up their claims to the Kuril islands in the Treaty of San Francisco in 1951.

"The Kuril Islands dispute is a generic term to identify the disagreement between Russia and Japan about said islands. Hence , when anybody wants to research or argue a certain piont , they refer to the Kuri Isldands. I stand by my view that they Islands in question , never were and are legelly not now part of Russian territory and are by Stalins actions - theft and against international law. You know that thing you love to quote so much regarding Kosovo.
Oh and by the way , the kosovo situation is differant , you see , unlike Stalins actions , no army invaded and occupied any foriegn nation. That is what is called "self determination"

You have a nice day now:)
(truthiness, 13 February 2011 19:45) "

I disagree with you that the Kuril islands is a "generic" term. The Japanese refers to the disputed islands as the Northern Territories while Russia calls them the Southern Kurils. If you care to look at the map of the entire Kuril chain, you will easily see that the disputed islands form only a relatively small portion of the entire chain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Demis-kurils-russian_names.png

In any case, the fact remains that your claim that "the treaty of St Pertusburg that clearlly states the Kurils are Japanese territory" is wrong and false.

This thread is not about Kosovo. But since you brought it up, I must voice my disagreement again. It is not true that no army invaded Kosovo. Kosovo is Serbia's province in 1999. Nato went in and militarily forced Serbian troops to leave. To me that IS invasion!

As for "self-determination", that right should extend to the K-Serbs in the north of Kosovo too right? Or are we talking double standards here?????