And then Japan had territorial claims to the USSR: about the events on Lake Hassan

Recently, the Japanese media began to frequently raise the topic that the USSR in 1945 allegedly violated the agreement with Tokyo. With the help of this kind of stuffing, the Japanese press is trying to somehow fly the authorities' claims to the Russian South Kuriles.

The agenda on the part of the Japanese is as follows: "The Russians landed on the islands illegally, since by that time Japan had already surrendered." But no one in Japan raises the question of whether it was possible to trust the statements of the Japanese about their readiness to surrender, as well as the treaties that the Japanese signed.

The Soviet Union had serious doubts about the military-political cleanliness of the Japanese authorities. One example is the events of 1938 at Lake Khasan. Even before the start of the active phase of hostilities in this region, the Japanese staged multiple provocations against Soviet border guards. Then, in March 1938, it became known that the Japanese command had developed a war plan against the Soviet Union.

Territorial claims from Japan (and it is important to recall that at that time both the Kuriles and part of Sakhalin belonged to Japan, but Tokyo still had claims to Moscow) were actively fueled by Western states, including Great Britain and the United States. We can say that the West still supports Japanese territorial claims to Russia.

Japanese troops began fighting on Lake Hassan in the summer of 1938. Previously, the Japanese violated the borders of the Soviet Union over a hundred times a year before the conflict escalated into an active phase.

The video tells about the hostilities on Lake Khasan:

Comments

[Hunter 2]

Not to see the Yapam of the Kuril Islands, an end to this issue was put in 1945 by our grandfathers-great-grandfathers, a brilliant operation to defeat the Kwantung Army. The events at Lake Khasan and then Khalkhin Gol are the first victories of the Red Army over the Japanese militarists since the war of 1905-1907. Let them swear on any graves, they turn to the Mattress for any support ... the islands are not a topic for negotiations, and let the peace treaty be shoved deeper into Fujiyama 1938 Japan was at least an independent country, currently it is under American occupation, that is, it is not at all a participant in any negotiations!

[yehat2]

Japan's diplomatic disputes are based on the fact that the USSR violated the peace treaty by attacking in 45. But half a year before that, the USSR notified Japan of the termination of this treaty. Therefore, the fact that the attack was sudden, or even more so during the peace treaty, is a lie. The second point is that the USSR, for helping the United States in the war with Japan, received control over the territories from the United States. The third point is that Japan surrendered not before the attack of the USSR, but just as a result of the complete defeat of the Kwantung army by the Soviet troops, located outside the Japanese "primordial" territories. As a result, all claims of insidiousness, surprise, or contradiction to agreements have no basis. The essence of Japanese diplomacy is that, upon surrender, Japan gave up territories to the United States, which the United States later transferred to the USSR. There is no direct transfer agreement.
But Japan signed another treaty with the United States, in which it renounces claims to the "northern territories" and sovereignty over them. On what basis then are there claims? There are no grounds, there are only attempts to catch up with inconsistencies so that amateurs think that Japan has been deceived somewhere.

Well, I also want to remind you that it was not at all Germany that opened an account of the treacherous attacks.
ww2 was launched by Japan with an unannounced attack on China. The Japanese continued the same tradition with an attack on the United States - in general, not without reason, but sudden. And also with other countries of Asia.
Many Chinese garrisons were taken by surprise. Therefore, Japan's complaints that they were suddenly attacked look strange.

[credo]

Quote: yehat2

Well, I also want to remind you that it was not at all Germany that opened an account of the treacherous attacks.
ww2 was launched by Japan with an unannounced attack on China. The Japanese continued the same tradition with an attack on the United States - in general, not without reason, but sudden. And also with other countries of Asia.
Many Chinese garrisons were taken by surprise. Therefore, Japan's complaints that they were suddenly attacked look strange.

On this topic, our historians have repeatedly expressed that it has long been necessary, at least for ourselves, to set the date of the beginning of WWII not from 01.09.1939/XNUMX/XNUMX, which gives our ill-wishers a reason to compare the USSR with Germany, but from an earlier date or when Germany began to seize the countries of Europe, even before Poland, or when Japan began its aggressive campaign in the Far East.

[yehat2]

In Europe, the beginning of ww2 is considered not from the attack on Poland, but from the events in Czechoslovakia.

[credo]

Quote: yehat2

In Europe, the beginning of ww2 is considered not from the attack on Poland, but from the events in Czechoslovakia.

Officially or among themselves, on the sly?

[yehat2]

The history of impudent people begins in 39.
Czechs and French used to
China even earlier.
Before Khrushch, the USSR, who adjusted history to the west, considered the war from Czechoslovakia.
And after the end of China's isolation, more and more historians have voiced the beginning with an attack on China. This very beginning is already being voiced in 2 leading US universities.
Others just copy one of the versions.
Also, the USSR has an interesting countdown, because one should not forget the occupation of a part of Persia and the war with Finland.

[Avior]

Formally, violation of the Treaty of Neutrality is undoubtedly

The treaty was concluded for 5 years from the date of ratification: from April 25, 1941 to April 25, 1946

That is, before April 25, 1946, it was impossible to break
And wherein
According to the text of the Agreement

According to paragraph 3, “This pact comes into force from the date of its ratification by both contracting parties and remains in force for five years. If none of the contracting parties denounces the pact one year before the expiration of the term, it will be considered automatically extended for the next five years. "

On April 5, 1945, it was precisely the denunciation, not the annulment, which was later confirmed to the Japanese by Molotov.
That is, until 1946, it formally continued to operate

[sleeve]

So denunciation is the legally envisaged cancellation of liability in the contract. So everything in the package is according to the letter of the law, including the term of denunciation.

[Avior]

Not. The treaty stipulates what denunciation is, and what conditions of denunciation - the above quote is, this is Article 3 of the treaty. The denunciation in April 1945 implied the termination of the treaty on April 25, 1946, in accordance with the terms of the treaty.
Cancellation is the termination of the contract in principle.
This issue was discussed between Molotov and the Japanese ambassador.

On April 5, 1945, the USSR People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs Vyacheslav Molotov received the Japanese Ambassador to the USSR, Naotake Sato, and made him a statement about the denunciation of the pact of neutrality between the USSR and Japan ..... N. Sato recalled that the pact was valid until April 13, 1946 and expressed hope that this condition will be fulfilled by the Soviet side. Molotov replied that "in fact, Soviet-Japanese relations will return to the position in which they were before the conclusion of the pact." Sato noted that legally this means annulment, not denunciation of the treaty. Molotov agreed with N. Sato that from the point of view of the pact of neutrality, being only denounced (and not annulled), it could legally retain its force until April 25, 1946 [6].

On April 16, 1945, an article in Time magazine noted that although the pact formally remained in force until April 13, 1946, the tone of the Soviet Foreign Affairs Commissioner implied that, nevertheless, the USSR could soon start a war with Japan [7 ].

[sleeve]

However, the treaty or better the pact did not correspond to the situation at D.V. at 41-45. Moreover, you will not find these statistics in the "usual" sources (is it really strange?). At the same time, 770 land border violations and 430 airspace incursions. This does not include provocations at sea. Moreover, the character is up to a decent scale clash. Note that the USSR did not allow itself this. The introduction of a special regime of navigation by the Japanese essentially cut off the Pacific sea supply line. All this was great when the Germans were standing near Moscow. Someone simply did not think that "the Russians will again come for debts." Note that all this was clearly not part of the pact implementation rules. And one more thing: legally denunciation indicated the intentions of the USSR. Here and there was no situation on June 22, 41. Do you agree with this?

[antivirus]

The head of the garage sometimes advises where to build the road .. but he is not a builder or a road designer. the elimination of illiteracy and such side effects ... read comts ..

[Avior]

I don't quite understand you
If Japan violated the treaty, it had to be canceled due to Japan's failure to fulfill it.
As for intentions, Japan did not consider this an inevitable and resolved fact until the USSR entered the war.

[sleeve]

This is where the difference between diplomacy and jurisprudence lies. And it’s not even about the laws of law, but about its theoretical scholastic part about the essence and content. So, proceeding from this "discipline of direct interpretation", Japan, which twice committed a direct military invasion of the territory of the USSR, slaughtered the population of China with a score of millions, waging direct military operations with the main allies and itself an ally of the Reich, violated the USSR borders hundreds of times in the hardest period, and so on and so forth, so she is the victim of aggression from the USSR.

[sleeve]

I'm curious. By signing the pact, Stalin knew that the war would last until 45? In general, there are many phenomenal things with this pact ...

[antivirus]

whose Crimea? our? or him? or yours? ..............................................

[pmkemcity]

For four years of the war, the Far Eastern merchant fleet carried out a complex and responsible task of delivering to the USSR military cargo received from the allies under Lend-Lease. During the "Fire Voyages" merchant ships were repeatedly attacked by enemy ships, submarines and aircraft, 26 of them were sunk, 300 sailors from the Far East were killed.
Lost ships of the FESCO (not all in the Far East):
1. Steamer "Krechet" (December 1941, Hong Kong)
2. "Perekop" (December 1941, South China Sea)
3. Motor ship "Maykop" (December 1941, south-western part of the Pacific Ocean)
4. Steamer "Kolkhoznik" (January 1942, Atlantic Ocean, shores of New Scotia)
5. Steamship "Ashgabat" (April 1942, Florida Bay)
6. "Kiev" (April 1942, Northern Norway)
7. Steamer "Angarstroy" (May 1942, Pacific Ocean)
8. Steamship "Stalingrad" (September 1942, the Barents Sea)
9. Steamship "Mikoyan" (October 1942, Indian Ocean)
10. "Donbass" (November 1942, Barents Sea)
11. "Decembrist" (November 1942, Barents Sea)
12. "Blacksmith of the Forests" (December 1942, Barents Sea)
13. Steamship "Simferopol" (December 1942, Hong Kong)
14. "Red Partisan" (January 1943, Barents Sea)
15. "Ilmen" (February 1943, East China Sea)
16. Steamer "Kola" (February 1943, Tsushima Strait)
17. Steamer "Tbilisi" (September 1943, the mouth of the Yenisei)
18. "Arkhangelsk" (September 1943)
19. Steamer "Sergei Kirov" (October 1943, Kara Sea)
20. Steamship "Belarus" (March 1944, Sea of ​​Okhotsk)
21. Steamer "Pavlin Vinogradov" (April 1944, Pacific Ocean)
23. "Ob" (July 1944, Western Kamchatka)
24. "Transbalt" (June 1945, Sea of ​​Japan)
25. Steamer "Sergei Lazo"
26. Steamer "Svirstroy"

[credo]

Quote: Hunter 2

At the present time it is under American occupation, that is, it is not at all a participant in any negotiations!

Meanwhile, Japan, under the pretext that the bad Chinese, Koreans, and Russians have seized or are claiming "primordially" Japanese lands, are quietly and under the approving instigation of the United States, are intensively ... hypersonic. What is it for?
It can be seen that the constant Japanese claims, in particular, against Russia, not only have purely Japanese roots, but are also fueled by a restless "partner" because of a large puddle, who has a wealth of experience playing other countries against each other.
So, Russia needs to keep an ear to it and not relax, despite the fact that on the side of Japan, in the event of its aggression, how to drink will participate, as a "fireman", the same "partner".

[Snail N9]

I didn’t learn anything new from the film, it was sustained in the spirit of "an official approach to history".

[Khibiny Plastun]

Russo-Japanese War 1904-1905. It began with a surprise attack on the Russian squadron in Port Arthur. You need to know a little about the history of your country.

[Poetry]

The war has died down long ago,
They all wave their fists.
They all beat the air skillfully
Everybody howls like dire wolves.

We laugh together with you,
In spite of the Japanese fools. achkam.
After all, we know: this battle
You cannot win by points.

[Ros 56]

Well, their claims were satisfied, and in the 39th year and in the 45th, they still want to?

[Andrei Nikolaevich]

Diplomacy is a delicate thing. I saw fighting soldiers from different countries. Fighting diplomats, I have not seen or even heard. And all sorts of "claims" are good when the army is behind you. The rest is chatter. He wrote roughly, but intelligibly. Sorry, MGIMO, did not finish.

[1536]

Let's hope that our people and, accordingly, the government for 100 years will still remember the thoughtless and hasty steps taken at the end of the XNUMXth century: the withdrawal of troops with huge blood from the conquered territories, the "tsarist" gifts of their "leaders" to those who gave these gifts did not deserve, etc. things, when Russia at the end of the XNUMXth century was losing its power step by step, engaging in such a "policy" of "new thinking" or appeasement of the aggressor, in simple terms, for the sake of momentary profit or, even worse, someone's personal interest.
Therefore, let the Japanese wait these 100 years, and then we'll see. You look, and they will begin to live with their minds without the "prompts" of the US occupation authorities.