Talk:History of Vladivostok

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History of Vladivostok is within the scope of the Russian History WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Russian History. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Okeansky Prospekt should not be translated as Okeansky Avenue! It should be translated as Ocean Avenue, or Oceanic Avenue. Okean means Ocean, and Okeansky is a derived adjective. Of course, this doesn't imply that this street is a Venice-like sea lane; it is merely a name, like Red Sea or Greenland. --Grzes 23:53, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

There is a claim widely circulated at Chinese web sites that the Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Alliance of 14 August 1945 suggested that China would regain Vladivostok 50 years later. However, I have to verify the truthfulness of this before I add this ti any article.--Jusjih 16:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

What does it mean, regain? China never controlled Vladivostok, only the territory on which it is now located, and that was way before 1945. Checking the facts should be fairly easy, as long as you can get a hold of the Treaty text.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 16:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

"China never controlled Vladivostok, only the territory on which it is located": difference? that's like saying konigsberg and kaliningrad aren't the same place because they have different names! --Sumple (Talk) 10:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not. Königsberg and Kaliningrad are the same city. Empty land claimed by China in the times long gone and the city that was built there by Russians after the Chinese ceded that land is a quite different matter. One cannot regain the city one never had in the first place.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 12:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I have meant that some claims suggest that China would regain the land around what is now Vladivostok, but I will try to verify its truthfulness. Many Chinese people still call the city Hai3shen1wai3.--Jusjih 14:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do verify. So far it sounds no different than Russian "claims" to Alaska, which are simply a combination of wishful thinking, nationalism, and dislike of Americans. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 14:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't sound very legit - and anyway the 1945 treaty has been superceded by more recent territorial treaties. --Sumple (Talk) 04:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The friendship treaty signed in 1945 does exist. It stipulates that "a referendum is to be held at the Vladivostok region in 1995 to determine its sovereignty status" meaning if its inhabitants voted Vladivostok to be returned to China it would become Chinese by 1995. Obviously the People's Republic of China came into being in 1949 and the Soviet Union recognized the PRC. The treaty became moot by default. I don't see the issue revives for the time being unless there is something dramatic happens to China. --JNZ 03:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I've never heard this before. Would you happen to have a link to the text of this treaty, preferrably in English or Russian (unfortunately, I cannot read Chinese)? Or, a full name of the document would also be helpful. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 12:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm rather doubtful about this treaty's provisions about Vladivostok now. The Chinese version of the 1945 Sino-Soviet Frendship Treaty is online at the Republic of China's (Taiwan) Ministry of Foreign Affairs's online database. I have looked through the main sections and all the provisions, but there is no mention of Vladivostok. So we should leave this as a speculation at best. --JNZ 00:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you provide a link, please? I cannot read Chinese, but the link from may be a good reference for other editors. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 16:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, they are here. I should correct myself that it is from the ROC Laws and Regulations Database from the Republic of China's Ministry of Justice rather than Minisory of Foreign Affaris. The full Chinese name is 中華民國蘇維埃社會主義共和國聯邦友好同盟條約 and you can try this search key on the database homepage - treaty section: http://law.moj.gov.tw/fl2.asp

http://law.moj.gov.tw/Scripts/Query4A.asp?FullDoc=all&Fcode=Y0010082 The Sino-Soviet Treaty of Alliance and Friendship (in Chinese)

http://law.moj.gov.tw/Scripts/Query4A.asp?FullDoc=all&Fcode=Y0010083 The Sino-Soviet Treaty of Alliance and Friendship - Exchange of Notes (in Chinese)

http://law.moj.gov.tw/Scripts/Query4A.asp?FullDoc=all&Fcode=Y0010084 The Sino-Soviet Treaty of Alliance and Friendship - Agreement Concerning the Port of Lusheng (in Chinese)

http://law.moj.gov.tw/Scripts/Query4A.asp?FullDoc=all&Fcode=Y0010085 The Sino-Soviet Treaty of Alliance and Friendship - Agreement Concerning Dalian (in Chinese)

http://law.moj.gov.tw/Scripts/Query4A.asp?FullDoc=all&Fcode=Y0010087 The Sino-Soviet Treaty of Alliance and Friendship - Agreement Concerning the Changchun Railway (in Chinese)

Another source says that the claim of Vladivostok holding a referendum in 1995 to determine its status is recorded in the Sino-Soviet Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), and it is recorded as "Chinese proposals" and "grounds for negotiations". I think this is the problem: this was the ROC's negotiation line and the Soviet Union agreed to further discussions in the MOU but it did not quite agree to holding the referendum yet. Then 1949 came and of course the game changed. --JNZ 05:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Russian?

The prisoners were Soviet, not only Russian. Xx236 08:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)