Talk:Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (nations and regions): Japanese military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): World War II task force

	Russia Portal Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact is part of the WikiProject Russian history, 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.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a project to improve all Japan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Japan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Japan To-do: edit purge Improve ASIMO Burakumin and Buraku Liberation League Takako Doi Chikamatsu Monzaemon Education in Japan Japanese architecture Japanese art Japanese robotics List of Emperors of Japan (transl. from ja) Emperor Yozei of Japan List of Japanese artists Namioka, Aomori Nihonjinron Sadako Ogata Ōishi Yoshio Okinawa (stub), Ryukyu Islands Politics of Japan Yagyu Shinkage-ryu Center Shiken (大学入試センター試験) More... Review First Sino-Japanese War Hinduism in Japan Inland Sea Kigo Narihira Santosen Temple Sazae-san Stroke order Heizo Takenaka Giovanni Battista Sidotti Requests See Requested articles Listed for deletion See this page, this page, and this page for lists. Grammar corrections Gaijin Takefuji Need images Every prefecture, see Subdivisions of Japan Sendai - Add demographic images More... Translate from Japanese Wikipedia Iemoto (家元) Blue Ribbon Award (Film) (ブルーリボン賞 (映画)) Gesaku (ja:戯作) More... Transliterations missing for Military ranks and insignia of the Japan Self-Defense Forces Wikify Ibaraki University Ikawa, Shizuoka Ima, Ai ni Yukimasu Japanese sculpture Mori Goro Sangaria (soft drink) Shaken Takefuji Vote: Watch this list — Edit this list

[edit] unilateral abrogation of the treaty

I have moved 2 of the notes to the talk page for further discussion:

===Notes===

*The pact was valid for five years (see article 3). The Soviet Union ended this pact right after this period, in April 1945, and as a consequence did not violate the pact.

*A similar treaty between nazi-Germany and the Soviet Union was concluded in 1939: the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

Both of the above is analysis of the treaty without an Attribution.

The Hague conventions use the words "In the event of one of the High Contracting Parties denouncing the present Declaration, such denunciation shall not take effect until a year after the notification made in writing to the Netherlands Government, and forthwith communicated by it to all the other Contracting Powers." In the case of the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact there does not seem to be a time limit on how soon a denunciation comes into effect. I think we need to find an expert source on International law which explains clearly if the Soviets broke the treaty of if the denunciation of the treaty made on the 5 August 1945 was an acceptable unilateral abrogation of the treaty, before any such analysis is added to this article.

Also I am sure that similarities between the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact and the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact exist but again it is an analysis and should be sourced--Philip Baird Shearer 16:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right about both notes, although I think that the second note doesn't necessarely need a source. Some things are so obvious that they don't need a source: Two axis-allies that each conclude a neutrality pact with the Soviet Union in the same period? But I agree that the notes can be removed until a source is found. I've read several sources about the first note somewhere. There was I think even a record about the conversation between Naotake Sato (the 1945 Japanese ambassador to the USSR) and Vyacheslav Molotov about this. I'll have to find them again. (corrected and sourced) Sijo Ripa 19:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some explanation is in order

I want to draw attention to the precise wording of the treaty:

"Article two: Should one of the Contracting Parties become the object of hostilities on the part of one or several third powers, the other Contracting Party will observe neutrality throughout the duration of the conflict."

Note that while the treaty formally compelled Japan to neutrality in the conflict between the Axis and the Soviet Union (the Soviet Union was attacked, it was the object) there was no such compulsion on the part of the Soviet Union to stay neutral in the conflict opposing Japan on the one hand and the USA and the British Empire on the other, as Japan was plainly the aggressor in that war (or part of the war).

Our text about the repudation is also incorrect as it states only that the SU repudiation happened according to the time schedule mentioned in the treaty, which of course only resulted in the fact that the treaty would not be prolonged for another 5 years.

The Avalon link however also says the following: 'The neutrality pact between the Soviet Union and Japan was concluded on April 13, 1941, that is, before the attack of Germany on the USSR and before the outbreak of war between Japan on the one hand and England and the United States on the other. Since that time the situation has been basically altered. Germany has attacked the USSR, and Japan, ally of Germany, is aiding the latter in its war against the USSR. Furthermore Japan is waging a war with the USA and England, which are allies of the Soviet Union. In these circumstances the neutrality pact between Japan and the USSR has lost its sense, and the prolongation of that pact has become impossible.'

"Japan, ally of Germany, is aiding the latter in its war against the USSR." - is it really OR to say that the Soviet Union is here claiming that Japan has already violated article two? "In these circumstances the neutrality pact between Japan and the USSR has lost its sense" ...

Molotov is also quoted as saying "the USA and England, which are allies of the Soviet Union", obviously implying (yes, now I am doing OR here, but it does not matter) that the USA and England should not be considered "third powers" as understood under article two. However, since, as I said, the Neutrality pact did not mean the Soviet Union could not join the war on the side of the Americans and British, it was no more than a polite warning. Which the Soviet Union alluded to in its declaration of war later:

"The demand of the three powers, the United States, Great Britain and China, on July 26 for the unconditional surrender of the Japanese armed forces was rejected by Japan, and thus the proposal of the Japanese Government to the Soviet Union on mediation in the war in the Far East loses all basis. Taking into consideration the refusal of Japan to capitulate, the Allies submitted to the Soviet Government a proposal to join the war against Japanese aggression and thus shorten the duration of the war, reduce the number of victims and facilitate the speedy restoration of universal peace. Loyal to its Allied duty, the Soviet Government has accepted the proposals of the Allies and has joined in the declaration of the Allied powers of July 26."

"In these circumstances" I think that both points ("the object" and "ally of Germany") need to be added to the article. --Paul Pieniezny 12:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)