Russia and Japan might sign peace treaty

[Arumdaum]

Is that region in the center of Africa really say what I think it says ?

Yes...

[Arumdaum]

I support Japan's claim and see Russia's occupation as nothing more than the legacy of a communist land grab a long time ago.

I feel similarly about Senkaku and Takeshima though so make of that what you will.

The Liancourt Rocks? Communist landgrab by South Korea?..

[Arumdaum]

Japan started a war.
Japan lost that war.
Russia took a couple islands from Japan.
Japan throws hissy fit, wants islands back.

When you play the game of mass-murdering warmongers, you win or...lose a few largely insignificant islands. Yeah, I don't exactly have a lot of sympathy for Japan's position. It started a war and lost. As far as I'm concerned, its lucky it got to keep anything more than the four home islands.

Actually, the Soviet Union started the war by invading Japan after it was nuked. However, Japan lost a lot more than simply a few insignificant islands. It lost Korea, Taiwan, Karafuto, the Kuril Islands, numerous Pacific Islands (which were important in the rivalry between the US and Japan in the Pacific), the Liaodong peninsula, the concessions it had in China, and Manchuria, which was rich with natural resources (Japan has little) and was considered its "lifeline."

[United States of Natan]

I would say split 'em 50/50. and, if Japan does not want to part with any, the U.S. could always intervene as a mediator. maybe a threat of another taste of nuke will get them to agree

[Arumdaum]

I would say split 'em 50/50. and, if Japan does not want to part with any, the U.S. could always intervene as a mediator. maybe a threat of another taste of nuke will get them to agree

Please don't be serious.

Russia should keep the islands. They won World War II and thus the spoils of war go to them. Japan should just deal with it and try better next time.

Are you serious? Might means right?

[NERVUN]

Right... what constant aggression were you talking about?

Attacking Russia in 1905, attacking in 1918, during a Civil War, and then attacking the USSR in 1938. That's three attacks, all with Japan as the aggressor, in less than half a century. Only a Japanese Nationalist would pretend that it's not constant aggression.

Excuse me? 1905 was BOTH sides, or did you forget Russia forcing Japan to back out of its gains during the first Sino-Japanese war just to gobble it up itself looking for a warm water port?

And yes, Japan DID send in troops during the Bolshevik Revolution, so did many other countries... odd that you're not using that as an excuse for Russia to make land grabs off of them.

As for the final, guess what, BOTH sides committed border violations, repeatedly before the undeclared war.

Only the Russian nationalist who uses that flag for their NS nation would think that constitutes any kind of constant aggression.

Let me spell it out to YOU! Soviet Russia agreed with Nazi Germany to divide chunks of countries. After the war, it didn't give them back to their respective nations unless you seriously want to claim that, somehow, Poland, Finland, Estonia, and Latvia were Nazis. Fact it, in terms of aggression, it was the USSR who was the aggressor there. That wasn't Russian homeland lost to the Nazis, that was land the USSR invaded before Hitler turned around and invaded Russia. After the war, Russia never bothered to give it back!

Did you miss the part where Russia lost that land in the early stages of the war? You seem to be missing that part. Repeatedly.

Did you miss the part where those lands weren't Russian? You seem to be, repeatedly. You're complaining that a thief stole what you stole first. That still doesn'T give you title to them.

Additionally, we wanted to protect Eastern Europe from Nazi Aggression, and we didn't want to annex anything except the area around Leningrad.

Bull shit.

However, Chamberlain pressured Czechoslovakia to give up Sudetenland to Nazis, and then annexed Czechoslovakia as a whole. That's what encouraged aggressive Soviet behavior that led to the M-R Pact, which, I've repeatedly admitted, was a mistake.

Sorry Charlie, ain't so.

On the other hand, Japan was running around wiping out civilians, i.e. Rape of Nanking, and empire building, without anyone provoking them.

Yes, poor, poor Russians... gobbling up territories that don't belong to them... LOOK! NAZIS JAPANESE!
What's really funny is that you state this and then you try to pull off a moral high ground later on. You can't have it both ways.

The point, it just went over your head. If your claim is that somehow because Japan attacked Russia over the border areas in Outer Mongolia means that Russia should gain territory, well, they DID. They gained the territory under dispute. Anything further is getting grabby...

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize there was a limit on what we could take from idiots attacking us. *checks chart* Oh wait, there is no limit. Point is, Japan isolated itself by viciously attacking all of their neighbors. You don't get to cry foul if you're the neighborhood bully, and end up being pwnd by one of the bigger kids whom you used to pick on.

I'm sorry if your justification was just shown to be so much BS. The point is that there was no justification legally for the Soviet Union to attack a defeated enemy and take territory it never claimed, owned, or anything else beyond Russia being grabby. That's hardly any kind of legal or moral justification to continue to hold on to it.

Ah, you mean the 16,000+ Japanese (IIRC) that were forced out of their homes two years after the war because of Russian nationalist pride?

Like I said, your whole argument turns on "If Russia's doing it, it ain't bad" which is a poor reason.

And that part, the deportation, was wrong. So in order to right a past wrong, you're proposing to commit another wrong. An eye for an eye makes the whole World blind Nerv. I guess, if the Japanese have that kind of attitude, they're still too blind to even be discussing the peace treaty.

Ah! Of course there's an interesting point there, will Russia return the land it stole to Japanese families? No? Oopps. And yet, Japan has offered to allow the current populations to remain on the islands, just assuming control over them again. Can't say Russia has offered the same to the families it kicked out.

If Russia can't be bothered to admit it did wrong, it's in no position to discuss peace either.

[Anachronous Rex]

You seem to be claiming that the two and two split would be "a balanced view of what's best for both parties".

I'm sure I "seem to be" if you are incredibly defensive and assume a total lack of nuance in other people. But in point of fact, I'm not. Hence the strawman thing.

You being, "Mr. Russia can do no wrong" is not so much an ad hominem as an accurate surmisal of your posting history. Any time a thread with Russia comes up, it's literally just a matter of time before you come rushing to her defense; a point not irrelevant to your spouting of blind nationalism.

Additionally, if we're talking about land, fairness and decency, don't you think that decent human beings would at least be fair, and ask the people living there about the proposed changes? Oh wait, that'd be irrelevant for you...

Yeah, because I must hate Russia and all her people just because I didn't feel it was necessary to wave a warmongering middle finger at Japan? No actually, that sounds entirely reasonable. That's not what Imperial Milf suggested, so I wasn't responding to that. If you could stop being so touchy, you might actually realize that I'm not on anyone's side.

My primary issue with Finland was their participation in the Nazi-led Leningrad Blockade. I don't recall Russia deliberately trying to starve Japanese Cities. You can stop lobbing Ad Homs now, it's making you look rather foolish.

No, I remember. You specifically said that Finland didn't have to get involved in the Continuation War. That there was peace after you attacked them. That they were entirely separate wars.

Now you're saying the opposite about Japan, because it is convenient.

[NERVUN]

Is 1874 some kind of cut off date? We need to contract every single country back to their borders at that date?

http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet ... i=0&trs=24

Gonna be a number of REALLY pissed off countries when they find out they no longer exist.

Is that region in the center of Africa really say what I think it says ?

1874 map you know...

[NERVUN]

I support Japan's claim and see Russia's occupation as nothing more than the legacy of a communist land grab a long time ago.

I feel similarly about Senkaku and Takeshima though so make of that what you will.

The Liancourt Rocks? Communist landgrab by South Korea?..

Sure, South Korea is all communist.

Still wants those bloody rocks bombed into the sea.

[Arumdaum]

Right... what constant aggression were you talking about?

Attacking Russia in 1905, attacking in 1918, during a Civil War, and then attacking the USSR in 1938. That's three attacks, all with Japan as the aggressor, in less than half a century. Only a Japanese Nationalist would pretend that it's not constant aggression.

Russia itself wasn't so innocent. Following the First Sino-Japanese War, Russia, together with France and Germany, encouraged Japan to give up what it had gained in the war, namely, Port Arthur in order to "preserve China's territorial integrity". Russia, at the time, was making inroads into East Asia, and immediately took the opportunity to gobble up Port Arthur despite what it had previously asked for from Japan. Without a doubt, it was incredibly hypocritical of Russia to do so, especially as it was also continuously acquiring more concessions from China. Russia obtained permission to build the China Eastern Railway, which despite its name had literally zero control by the Chinese, and allowed for Russian troops to more quickly arrive in East Asia, and most especially, to Port Arthur, Russia's only warm water port, as well as to Korea, which was seen as a "a dagger pointed at the heart of Japan."

Russia, although mainly seeking to acquire Manchuria, and then later increasing their influence in Korea, also for a while sought to increase their influence in Japan during the Bakumatsu. It send people such as Putiatin to open up Japan, and imposed its own unequal treaties on the nation. It's probable that without Japan's modernization during the Meiji era, Russia's position would have strengthened in the Middle East at the expense of the traditional nations in the area.

It was due to the imperialist ambitions of both Russia and Japan that the war started. Japan though, had a lot more to worry about, especially due to how close Russia's imperialism was to the home islands.

The Russo-Japanese wasn't a surprise either. Japan only attacked in 1904 when numerous repeated attempts at negotiation failed, and the decision to attack was made when there were still statesmen in Moscow negotiating. Ito Hirobumi, at that time one of the most influential Japanese statesmen alongside his rival Yamagata Aritomo, pushed for negotiation with Russia, rather than war (with someone else I think, but not Yamagata). After Korea was declared "independent" following the First Sino-Japanese War, Korea had become increasingly under the influence of Russia, and this was seen as a threat to Japan's national security.

During the Civil War, it was more than just Japan which sent troops, and Japan did indeed withdraw due to the demands of the more liberal populace of the "Taisho democracy" at the time, who were against the occupation and refused any attempt at annexation of the taken territories. I think you're failing to note the great changes which have occurred in Japan throughout the times, as well as the changes in relations. After 1907, Russo-Japanese relations had actually warmed, and were together in that neither saw Manchuria as a part of China.

And eh, by 1938, the Kwantung Army had grown largely autonomous, and the power of the government in Tokyo over its military had considerably weakened. The military, and especially the Kwantung Army, was overrun by far-right ultranationalists, and a large number of moderates and liberals in the government and the military were assassinated. It was more the aggression of a military which largely had a mind of its own rather than aggression by the Japanese government, although the Diet itself had grown highly right-wing and militaristic at the time. This is in contrast to 1918, when the army was largely disciplined and the government had more control over it (although the army had taken advantage of a certain law by Yamagata Aritomo to dismiss cabinets before, like Saionji's cabinet).

[Arumdaum]

The Liancourt Rocks? Communist landgrab by South Korea?..

Sure, South Korea is all communist.

Still wants those bloody rocks bombed into the sea.

All the rampant nationalism... it's just so... stupid goirjoijoeirjg

[Arumdaum]

Aren't there a few people living on those islands, and would it not be a good idea to ask them where they think the islands belong?

If Japan somehow took them, deported all the Russians and then resettled a bunch of Japanese people there like the USSR did, then what? :v

[Shofercia]

Attacking Russia in 1905, attacking in 1918, during a Civil War, and then attacking the USSR in 1938. That's three attacks, all with Japan as the aggressor, in less than half a century. Only a Japanese Nationalist would pretend that it's not constant aggression.

Excuse me? 1905 was BOTH sides, or did you forget Russia forcing Japan to back out of its gains during the first Sino-Japanese war just to gobble it up itself looking for a warm water port?

And yes, Japan DID send in troops during the Bolshevik Revolution, so did many other countries... odd that you're not using that as an excuse for Russia to make land grabs off of them.

As for the final, guess what, BOTH sides committed border violations, repeatedly before the undeclared war.

Only the Russian nationalist who uses that flag for their NS nation would think that constitutes any kind of constant aggression.

Both sides? I didn't realize that Japan's attack three hours prior to the declaration of war constituted Russian Aggression, but then again, that just seems to be Japanese Tradition:

Japan issued a declaration of war on 8 February 1904. However, three hours before Japan's declaration of war was received by the Russian Government, the Japanese Imperial Navy attacked the Russian Far East Fleet at Port Arthur. Tsar Nicholas II was stunned by news of the attack. He could not believe that Japan would commit an act of war without a formal declaration, and had been assured by his ministers that the Japanese would not fight. Russia declared war on Japan eight days later.

Japan (noun): country that attacks US and Russia without war declaration, and then complains about being fucked.

And during the Russian Civil War, other countries had no business in Russia's Affairs. I hold other countries that invaded Russia, equally guilty, but some countries, like America later made up for that guilt, by being our allies in WWII. Additionally, there's a difference between invading during the Russian Civil War, and invading during the Russian Civil War, in addition to attacking three hours before declaring war on Russia in 1905, and attacking once again in 1938. Of course I'm not expecting a Japanese Nationalist to see that line, but I'm sure that he'll comment on my flag; gotta get those straws where you can, eh Nerv?

Additionally, we wanted to protect Eastern Europe from Nazi Aggression, and we didn't want to annex anything except the area around Leningrad.

Bull shit.

If you would've actually been paying attention to my posts, instead of trying to break them up and take them out of context, you'd realize that I was talking about the period prior to Chamberlain's betrayal of Czechoslovakia. You do realize that events in 1938 happen before those in 1939, right?

However, Chamberlain pressured Czechoslovakia to give up Sudetenland to Nazis, and then annexed Czechoslovakia as a whole. That's what encouraged aggressive Soviet behavior that led to the M-R Pact, which, I've repeatedly admitted, was a mistake.

Sorry Charlie, ain't so.

Oh noes, some scholars on Wikidorkia suggested bullshit! Oh my! Well, here are the facts:
1938: USSR offers to defend Czechoslovakia against Nazi Germany; Chamberlain ensures that Czechoslovakia rebuffs said offer, and Nazi Germany takes Czechoslovakia, thus pushing Nazi Germany closer to the USSR. With Japan acting aggressively in the Pacific, and Nazis getting land by aggression, much like the Japanese, Stalin mistakenly believes that aggression is how the World works now.
1939: M-R Pact signed.

And those are the facts. I can draw my own conclusion from them. But, since you like Wikidorkia so much:

One active and articulate exponent of collective security during the immediate pre-war years was the Soviet foreign minister Maxim Litvinov. However, there are grounds for doubt about the depth of Soviet commitment to this principle, as well as that of Western powers. After the Munich Agreement in September 1938 and the passivity of outside powers in the face of German occupation of the remainder of Czechoslovakia in March 1939 it was shown that the Western Powers were not prepared to engage in collective security against aggression by the Axis Powers together with the Soviet Union, Soviet foreign policy was revised and Litvinov was replaced as foreign minister in early May 1939, in order to facilitate the negotiations that led to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with Germany, signed by Litvinov's successor, Vyacheslav Molotov, on August 23 of that year. The war in Europe broke out a week later, with the German invasion of Poland on September 1.

Note the phrasing: after events in 1938, events in 1939 occurred. Litvinov's collective security died with Hitler's annexation of the Sudetenland, not before it.

On the other hand, Japan was running around wiping out civilians, i.e. Rape of Nanking, and empire building, without anyone provoking them.

Yes, poor, poor Russians... gobbling up territories that don't belong to them... LOOK! NAZIS JAPANESE!
What's really funny is that you state this and then you try to pull off a moral high ground later on. You can't have it both ways.

Quite frankly, almost any Pacific Nation had the moral high ground against Imperial Japan, circa 1930s and 1940s, since Japan was invading almost all of their neighbors left and right, but is now complaining about others being oh so very brutal. Those poor, poor, poor Imperialists.

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize there was a limit on what we could take from idiots attacking us. *checks chart* Oh wait, there is no limit. Point is, Japan isolated itself by viciously attacking all of their neighbors. You don't get to cry foul if you're the neighborhood bully, and end up being pwnd by one of the bigger kids whom you used to pick on.

I'm sorry if your justification was just shown to be so much BS. The point is that there was no justification legally for the Soviet Union to attack a defeated enemy and take territory it never claimed, owned, or anything else beyond Russia being grabby. That's hardly any kind of legal or moral justification to continue to hold on to it

Gotta love it when an Axis Power starts whining about moral justification. As for legal justification, erm, we control it De Facto, and moving out civvies, against their will, would likely be illegal. So would forcing them to change countries, against their will.

And that part, the deportation, was wrong. So in order to right a past wrong, you're proposing to commit another wrong. An eye for an eye makes the whole World blind Nerv. I guess, if the Japanese have that kind of attitude, they're still too blind to even be discussing the peace treaty.

Ah! Of course there's an interesting point there, will Russia return the land it stole to Japanese families? No? Oopps. And yet, Japan has offered to allow the current populations to remain on the islands, just assuming control over them again. Can't say Russia has offered the same to the families it kicked out.

If Russia can't be bothered to admit it did wrong, it's in no position to discuss peace either.

Too bad Japan is currently spitting on the wishes of the locals to remain with Russia. If we're talking about land, we need to consider the wishes of the locals living there. That's how the twenty-first century works. Time for Japan to enter the twenty-first century. And hey, if you think that neither country's in a position to discuss peace, works for me. We keep the islands, and we keep not attacking each other. It's not like a peace treaty does much good against Japan anyways; they're used to attacking without declaring war.

[Shofercia]

You seem to be claiming that the two and two split would be "a balanced view of what's best for both parties".

I'm sure I "seem to be" if you are incredibly defensive and assume a total lack of nuance in other people. But in point of fact, I'm not. Hence the strawman thing.

You being, "Mr. Russia can do no wrong" is not so much an ad hominem as an accurate surmisal of your posting history. Any time a thread with Russia comes up, it's literally just a matter of time before you come rushing to her defense; a point not irrelevant to your spouting of blind nationalism.

Yes, Mr. Master Of Ad Hominems, I heard you the first time. If only you could be so useful as to get the facts right...

Additionally, if we're talking about land, fairness and decency, don't you think that decent human beings would at least be fair, and ask the people living there about the proposed changes? Oh wait, that'd be irrelevant for you...

Yeah, because I must hate Russia and all her people just because I didn't feel it was necessary to wave a warmongering middle finger at Japan?

Waving a warmongering finger? I didn't realize that keeping which we already, de facto, own, is equivalent of waving warmongering fingers. Sounds very counterfactual. Nor was the guy that you were responding to, asking Russia to go to war with Japan.

[Shofercia]

Attacking Russia in 1905, attacking in 1918, during a Civil War, and then attacking the USSR in 1938. That's three attacks, all with Japan as the aggressor, in less than half a century. Only a Japanese Nationalist would pretend that it's not constant aggression.

Russia itself wasn't so innocent. Following the First Sino-Japanese War, Russia, together with France and Germany, encouraged Japan to give up what it had gained in the war, namely, Port Arthur in order to "preserve China's territorial integrity". Russia, at the time, was making inroads into East Asia, and immediately took the opportunity to gobble up Port Arthur despite what it had previously asked for from Japan. Without a doubt, it was incredibly hypocritical of Russia to do so, especially as it was also continuously acquiring more concessions from China. Russia obtained permission to build the China Eastern Railway, which despite its name had literally zero control by the Chinese, and allowed for Russian troops to more quickly arrive in East Asia, and most especially, to Port Arthur, Russia's only warm water port, as well as to Korea, which was seen as a "a dagger pointed at the heart of Japan."

Russia, although mainly seeking to acquire Manchuria, and then later increasing their influence in Korea, also for a while sought to increase their influence in Japan during the Bakumatsu. It send people such as Putiatin to open up Japan, and imposed its own unequal treaties on the nation. It's probable that without Japan's modernization during the Meiji era, Russia's position would have strengthened in the Middle East at the expense of the traditional nations in the area.

It was due to the imperialist ambitions of both Russia and Japan that the war started. Japan though, had a lot more to worry about, especially due to how close Russia's imperialism was to the home islands.

The Russo-Japanese wasn't a surprise either. Japan only attacked in 1904 when numerous repeated attempts at negotiation failed, and the decision to attack was made when there were still statesmen in Moscow negotiating. Ito Hirobumi, at that time one of the most influential Japanese statesmen alongside his rival Yamagata Aritomo, pushed for negotiation with Russia, rather than war (with someone else I think, but not Yamagata). After Korea was declared "independent" following the First Sino-Japanese War, Korea had become increasingly under the influence of Russia, and this was seen as a threat to Japan's national security.

During the Civil War, it was more than just Japan which sent troops, and Japan did indeed withdraw due to the demands of the more liberal populace of the "Taisho democracy" at the time, who were against the occupation and refused any attempt at annexation of the taken territories. I think you're failing to note the great changes which have occurred in Japan throughout the times, as well as the changes in relations. After 1907, Russo-Japanese relations had actually warmed, and were together in that neither saw Manchuria as a part of China.

And eh, by 1938, the Kwantung Army had grown largely autonomous, and the power of the government in Tokyo over its military had considerably weakened. The military, and especially the Kwantung Army, was overrun by far-right ultranationalists, and a large number of moderates and liberals in the government and the military were assassinated. It was more the aggression of a military which largely had a mind of its own rather than aggression by the Japanese government, although the Diet itself had grown highly right-wing and militaristic at the time. This is in contrast to 1918, when the army was largely disciplined and the government had more control over it (although the army had taken advantage of a certain law by Yamagata Aritomo to dismiss cabinets before, like Saionji's cabinet).

No offense Arum, but that sounds like a wall of excuses. Japan declared war on Russia, and hours before declaring war, they've attacked, a pattern that was repeated at Pearl Harbor. Not the other way around. Saying that "well almost everyone intervened in the Russian Civil War" is also not a valid excuse. If almost everyone was jumping off of twenty story high buildings, without parachutes, would you? As for Japan not being able to control their own armies, quite frankly, I could care less about that. Was it the government of Japan who did it? The military of Japan? Doesn't matter, they attacked us.

[NERVUN]

Excuse me? 1905 was BOTH sides, or did you forget Russia forcing Japan to back out of its gains during the first Sino-Japanese war just to gobble it up itself looking for a warm water port?

And yes, Japan DID send in troops during the Bolshevik Revolution, so did many other countries... odd that you're not using that as an excuse for Russia to make land grabs off of them.

As for the final, guess what, BOTH sides committed border violations, repeatedly before the undeclared war.

Only the Russian nationalist who uses that flag for their NS nation would think that constitutes any kind of constant aggression.

Both sides? I didn't realize that Japan's attack three hours prior to the declaration of war constituted Russian Aggression, but then again, that just seems to be Japanese Tradition:

I'm sorry, but apparently your nationalism got in your eyes, try Russia, as pointed out, was hardly innocent in terms of grabbing land, land that it had just forced Japan to relinquish. Poke a tiger bites you and THEN bitch about it (You know, kinda like you're saying Japan is doing now)? Russia got crushed because the idiots in Moscow couldn't believe that Japan could possibly win.

Japan issued a declaration of war on 8 February 1904. However, three hours before Japan's declaration of war was received by the Russian Government, the Japanese Imperial Navy attacked the Russian Far East Fleet at Port Arthur. Tsar Nicholas II was stunned by news of the attack. He could not believe that Japan would commit an act of war without a formal declaration, and had been assured by his ministers that the Japanese would not fight. Russia declared war on Japan eight days later.

Japan (noun): country that attacks US and Russia without war declaration, and then complains about being fucked.

But soft! What light through yonder window breaks! Once again apparently it's NOT ok for Japan to do it, but it's perfectly acceptable for Russia.

And during the Russian Civil War, other countries had no business in Russia's Affairs. I hold other countries that invaded Russia, equally guilty, but some countries, like America later made up for that guilt, by being our allies in WWII. Additionally, there's a difference between invading during the Russian Civil War, and invading during the Russian Civil War,

The hell are you on about?

in addition to attacking three hours before declaring war on Russia in 1905, and attacking once again in 1938. Of course I'm not expecting a Japanese Nationalist to see that line, but I'm sure that he'll comment on my flag; gotta get those straws where you can, eh Nerv?

Speaking of strawmen, you just can't deal with the fact that I am not Japanese, am not a Japanese nationalist. What's the matter? Can't deal with historical truths coming from someone else? Is your defense so weak that it relies on the other person being Japanese and when that fails you attempt to pull out a can of yellow paint and PAINT them as such? Your points are weak, your posting record however speaks rather loudly.

Bull shit.

If you would've actually been paying attention to my posts, instead of trying to break them up and take them out of context, you'd realize that I was talking about the period prior to Chamberlain's betrayal of Czechoslovakia. You do realize that events in 1938 happen before those in 1939, right?

Please stop attempting to shift the bloody goalposts. Russia wanted lands that it didn't have title to and it dealt with Hitler to do so. It never gave a lot of it back.

Sounds like a pattern.

Sorry Charlie, ain't so.

Oh noes, some scholars on Wikidorkia suggested bullshit! Oh my! Well, here are the facts:
1938: USSR offers to defend Czechoslovakia against Nazi Germany; Chamberlain ensures that Czechoslovakia rebuffs said offer, and Nazi Germany takes Czechoslovakia, thus pushing Nazi Germany closer to the USSR. With Japan acting aggressively in the Pacific, and Nazis getting land by aggression, much like the Japanese, Stalin mistakenly believes that aggression is how the World works now.
1939: M-R Pact signed.

And those are the facts. I can draw my own conclusion from them. But, since you like Wikidorkia so much:

One active and articulate exponent of collective security during the immediate pre-war years was the Soviet foreign minister Maxim Litvinov. However, there are grounds for doubt about the depth of Soviet commitment to this principle, as well as that of Western powers. After the Munich Agreement in September 1938 and the passivity of outside powers in the face of German occupation of the remainder of Czechoslovakia in March 1939 it was shown that the Western Powers were not prepared to engage in collective security against aggression by the Axis Powers together with the Soviet Union, Soviet foreign policy was revised and Litvinov was replaced as foreign minister in early May 1939, in order to facilitate the negotiations that led to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with Germany, signed by Litvinov's successor, Vyacheslav Molotov, on August 23 of that year. The war in Europe broke out a week later, with the German invasion of Poland on September 1.

Note the phrasing: after events in 1938, events in 1939 occurred. Litvinov's collective security died with Hitler's annexation of the Sudetenland, not before it.

And the point goes whizzing over your head yet again (And of course since you cannot refute it, you attack Wiki). Simple enough, once more, Russia stole lands it had no title to. It never gave them back. There is no excuse (though I did love your attempt to use Hitler's own excuse of needing breathing room) for it.

Yes, poor, poor Russians... gobbling up territories that don't belong to them... LOOK! NAZIS JAPANESE!
What's really funny is that you state this and then you try to pull off a moral high ground later on. You can't have it both ways.

Quite frankly, almost any Pacific Nation had the moral high ground against Imperial Japan, circa 1930s and 1940s, since Japan was invading almost all of their neighbors left and right, but is now complaining about others being oh so very brutal. Those poor, poor, poor Imperialists.

There's this thing called a mirror, have you perchance looked into one? Russian history is *gasp!* imperialistic to a fault.

Not excusing Japan, they just arrived late to the game.

I'm sorry if your justification was just shown to be so much BS. The point is that there was no justification legally for the Soviet Union to attack a defeated enemy and take territory it never claimed, owned, or anything else beyond Russia being grabby. That's hardly any kind of legal or moral justification to continue to hold on to it

Gotta love it when an Axis Power starts whining about moral justification. As for legal justification, erm, we control it De Facto, and moving out civvies, against their will, would likely be illegal. So would forcing them to change countries, against their will.

But doing it to Japanese citizens is a-ok, Hmm?

Again, your entire reasoning boils down to "It's ok as long as Russia is doing it".

And given you're talking about Stalin... God, the hypocrisy smells.

Ah! Of course there's an interesting point there, will Russia return the land it stole to Japanese families? No? Oopps. And yet, Japan has offered to allow the current populations to remain on the islands, just assuming control over them again. Can't say Russia has offered the same to the families it kicked out.

If Russia can't be bothered to admit it did wrong, it's in no position to discuss peace either.

Too bad Japan is currently spitting on the wishes of the locals to remain with Russia. If we're talking about land, we need to consider the wishes of the locals living there. That's how the twenty-first century works.

Again, it's ok for Russia to spit on the locals that it forced out. As long as it's RUSSIA, amirite?

Come on, give me one good reason why the old population who had lived there for longer than the current one doesn't count besides "It was Russia".

Time for Japan to enter the twenty-first century. And hey, if you think that neither country's in a position to discuss peace, works for me. We keep the islands, and we keep not attacking each other. It's not like a peace treaty does much good against Japan anyways; they're used to attacking without declaring war.

Yes, it's not like Russia had ever attack without a declaration of war... Oops... And let's not forget Finland and the Winter War.

[NERVUN]

Russia itself wasn't so innocent. Following the First Sino-Japanese War, Russia, together with France and Germany, encouraged Japan to give up what it had gained in the war, namely, Port Arthur in order to "preserve China's territorial integrity". Russia, at the time, was making inroads into East Asia, and immediately took the opportunity to gobble up Port Arthur despite what it had previously asked for from Japan. Without a doubt, it was incredibly hypocritical of Russia to do so, especially as it was also continuously acquiring more concessions from China. Russia obtained permission to build the China Eastern Railway, which despite its name had literally zero control by the Chinese, and allowed for Russian troops to more quickly arrive in East Asia, and most especially, to Port Arthur, Russia's only warm water port, as well as to Korea, which was seen as a "a dagger pointed at the heart of Japan."

Russia, although mainly seeking to acquire Manchuria, and then later increasing their influence in Korea, also for a while sought to increase their influence in Japan during the Bakumatsu. It send people such as Putiatin to open up Japan, and imposed its own unequal treaties on the nation. It's probable that without Japan's modernization during the Meiji era, Russia's position would have strengthened in the Middle East at the expense of the traditional nations in the area.

It was due to the imperialist ambitions of both Russia and Japan that the war started. Japan though, had a lot more to worry about, especially due to how close Russia's imperialism was to the home islands.

The Russo-Japanese wasn't a surprise either. Japan only attacked in 1904 when numerous repeated attempts at negotiation failed, and the decision to attack was made when there were still statesmen in Moscow negotiating. Ito Hirobumi, at that time one of the most influential Japanese statesmen alongside his rival Yamagata Aritomo, pushed for negotiation with Russia, rather than war (with someone else I think, but not Yamagata). After Korea was declared "independent" following the First Sino-Japanese War, Korea had become increasingly under the influence of Russia, and this was seen as a threat to Japan's national security.

During the Civil War, it was more than just Japan which sent troops, and Japan did indeed withdraw due to the demands of the more liberal populace of the "Taisho democracy" at the time, who were against the occupation and refused any attempt at annexation of the taken territories. I think you're failing to note the great changes which have occurred in Japan throughout the times, as well as the changes in relations. After 1907, Russo-Japanese relations had actually warmed, and were together in that neither saw Manchuria as a part of China.

And eh, by 1938, the Kwantung Army had grown largely autonomous, and the power of the government in Tokyo over its military had considerably weakened. The military, and especially the Kwantung Army, was overrun by far-right ultranationalists, and a large number of moderates and liberals in the government and the military were assassinated. It was more the aggression of a military which largely had a mind of its own rather than aggression by the Japanese government, although the Diet itself had grown highly right-wing and militaristic at the time. This is in contrast to 1918, when the army was largely disciplined and the government had more control over it (although the army had taken advantage of a certain law by Yamagata Aritomo to dismiss cabinets before, like Saionji's cabinet).

No offense Arum, but that sounds like a wall of excuses. Japan declared war on Russia, and hours before declaring war, they've attacked, a pattern that was repeated at Pearl Harbor. Not the other way around. Saying that "well almost everyone intervened in the Russian Civil War" is also not a valid excuse. If almost everyone was jumping off of twenty story high buildings, without parachutes, would you? As for Japan not being able to control their own armies, quite frankly, I could care less about that. Was it the government of Japan who did it? The military of Japan? Doesn't matter, they attacked us.

Really?

Russians just attacked the US... Let's bomb the shit out of the Russians.

[Anachronous Rex]

I'm sure I "seem to be" if you are incredibly defensive and assume a total lack of nuance in other people. But in point of fact, I'm not. Hence the strawman thing.

You being, "Mr. Russia can do no wrong" is not so much an ad hominem as an accurate surmisal of your posting history. Any time a thread with Russia comes up, it's literally just a matter of time before you come rushing to her defense; a point not irrelevant to your spouting of blind nationalism.

Yes, Mr. Master Of Ad Hominems, I heard you the first time. If only you could be so useful as to get the facts right...

There must be a language barrier here, because you seem to be having trouble making sense.

Yeah, because I must hate Russia and all her people just because I didn't feel it was necessary to wave a warmongering middle finger at Japan?

Waving a warmongering finger? I didn't realize that keeping which we already, de facto, own, is equivalent of waving warmongering fingers. Sounds very counterfactual. Nor was the guy that you were responding to, asking Russia to go to war with Japan.

Again, you seem to spend a lot of time reading into what I say. He wasn't encouraging Russia to go to war with Japan. He was encouraging Japan to go to war generally, as a means to solving it's problems. A Japan that does this is something the world, I think, is better off without. Coupled with an assertion that there can be no discussion, because the matter is already decided, which is what I meant by a middle finger.

I don't think my posts are actually that obtuse. I could be wrong, but I suspect what is really happening is that you are simply determined to take offense. And, frankly, there is nothing that can be done with someone like that.

[Shofercia]

No offense Arum, but that sounds like a wall of excuses. Japan declared war on Russia, and hours before declaring war, they've attacked, a pattern that was repeated at Pearl Harbor. Not the other way around. Saying that "well almost everyone intervened in the Russian Civil War" is also not a valid excuse. If almost everyone was jumping off of twenty story high buildings, without parachutes, would you? As for Japan not being able to control their own armies, quite frankly, I could care less about that. Was it the government of Japan who did it? The military of Japan? Doesn't matter, they attacked us.

Really?

Russians just attacked the US... Let's bomb the shit out of the Russians.

There's a fine line between an army attacking, and Joe Blows blowing up bombs. I was expecting some degree of common sense when I made that comment, even a minute amount...

Yes, Mr. Master Of Ad Hominems, I heard you the first time. If only you could be so useful as to get the facts right...

There must be a language barrier here, because you seem to be having trouble making sense.

"Mr. Russia can do no wrong", in a thread where I've admitted that signing the M-R Pact was wrong, would count as an Ad Hom. It's really easy to see.

Waving a warmongering finger? I didn't realize that keeping which we already, de facto, own, is equivalent of waving warmongering fingers. Sounds very counterfactual. Nor was the guy that you were responding to, asking Russia to go to war with Japan.

Again, you seem to spend a lot of time reading into what I say. He wasn't encouraging Russia to go to war with Japan. He was encouraging Japan to go to war generally, as a means to solving it's problems. A Japan that does this is something the world, I think, is better off without. Coupled with an assertion that there can be no discussion, because the matter is already decided, which is what I meant by a middle finger.

I don't think my posts are actually that obtuse. I could be wrong, but I suspect what is really happening is that you are simply determined to take offense. And, frankly, there is nothing that can be done with someone like that.

You stated: I didn't feel it was necessary to wave a warmongering middle finger at Japan

So is Japan waving a warmongering middle finger at Japan?

[Shofercia]

Both sides? I didn't realize that Japan's attack three hours prior to the declaration of war constituted Russian Aggression, but then again, that just seems to be Japanese Tradition:

I'm sorry, but apparently your nationalism got in your eyes, try Russia, as pointed out, was hardly innocent in terms of grabbing land, land that it had just forced Japan to relinquish. Poke a tiger bites you and THEN bitch about it (You know, kinda like you're saying Japan is doing now)? Russia got crushed because the idiots in Moscow couldn't believe that Japan could possibly win.

Got crushed? You sank a fleet, and that ended the war; but on land, it was hardly an all out defeat. Although it's funny, now that I think about it:

Nerv says: "Russia should've gotten over the event in 1905, by the 1930s"
Nerv also says: "Damn Russians, give us back our lands that you took 67 years ago!"

Nationalism much?

Japan (noun): country that attacks US and Russia without war declaration, and then complains about being fucked.

But soft! What light through yonder window breaks! Once again apparently it's NOT ok for Japan to do it, but it's perfectly acceptable for Russia.

Once Japan attacked Russia, and declared war on Russia, the Russian declaration of war was irrelevant.

And during the Russian Civil War, other countries had no business in Russia's Affairs. I hold other countries that invaded Russia, equally guilty, but some countries, like America later made up for that guilt, by being our allies in WWII. Additionally, there's a difference between invading during the Russian Civil War, and invading during the Russian Civil War...

The hell are you on about?

If you would've read my post in context, instead of breaking it up line by line, you would've realize that I was saying that there was a difference between attacking a country once, and doing it thrice in less than half a century. Common sense really.

...in addition to attacking three hours before declaring war on Russia in 1905, and attacking once again in 1938. Of course I'm not expecting a Japanese Nationalist to see that line, but I'm sure that he'll comment on my flag; gotta get those straws where you can, eh Nerv?

Speaking of strawmen, you just can't deal with the fact that I am not Japanese, am not a Japanese nationalist. What's the matter? Can't deal with historical truths coming from someone else? Is your defense so weak that it relies on the other person being Japanese and when that fails you attempt to pull out a can of yellow paint and PAINT them as such? Your points are weak, your posting record however speaks rather loudly.

You don't have to be a Japanese to be a Japanese Nationalist. Your words speak louder than your ethnicity. I don't judge people by their ethnicity, I judge them by their rhetoric. And yours is that of a Japanese Nationalist. I've never made a big deal about ethnicity, you're the one bringing it up. Quite frankly, I don't care about ethnicity, or what avatar a person has, or what flag he uses. I look at his arguments. Is he the Japanese Nationalist who is chanting "but M-R Pact!" like a mantra, even to completely irrelevant points of events that occurred before the M-R Pact, or not? Ethnicity has nothing to do with that.

If you would've actually been paying attention to my posts, instead of trying to break them up and take them out of context, you'd realize that I was talking about the period prior to Chamberlain's betrayal of Czechoslovakia. You do realize that events in 1938 happen before those in 1939, right?

Please stop attempting to shift the bloody goalposts. Russia wanted lands that it didn't have title to and it dealt with Hitler to do so. It never gave a lot of it back.

Sounds like a pattern.

If you want a pattern, how about Japan attacking Russia repeatedly, until they starting getting their asses kicked, and then started whining about Russia being too grubby. There's a pattern. And I'm not shifting goalposts, I'm simply pointing out that events that occurred during Chamberlain's pathetic appeasement, were, in combination with other factors, what led to the M-R Pact being signed. You boldly ignore that, and keep on chanting "but M-R Pact" like a mantra. I've already said it was wrong, explained why it was signed, and I'm ready to move on. You're not.

Oh noes, some scholars on Wikidorkia suggested bullshit! Oh my! Well, here are the facts:
1938: USSR offers to defend Czechoslovakia against Nazi Germany; Chamberlain ensures that Czechoslovakia rebuffs said offer, and Nazi Germany takes Czechoslovakia, thus pushing Nazi Germany closer to the USSR. With Japan acting aggressively in the Pacific, and Nazis getting land by aggression, much like the Japanese, Stalin mistakenly believes that aggression is how the World works now.
1939: M-R Pact signed.

And those are the facts. I can draw my own conclusion from them. But, since you like Wikidorkia so much:



Note the phrasing: after events in 1938, events in 1939 occurred. Litvinov's collective security died with Hitler's annexation of the Sudetenland, not before it.

And the point goes whizzing over your head yet again (And of course since you cannot refute it, you attack Wiki). Simple enough, once more, Russia stole lands it had no title to. It never gave them back. There is no excuse (though I did love your attempt to use Hitler's own excuse of needing breathing room) for it.

Seriously, that's your pathetic argument? "But M-R Pact?!" You've mentioned that now more times than Hippo bashed Russia. And that's saying something.

Quite frankly, almost any Pacific Nation had the moral high ground against Imperial Japan, circa 1930s and 1940s, since Japan was invading almost all of their neighbors left and right, but is now complaining about others being oh so very brutal. Those poor, poor, poor Imperialists.

There's this thing called a mirror, have you perchance looked into one? Russian history is *gasp!* imperialistic to a fault.

Not excusing Japan, they just arrived late to the game.

And when Russia lost lands as a result of Imperialism, i.e. Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, we didn't whine about losing said lands a century later.

Gotta love it when an Axis Power starts whining about moral justification. As for legal justification, erm, we control it De Facto, and moving out civvies, against their will, would likely be illegal. So would forcing them to change countries, against their will.

But doing it to Japanese citizens is a-ok, Hmm?

Again, your entire reasoning boils down to "It's ok as long as Russia is doing it".

And given you're talking about Stalin... God, the hypocrisy smells.

I've clearly stated that Stalin's deportation of civilians was wrong. Several times now. But you've successfully managed to ignore even that...

If you pretend that I said the exact opposite of what I said, that'll sound hypocritical. And if someone pretends that the exact opposite of what you said, is what you actually said, that'll also sound hypocritical.

Too bad Japan is currently spitting on the wishes of the locals to remain with Russia. If we're talking about land, we need to consider the wishes of the locals living there. That's how the twenty-first century works.

Again, it's ok for Russia to spit on the locals that it forced out. As long as it's RUSSIA, amirite?

Come on, give me one good reason why the old population who had lived there for longer than the current one doesn't count besides "It was Russia".

What Stalin did to Japanese civilians was wrong. What Stalin did to Russian civilians was also wrong. What you're proposing to do to Russians is also wrong. Three wrongs still don't make a right, but two wrongs is better than three.

Time for Japan to enter the twenty-first century. And hey, if you think that neither country's in a position to discuss peace, works for me. We keep the islands, and we keep not attacking each other. It's not like a peace treaty does much good against Japan anyways; they're used to attacking without declaring war.

Yes, it's not like Russia had ever attack without a declaration of war... Oops... And let's not forget Finland and the Winter War.

Did Nervun just link to an event that took place a result of the M-R Pact? Oh man, Nerv mentioning the M-R Pact, that's just as unpredictable as Hippo trying to partition Russia!


Once again, since this is not sinking in, let me explain about the M-R Pact. In 1938, Maxim Litvinov was in charge of Soviet Foreign Affairs. Stalin wanted allies and badly, because he remembered the "open season" during the Russian Revolution, and didn't want a repetition of that. So Litvinov worked to form a Collective Security Agreement. Czechoslovakia was cornerstone to that, which is why Stalin was offering to fight for Czechoslovakia, without taking any land.

Instead, Hitler was allowed to annex Czechoslovakia. Fearing isolation, and distrustful of UK and France after the Sudetenland Scenario, Stalin jumped at a chance to ally Hitler, to avoid isolation. Hitler offered a partition of Eastern Europe. Stalin agreed, mistakenly fearful of being isolated. Maybe if he met FDR beforehand, he wouldn't have signed. However, Imperial Japan was expanding in Asia, Nazi Germany in Europe, and bullying was the way that things were done in the 1930s. So yes, it was wrong, but one can also see how someone who was as paranoid as Stalin would do it. And even then, Stalin waited to invade Poland, hoping that the Poles would mount some kind of resistance to Nazis; when none was mounted, Stalin invaded, primarily to avoid Nazis taking that land.

Going back on topic: again, I don't see why Russia needs a peace treaty with Japan, a country that likes to attack first, and declare war later. Seems rather pointless to me.

[Rio Cana]

What justification would have been given for a Soviet takeover of Hokkaido? Countries don't really just annex another country's territory as "the spoils of war" anymore.

The Soviet justification would be to liberate the Japanese people from the Fascist Japanese militaristic elements in charge and who were responsible for starting a major war in Asia which culminated in millions perishing. And yes, in todays world nations do not tend to annex territory. Its generally done via diplomacy.

[Anachronous Rex]

There must be a language barrier here, because you seem to be having trouble making sense.

"Mr. Russia can do no wrong", in a thread where I've admitted that signing the M-R Pact was wrong, would count as an Ad Hom. It's really easy to see.

No, then it would count as "wrong." An ad hom is something else.

Again, you seem to spend a lot of time reading into what I say. He wasn't encouraging Russia to go to war with Japan. He was encouraging Japan to go to war generally, as a means to solving it's problems. A Japan that does this is something the world, I think, is better off without. Coupled with an assertion that there can be no discussion, because the matter is already decided, which is what I meant by a middle finger.

I don't think my posts are actually that obtuse. I could be wrong, but I suspect what is really happening is that you are simply determined to take offense. And, frankly, there is nothing that can be done with someone like that.

You stated: I didn't feel it was necessary to wave a warmongering middle finger at Japan

So is Japan waving a warmongering middle finger at Japan?

No. Imperial Milf was.

Really, you're making quite a lot out of this, but it isn't that hard. I thought that Imperial Milf was being stupid an naive (now that is an ad hom, see the difference?), and I decided to call him on it. Then you had to jump to Russia's defense, as though I had insulted Russia. Because, and I can't stress this enough, you are Mr. Russia Can Do No Wrong. Exempting the M-R Pact, apparently.

Anything that can even remotely be perceived as a slight at the beloved motherland will be responded to with the full force of your misunderstood rage.

[Shofercia]

"Mr. Russia can do no wrong", in a thread where I've admitted that signing the M-R Pact was wrong, would count as an Ad Hom. It's really easy to see.

No, then it would count as "wrong." An ad hom is something else.

You stated: I didn't feel it was necessary to wave a warmongering middle finger at Japan

So is Japan waving a warmongering middle finger at Japan?

No. Imperial Milf was.

Really, you're making quite a lot out of this, but it isn't that hard. I thought that Imperial Milf was being stupid an naive (now that is an ad hom, see the difference?), and I decided to call him on it. Then you had to jump to Russia's defense, as though I had insulted Russia. Because, and I can't stress this enough, you are Mr. Russia Can Do No Wrong. Exempting the M-R Pact, apparently.

Anything that can even remotely be perceived as a slight at the beloved motherland will be responded to with the full force of your misunderstood rage.

Full force of rage? Dude, you haven't seen me respond with full force of rage, and let me tell you, that's not something you want to see, although I highly doubt that you'll actually see something like that. Anyways, an Ad Hom is when you attack the person, instead of the argument. Additionally, if you would've actually read my response, all I recommended was to take into account the people living on the land where you and him were talking about war, or lack thereof, a comment that you apparently thought was "enraging".

Russia should keep the islands. They won World War II and thus the spoils of war go to them. Japan should just deal with it and try better next time.

Yes, let's ignore fairness and decency, a balanced view of what would best for all parties, and an attempt at normalized relations, in favor of a middle finger; while encouraging Japan to start another war.

Fairness and decency? How about not telling people that they have to move cause Japan threw a hissy fit, cause that certainly sounds fair to me.

If that's what you consider to be my "full force of rage", I recommend you get thicker skin, ASAP, because that was mild, by almost any online forum's standards. Maybe more on the "slightly mean" side in Y7 rated forums.

[Anachronous Rex]

No, then it would count as "wrong." An ad hom is something else.


No. Imperial Milf was.

Really, you're making quite a lot out of this, but it isn't that hard. I thought that Imperial Milf was being stupid an naive (now that is an ad hom, see the difference?), and I decided to call him on it. Then you had to jump to Russia's defense, as though I had insulted Russia. Because, and I can't stress this enough, you are Mr. Russia Can Do No Wrong. Exempting the M-R Pact, apparently.

Anything that can even remotely be perceived as a slight at the beloved motherland will be responded to with the full force of your misunderstood rage.

Full force of rage? Dude, you haven't seen me respond with full force of rage, and let me tell you, that's not something you want to see,

I'm quivering.

It was hyperbole. Grow a thicker skin.

[Shofercia]

Full force of rage? Dude, you haven't seen me respond with full force of rage, and let me tell you, that's not something you want to see,

I'm quivering.

It was hyperbole. Grow a thicker skin.

First, I stated that:

Dude, you haven't seen me respond with full force of rage, and let me tell you, that's not something you want to see, although I highly doubt that you'll actually see something like that.

which just makes your response very funny. Second, if me saying:

Fairness and decency? How about not telling people that they have to move cause Japan threw a hissy fit, cause that certainly sounds fair to me.

requires a hyperbole, then:

Nothing personal, but it was very funny!