Sounds like might make right is the order of the day then when it comes to land ownership, not peoples' rights. Any other perspectives? This could set a dangerous precedent if we extend this principle to other land conflicts around the globe.
Originally posted by zeeblebot is any territory traded in a cold war?
As I recall, at the end of the Cold War Russia lost Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Belarus, the Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Turmenistan. Oh, and the satellite states of Eastern Europe too.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung Sounds like might make right is the order of the day then when it comes to land ownership, not peoples' rights. Any other perspectives? This could set a dangerous precedent if we extend this principle to other land conflicts around the globe.
If you look at the geography, the Kurils could be interpreted either as part of the Japanese archipelago (the southernmost islands are very close indeed to Eastern Hokkaido) or as a chain of islands stretching south from the Kamchatka Peninsula (unambiguously part of Russia). On the other hand, Japan is only claiming the westernmost four islands (or, to be precise, three islands and a group of tiny islets).
In accordance with the terms of the never fully implemented 1956 peace treaty between Japan and the Soviet Union, it was agreed that Japan would regain two of the islands while the others would remain under the control of Moscow; and this seems like a reasonable solution since it's the only one that both countries have actually signed up to, albeit many decades in the past.
Originally posted by Teinosuke As I recall, at the end of the Cold War Russia lost Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Belarus, the Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Turmenistan. Oh, and the satellite states of Eastern Europe too.
territories they exerted influence over but didn't "have". as they have the Kurils.
In Russia most of the population, as well as the mass media, strongly oppose any territorial concessions to Japan.[40] A common view[40] is that Russia won the Kuril Islands during World War II and is entitled to keep them regardless of the prior history of the disputed territories. Many [40] believe that taking these islands away from Japan was a just reward for Russia's sacrifices during World War II and for Russia's agreement to enter the war against Japan at the request of its allies. The attitudes of the Russian public have hardened in the 2000s. According to a July 2009 poll conducted by the All-Russian Public Opinion Research Center (VTsIOM), 89% of respondents were against territorial concessions to Japan in the Kuril Islands dispute, compared to 76% from a similar poll in 1994.[41]
[40] A common view[40] is that Russia won the Kuril Islands during World War II and is entitled to keep them regardless of the prior history of the disputed territories. Many [40] believe that taking these islands away from Japan was a just reward for Russia's sacrifices during World War II and for Russia's agreement to enter the war against Japan at the request of its allies. The attitudes of the ...[text shortened]... ssions to Japan in the Kuril Islands dispute, compared to 76% from a similar poll in 1994.[41][/b]
territories they exerted influence over but didn't "have". as they have the Kurils.
True as regards Eastern Europe. But until 1991, the other territories mentioned - the Baltic States, the Caucasian republics, the Central Asian republics, were as much part of the Soviet Union as the Kurils are now part of Russia.
In Russia most of the population, as well as the mass media, strongly oppose any territorial concessions to Japan.
I'm sure if you conducted a poll of the population of China, you'd find it fairly strongly opposed to any concessions regarding Tibet or Taiwan.
15 Nov '10 22:053 edits
Kurils
Back to Top