Talk:Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact

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)

It seems that iof the pact was denounced after 4 years it would not be renewed, not theat it would be voided. Given the circumstances Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor and prior to that at Port Arthur, it is difficult to sympathise with their situation in this respect. It is also difficult to see how the Kwantung Army was caught by surprise when the Potsdam Agreement indicated the Souviet Union would attack Japan within 3 months of German surrender & they did exactly 3 months to the day.--Streona (talk) 11:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't been here for a while, so I'm not in touch with the latest arguments presented.

The simple facts of the situation are unambiguous. I really don't understand why there is any confusion or uncertainty.

• The Soviets entered into a 5 year Neutrality Pact with the Japanese.
• The pact was renewable at the end of 5 years.
• If either party did not wish to or intend to renew the pact, the pact required that at (or before) the 4th anniversary, they advise the other party that they did not intend to renew.
• At the 4th anniversary, the Soviets informed the Japanese that they did NOT intend to renew it after the end of 5 years.
• Hence, at that 4th anniversary, the pact was still in tact, and would continue to be until the 5th anniversary, at which point the Soviets would not renew it.
• SO FAR, SO GOOD. At that point there was a lot of ambiguity, concern, misinterpretation and "rhubarb", but that was all irrelevant. The facts were, the pact was still in tact, and would continue to be until the 5th anniversary, at which point the Soviets would not renew it.

HOWEVER

• Soon after that, the Soviets invaded, thus breaching the pact.

End of conversation.

I really don't understand why others do not recognize these facts (not opinions, facts), and I would be interested to hear if, and why, this is not crystal clear to all. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding:

It seems that if the pact was denounced after 4 years it would not be renewed, not threat it would be voided. Given the circumstances Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor and prior to that at Port Arthur, it is difficult to sympathise with their situation in this respect. It is also difficult to see how the Kwantung Army was caught by surprise when the Potsdam Agreement indicated the Soviet Union would attack Japan within 3 months of German surrender & they did exactly 3 months to the day.--Streona (talk) 11:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Point by point:

• It seems that if the pact was denounced after 4 years it would not be renewed - In general, yes, but let's just clarify a few things: it was renounced, (not denounced, and the renunciation was that it would not be renewed after the end of 5 years.
• not threat it would be voided. - Ambiguous. And that, indeed, was the problem. i.e. It was ambiguous what the Russians (in particular, Molotov) was saying, and what he meant.
• Given the circumstances Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor and prior to that at Port Arthur, it is difficult to sympathise with their situation in this respect. - With the greatest respect, that's an opinion, but it has nothing to do with anything factual, or anything to do with the renunciation.
• It is also difficult to see how the Kwantung Army was caught by surprise when the Potsdam Agreement indicated the Soviet Union would attack Japan within 3 months of German surrender & they did exactly 3 months to the day. - Again, with the greatest respect, such a statement is based on 50 years of hindsight knowledge.

Why is it NOT "difficult to see how the Kwantung Army was caught by surprise"? Not only were the Kwantung Army not privy to what happened at Potsdam (or Cairo, or Yalta); the whole Imperial Japanese Army were not privy to this information. In fact, with exception of the three allied leaders and their confidants, the whole world was not privy to what happened at Potsdam, Cairo, and Yalta.

I hope you find this useful. Happy to clarify anything you wish clarified. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I take it that the Treaty says that it is valid until 13 April 1946, and that if neither side denounced it before 13 April 1946, then it would renew. Since the Soviets denounced it on April 5, it did not renew. The Soviet Government explicitly stated that "the Soviet Government hereby makes know [sic] to the Government of Japan its wish to denounce the pact of April 13, 1941.'" In making the denunciation, the Soviet side gave different reasons why the denunciation was justified. It first said that events had occurred since the treaty was signed that made the pact senseless, specifically that the Germans invaded the USSR and Japan invaded the US. The Article 2 of the Treaty says, "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." The writers' intent probably imagined a situation where the Soviets and Japan both acted peacefully and legally internationally and yet got invaded by another country (eg. by Germany or by the US). Thus, the implication is that the Soviets becoming the object of Germany's hostilities in 1941 would not be enough for Japan to make a denunciation. However, the Soviets' allies, the US, in 1942 did become the object of Japan's hostilities after the treaty was signed, which was an event not taken into consideration in the writing of Article 2 that would have prevented denunciation of the treaty.

The Soviet denunciation included a second justification for denunciation, ie. it implied that Japan has not respected its Neutrality Treaty with the Soviet Union, because "Germany has attacked the USSR, and Japan, ally of Germany, is aiding the latter in its war against the USSR."

So in total, the Soviets were saying: 1. Japan's invasion of the US, the Soviets' ally, changes the situation from when the treaty was signed, and the Soviets were implying that 2. Japan was actually already violating the treaty by helping Germany fight the Soviets.

As for the latter, one of the main ways that Japan was considered to help Germany was by tying down Soviet forces guarding the Far East from a possible Japanese attack. The Russian magazine "Homeland"/"Rodina" reports:

• ((Thus, the authors of the "Official History of the War in the Great East Asia" (publishing house of the Ministry of Defense "Asagumo") admit: "The basis of relations between Japan and Germany was a common goal - to crush the Soviet Union ... The War Ministry believed that Japan should help the military the successes of the German army ... Loyalty to the Triple Pact was understood as the desire not to yield to England and the United States, to curb their forces in East Asia, to pin down Soviet troops in the Far East and, taking advantage of a convenient moment, to defeat it." Another documentary confirmation of this: the report of the German Ambassador to Japan, Eugen Ott, to his chief Foreign Minister von Ribbentrop: “I have the pleasure to declare that Japan is preparing for all kinds of accidents/happenings in relation to the USSR in order to join forces with Germany ... I think that there is hardly any need to add that the Japanese government always has in mind the expansion of military preparations, along with other measures, for the implementation of this goal, as well as in order to bind the forces of Soviet Russia in the Far East, which it could use in war with Germany..." The task of pinning down Soviet troops was carried out by Japan throughout the Great Patriotic War. And this was highly appreciated by the German leadership: "Russia must keep troops in Eastern Siberia in anticipation of a Russian-Japanese clash," Ribbentrop instructed the Japanese government in a telegram dated May 15, 1942. The instructions were followed rigorously.))
• SOURCE: https://rg.ru/2016/06/28/rodina-iaponiia.html

The article in Homeland/Rodina also notes that in January 1942, the Axis and Japan made a secret agreement whereby the Axis divided the regions of Russia west and east of Omsk as belonging to A. Germany and Italy's and B. Japan's military operations, respectively. The article continues:

• ((During the war years, the number of armed forays into Soviet territory increased markedly. Units and formations of the Kwantung Army violated our land border 779 times, and Japanese Air Force planes violated our air border 433 times. Soviet territory was bombarded, spies and armed gangs were thrown into it. And this was not an improvisation: the "neutrals" acted in strict accordance with the agreement between Japan, Germany and Italy of January 18, 1942. This was confirmed at the Tokyo process by the Japanese ambassador to Germany, Oshima. He also admitted that during his stay in Berlin he systematically discussed with Himmler measures to conduct subversive activities against the USSR and its leaders. Japanese military intelligence actively obtained espionage information for the German army. And this was also confirmed at the Tokyo trial, where Major General Matsumura (from October 1941 to August 1943, the head of the Russian intelligence department of the Japanese General Staff) admitted: “I was systematically transferred to Colonel Kretschmer (military attaché of the German embassy in Tokyo. - Ed. ) information about the forces of the Red Army, about the deployment of its units in the Far East, about the military potential of the USSR For Kretschmer, I conveyed information about the withdrawal of Soviet divisions from the Far East to the west, about the movement of Red Army formations within the country, about the deployment of the evacuated Soviet military industry. All this information was compiled on the basis of reports received by the Japanese General Staff from the Japanese military attaché in Moscow and from other sources." And finally, the Japanese openly torpedoed the Neutrality Pact, launching an undeclared war against the Soviet Union at sea. The illegal detention of Soviet merchant and fishing vessels, their sinking, seizure and detention of the crews continued until the end of the war. According to official figures presented by the Soviet side to the Tokyo Tribunal, from June 1941 to 1945, the Japanese navy detained 178 and sank 18 Soviet merchant ships. Japanese submarines torpedoed and sunk such large Soviet ships as Angarstroy, Kola, Ilmen, Perekop, Maikop. Unable to refute the fact of the death of these ships, some Japanese authors today make absurd statements that the steamers were sunk, ... by planes and submarines of the US Navy allied with the USSR(!?).))

The Russian Wikipedia article on the ship "Angarstroy" suggests that the boat was sunk by the Japanese. The Japanese captured the ship, sent it to a Japanese port, and sent it to the East China Sea. There, two torpedoes sunk it and nearby Japanese subs picked up the Russian crew. Japan claimed that a US sub sunk it. Back in Russia, the Russian crew said that US responsibility could not be proven, but that the circumstances showed that it was sunk by Japanese subs (SS Angarstroy, Wikipedia, https://ru.wikiarabi.org/wiki/SS_Angarstroy). If the Japanese were illegally detaining and commandeering these ships, it makes sense to look at Japan for responsibility in sinking them as well. Rakovsky (talk) 22:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

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)

Reasons for signing

• A source would be nice here anyway - Yes, I agree - it would, wouldn't it. Pdfpdf (talk) 17:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC) However, I advise against holding your breath until it happens ...

• No demonizing attempted here. A number of the relevant facts were laid out. The Wikipedia sentence as is mentions several hostilities in Europe but leaves out hostilities initiated by the Soviet Union and its part in supporting the hostilities initiated by Germany. Soviet Union had invaded a number of other European countries between 1939 and the time of the pact with Japan in 1941. The existing Wikipedia sentence implies the only issue was Soviet Union defending itself from a volatile, hostile Europe. That clearly is an inadequate and misleading statement. Stalin is widely regarded to have been surprised by Germany's 1941 invasion. In late 1940, Stalin was attempting to join the Axis powers. At a minimum the existing clause should be deleted as there is no citation for the claim that the Soviet Union entered this pact out of a peaceful desire for self-defense. To claim that without evidence disregards the offensive actions the Soviet Union was taking as well as key material support supplied to Germany during the same time period.
  

Mscarney (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

(Sharp intake of breath and big frown.) Whatever your POV, only the narrow-minded would not agree that there are many complex issues involved here, and that it takes considerable skill and knowledge to provide even a high-level superficial summary of the situation.

Mscarney alludes to the highly relevant point that no matter how thorough and broad one's statements are, it's highly likely that one has not yet addressed at least one highly relevant issue.

Hence, statements like but leaves out do not elicit any surprise from me - other than surprise that someone has had the insight to realise that "things" have been left out.

However, my personal opinion is that: the fact that "things" are missing is NOT a good reason to remove "stuff" that's there. Again, my personaly opinion is that such a situation is a reason to go looking.

As for missing citations, add - don't delete the information (unless it is blatently and demonstrably false, and I don't think anyone is claiming that. Are they?)

My 2c worth. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Why are we debating this here? To me, this sounds like the sort of conversation that should appear on the article talk page. Pdfpdf (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• Here's the situation: A paragraph was there, describing the reasons for the USSR signing this pact. It was unsourced and POV'ish, but seemed a reasonable enough explanation - the Soviet Union couldn't afford a war on two fronts. Then, Mscarney changes this into not just the opposite, but pretty far down the other way as well. My revert was triggered by the "alliance with Germany" bit, which is both blatantly and demonstrably false (a nonagression pact is not an alliance, plus, according to the MRP, Lithuania was within the German sphere of influence at the time), but also makes a larger presumption of Soviet motives. Besides, the pact was signed in 1941, so making it a precondition of events that have occurred a year ago doesn't make sense. At least not without a (sourced) explanation that talks with Japan began in September 1939, but were successful only in April 1941 (which doesn't seem to be the case). The solutions I see here are 1) I can try and amend the para to look less pro-Soviet and hope someone throws a source in; 2) As it is unsourced and discusses an important matter (Soviet motivation), the para should be deleted until a work by a reputable and hopefully neutral historian is presented. --illythr (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

  Well, I made a go at plan 1 Comments? --illythr (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Move to wikisource

Wikipedia is NOT a "Mere collections of public domain or other source material such as ... original historical documents, ... proclamations ... Complete copies of primary sources may go into Wikisource, but not on Wikipedia."

The content of the sections: 2 Treaty, 3 Declaration, 4 Denunciation, and 5 Declaration of War, should be moved onto Wikisource: and removed from here see Treaty of Paris (1815) or Treaty of Orebro for two examples of how this can be done. -- PBS (talk) 03:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

American support for SU

The main supply route for US aid to the sowiets became the pacific route as Japan did not intervene Soviet shipping from America due to the treaty and for fear that the SU could offer military air bases to the US in Siberia (for raids on the japanese mainland). see Weinberger: A World at Arms. 5glogger (talk) 05:41, 1 October 2022 (UTC)