Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a
transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the
current reference desk pages.
Ok, but the Japanese Instrument of Surrender lists Soviet Union as one of the Allied accepting parties, with the signature of the USSR representative. Wasn't it sufficient for the termination of state of war?
Brandmeistertalk12:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)reply
According to
this and
this, a conference to finalise a treaty that officially ends the war between Russia and Japan was abandoned in March 2022 when the Russians walked out. Yes, it's aii about the Kuril Islands dispute (and now a bit of Ukraine too).
Alansplodge (
talk)
16:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC)reply
I see. But the common benchmark for the end of WWII are the signings of German and Japanese instruments of surrender rather than peace treaties (in 1945 no peace treaty was concluded with any Axis power, if I remember correctly). Meanwhile, the Soviet-Japanese Joint Declaration says that "The state of war between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Japan shall cease on the date on which this Declaration enters into force". This is perplexing for me for two reasons: 1) how Russia and Japan can still remain in the state of war, while WWII has ended? 2) if the Soviet-Japanese Joint Declaration says the state of war between two countries "shall cease" in 1956, why modern sources still say that this state persists?
Brandmeistertalk17:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)reply
If the Duchy of
Grand Fenwickdeclares war on the United States, then from that point on the two states are in a state of war. It is the declaration that creates the state of war; no hostilities need to take place. The end to a state of war is brought about by a
peace treaty. As long as no peace treaty has taken effect, the state of war will formally persist. --
Lambiam19:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)reply
I've seen that line of reasoning before, but it leaves more questions than answers. Under that logic World War II continued well past 1945, because no peace treaty was signed in that year. Separating the war itself from the state of war is perplexing at least.
Brandmeistertalk20:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)reply
We have an article that deals with this at
peace treaty (particularly the second paragraph). Your question perhaps arises from the assumption that peace and war are binary states, like an electric circuit that is either on or off. While that is a reasonable assumption, in this case it might be more helpful to see them as a spectrum. Around 10 August 1945, there were active hostilities between Japan and the USSR. On 15 August, the Showa Emperor announced the Japanese government's intention to surrender in rather vague terms. But hostilities continued against the USSR, which did only began its
invasion of the Kuril Islands on 18 August. Due to General
Douglas MacArthur's vain insistence on being personally present, the Japanese surrender was not accepted until 2 September. At that point there was an armistice and hostilities ceased on all fronts. But an armistice is a temporary cessation of hostilities, not a peace settlement, and legally speaking, the state of war remained. Normally you would then have a peace treaty. And normally a peace treaty after a surrender settles the issues that started the war on the victor's terms. The loser has no choice, because the alternative is a renewal of the war. But this did not happen in this case for three reasons. Firstly, it was not possible to sign a comprehensive peace treaty between all the Allies and Japan because of the question of whether victorious China should be represented by the Republic of China in Taipei (recognized by the US) or the People's Republic of China in Beijing (recognized by the UK and USSR). So Japan was able to deal with its enemies one by one. Secondly, the breakdown of relations between the victorious Allied Powers meant that the USSR could not credibly threaten to continue the war against US-occupied Japan, depriving it of a victor's usual leverage. Thirdly, it is arguable that Article 2 of the UN Charter made a unilateral resumption of the war illegal. So the 1956 Joint Declaration was a sort of tertium quid, in between an armistice and a conventional peace treaty. It explicitly declared the end of the state of war and the restoration of diplomatic relations, moving relations one more notch along the spectrum towards peace. But it explicitly said that a final Peace Treaty would require further negotiations.
Matt's talk18:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a
transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the
current reference desk pages.
Ok, but the Japanese Instrument of Surrender lists Soviet Union as one of the Allied accepting parties, with the signature of the USSR representative. Wasn't it sufficient for the termination of state of war?
Brandmeistertalk12:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)reply
According to
this and
this, a conference to finalise a treaty that officially ends the war between Russia and Japan was abandoned in March 2022 when the Russians walked out. Yes, it's aii about the Kuril Islands dispute (and now a bit of Ukraine too).
Alansplodge (
talk)
16:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC)reply
I see. But the common benchmark for the end of WWII are the signings of German and Japanese instruments of surrender rather than peace treaties (in 1945 no peace treaty was concluded with any Axis power, if I remember correctly). Meanwhile, the Soviet-Japanese Joint Declaration says that "The state of war between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Japan shall cease on the date on which this Declaration enters into force". This is perplexing for me for two reasons: 1) how Russia and Japan can still remain in the state of war, while WWII has ended? 2) if the Soviet-Japanese Joint Declaration says the state of war between two countries "shall cease" in 1956, why modern sources still say that this state persists?
Brandmeistertalk17:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)reply
If the Duchy of
Grand Fenwickdeclares war on the United States, then from that point on the two states are in a state of war. It is the declaration that creates the state of war; no hostilities need to take place. The end to a state of war is brought about by a
peace treaty. As long as no peace treaty has taken effect, the state of war will formally persist. --
Lambiam19:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)reply
I've seen that line of reasoning before, but it leaves more questions than answers. Under that logic World War II continued well past 1945, because no peace treaty was signed in that year. Separating the war itself from the state of war is perplexing at least.
Brandmeistertalk20:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)reply
We have an article that deals with this at
peace treaty (particularly the second paragraph). Your question perhaps arises from the assumption that peace and war are binary states, like an electric circuit that is either on or off. While that is a reasonable assumption, in this case it might be more helpful to see them as a spectrum. Around 10 August 1945, there were active hostilities between Japan and the USSR. On 15 August, the Showa Emperor announced the Japanese government's intention to surrender in rather vague terms. But hostilities continued against the USSR, which did only began its
invasion of the Kuril Islands on 18 August. Due to General
Douglas MacArthur's vain insistence on being personally present, the Japanese surrender was not accepted until 2 September. At that point there was an armistice and hostilities ceased on all fronts. But an armistice is a temporary cessation of hostilities, not a peace settlement, and legally speaking, the state of war remained. Normally you would then have a peace treaty. And normally a peace treaty after a surrender settles the issues that started the war on the victor's terms. The loser has no choice, because the alternative is a renewal of the war. But this did not happen in this case for three reasons. Firstly, it was not possible to sign a comprehensive peace treaty between all the Allies and Japan because of the question of whether victorious China should be represented by the Republic of China in Taipei (recognized by the US) or the People's Republic of China in Beijing (recognized by the UK and USSR). So Japan was able to deal with its enemies one by one. Secondly, the breakdown of relations between the victorious Allied Powers meant that the USSR could not credibly threaten to continue the war against US-occupied Japan, depriving it of a victor's usual leverage. Thirdly, it is arguable that Article 2 of the UN Charter made a unilateral resumption of the war illegal. So the 1956 Joint Declaration was a sort of tertium quid, in between an armistice and a conventional peace treaty. It explicitly declared the end of the state of war and the restoration of diplomatic relations, moving relations one more notch along the spectrum towards peace. But it explicitly said that a final Peace Treaty would require further negotiations.
Matt's talk18:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)reply