the post-ww2 treaty signed by japan and germany

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 03:46 PM
link   
first of all, what is its official name?

second of all, when does it expire? when it does expire, what do you expect to happen? now that both nations are our allies, do you think that other countries (ie. china v japan) will attack? do you think the two countries will go on the offensive? if that does happen, what will that mean for the united states?




posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by purelogik
first of all, what is its official name?


I think you are referring to the Potsdam Decleration, regards Japan's surrender and post war promises.

www.ndl.go.jp...

Not to be confused with the Potsdam Agreement which deals with Germany's surrender and rebuilding.

en.wikipedia.org...



second of all, when does it expire? when it does expire, what do you expect to happen?


I don't think that is an applicable question in this case. The world and those two countries have changed quite a lot since those treaties were signed into effect.



now that both nations are our allies, do you think that other countries (ie. china v japan) will attack?


Go check out the multitude of theories about that on the discussion boards. Particulary the bad blood between China and Japan.



do you think the two countries will go on the offensive?


Germany, probably not. Unless the EU gets some mad colonial ideas, which I doubt. A lot of people express a concern over a re-emergance of a Japanese expansion. Who knows?



if that does happen, what will that mean for the united states?


Why? Are you worried? Know something the rest of us don't?

Do tell!!!



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 09:41 PM
link   
lawl.

i know just as much as the next guy. im not some titor wanna-be :p.

it was more of a curiostiy thing rather than a "subliminal foreshadowing" type thing.

i have a german friend (who lives in germany, of all places :/ ) and when he was on an exchange program a couple years ago, me and him discussed politics alot. in one of those discussions, he told me those "treaties" will soon expire.

from what he told me, japan is only allowed a defensive military, and germany has all the ongoing econimic and political repercussions.

i know both are very close allies, almost right up there with the brits themselves, but considering the threat japan has from china, we might have to step in to (help to) protect them (japan), causing china to attack us, causing the eu & the un to once again oppose the us' recent imperialism. oppose it to what extent? oppose it enough to deliver an ultimatium? oppose it enough to attack upon the disregard to said ultimatum?

the reason im worried is becasue there has been speculation that the next big war would involve the us and its allies, china (& russia?), russia, and the eu.

hopefully all of this just gets resolved diplomatically.

[edit on 6-9-2005 by purelogik]



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 09:22 AM
link   
The treaties ending each side of the war were different. The treaty ending the Pacific Theatre is called the "Treaty of San Francisco" which was signed on September 8, 1951 and it took effect on April 28, 1952.

China is NOT a party to the treaty nor is sovereignty of Taiwan transferred to China in the treaty as is often claimed.

I don't know what you mean by expiration. The treaty ended the war, resulted in the occupation of Japan and transferred some territory, while other territory was let free or claims on territory were abrogated.



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 05:16 PM
link   
it seems you misunderstood my question. the first reply was correct in his answer.

i never said china was a party to the treaty (though in the potsdam declaration, china was indeed a party [paragraphs 1 & 2]). i only mentioned china becasue i was outlining a hypothetical build-up to a hypothentical world war three. china has recently declared it will "attack japan if it goes nuclear" (by that i assume they mean nuclear power plants, not nuclear weapons?). not to mention korea (both sides?) hate japan.

what i was originally referring to (at least with japan) is in the following paragraph of the potsdam declaration:



Japan shall be permitted to maintain such industries as will sustain her economy and permit the exaction of just reparations in kind, but not those which would enable her to re-arm for war. To this end, access to, as distinguished from control of, raw materials shall be permitted. Eventual Japanese participation in world trade relations shall be permitted. [paragraph 11]


certainly this agreement of japan 'maintain[ing] such industries which would [not] enable her to re-arm for war' is not eternal. it cant be. there must be a date that declartion becomes invalid. something along the lines of 100, 150 years?

so, my original question was just that; when does that agreement expire?

[edit on 8-9-2005 by purelogik]



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by purelogik
it seems you misunderstood my question. the first reply was correct in his answer.


I believe you said treaty in your question. Potsdam was NOT a treaty, it was a declaration of intent by the Allied Powers. As such, it was not ratified as a treaty would be, and thus under traditional international law, is not considered a treaty. The peace treaty that technically ended World War II in the Pacific was the San Francisco Peace Treaty, a treaty signed and ratified by about two dozen countries.

I stand by everything I said in my initial post.



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by purelogik
certainly this agreement of japan 'maintain[ing] such industries which would [not] enable her to re-arm for war' is not eternal. /quote]
No, its a permanent treaty. The japanese gave unconditional surrender to the US and that was the document that did it. The gave up, in perpetuity, the ability to have an offense military, as did the Germans forever and permanently foreswear military aggression.



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 03:59 PM
link   
In technical terms, Japan was not allowed to "re-arm," but bear in mind that Japan's military is not currently viewed or perceived as an, key word here, offensive in nature; defensive would be more appropriate.



The Liberal Democratic Party's constitution draft committee on Monday presented the document, which cuts the "no war" clause from Article 9 and outlines an expanded role for the military.

"In addition to activities needed for self defense ... it can take part in efforts to maintain international peace and security under international cooperation, as well as to keep fundamental public order in our country," it said.

In an effort to calm worries about a resurgence of Japanese militarism, which still haunts much of Asia 60 years after the end of World War II, the draft said Japan remains a pacifist nation and renounces the use of military force to settle international disputes.

It also limits overseas troop deployment to activities for international cooperation for global peace and safety.

Article 9 of Japan's constitution, drafted by U.S. occupation forces and unchanged since 1947, prohibits maintaining a military for warfare, though the Japanese government has interpreted that to mean the nation can possess armed forces for self-defense, allowing the 240,000 Self-Defense Forces to exist.

Japanese Party Pushes Larger Military

As it currently stands, no allied nation that signed the Potsdam Declaration has cited Japan for "re-arming" itself. Bear in mind that the US has released a massive report detailing the threat posed by China [with their ongoing military build-up] and North Korea to/within the region.





seekerof

[edit on 15-9-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Its similar to what the germans agreed to post wwi. No rearming, or rather, there were strict limits of tonnage and numbers and types of arms that they could have. It didn't stop them from expanding their military of course.





new topics
top topics
 
0

log in

join