Talk:Treaty of San Francisco

message: I believe that it should be noted somewhere that all the money listed in this article is in gold-backed dollars and gold-backed yen. It would also be helpful if there were some comparison of this to current dollars. 219.163.12.72 10:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes on Monetary Standards

message: "Thereby, China, not being a party on the treaty, was legally prohibited to be benefited from the sovereignty of Taiwan according to Article 25 in the treaty."
The Treaty of Taipei repeated the terms of the Treaty of San Francisco. I don't see how this statement holds. --Jiang 05:59, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You say article 25 prevented China from receiving the benefits conferred to the allies by this treaty. I say that this treaty did not confer any benefits in regards to Taiwan. Japan just renounced sovereignty. The benefit (handing sovereignty over to another power) was never given. --Jiang 06:40, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: The Instrument of Surrender is not really relevant. Can you provide examples of where it is being used as an argument over the San Francisco Peace Treaty? Who is saying an armistice takes precedence over a treaty? We can also argue that the Taipei Treaty voided previous agreements with Japan so in that way sovereignty was reverted. --Jiang 06:40, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Apparently there is misunderstanding. I was NOT the person who initially put the Instrument of Surrender sentence into the article. I just noticed the original sentence on the instrument of surrender was a POV and tried to balance by puting a reverse argument. If you want to remove everything about Instrument of Surrender, I have no opinion. Let's do it. Oh, I just saw you reverted again.Mababa 06:47, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: The treaty was never revoked by another one. Both the US and Japan only "acknowledge" (as opposed to "recognize") the PRC claim over Taiwan. This aside, Japan can be said to have recognized the PRC as the ROC successor state, allowing the treaty to hold. --Jiang 00:24, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Parties of SFPT

message: I see no extra value of using quotes instead of simplifying text in a couple of sentences. (my edit). An encyclopedia is designed to be short and to the point. the quotations, especially the first one, was just plain confusing--Jiang 05:57, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed complicated text

message: Since I'm a partisan on this dispute, people need to watch my edits, but having said that....
It's really important to try to at least state the different arguments on these issues.  The reason I made the edits that I made was that the original text seemed to imply that the issue was one-sided whereas both sides have some very good legal arguments to justify their positions.  The basic situation is that IMHO both Senkaku and the Taiwan disputes are going to be impossible to resolve via a reading and interpretation of legal documents because the drafters of the documents were aware of the disputes and were very, very careful to draft the documents in a way that made the situation ambiguous.
Roadrunner 17:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Note on Senkaku and Taiwan disputes

message: Overall, very little sources were cited in this article. Would someone please reference the appropriate publications that would augment the figures?--144.189.5.201 (talk) 02:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources for the numbers in the two tables

message: According to the World War II article on this Web site this treaty arguably ended the WWII. However, it is debatable depending on where you live. Should this article reflect this?
68.100.66.192 (talk) 02:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Formally, the surrender only marks cease of active hostilities but the peace treaty is what terminates the war. So, I would agree SFPT is what ended the war.Mafia godfather (talk) 13:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be noted that because the Korean War was in full swing there was no Korean delegation at the conference.  Neither Wikipedia nor any other source I can find lists Korea as having ever signed a peace treaty with Japan.  And today the Japanese Prime Minister announced that U.S. troops would be staying in Okinawa, which is Japanese soil. Simesa (talk) 12:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: End of World War II?

message: The Diaoyu Island is the formal name, not Senkakus  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.159.144.57 (talk) 01:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name usage of Diaoyu Island 

message: The UK was at war with Japan as a result of the Japanese invasion of the British Far East Empire, ie. Malaya, Singapore,Hong Kong, Brunei etc and before the atack on Pearl Harbour.
The 1945 UK government under Clement Atlee only got as a far as draft peace treaty with Japan. There seems to be no signed Final Peace Treaty document in the Public Archive. 
As a result the Burma Star Association claimed that technically the UK and Japan are  officially still in a continuing state of hostilities. 
This technicality was used, by the BSA under the 13th. century Treason Act to prevent the Duke of Edindurgh from attending the Japanese Emperor Hirohitos funeral as the UKs official mourner.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.199.154 (talk) 09:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK peace treaty with Japan 

message: In this section, the article ought to include several more pertinent facts:
-- First, that some nations made separate reparations agreements with Japan and received compensation for their surviving POW's and civilian prisoners:  Switzerland and Burma (1955); the Netherlands (1956).
-- That the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand finally made ex gratia payments on their own, from their own taxpayers, not Japan.
-- That both the British and USA governments deliberately concealed or buried references to Article 26, until declassifications in 1998 exposed the truth.
-- That a number of U.S. POW's filed lawsuits in the 1990's, one of which went to the U.S. Supreme Court, where it was rejected.
This is all documented in many books, among them THE REAL TENKO by Dr. Felton (see page 156) and Unjust Enrichment by Holmes.
Starhistory22 (talk) 00:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:   Compensation to Allied civilians and POWs 

message: what’s the difference between this article and the Security Treaty Between the United States and Japan? It looks like as if it’s representing the same thing. Carrots3141592 (talk) 04:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Treaty of San Francisco is the one that officially ended the war between all of the Allies and Japan. I'm not familiar with the one you linked, but it appears to be related to only the US and Japan --Matt Smith (talk) 06:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two different articles?