Talk:Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact

message: 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)
thread_title:  Some explanation is in order 

message: :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)
thread_title:  Move to wikisource 

message: 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)
thread_title:  American support for SU