Historical point on "Description regarding the ownership of the Northern Territories": In 1855, the Japan-Russia Treaty of Commerce established the border between Etorofu Island and Urup Island.

[Context & Analysis] Concluded in Shimoda on February 7, 1855 (December 21, 1855). For the first time, Japan and Russia officially demarcated their borders, with the area south of Etorofu Island designated as Japanese territory, and the area north of Urup Island designated as Russian territory. Sakhalin was considered to be a place where people from both countries lived together. In Japan, February 7th is designated as ``Northern Territories Day'' in honor of the date this treaty was concluded. [Verdict] Official records available (Source: History of the Northern Territories issue (Ministry of Foreign Affairs) [Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan], Japan-Russia Treaty of Commerce and Industry (Digital Archive) (in Japanese) [National Archives])

Historical point on "Description regarding the ownership of the Northern Territories": The Kuril Islands (north of Uruppu) became Japanese territory in 1875 with the Sakhalin-Kildo Exchange Treaty.

[Context & Analysis] Signed in Petersburg, May 7, 1875. Japan renounced its rights to all of Sakhalin, and in return received from Russia the 18 Northern Kuril Islands from Urup Island to Shumshu Island. Japan claims that the four northern islands are not included in the ``thousands'' exchanged under this treaty. [Verdict] Official records available (Source: Sakhalin-Chishima Exchange Treaty [Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan])

Historical point on "Description regarding the ownership of the Northern Territories": At the Yalta Conference in 1945, it was agreed that the Kuril Islands would be handed over to the Soviet Union.

[Context & Analysis] In February 1945, at the Yalta Conference between the leaders of Roosevelt (US), Churchill (UK), and Stalin (USSR), it was secretly agreed that the Kuril Islands would be handed over to the Soviet Union as a condition for the Soviet Union's participation in the war against Japan. Japan did not participate in the talks, and there is debate between Japan and the United States as to whether the agreement is legally binding. The United States later interpreted the statement as ``a statement of personal goals by the leaders and does not have final legal effect.'' [Verdict] Document exists (legal binding discussed) (Source: Yalta Agreement, February 11, 1945 [Yale Law School - Avalon Project], The Yalta Conference, 1945 [U.S. Department of State - Office of the Historian])

Historical point on "Description regarding the ownership of the Northern Territories": The Soviet Union entered the war against Japan in violation of the valid Japan-Soviet Neutrality Treaty.

[Context & Analysis] The Japan-Soviet Neutrality Treaty (concluded in 1941, valid for five years) remained in effect until April 1946, although the Soviet Union notified it of non-extension on April 5, 1945. The Soviet Union declared war on Japan on August 8, 1945, and began its invasion the following day on the 9th. There is debate as to whether this is a violation of a treaty under international law. The Soviet Union argued for the legitimacy of Japan's participation in the war, citing Japan's rejection of the Potsdam Declaration. [Verdict] Historical facts (differences in evaluation) (Source: Japan-Soviet Neutrality Treaty [Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan])

Historical point on "Description regarding the ownership of the Northern Territories": Although Japan renounced the Kuril Islands in the San Francisco Peace Treaty, it is interpreted that the four northern islands are not included.

[Context & Analysis] In Article 2(c) of the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1951, Japan renounced the Kurile Islands. However, the treaty does not define the scope of the Kuril Islands, nor does it specify the name of the country to which they will be renounced. The Japanese government made a statement in its initial Diet session (October 1951, given by Treaty Director General Nishimura) to the effect that Kunashiri and Etorofu were included in the ``Kildo Islands,'' but later revised its opinion in 1956 and established the position that the four northern islands were not included in the ``Kilo Islands.'' This history itself is sometimes used as a counterargument on the Russian side. [Verdict] Treaty exists (different interpretations) (Source: Treaty of Peace with Japan (San Francisco Peace Treaty) [United Nations Treaty Series], Japanese government's position on the Northern Territories issue [Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan])

Historical point on "Description regarding the ownership of the Northern Territories": The handover of Habomai and Shikotan was agreed in the 1956 Japan-Soviet Joint Declaration.

[Context & Analysis] In Article 9 of the Japan-Soviet Joint Declaration signed on October 19, 1956, the Soviet Union agreed to hand over the Habomai Islands and Shikotan Island to Japan after the conclusion of a peace treaty. This declaration has been ratified by the parliaments (Supreme Assemblies) of both countries and is legally binding. However, Etorofu Island and Kunashiri Island were not mentioned. In 2018, President Putin said, ``It is not specified to whom sovereignty will belong after the handover.'' [Verdict] Official records available (Source: Japan-Soviet Joint Declaration (full text) [Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan], Japan-Soviet Joint Declaration (Cabinet Office, Northern Territory Task Force) [Cabinet Office])

Historical point on "Description regarding the ownership of the Northern Territories": In 1956, the U.S. Department of State expressed the view that the four northern islands are “inherent Japanese territory.”

[Context & Analysis] On September 7, 1956, Secretary of State Dulles declared in a memorandum that Etorofu and Kunashiri, along with Habomai and Shikotan, were inherent Japanese territory and should be recognized as being under Japanese sovereignty. The background to this memorandum is the diplomatic context in which the United States pressured the Japanese government to request the return of all four islands (the so-called ``Dulles Threat''), as the Japanese government was attempting to compromise by returning two islands in the Japan-Soviet Joint Declaration. [Verdict] Official records available (Source: US position on the Northern Territories issue [Cabinet Office Northern Countermeasures Headquarters], Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS) [U.S. Department of State - Office of the Historian])

Historical point on "Description regarding the ownership of the Northern Territories": A clause prohibiting the cession of territory was added in the 2020 amendment to the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

[Context & Analysis] In the amendment to the Constitution of the Russian Federation that came into effect in July 2020, a clause was added to Article 67 stating that ``actions toward, or calls for, the cession of the territory of the Russian Federation are not permitted.'' In effect, this has been interpreted as a domestic legal constraint on negotiations on the Northern Territories. However, the Russian government says this will not prevent peace treaty negotiations. [Verdict] Official records available (Source: Constitution of the Russian Federation (2020 Amendments) [Constitution of Russia])

Historical point on "Description regarding the ownership of the Northern Territories": Soviet troops occupy the four northern islands after Japan accepts the Potsdam Declaration

[Context & Analysis] Japan announced its acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration on August 14, 1945 (the instrument of surrender was signed on September 2). The Soviet army's invasion of the four northern islands took place from August 28 (Etorofu Island) to September 5 (Habomai Islands). Japan maintains that its occupation after the end of hostilities has no legitimacy under international law. Russia counters that a state of war continued until the signing of the instrument of surrender (September 2). [Verdict] Date and time confirmed (difference in legal evaluation) (Source: History of the Northern Territories (Cabinet Office) [Cabinet Office Northern Countermeasures Headquarters])

Description regarding the ownership of the Northern Territories | HistoryDiff

All Perspectives(3)

Neutrality Commitment|

This project does not aim to criticize or defend any specific historical narrative or nation. We objectively present differences in textbook and official descriptions to encourage multi-faceted understanding.

ArchiveTerritorial issues/diplomacy1945-presentFour Northern Islands (Southern Kuril Islands)

US position on the issue of the Four Northern Islands (Southern Kuril Islands)

Perspectives Summary

Related Photos1

Map showing the location of the Kuril Islands and the disputed Northern Territories (Kunashiri, Etorofu, Shikotan, and the Habomai islets).

Source: Wikimedia CommonsCC BY-SA 3.0

United StatesTerritorial issues/diplomacy1945-presentFour Northern Islands (Southern Kuril Islands)

US position on the issue of the Four Northern Islands (Southern Kuril Islands)

Source:Official positions and diplomatic documents of the U.S. Department of State (general description)

Source Nature:

Official Government StatementOriginal Language

The United States recognizes that the four northern islands (Etorofu Island, Kunashiri Island, Shikotan Island, and Habomai Islands) should be under Japanese sovereignty, and supports Japan's position.

The official position of the United States is that the four northern islands are not included in the Kuril Islands, which Japan abandoned in the San Francisco Peace Treaty. On September 7, 1956, the U.S. Department of State officially expressed its view in a memorandum (Secretary of State Dulles' letter) that ``Etorofu and Kunashiri Islands (along with the Habomai Islands and Shikotan Islands, which are part of Hokkaido) have always been part of the inherent Japanese territory, and must be recognized as legitimately under the sovereignty of Japan.''

The United States takes the position that the Yalta Agreement of 1945 is a "statement of common purposes" between leaders and does not legally determine the final transfer of territory. The final disposition of the territory should be determined by a peace treaty involving the countries concerned. The San Francisco Peace Treaty does not specify where the Kuril Islands should be renounced, and the United States itself, which drafted the treaty, has interpreted that the four northern islands are not included in the renouncement. However, the United States views this issue as one that should be resolved peacefully between Japan and Russia, and has taken the basic stance of not engaging in direct mediation or intervention. Since Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the United States has reaffirmed its support for Japan's sovereign position while remaining cautious about the prospects for negotiating a peace treaty between Japan and Russia.

Perspectives Summary

Item	Japan	Russia	United States
Title	Description regarding the ownership of the Northern Territories	Description of the ownership of the Southern Kuril Islands	US position on the issue of the Four Northern Islands (Southern Kuril Islands)
Category	Territorial issues/sovereignty	Territorial issues/sovereignty	Territorial issues/diplomacy
Era	1855-present	1945-present	1945-present
Source	Official position/textbook (general description) of the Japanese government (Ministry of Foreign Affairs/Cabinet Office) Official / Authorized TextbookVia Translation	Government opinion of the Russian Federation (general description) Official / Authorized TextbookVia Translation	Official positions and diplomatic documents of the U.S. Department of State (general description) Official Government StatementOriginal Language
Excerpt	The four northern islands (Etorofu Island, Kunashiri Island, Shikotan Island, and Habomai Islands) are indigenous Japane…	The Southern Kuril Islands (Iturup, Kunasir, Shkotan, and Habomai Islands) became the legitimate territory of the Russia…	The United States recognizes that the four northern islands (Etorofu Island, Kunashiri Island, Shikotan Island, and Habo…

Interactive Verification & Exploration

Notes on this comparison

This comparison is based on general descriptions from official or widely used history textbooks in each country. While minor nuances may change in translation, the goal is to highlight differences in how major events are perceived, the order of description, and what is emphasized. In particular, notable differences in the naming of events and the background of their occurrence can be seen between "United States" and "Japan".

Item

Japan

Russia

United States

Title

Description regarding the ownership of the Northern Territories

Description of the ownership of the Southern Kuril Islands

US position on the issue of the Four Northern Islands (Southern Kuril Islands)

HistoryDiff

US position on the issue of the Four Northern Islands (Southern Kuril Islands)

US position on the issue of the Four Northern Islands (Southern Kuril Islands)

Perspectives Summary

Interactive Verification & Exploration

Historical Perception & Bias Diagnostic

Guess the Country's Textbook!

Community Notes & Verification

Public Voices

Notes on this comparison

US position on the issue of the Four Northern Islands (Southern Kuril Islands)

US position on the issue of the Four Northern Islands (Southern Kuril Islands)

Perspectives Summary

Interactive Verification & Exploration

Historical Perception & Bias Diagnostic

Guess the Country's Textbook!

Community Notes & Verification

Public Voices

Notes on this comparison