This article introduces a rebuttal by Sankei Shimbun editorial adviser Tsutomu Saito to criticism from Russian Ambassador to Japan Mikhail Galuzin regarding the Northern Territories dispute.
It discusses the Soviet occupation of the four islands after Japan’s surrender, the Siberian internment of Japanese civilians and soldiers, and the broader issue of international law and historical responsibility.
Approximately 600,000 Japanese were sent to Siberia after the war, and around 60,000 reportedly died under severe conditions.

2019-02-08
As many as 600,000 Japanese were taken to the freezing lands of Siberia, forced into labor little different from slavery, and about 60,000 of them reportedly died in misery.
Anyone who subscribes to the Sankei Shimbun must have felt that this morning’s edition shone particularly brightly.
Black is black, white is white.
It insisted only on the truth.
Far from taking a step back in the face of Russia, the newspaper demonstrated admirable journalistic spirit by firmly supporting the arguments of its editorial adviser in his public dispute with the Russian ambassador to Japan.
Editorial adviser rebuts Russian ambassador again over the Northern Territories.
Occupation after surrender.
A crime of the state.
Russian Ambassador to Japan Mikhail Galuzin responded through social media to a lecture given by Sankei Shimbun editorial adviser Tsutomu Saito concerning the Northern Territories issue.
In the lecture Saito explained how the Soviet Union occupied the four islands after Japan accepted the Potsdam Declaration.
The ambassador argued in response, asking whether the Soviet Union’s entry into the war against Japan in 1945 should be condemned and whether the acquisition of the southern Kuril Islands, carried out completely legally, should be called a crime.
In response the newspaper published Saito’s rebuttal.
Regarding my remarks at the Kyushu Seiron Forum on January 24, I received a direct rebuttal from Ambassador Galuzin through the embassy’s Facebook and Twitter accounts.
The ambassador, praised as one of the finest representatives of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Japan school, offered arguments that, with respect, can hardly be called convincing.
From the outset he described the acquisition of the Northern Territories, which Russia calls the southern Kurils, as having been carried out completely legally.
I wondered whether some new evidence had emerged to support this claim, but none was presented.
He appears to have been displeased that the acquisition was described as a state crime.
For many years I have argued that the seizure of the Northern Territories, together with the Siberian internment and the abductions carried out by North Korea, are unresolved state crimes of the postwar era.
Under Stalin’s direct orders the Soviet Union broke the Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact in August 1945 and entered the war against Japan, invading and occupying the four defenseless islands after Japan had already surrendered.
If this is not a crime, what is.
It was not only a crime of the state but also an international crime that violated the Atlantic Charter, which clearly stated the principle of no territorial expansion.
After the war, about 600,000 Japanese were deceived with promises of returning home and instead sent to the freezing lands of Siberia, where they were forced into brutal labor and about 60,000 of them lost their lives.
My own late father was in fact one of those internees who endured this suffering.