Russia had the largest number of casualties during WW2, and Russia had taken many Japanese prisoners. So, why didn't Russia receive a reparation from Japan to help boost Russia's economy after the war?

  • 1
    I've edited your question to clarify. I'm not sure what you mean by reasonable amount. I left that the unchanged. Feel free to edit it again if you think I've changed the original meaning.
    – Luke_0
    Commented Aug 9, 2012 at 1:18
  • @Luke - Thank you, Stalin should give you a miltary rank.
    – Victor
    Commented Aug 9, 2012 at 1:31
  • 4
    Technically, the two countries are still at war. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan-Russia_relations
    – Golden Cuy
    Commented Aug 10, 2012 at 3:09
  • Japan didnt even pay reparation to China, the main victim of japanese atrocities, what makes you think they will pay any to USSR.
    – user3122
    Commented Nov 6, 2013 at 11:59

3 Answers 3


Japan agreed to pay war reparations of 1.3 trillion yen. The Japanese GDP in 1952 was 6,217 billion yen. So the reparation was 20.91% of the Japanese GDP. The Japanese GDP in 2011 was equivalent to $5.869 trillion 2011 USD. So the reparations were equivalent to 1,224 billion 2011 USD. This was all proposed at the Treaty of San Francisco in 1952. The soviet Union, however, disagreed with many points:

  • that Communist China was not invited to participate despite being one of the main victims of the Japanese aggression

  • that the Soviet Union was not properly consulted when the treaty was being prepared

  • that the treaty sets up Japan as an American military base and draws Japan into a military coalition directed against the Soviet Union

  • that the treaty was in effect a separate peace treaty

  • that the draft treaty violated the rights of China to Taiwan and several other islands

  • that several Japanese islands were ceded by the treaty to the United States despite the U.S. not having any legitimate claim to them

  • that the draft treaty, in violation of the Yalta agreement, did not recognize the Soviet Union's sovereignty over South Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands

They also objected over other minor points. In the end, the Soviet Union refused to sign along with Czechoslovakia and Poland.

From the start of the conference the Soviet Union expressed vigorous and vocal opposition to the draft treaty text prepared by the United States and the United Kingdom. The Soviet delegation made several unsuccessful procedural attempts to stall the proceedings.

It was not until October 19, 1956, that Japan and the Soviet Union signed a Joint Declaration ending the war and reestablishing diplomatic relations.


  • 1
    You used a CPI inflation which is invalid. You should have used a share of GDP type inflation, measuring worth suggests a 2011 value of USD1.12 trillion in reparations. Commented Aug 9, 2012 at 2:41
  • 3
    On your first point of Soviet disagreement: I have no doubt that is exactly how they saw it. However, it was not "Communist China" that Japan spent the preceding decade and a half attacking, but the Republic of China. Muddying things quite a bit, Mao and friends were active during the war too, and it really becomes a confusing morass of who is attacking whom the deeper you try to look into it.
    – T.E.D.
    Commented Aug 10, 2012 at 14:42
  • 2
    @T.E.D. was not Communist party was just a political force that won the Chinese civil war, but who were not recognized as a legitimate government? The state was the same - China, but the government changed which was not recognized by some. It is a nonsence to say "yes, we will pay to Rooseveltist US, not to Trumanist US because we were at war with Roosevelt's government"
    – Anixx
    Commented Mar 18, 2013 at 21:22
  • 4
    @Anixx - The issue is that the Communists were fighting in the same area at the same time, and at times were even acting as de-facto allies of the Japanese (by attacking the same Government armies). There was essentially a three-sided civil war going on in the area, with the Japanese generally getting the best of it. Alternatively, one might argue that without the Japanese armies, the Communists likely would have been crushed early, so if anything they were the main beneficiary of Japanese aggression. It was really just a mess.
    – T.E.D.
    Commented Mar 20, 2013 at 13:28
  • 1
    @T.E.D. well as I know there was an agreement between the Communists and the Kuomintang that the both recognized that they defend China from the Japanese occupation and recognize that China is in state of war with Japan. While Kuiomintang represented the government, the Communists represented popular resistence.
    – Anixx
    Commented Mar 20, 2013 at 15:11

Do Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands count?

Land-starved Japan ceding territory to the Soviet Union, a nation that ruled a landmass larger than some continents with only twice Japan's population, had to hurt, and bad... and still hurts to this day.


Sakhalin was first divided between Russia and Japan by the treaty of Shimoda in 1855. Then by the treaty of St.Petersburg in 1875 the Japanese half was peacefully exchanged for Kuril islands - so Sakhalin became fully Russian. Then (again!) Sakhalin was divvied up (by force, so to speak) as a result of Russo-Japanese war in 1905, with Japan taking the lower half. And then in August 1945 that half of Sakhalin was taken by Soviet army, and then officially ceded back to USSR by the S.F. treaty.

  • This is more a comment on another answer than an answer to the original question. You should perhaps expand it to answer the question fully.
    – Steve Bird
    Commented Jul 26, 2017 at 20:57
  • True. Alas, currently my "rep score" right now doesn't allow me to comment. I indeed only wanted to comment but had to post it like an answer. Perhaps someone could move it into comments... not sure.
    – JimT
    Commented Jul 27, 2017 at 13:36

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.