Okay.I'm afraid we have a problem here. Do, ban me from the site. Frankly I couldn't care less. Also, I may decide to import my drama under other user name accounts. Let's get at it, buddy!
We divorce you.
To Coventry with you.
Okay.I'm afraid we have a problem here. Do, ban me from the site. Frankly I couldn't care less. Also, I may decide to import my drama under other user name accounts. Let's get at it, buddy!
Alex, is that really you, from the now defunct soc.history.what-if in Google groups? I have a feeling we might get along a bit better on this highly moderated site.
Would you care to elaborate ever so slightly on why indemnity was "out of the question as a matter of principle"? I suspect I'm not the only one who hasn't the slightest idea what you're talking about.
After all, the Japanese had won the war, it had been very expensive, and, they needed the money.
And, they were certainly most displeased that they didn't receive an indemnity.
Possibly, if you'd been around at the time, you could have clarified the issue for the Japanese, as you can for us now. Obviously, the French paid an indemnity after the Franco-Prussian War,
and the Germans paid, for a time, an indemnity after World War One.
So, if you would be so kind as to enlighten us,
do tell us why an indemnity was out of the question as a matter of principle, in this case of the Russo-Japanese War, specifically, and why it wasn't simply a matter of Teddy Roosevelt being a totally racist sleaze when he brokered the Treaty of Portsmouth.
@alexmilman he has been banned
The Japanese sent people to check out northern Sakhalin. They didn't like it, didn't want it. I doubt they would want Kamchatka either, though they might come up in political horsetrading.
What I don't get is why they took only half of Sakhalin. Can't they just have demanded the whole island?