Abstract
Extremely uncertain of its position in Europe and before long gravely weakened economically and militarily by Stalin’s terror, the Soviet Union was not about to take any uncalculated risks in relation to Japan in 1937. Yet the maintenance of the status quo in the Far East — with Manchuria securely in the hands of the Japanese and with the Western Powers loath to intervene — was not to Soviet advantage either. Moscow therefore did its best to revive Chinese resistance to Japanese occupation, and in the spring of 1937 renewed its offer of arms to the KMT as a means to that end.1 For Chiang Kai-shek, however, there was little to be gained by accepting such an offer if it provoked the Japanese into further aggression. Nothing therefore came of the proposal. Furthermore the prospects for involving the Western Powers in a collective security system to contain Japan appeared as bleak as ever in Soviet eyes. Britain, under its new Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, used the growing crisis in Europe as a reason for appeasing Japan in Asia, and the threat from Japan to British colonies in Asia as a reason for appeasing Germany in Europe. France was now reeling from the belated impact of the Depression on its economy; it was increasingly polarised between left and right under the impact of the civil war in Spain; and its forces were self-evidently incapable of deterring both Germany in Europe and Japan in Asia. Roosevelt was by nature an internationalist, but his country was still stubbornly isolationist; thus although the United States unquestionably had the naval power to act against Japan, it lacked the will to intervene.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
DVP SSSR, Vol. XX, ed. F. Dolya et al. (Moscow, 1976), pp. 701–2; for Chiang’s reaction — Bogomolov (Shanghai) to Moscow, 3 April 1937: ibid., doc. 93.
Although there is little agreement as to the precise nature of the differences, there is no disagreement as to their existence: see Haslam, The Soviet Union, pp. 137–9; also Wollenberg, The Red Army, pp. 214–15 and 246–7; and the memoirs of Tukhachevsky’s sister-in-law, L. Nord, Marshal M.N. Tukhachevskii (Paris, 1978), pp. 117–19 and 127–8. For official Soviet confirmation that the charges levelled at Tukhachevsky were completely unjustified and for details of the plot to liquidate him and his colleagues taken from KGB and Party archives, see ‘V Komissii Politburo TsK KPSS po dopolnitel’nomu izucheniyu materialov, svyazannykh s repressiyami, imevshimi mesto v period 30–40-x i nachala 50-x godov: Delo o tak nazyvaemoi ‘antisovetskoi trotskistskoi voennoi organizatsii v Krasnoi Armii’, Izvestiya TsK KPSS, 4 (291), April 1989, pp. 42–62.
For an account largely reflecting the Japanese point of view: A. Coox, Nomonhan: Japan Against Russia, 1939 (Stanford, 1985), pp. 101–19. For the Soviet view: record of a conversation between the head of the Second Eastern Department of the Narkomindel, Kozlovskii, with the First Secretary from the Japanese embassy in Moscow, Miyakawa, 30 June 1937: DVP SSSR, doc. 219.
Coox, Nomonhan, ibid.; Izvestiya, 30 June 1937.
Coox, Nomonhan, ibid.; also, Izvestiya, 2, 3, and 9 July 1937.
‘Memorandum by the Foreign Minister, 14 July 1937’: Documents on German Foreign Policy, 1918–1945, ed. M. Lambert et al., Series C, Vol. VI (London, 1983), doc. 465.
J. Garver, Chinese-Soviet Relations 1937–1945: The Diplomacy of Chinese Nationalism (New York/Oxford 1988), p. 19. Garver is, however, wrong to suggest Bogomolov acted on instructions from Stalin. The evidence is that he took his own initiative. See below. It is not uncommon for scholars to underestimate the extent to which those working under Stalin were prepared to take risks out of a commitment to their country and in disregard for their own personal safety. Some, of course, did this in the tragically mistaken belief in Stalin’s sense of fair play, as Blyukher’s behaviour was to demonstrate (see below). Garver’s book is based on Chinese sources and those Soviet sources available in English. For the Russian evidence — Bogomolov (Shanghai) to Moscow, 16 July 1937: ibid., doc. 246.
Argus, ‘L’Armée Japonaise Menace la Chine’, Le Journal de Moscou, 3 August 1937.
M. Sladkovskii, Istoriya torgovo-ekonomicheskikh otnoshenii SSSR s Kitaem (1917–1974) (Moscow, 1977), p. 128.
S. Slyusarev, ‘V vozdushnykh boyakh nad Kitaem’, Na kitaiskoi zemle: Vospominaniya sovetskikh dobrovol’tsev 1925–1945 (Moscow, 1974), pp. 194–5.
Istoriya vtoroi mirovoi voiny 1939–1945, Vol. 2, ed. G. Deborin et al. (Moscow, 1974), p. 73.
G. Weinberg, The Foreign Polity of Hitler’s Germany: Starting World War II 1937–1939 (London, 1980), pp. 174 and 181.
Quoted in D. Borg, The United States and the Far Eastern Crisis of 1933–1938 (London, 1964), p. 381. This book is essential to an understanding of US policy. But it is strange that the Soviet Union does not merit the slightest reference.
Sir R. Clive (Brussels) to Foreign Office (London), 9 November 1937: Documents on British Foreign Policy 1919–1939, 2nd series, Vol. XXI (London, 1984), doc. 343.
DVP SSSR, p. 748, note 184. For the background to these soundings: Hata Ikuhiko, ‘The Marco Polo Bridge Incident, 1937’ in J. Morley, The China Quagmire: Japan’s Expansion on the Asian Continent 1933–1941 (Selected translations from Taiheyo senso e no michi: kaisen gaiko shi) (New York, 1983), pp. 243–86.
On the Trautmann mission: J. Fox, Germany and the Far Eastern Crisis 1931–1938: A Study in Diplomacy and Ideology (Oxford, 1982), Chapter ix.
S. Konstantinov, ‘Stranitsy proshlogo’, Po dorogam Kitaya 1937–1945: Vospominaniya (Moscow, 1989), p. 253.
See Shum Kui-Kwong, The Chinese Communists’ Road to Power: The Anti-Japanese National United Front, 1935–1945 (Oxford, 1988), Chapter 3;
J. Garver, Chinese-Soviet Relations 1937–1945 (Oxford, 1988), Chapter 3; W. Kuo, Analytical History, Vol. 3, Chapter xxviii.70. ‘The Policies, Measures and Perspectives of Combating Japanese Invasion’, Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, Vol. 2 (London, 1954), pp. 57–66.
Wang Ming, Mao’s Betrayal (Moscow, 1975), p. 71.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1992 Jonathan Haslam
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Haslam, J. (1992). The Sino-Japanese War and Soviet Aid to China, 1937–38. In: The Soviet Union and the Threat from the East, 1933–41. Studies in Soviet History and Society. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-05679-8_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-05679-8_4
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-05681-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-05679-8
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)