Thank you! Did not know this. I remember that my father had a book of his memoirs. Perhaps I still have it somewhere in my apt in Belgrade. Will try to find it.
Related to Stalin’s considerations, I’m currently (and very amateurishly) translating an old French book, (now in public domain) by the last pre-Vichy French Ambassador to the Soviet Union and then NAZI Germany: Robert Coulondre’s From Stalin to Hitler; Memories of two Embassies 1936 -1939. Book was published in French in 1950, and I suspect its timing has a lot to do why it never made it into English.
As a French Huguenot, Coulondre was an independent-thinking and very capable bourgeois professional. My short version is that - while abiding his government’s orders - Coulondre diplomatically advocated for his government to accept a more explicit alliance desired by the Soviets. There had been some movement in that direction already concerning the status of Czechoslovakia. Apparently, the treaties that were already in place before Munich 1938, provided for Soviet support of Czechoslovakia, but expressly conditioned upon French support of Czechoslovakia. Coulondre urged his government to build on that given Soviet willingness.
Unsurprisingly, however, French elites were divided and they ultimately listened to the English who said “don’t do it.”
I’ve always thought that the Soviet performance at Khalkin Gol, coupled with the French and Brit weak-minded reliance on Hitler’s explicit goals against Judeo-Bolshevism,” invited Hitler to dispose of the West first. I don’t doubt Stalin also noticed how the Brits and French refused building on the Soviet conditional offer to help the Czechs - before the nonaggression pact.
Thank you! I hope you translate Coulondre's book. I have heard of his name. The Anglo-French-Soviet alliance, IMO, was always very hard to effectively build. Both sides' main interest was to move Hitler to attack the other side. Further, even technically, Soviets could not help Czechoslovakia b/c Poled refused to let the Soviet troops cross its territory & then took a piece of Cz. for itself. I could never understand how Munich agreement could have been avoided.
S.C.M Paine's *The War for Asia, 1911-1949* is also revealing. By defeating the Japanese at Khalkin Göl (Nomonhan), and the consequent reorientation of Imperial Japanese strategy toward the Pacific, Stalin could feel safe in withdrawing Siberian and Kazakhstan-based troops (e.g. the Panfilov Division) to use the to reinforce the defense of Moscow in the Winter of 1941/42. Far too few people are aware of the importance of all of this.
An interesting point raised by Coox, iirc, is that Soviets DID NOT withdraw troops from the Far East. Quite the contrary, the two Far Eastern Fronts and the Trans-Baikal Front, continuously grew in strength throughout the war. The reinforcements for European front came from points further west, the areas facing China, not Japan directly. (The book is in a box somewhere, so I can't confirm my recollection and, as noted elsewhere, Coox is far more knowledgeable about Japan...)
The border clashes between Japan and the Soviet Union were not without significance, but they pale in comparison to the decisive role of energy and raw materials. Japan’s war effort was, at its core, a bid to secure oil. Once Japanese forces occupied northern French Indochina, the United States responded with an oil embargo—cutting off roughly 80% of Japan’s petroleum supply. Faced with the imminent collapse of its military-industrial machine, Japan chose to seize the oil fields of what is now Indonesia. But the strategy was fatally incomplete: U.S. submarines soon choked off Japan’s ability to transport that oil to its navy and air force. Deprived of fuel, Japan’s war machine stalled, and that—more than any battlefield—sealed its defeat in World War II.
Yes, doesn't this mean that it would be better for Japan to attack the USSR, rather than the United States? However, they did the latter. There must be an explanation. As far as I understand, the book "Nomon Khan, 1939" is trying to answer this question.
No because none of Japan’s oil supply came from Russia nor did Russia have defense pacts with countries that Japan wanted for oil and other natural resources.
I knew Stuart Goldman when we both worked at the Congressional Research Service in the '90s. He was a senior analyst working on Russian political issues. We respected him highly for the strength of his scholarship. He was one of the finest analysts CRS had.
This is a good piece. I have heard from World War 2 historians that it was not well-studied because it required someone to know 2-3 languages or do all of that translation work. This is similar to your critique of the "understudy" in the West of the Eastern Front of World War 1. I think it could be easy to argue that Japan was more or less seeing if they could get an "easy win" taking parts of Siberia or eastern USSR and once it seemed like too much work it was dropped for more important offenses and defenses...
Interesting analysis. But I would also refer you to the point in Barbara Tuchman's The March of Folly: that if Japan had just focused its attacks on Southeast Asia whose resources it needed, the Us might not have entered the war.
PS. Coox is a historian of the Pacific War and his account of the war from the Japanese side is extremely good. His coverage of the Soviet side does not compare, imho, though. I am curious how good the Goldman book is on the Soviet side. (It seems rather short and I wonder how good it is in getting to the depths of the Soviet considerations, both military and political.)
As history fan, this has been established fact in shifting Japanese resource hungry approach from China and Siberia (North) to Indochina, India and islands (South)
Its predecessor to WW2 in same shape and form as Spanish Civil War or 2nd ItaloAbyssinian war and Selassie speech in League of Nations
Not really, beside infamous NOB at school it was the Great Patriotic War (Barbarossa) but truth later reveals itself - such as Russo-German alliance 39-41, truth that also Japan was defeated in 1945 by Stalin (Manchuko, Korea and Sahalin invasions), that 27 march 41 coup de etat in Serbia was entirely OSS/MI5 or predecessors operation, and my favorite - that Ethiopia, Poland and Republic of Spain / Catalonian anarchists resisted bravely. And that first facist liberated country is Kingdom of Ethiopia as early as 41. It was also interesting that Selassie speech in League of Nations was completely ignored by both East/West bloc historiography (as I came to be near Cold War end).
Certainly lot of topics to cover, but Battle of Khalkhin Gol (or better several lakes and Mongolian borderlines) was battle test for Molotov and that it is well depicted in strange and true movie of Yang Kyoungjong - My Way (2011 film)
En general, failure to go North and US embargo has pushed Empire of Japan (Yamato race in propaganda) to WW2 and has almost made it fall. Hirohito did save the day with famous radio speech and deserved to live as only WW2 Axis leader to go unpanished. And Japan to rise as semiconductors super power ... :D
Fun fact Orwell participated at international brigades on anarchist side, only to be disenchanted in lack of Stalins aid and oppression of Anarchists (Kataloniji u cast book) so he made Animal farm and 1984 - which west used a lot. So I learned Bolsevism is not true leftism from him.
It also seems the Japanese government also realized Soviet tanks were far superior than their own. It ended up favoring the Navy when deciding the next theater of war.
Interesting and frightening how major historical events are triggered by sequence of relatively minor, unrelated decisions. I believe that Tooze reported that Germany made an ad hoc decision for Anschluss of Austria, because Austria hold significant amount of much needed foreign currency. Of course, the Anschluss would have happened later, but the historical sequence was in this case triggered by a few millions of Pounds. Same with oil embargo on Japan.
The battle of Changkufeng took place in 1938 (July 29 - August 11) and the battle of Nomonhan took place from May 11 to September 16, 1939. So it appears that the conflict lasted a year, not four months.
Info about "The statement of Chinese foreign minister" is based on remarks of "an official". Not very believable. CNN, or Trump, level weasel word reflecting poor Western understanding of the conflict.
Recommend the Memoirs of Zhukov who begins his history of WW2 with his experience as a Soviet commander at Khalkhin Gol
Thank you! Did not know this. I remember that my father had a book of his memoirs. Perhaps I still have it somewhere in my apt in Belgrade. Will try to find it.
Related to Stalin’s considerations, I’m currently (and very amateurishly) translating an old French book, (now in public domain) by the last pre-Vichy French Ambassador to the Soviet Union and then NAZI Germany: Robert Coulondre’s From Stalin to Hitler; Memories of two Embassies 1936 -1939. Book was published in French in 1950, and I suspect its timing has a lot to do why it never made it into English.
As a French Huguenot, Coulondre was an independent-thinking and very capable bourgeois professional. My short version is that - while abiding his government’s orders - Coulondre diplomatically advocated for his government to accept a more explicit alliance desired by the Soviets. There had been some movement in that direction already concerning the status of Czechoslovakia. Apparently, the treaties that were already in place before Munich 1938, provided for Soviet support of Czechoslovakia, but expressly conditioned upon French support of Czechoslovakia. Coulondre urged his government to build on that given Soviet willingness.
Unsurprisingly, however, French elites were divided and they ultimately listened to the English who said “don’t do it.”
I’ve always thought that the Soviet performance at Khalkin Gol, coupled with the French and Brit weak-minded reliance on Hitler’s explicit goals against Judeo-Bolshevism,” invited Hitler to dispose of the West first. I don’t doubt Stalin also noticed how the Brits and French refused building on the Soviet conditional offer to help the Czechs - before the nonaggression pact.
Thank you! I hope you translate Coulondre's book. I have heard of his name. The Anglo-French-Soviet alliance, IMO, was always very hard to effectively build. Both sides' main interest was to move Hitler to attack the other side. Further, even technically, Soviets could not help Czechoslovakia b/c Poled refused to let the Soviet troops cross its territory & then took a piece of Cz. for itself. I could never understand how Munich agreement could have been avoided.
S.C.M Paine's *The War for Asia, 1911-1949* is also revealing. By defeating the Japanese at Khalkin Göl (Nomonhan), and the consequent reorientation of Imperial Japanese strategy toward the Pacific, Stalin could feel safe in withdrawing Siberian and Kazakhstan-based troops (e.g. the Panfilov Division) to use the to reinforce the defense of Moscow in the Winter of 1941/42. Far too few people are aware of the importance of all of this.
Goldman discusses that. I simply did not want to expand this point. Richard Sorge's role there was crucial.
An interesting point raised by Coox, iirc, is that Soviets DID NOT withdraw troops from the Far East. Quite the contrary, the two Far Eastern Fronts and the Trans-Baikal Front, continuously grew in strength throughout the war. The reinforcements for European front came from points further west, the areas facing China, not Japan directly. (The book is in a box somewhere, so I can't confirm my recollection and, as noted elsewhere, Coox is far more knowledgeable about Japan...)
The border clashes between Japan and the Soviet Union were not without significance, but they pale in comparison to the decisive role of energy and raw materials. Japan’s war effort was, at its core, a bid to secure oil. Once Japanese forces occupied northern French Indochina, the United States responded with an oil embargo—cutting off roughly 80% of Japan’s petroleum supply. Faced with the imminent collapse of its military-industrial machine, Japan chose to seize the oil fields of what is now Indonesia. But the strategy was fatally incomplete: U.S. submarines soon choked off Japan’s ability to transport that oil to its navy and air force. Deprived of fuel, Japan’s war machine stalled, and that—more than any battlefield—sealed its defeat in World War II.
Yes, doesn't this mean that it would be better for Japan to attack the USSR, rather than the United States? However, they did the latter. There must be an explanation. As far as I understand, the book "Nomon Khan, 1939" is trying to answer this question.
No because none of Japan’s oil supply came from Russia nor did Russia have defense pacts with countries that Japan wanted for oil and other natural resources.
However, if Japan attacked the USSR, then there would be no interruptions in oil supplies, why would they happen?
Hypotheticals on hypotheticals are n-th derivatives of reality. Give it a rest. It's not that complicated
New and informative. Thank you for this.
I knew Stuart Goldman when we both worked at the Congressional Research Service in the '90s. He was a senior analyst working on Russian political issues. We respected him highly for the strength of his scholarship. He was one of the finest analysts CRS had.
Thank you. Very glad that his books are still read.
This is a good piece. I have heard from World War 2 historians that it was not well-studied because it required someone to know 2-3 languages or do all of that translation work. This is similar to your critique of the "understudy" in the West of the Eastern Front of World War 1. I think it could be easy to argue that Japan was more or less seeing if they could get an "easy win" taking parts of Siberia or eastern USSR and once it seemed like too much work it was dropped for more important offenses and defenses...
Very important, professor. Than you
Interesting analysis. But I would also refer you to the point in Barbara Tuchman's The March of Folly: that if Japan had just focused its attacks on Southeast Asia whose resources it needed, the Us might not have entered the war.
This is really enlightening, thank you :)
Alvin Coox has an excellent (and quite detailed) book on this conflict, both the lead-up and aftermath.
PS. Coox is a historian of the Pacific War and his account of the war from the Japanese side is extremely good. His coverage of the Soviet side does not compare, imho, though. I am curious how good the Goldman book is on the Soviet side. (It seems rather short and I wonder how good it is in getting to the depths of the Soviet considerations, both military and political.)
As history fan, this has been established fact in shifting Japanese resource hungry approach from China and Siberia (North) to Indochina, India and islands (South)
Its predecessor to WW2 in same shape and form as Spanish Civil War or 2nd ItaloAbyssinian war and Selassie speech in League of Nations
I know that the Pacific war was one of your main interests.
Not really, beside infamous NOB at school it was the Great Patriotic War (Barbarossa) but truth later reveals itself - such as Russo-German alliance 39-41, truth that also Japan was defeated in 1945 by Stalin (Manchuko, Korea and Sahalin invasions), that 27 march 41 coup de etat in Serbia was entirely OSS/MI5 or predecessors operation, and my favorite - that Ethiopia, Poland and Republic of Spain / Catalonian anarchists resisted bravely. And that first facist liberated country is Kingdom of Ethiopia as early as 41. It was also interesting that Selassie speech in League of Nations was completely ignored by both East/West bloc historiography (as I came to be near Cold War end).
Certainly lot of topics to cover, but Battle of Khalkhin Gol (or better several lakes and Mongolian borderlines) was battle test for Molotov and that it is well depicted in strange and true movie of Yang Kyoungjong - My Way (2011 film)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Hoc6MVVpoE
Certainly, topics worth of discuss
En general, failure to go North and US embargo has pushed Empire of Japan (Yamato race in propaganda) to WW2 and has almost made it fall. Hirohito did save the day with famous radio speech and deserved to live as only WW2 Axis leader to go unpanished. And Japan to rise as semiconductors super power ... :D
Fun fact Orwell participated at international brigades on anarchist side, only to be disenchanted in lack of Stalins aid and oppression of Anarchists (Kataloniji u cast book) so he made Animal farm and 1984 - which west used a lot. So I learned Bolsevism is not true leftism from him.
It also seems the Japanese government also realized Soviet tanks were far superior than their own. It ended up favoring the Navy when deciding the next theater of war.
Interesting and frightening how major historical events are triggered by sequence of relatively minor, unrelated decisions. I believe that Tooze reported that Germany made an ad hoc decision for Anschluss of Austria, because Austria hold significant amount of much needed foreign currency. Of course, the Anschluss would have happened later, but the historical sequence was in this case triggered by a few millions of Pounds. Same with oil embargo on Japan.
The battle of Changkufeng took place in 1938 (July 29 - August 11) and the battle of Nomonhan took place from May 11 to September 16, 1939. So it appears that the conflict lasted a year, not four months.
I meant that the Nomonhan conflict lasted 4 months. These were really two discrete conflicts.
If france and UK had agreed for a military alliance with USSR,there would be no war. "standard explanation " as you say at beginning is just wrong
Info about "The statement of Chinese foreign minister" is based on remarks of "an official". Not very believable. CNN, or Trump, level weasel word reflecting poor Western understanding of the conflict.