Soviet and American Far Eastern Policy

REVIEWS SOVIETAND AMERICAN FAR EASTERN POLICY* F. H. SowARD Shortly after the outbreak of the Second World \Var the Institute of Pacific Relations decided to establish an inquiry into the problems arising from war in the Pacific designed "to focus available information on the present crisis in forms which will be useful to those who lack either the time or the expert knowledge to study the vast amount of material now appearing or already published in a number of languages." Over twenty volumes have appeared in the "Inquiry Series," including the two volumes . under review which are among the most recent and most valuable. Offering as they do concise and scholarly analyses of the policies of the world's two greatest powers in the Far East, they are of particul!lr interest at a time when the global conflicts of policy and interest of these Titans offer a tragic illustration of the role of power politics in modern society. It is no reflection on the utility of Mr. Bisson's m-onograph to assess Miss Moore's as the more valuable of the two. She is one of the few Western scholars linguistically qualified to use Soviet sources and thoroughly gr~unded in Far Eastern politics. . Her book is based almost entirely on Soviet sources and its value is heightened by the inclusion of almost as many pages of documents as of text. As the author readily admits, her summary of Soviet policy from Japan's invasion of Manchuria to the Soviet declaration of war upon Japan is far from complete and must necessarily remain so until the· archives of Moscow, Tokyo, London, and Washington yield up their records. What does emerge is an incisive description of what the Soviet leaders thought and did in the Far East, and, equally important, what they allowed their people to know about their policy. At the outset of her analysis, Miss Moore very properly reminds her readers that the U.S.S.R., with over half of its territory in Asia, is, of all the Great Powers, the one most immediately concerned with developments in the Far East. As the Chinese delegate remarked in 1934 at the ceremonies welcoming the. U.S.S.R. into the League of Nations, "if China is the foundation of Asia, as she is, Russia is the uniting arch of Europe and Asia." It is much easier for a Soviet diplomat to be ,conscious of his country,s responsibilities in the Far East than for his opposite number in Washington or London. Consequently, when the Japanese moved into Manchuria in September, 1931, the Russians were quick to appreciate its *Soviet Far Eastern Policy, 1931-191-5. By HAR.RJET L. MooRE. (Institute of Pacific Relations, Inquiry Series.) Princeton: Princeton University Press [Toronto: S. J, Reginald Saunders]. _ 1945. Pp. xviii, 284. ($3.25) America's Far East(Tn Policy. By T. A. BrssoN. (Institute of :Pacific Relations, Inquiry Series.) New York: Macmillan Co. [Toronto: Macmillan Co of Canada). 1945. Pp. xiv, 235. ($4.00) 91 92 THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO QUARTERLY significance. Mindful of Russia's defeat by Japan in that same area a quarter-century previously, and of the appearance of Japanese troops in Siberia when the civil war in Russia was at its peak, the Russians reacted as though to an alarm bell in the night. Molotov told his colleagues at the close of the year that the Far Eastern crisis was "the most important problem of our foreign policy, while Stalin later blamed "the complications in the Far East" for the 6 per cent shortage in the schedules of production in the first Five Year Plan and saw to it that the second plan made much greater provision ·for economic and military development east of Lake Baikal. vVhat particularly concerned the Soviet leaders in 1931 was their almost complete isolation among the Great PowersJ with the (Jnited States still unwilling to recognize the Soviet Union, Anglo-Soviet relations coldly correct, and. Germany rapidly drifting into naziism. In Miss Moore's words: "It cannot be over-emphasized in any survey of Soviet Far Eastern policy for this period that the Soviet fear of attack by a...