However, within the former Soviet Empire, the CIS is a sort of successor organisation, being a loose collection of many of the former Soviet states.

Fall of an Empire

With Communist rule being eradicated throughout Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union was financially bereft and on its way to extinction by the late 1980’s.

Its successor was the CIS, or the Commonwealth of Independent States. Headed by Russia as the largest former Soviet state, the CIS comprised of all former Soviet countries except for the Baltic nations of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia.

The CIS was founded on 08^th December 1991 and at the time, it consisted of just three member states – Russia, Belarus and the Ukraine. By the end of the month it had been joined by nine further countries with just the Baltic States remaining as notable absentees.

CIS gathers momentum

After declaring independence, many former Soviet countries found it a struggle to come to terms with life outside of a co-dependent empire. This was a view that was neatly summed up in 2001 by Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma.

“Today we all realize we just can’t live apart from each other, neither economically, nor politically and socially,” Kuchma said at the time.

Kuchma went on to declare that the CIS had suddenly found itself as a major power on the world’s stage and he likened this sudden realisation to a religious epiphany.

“It took the Commonwealth leaders a whole decade to finally realize this simple truth,” Kuchma added “either we all saw the light, or maybe we’ve been given some help from the Lord.”

For a time, former Soviet nations participated as the CIS in the sporting arena as a single entity and for many casual observers, this brought the new organisation into world view. The simple fact that those former nations now play independently leads to a point of view that the CIS now longer exists but that simply isn’t true.

The CIS today

With Georgia’s withdrawal in 2008, the CIS now consists of ten member states – Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan.

Although those countries are strictly speaking independent, the CIS still exists to assist with economy and free trade in much the same way as the European Union was set up to do.

Within the CIS, the Russian Federation is by far the largest country and when the Soviet Union fell, it contained 51% of the Communist Empire’s population and 71% of its territory. As a result of that, the UN recognises it as the true USSR successor and across the world, Soviet embassies were renamed as Russian.

USSR successor is a post from: Siberian Light

At the heart of the debate is the question of who owns property and the means of production. Under a capitalist system, property can be privately owned, and pretty much anyone can set up a business and sell their product on what is called the ‘free market. Under a communist system, all property and means of production are (theoretically at least) owned by the people, in the guise of the state.

In a pure communist system, all decisions about what should be produced and what policies should be followed are made by society as a whole, in the best interests of society as a whole. The ideology of Communism was most famously outlined by Karl Marx. In practice, in a country like Russia, with hundreds of millions of people, decisions needed to be devolved to a small, select group of people who acted in the interests of the people. At least, this is the theory. In practice, of course, the communist governments of the 20th century tended to be corrupt and incredibly inefficient in most areas.

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Communism is seen a discredited economic model, and capitalism has become the predominant economic model in use today.

Capitalism can take different forms, and no countries in the world currently have what economists would call a pure capitalist system. Perhaps the most capitalist country in the world is the United States of America, and this country was the leader of the Capitalism vs Communism debate of the 20th century.

Today, with the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989, most countries in the world have a capitalist economy of some form or another.

The most notable communist country was, of course, Russia, in its Soviet Union guise. The Soviet Union was established on December 30, 1922, following the Russian Revolution and Russian Civil War – not, as is commonly assumed, in 1917. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union (which many historians now equate in many ways to an Empire), Russia is transitioning to a capitalist economy, a process which is fraught with challenges for the country and its people.

Other important communist countries include many of the countries of Eastern Europe, which were forcibly converted to communism following the second world war, and China, which became a communist or socialist state led by Mao after the Chinese Civil War. China is still nominally a communist country, although in reality, it is rapidly opening up to the free market, while remaining a one party state.

North Korea is perhaps the most well known communist holdout – it’s brand of Stalinism endures, although many will say that it is actually a country under the rule of a dicator.

Capitalism versus Communism is a post from: Siberian Light

Under the then unknown Georgy Zhukov, the Soviets won a crushing victory at the batte of Khalkhin-Gol (known in Japan as the Nomonhan Incident). Defeat persuaded the Japanese to expand into the Pacific, where they saw the United States as a weaker opponent than the Soviet Union. If the Japanese had not lost at Khalkhin Gol, they may never have attacked Pearl Harbor.

The Japanese decision to expand southwards also meant that the Soviet Eastern flank was secured for the duration of the war. Instead of having to fight on two fronts, the Soviets could mass their troops – under the newly promoted General Zhukov – against the threat of Nazi Germany in the West.

In terms of its strategic impact, the battle of Khalkhin Gol was one of the most decisive battles of the Second World War, but no-one has ever heard of it. Why?

Rising Tensions
It was perhaps not all that surprising that the Soviet Union and Japan, two expansionist powers who just happened to be close neighbours, butted heads in the Mongolian borderlands.

Tensions between the two had been high for decades, and had erupted into open conflict on a number of occasions. Japan had clearly had an edge over Russia during the early part of the 20th century – it had decisively defeated Tsarist Russia in the Russo-Japanese war of 1905 (a conflict most memorable, perhaps, for the Russian Navy’s folly of sailing its entire Baltic fleet around the globe only to be promptly sunk by the Japanese Navy within days of its arrival), and had occupied Vladivostock for several years during the Russian civil war.

But, by the 1930s, the Soviet Union under Stalin was a resurgent power, and had become a major regional rival to the Japanese. The Japanese High Command were particularly concerned about the threat Soviet submarines posed to Japanese shipping, and the ease with which Soviet bombers, operating out of Vladivostok, would be able to reach Tokyo.

Flashpoint

By the late 1930s, both Mongolia and bordering Manchuria (Manchukuo) were Soviet and Japanese puppet states.

The border between the two was hotly disputed. Japanese backed Manchuria claimed that the border ran along the Khalkhin-Gol river, whereas the Mongolians argued that the border actually ran just east of Nomonhan village, some 10 miles east of the river.

Although the two countries had previously fought some minor skirmishes (most notably at Changkufeng/Lake Khasan in 1938, a battle which resulted in more than 2,500 casualties on both sides), the battle of Khalkin Gol was sparked when, on 11 May 1938, a small Mongolian cavalry united entered the disputed area in search of grazing for their horses. They were quickly given a bloody nose and expelled by a larger Manchurian unit but, within days, the Mongolians returned with greater support and forced the Manchurian forces to retreat.

The conflict slowly but gradually escalated until Soviet and Japanese forces were drawn into direct conflict. On 28 May Soviet forces surrounded and destroyed a Japanese reconnaisance unit. The Japanese unit, led by Lt Colonel Yaozo Azuma suffered 63% casualties in total, losing 8 officers and 97 men, plus suffering 34 wounded.

A month of relative quiet followed this battle. But, instead of using the time to consider a peace deal, both sides redoubled their efforts to build up their forces in the region.

Daring Japanese Air Raid

The quiet was shattered on 27 June by a daring Japanese air-raid on the Soviet air base at Tamsak-Bulak in Mongolia. The unprepared Soviets lost many planes on the ground although, once they got airborne they gave a good account of themselves. Their skill, however, could not prevent the Japanese pilots returning gloriously home, having destroyed twice as many Soviet planes as they had lost themselves.

However, their glory was short-lived. The Imperial Japanese Army Headquarters, based in Tokyo, had not been told of the attack in advance, and was not amused at the local commander’s initiative. When news of the raid reached Tokyo, furious Generals immediately ordered that no further air strikes would be launched – a decision for which Japanese foot-soldiers later paid a high price.

The Japanese ground attack

Despite their decision to withdraw air cover, Tokyo was happy to authorise a land-based operation to “expell the invaders.”

Lt. Gen. Michitaro Komatsubara, well schooled officer, planned a devastating two-pronged assault that would encircle and destroy the Soviet armies and bring him a glorious victory.

His Northern task force launched its first assalt on 1st July. After easily crossing the Khalkhin Gol river, Japanse soldiers drove the Soviet forces from Baintsagan Hill and quickly began to advance southwards. The following day his Southern task force followed them with another massive assault.

However, Komatsubara soldiers were ill-prepared, and not able to take advantage of their early success. Poor logistical planning meant that their supply line across the river consisted of just one pontoon bridge.

Seizing their opportunity, the Soviets under Zhukov quickly rallied 450 tanks for a daring counter-attack. Despite being entirely without infrantry support, they attacked the Japanese task force on three sides, and very nearly encircled them.

By 5 July, the battered Japanese Northern Taskforce had been forced back across the river.

The second Japanese attack

Following the failure of their first attack, the Japanese withdrew and planned their next move. Defeat was not an option for Komatsubara. After giving his soldiers a fortnight to recover, and restock their supplies, he conceived another assault plan – this one relying on brute force.

On 23 July, backed by a massive artillery bombardment, the Japanese threw two divisions of troops at the Soviet forces that had, by now, crossed the river and were defending the Kawatama bridge. wo days of fierce fighting resulted in some minor Japanse advances, but they were unable to break Soviet lines and reach the bridge. Despite thousands of casualties, the battle was effectively a stalemate.

Unable to progress further, and rapidly running out of artillery supplies, the Japanese decided that discretion was the better part of valour, and disengaged to plan a third assault.

The Soviet Counter-attack

Planning for a third Japanse assault went well, but the Soviets under Zhukov beat Lt Gen Komatsubara to the punch.

By August 20th, Zhukov had amassed a force of more than 50,000 men, 498 tanks and 250 planes. Matched against him was a similarly sized, but not well armoured Japanese force, that had no idea the Soviet counter-attack was coming.

A classic combined arms assault followed, as thousands of Soviet infantry attacked the Japanese centre, Soviet armour encircled the Japanese flanks, and the Soviet air-force and artillery pounded the Japanese from long-range.

By August 31st, the encircled Japanese force had been decimated and surrounded. A few Japanese units managed to break out of the encirclement, but those who remained followed Japanse martial tradition and refused to surrender.

Zhukov wiped them out with air and artillery attacks.

The conflict ends

Just one day later, half way across the world Hitler and Stalin invaded and carved up Poland.

Despite technically being an ally of Nazi Germany, it became prudent for Stalin to ensure that he Eastern flank was also secure. Rather than advancing to push home their tactical advantage and escalate the conflict, Zhukov’s armies were ordered not to press home their advantage. Instead, they were ordered to dig in and hold their position at Khalkhin Gol – the border they had previously claimed as theirs.

The total number of casualties suffered by each side is far from clear, particularly as neither Imperial Japan nor the Soviet Union were particularly ‘open’ societies.

Official statistics report just over 17,000 Japanese total casualties, compared with around 9,000 on the Soviet side. Some historians claim that Japan lost more than 45,000 men, while the victorious Soviet armies lost a ‘mere’ 17,000 men.

Most likely, as always, the true figure lies somewhere in the middle.

How Khalkhin-Gol changed the course of history

The battle of Khalkhin-Gol decisively showed the expansionist Japanese military that it was not a match for the Soviets – particularly while Japanese forces were still bogged down throughout China. The Soviets under combined their forces to stunning effect, while Japanese tactics remained stuck in a pre-modern mindset that valued honour and personal bravery more highly on the battlefield than massed forces and armour.

When Hitler finally invaded the Soviet Union in 1941 the Japanese, although tempted to join the attack, remembered the lessons of Khalkhin Gol and decided to remain on the sidelines, ensuring that the stretched Soviet military could focus its forces on just one front. This, in turn, meant that Nazi Germany was forced to fight a four year war on two fronts – against the Soviets in the East, and the British and Americans in the West.

Defeat at Khalkhin-Gol can also be seen as a major factor in the Japanese decision to expand into the Pacific. As expansion to the North-West was no longer an option, ill defended and scattered colonial territories made far easier targets. Even the United States was deemed a less formidable adversary than the Soviet Union and, if the Japanse had not lost at Khalkhin-Gol, they would surely have never attacked Pearl Harbour.

However, although the Japanese probably took the sensible strategic course after Khalkhin Gol of targetting a ‘weaker’ opponent, they didn’t learn the combat lessons dealt out by the Soviet army. Honour and bravery remained central to the Japanese military mentality and, once they had recovered from the initial onslaught, the United States and Britain were able to mass their forces and push the Japanese out of the Pacific and back to the Home Islands in one brutal battle after another.

Update: Thanks to Xavi, this post has now been translated into Spanish: La desconocida batalla que marcó la II Guerra Mundial

Update 2: Russia Today have released a video report of the 70th anniversary of the battle of Khalkhin Gol.

And what did they call it? Why, ‘the forgotten battle that shaped WW2′. Wonder where they got the inspiration for that headline from?

Khalkhin-Gol: The forgotten battle that shaped WW2 is a post from: Siberian Light