Chinese Historiography has a brilliant past. Both in quantity and in quality, only modern European historiography can be compared with it, while that of other old countries, such as India, is far inferior. Other peoples may boast of their philosophy, science, and art, but in the field of historiography no country can claim such a long and glorious tradition as can China.

When the marco polo bridge incident occurred near peiping on july 7, 1937, japan was not prepared to launch a long-term war with china. on the contrary, she was hopeful that a little military pressure would result in a local settlement providing for North China autonomy and economic co-operation with Japan, which she had been demanding for several years. When the incident developed into a fullscale war toward the end of July, she declared that her army was only punishing the anti-Japanese 29th Army and particularly its 37th Division. Even after the war spread to Shanghai in August, Japan still insisted that the military operations were undertaken with the limited purpose of urging the Chinese National government to reconsider and to correct its attitude toward Japan. Although these were absurd explanations, they did reflect to a certain extent the true intention of the Japanese government. On the one hand, a war with China would not be favorably received by the Japanese people. Financial, circles stressed that only a general settlement with China would bring economic prosperity to Japan. Even the General Staff, which had Russia in mind, advised against it. On the other hand, however, the young officers in the army, with War Minister Sugiyama as their leader, advocated war, at least a limited one. They felt that the rising nationalism and the growing unification of China must be checked before China would accept Japanese leadership.

This list of publications was extracted by the translator from a typescript bibliography on all the Oriental countries, compiled in the U.S.S.R. The translator has been unable to verify or to annotate the titles listed here, because, unfortunately, comparatively few of them are available in this country. He gladly acknowledges his indebtedness to Professor Owen Lattimore, who elucidated some doubtful points. The main contributions of Russian research on the Far East and on Central Asia have again been made in the fields of Sinology and Mongol studies. Among the senior authors of international repute, the academicians V. V. Struve and V. M. Alexeev must be mentioned, who have carried on the tradition of Russian scholarship.