Do you have a source for all of this information, please? Indeed, I certainly find it interesting that the Bolsheviks would already de facto support separatism in China even back in the very early 1920s!Not necessarily. The Bolsheviks were internationalist, not terribly concerned with borders as such, and were already starting to get involved with Mongolia before Ungern-Sternberg arrived. IIRC the Mongols, who were often tactically pro-Russian in the past, even requested help from the Soviet government in their struggle against China.
Do you have a source for all of this information, please? Indeed, I certainly find it interesting that the Bolsheviks would already de facto support separatism in China even back in the very early 1920s!
Merci beaucoup!Governing Post-Imperial Siberia and Mongolia (1911-1924) by Ivan Sablin. Been a long time since I skimmed through it, but it's a decent source of details on that time and place.
After all, why is Mongolia more special than, say, Xinjiang or Tibet?
Kazakhstan was a part of Russia (well, Greater Russia) until 1991, though.Tibet is not adjacent to Russia.
Xinjiang is adjacent, but to Kazakhstan, and separated by a mountain range.
Mongolia is adjacent to Russian Siberia, and I think the more habitable areas are in the north, separated from China by the Gobi Desert. Ulan Bator is only 200 km from the Russian border, but about 500 km from the Chinese border.
Yes, but it was not as immediately close to "Russia" in a kneejerk sort of way as Mongolia. I'm having trouble putting the idea into words, but do you catch my drift?Kazakhstan was a part of Russia (well, Greater Russia) until 1991, though.
Yes, I do--if one considers Siberia to be an integral, crucial part of Russia, that is.Yes, but it was not as immediately close to "Russia" in a kneejerk sort of way as Mongolia. I'm having trouble putting the idea into words, but do you catch my drift?
Also, out of curiosity--did the Bolsheviks already indirectly meddle in Mongolian affairs before 1921 because the Mongols asked them to, or what? After all, why is Mongolia more special than, say, Xinjiang or Tibet?
Had Baron von Ungern-Sternberg decided not to invade Mongolia (for whatever reason) during the Russian Civil War, what exactly would Mongolia's fate have been? Specifically, I am talking about the entire last 100 (well, close to 100) years here.
Any thoughts on this?
Had Baron von Ungern-Sternberg decided not to invade Mongolia, what exactly would Mongolia's fate have been?
My guess: Mongolia would be a very flat, very stretched-out version of Nepal.
Alternatively uncle Mau could decide to annex it in 1968 and we'd have a very flat, very stretched-out version of Tibet.
Tibet itself remains extremely solidly Tibetan-majority, though.And an even closer analogy than Tibet would be Inner Mongolia, which became overwhelmingly Han.
Tibet itself remains extremely solidly Tibetan-majority, though.
Also, do you have a source that Inner Mongolia was previously Mongol-majority?
Thanks for this info!It is true that Inner Mongolia was already pretty heavily Han by the time the PRC was created. The process of de-Mongolizing it went back much further. Still, "The outstanding features of Inner Mongolia are the progressive development of Chinese influence and the replacement of nomadism by agriculture and pastoral farming. In the 17th century there were few Chinese outside the Great Wall, nor did the early Manchu emperors encourage emigration. But the Dynasty in its later years, inspired by fear of Japanese pressure from the east and Russian pressure from the north, adopted the Chinese policy of colonization and of direct control of the Mongol tribal organizations through Chinese officials..." (1957 Encyclopedia Britannica, article "Mongolia.") Under the PRC the transformation of Outer Mongolia could be much more rapid than that of Inner Mongolia had been.
Interestingly, Palmer argues in the "Epilogue" to *The Bloody White Baron* http://books.google.com/books?id=rt2lasCRsJ8C&pg=PA245 that the psychopathic baron ironically may have saved Mongolia after all:
"Without Ungern, the Chinese would have remained in Mongolia, the Soviets would never have taken over the country, and it would have remained a part of Chinese territory. From the point of view of anybody in Mongolia in the 1930s, Chinese oppression, however petty and brutal, would have been infinitely superior to the Soviet version. In the long run, though, Mongolia would have gone through exactly the same collectivisation, cultural destruction and mass homicide"--only twenty years later and under Mao instead of under Stalin's puppet Choybalsan. The difference according to Palmer is that Mongolia as a Soviet satellite remained Mongolian in population, so that after the collapse of the Soviet Union it could experience a new freedom:
"It kept its own culture and its own religion, however damaged by seventy years of Russian occupation." By contrast, the PRC "would have flooded Mongolia with Han settlers, as happened in the other non-Chinese provinces of the new Communist empire [including of course Inner Mongolia], leaving the Mongolians a minority in their own lands, culturally and economically marginalised."
That is totally wrong and written by Cold War point of view.Sometimes American/West historians same as Soviet historians are extremely biased when comes to history of Mongolia
From 1911 to Mongolians always wanted to gain de-jure independence, since they got de-facto independent. Once Xu Shuzeng destroyed autonomy and held Bogda Khaan under arrest, most Mongolians ,nobles and commoners, all were determined to expel Chinese. While Mongolians needed external help, Chinese wasn't in secure position too.
Xu Shuzeng never controlled Mongolia, outside Urga/Khuree capital of Mongolia. He had neither enough troops nor needed finance. Unlike Ungern he can't get Mongolians' support. Once Beyang Government falls, so will be Xu Shuzeng will be retreat if not already defeated by Mongolians.
That is totally wrong and written by Cold War point of view.Sometimes American/West historians same as Soviet historians are extremely biased when comes to history of Mongolia
From 1911 to Mongolians always wanted to gain de-jure independence, since they got de-facto independent. Once Xu Shuzeng destroyed autonomy and held Bogda Khaan under arrest, most Mongolians ,nobles and commoners, all were determined to expel Chinese. While Mongolians needed external help, Chinese wasn't in secure position too.
Xu Shuzeng never controlled Mongolia, outside Urga/Khuree capital of Mongolia. He had neither enough troops nor needed finance. Unlike Ungern he can't get Mongolians' support. Once Beyang Government falls, so will be Xu Shuzeng will be retreat if not already defeated by Mongolians.