Academic literature on the topic 'Mongolia, Outer – History'

AbstractThe Mongolian People's Republic (MPR) became the focus of intense competition between the Soviet Union and Japan in the 1930s, when it was more commonly known as Outer Mongolia. The Soviet Union viewed the MPR as an ideological and strategic ally, and was determined to defend that state against the increasingly adventurist actions of the Japanese military based in northern China. Japanese ambitions to solve the so-called ‘Manmo’ (Manchuria-Mongolia) problem led the Soviets to initiate ever-closer links with the MPR, culminating in the 1936 pact of mutual assistance which was intended to constrain Japanese pressure. Using unpublished Japanese materials as well as Russian and Mongolian sources, this article demonstrates how the Soviet leadership increasingly viewed the MPR as strategically crucial to the defence of the Soviet Far East.

The article places the great famine in Kazakhstan (1931-33) in the context of policies implemented by the Stalinist and Maoist governments towards Central Eurasian pastoral populations. After highlighting the factors that caused the famine in Ukraine, the article focuses on the specificities of the famine among the Kazakhs, and its regional distribution within Kazakhstan. It then analyses the role that the same factors could have played in other mainly pastoral regions, both during the 1930s (Kyrgyz ASSR, Outer Mongolia), and during Mao's Great Leap Forward (Inner Mongolia, Tibet, Qinghai, Xinjiang). The article compares the different cases and investigates their transnational connections.

Introduction. The article deals with an important and eventful period of Russia-Mongolia relations, special attention be paid to the shaping of a new regional order in East Asia. The collapse of China’s monarchy resulted in a political vacuum in Russia’s border territories which required utmost consideration and involvement, and the Soviets did seize the opportunity. However, the Agreement on Friendly Relations concluded in November of 1921 can hardly be viewed as a starting point, the former having been rather supposed to actualize previous mutual commitments discussed in the paper. Goals. So, the work attempts an interdisciplinary insight into the mentioned documents (addresses, diplomatic notes, letters, etc.) to have preceded the Agreement and formalized Soviet Russia’s foreign policy in the region and its presence in the territory of Outer Mongolia ― to determine the role and impact of those preliminary papers. Materials and Methods. The study focuses on widely known materials contained in diverse published collections of documents from the Soviet era that were never viewed by most researchers as important tools to have guaranteed the national interests in the Far East. So, the innovative aspect of research is that the addresses, notes and letters are examined through the prism of other humanitarian disciplines, such as jurisprudence and political science — to result in the employment of an interdisciplinary approach with a range of historical, juridical and politological research methods, definitions and categories inherent to international law and international relations. Part One of the article focuses on research tools and ideological essentials, while Part Two examines the actual techniques to have secured the ‘export of revolution’. Conclusions. The insight into the precontractual documents has delineated a number of key lines for cooperation, the latter dominated by bilateral collaboration (and described in Part One). This paper shall characterize the rest that can be together identified as a set of efficient means to have consolidated ideological foundations of the ‘export of revolution’ that include as follows: ‘soft power’ of educational projects; security arrangements for Soviet territories and borders, including assistance to Mongolian comrades in their fight against the White Guard, allocation of the Red Army units within Mongolian territories until the complete eradication of the White threat, with the participation of military units from the Far Eastern Republic; economic cooperation through mutual financial and economic support of industrial construction projects, resource development and social infrastructure initiatives, etc.; joint actions on the international stage pinnacled with the recognition of the Mongolian People’s Republic by China (1946) and the rest of the world community (1961). The study concludes these lines of cooperation were successfully implemented within the two following decades and proved crucial not only in the shaping of a new political order in the region but also facilitated the development of the eastern border security system in the pre-war period and WWII proper (1936–1945), which restrained Japan from initiating military actions against the USSR up until 1945 and guaranteed the security of Mongolia.

Introduction. In November of 1921 after the meeting between Mongolian officials and Vladimir Lenin, an Agreement on Friendly Relations between the two states was concluded. This significant act confirmed the mutual recognition of the only legitimate government by both counterparties, measures of prevention of unfriendly actions by third parties, exchange of plenipotentiary representatives and ambassadors, state border regulations and the most favorable nation treatment for citizens whilst visiting the counterparty and jurisdiction. It also provided the regulations for a number of trade matters, intercommunication issues, questions of personal property etc., however, in actuality this document touched upon a smaller realm of mutual relations that had already been established before the execution of the Agreement, having been formalized in other documents, such as letters and memorandums. These precontractual acts are of genuine interest not only due to their uncertain legal nature and consequences, but also because they cover a much wider range of collaboration and cooperation issues than the Agreement dated November 5, 1921. Goals. So, the paper attempts an interdisciplinary insight into the mentioned documents (addresses, diplomatic notes, letters, etc.) to have preceded the Agreement and formalized Soviet Russia’s foreign policy in the region and its presence in the territory of Outer Mongolia ― to determine the role and impact of the former. Materials and Methods. The study focuses on widely known materials contained in diverse published collections of documents from the Soviet era that were never viewed by most researchers as important tools to have guaranteed the national interests in the Far East. To facilitate a more comfortable perception of the investigated materials by different specialists, the paper was divided in two ― Part One to focus on research tools and its ideological essentials, and Part Two to emphasize certain instruments to have secured the ‘export of revolution’. Results. The article specifies four key lines of cooperation: 1) bilateral collaboration that includes ‘export of ideology’ and sufficient tools thereto, such as disassociation from former political regimes, support for anticolonial sentiments, securement of equal rights in foreign policy issues, cooperative struggle against the common ideological enemy ― world capitalism, ‘soft power’ in the form of educational projects; 2) security arrangements for Soviet territories and borders, including assistance to Mongolian comrades in their fight against the White Guard, allocation of the Red Army units within Mongolian territories until the complete eradication of the White threat, with the participation of military units from the Far Eastern Republic; 3) economic cooperation through mutual financial and economic support of industrial construction projects, resource development and social infrastructure initiatives, etc., 4) joint actions on the international stage pinnacled with the recognition of the Mongolian People’s Republic by China (1945) and the rest of the world community (1961). This shows that during the shaping of the political agenda towards Mongolia the then Soviet leaders did not view contractual aspects of the mechanism as fundamental, and attached no paramount importance to international agreements, which had been distinctive of the Russian Empire.