Улаанбаатар: Бэмби-сан, 2011. 299 т.*

At present, as a result of the discussions that took place during and after the revolutionary-democratic transformations in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the concept that Mongolia experienced three revolutions in the 20th century has prevailed in the historical science of Russia and Mongolia: the national liberation revolution (1911) and the national democratic revolution (1921) and peaceful democratic (1990). Each of these revolutions had its own causes, common features and specific features.

In modern Mongolian historiography, there has been a certain reassessment of the place and role of each of the three revolutions in the history of Mongolia in the XX century, in particular, in the direction of increasing the role and significance of the revolution of 1911 and, accordingly, a certain decrease in the role and significance of the revolution of 1921, which was previously considered as the main milestone, the beginning of the modern history of the country in the XX century [Mongol ulsyn tuukh..., 2003].

Despite this, the national democratic revolution of 1921 is still considered one of the most important events in the history of Mongolia in the XX century, which has not only national, but also international significance. By now, the history of the Mongolian Revolution of 1921 has been largely studied. Over the past 90 years, dozens of collective and individual monographs, collections of documents, memoirs of participants and witnesses of the events of 1920-1921, hundreds of scientific articles in Mongolian, Russian, English, Chinese, Japanese, German, French and other languages have been written and published about it.

In 1921-1990, the Soviet Marxist concept of the Mongolian Revolution of 1921 was formed and dominated for many decades in the USSR and the MNR, which was reflected in the vast majority of scientific works published in Russia and Mongolia before 1990. Among the numerous works of Mongolian authors on this topic, a special place is occupied by B. Shirendib's fundamental monograph "History of the Mongolian People's Revolution", written on the basis of studying mainly Russian and Mongolian sources from a Marxist perspective. This scientific work was awarded the State Prize of the Mongolian People's Republic and went through three editions in Mongolian and Russian (1969, 1971, 1999).

In the West, first of all in American historiography, the concepts of "exporting the revolution from Soviet Russia to Mongolia", "MNR - Soviet satellite", etc. have developed and for a long time prevailed.

The Mongolian Revolution of 1921 still attracts great attention and research interest of Mongolian and foreign historians. Many details of the turbulent, complex, and contradictory events of the late 1910s and early 1920s in Mongolia and Russia remain insufficiently studied, so Mongolian and foreign historians continue to study in depth the phenomenon of the national democratic revolution in the nomad country in 1921.

A new and convincing proof of this is provided by the peer-reviewed monograph of the famous Mongolian historian N. Khishigt.

* Hishigt N. The Mongolian Revolution: 1921 (A study of the history of the Mongolian National Democratic Revolution). Ulaanbaatar: Bambi-san, 2011, 299 p.

This review does not claim to cover, analyze and evaluate all chapters and aspects of this monograph in a comprehensive way, but is intended primarily to draw the attention of Russian historians, Mongolian scholars, Orientalists and readers who do not speak the Mongolian language to this new, interesting, thorough research on a topic that is directly related to the history of Russia and its relations with the world. neighboring friendly Mongolia at the beginning of the XX century. The reviewer focused his main attention on a thorough historiographical review of Mongolian, Russian, American, Chinese, Japanese and other foreign literature on the Mongolian Revolution of 1921, which in itself is of independent scientific value and gives specialists and readers the opportunity to get a more complete, general idea of the current level and problems of studying the revolution of 1921 in Mongolia, Russia and in other countries of the world.

N. Hishigt's new monograph is the fruit of many years of painstaking work, a large, independent, comprehensive study of poorly researched and controversial problems of the history of the Mongolian Revolution of 1921 from the standpoint of modern Mongolian historical science, a modern understanding of the national interests of Mongolia, clarification, correction and addition of the history of the revolution without radical, radical revision of the previous concept.

The purpose and objectives of the study are formulated as follows: 1) give a general historiographical overview of Mongolian and foreign studies of the revolution of 1921; 2) show that the source of the expansion of the national liberation movement of the Mongolian people and its transformation into a process of transformation and renewal were the internal needs of the development of Mongolian society at that time; 3) determine the role and influence of external factors - events in Russia and China; 4 1) to show the scale of military and political activities aimed at liberating Mongolia from foreign invaders and thereby emphasize that the revolution of 1921 was a national cause; 5) to reconstruct the real course of events of those years in order to clarify the place and role of the revolution of 1921 in the history of Mongolia of the XX century (p.7).

The structure of the monograph is strictly thought out, logical, promotes the disclosure of the topic, consists of an introduction, six chapters (each chapter includes three paragraphs), conclusion, chronological, geographical and nominal indexes and bibliography.

N. Hishigt tries to take a fresh look at the history of the national democratic revolution of 1921 from the perspective of the achievements and requirements of modern historical science, abandoning the previous ideological and political bias, taking into account the fundamental changes that have taken place in the country and the world over the past 20 years. She tried to approach as objectively, unbiased and at the same time critically as possible the previous, established and some modern, erroneous, in her opinion, ideas and assessments of the revolution of 1921, to identify and eliminate some "white spots", distortions, errors, omissions, inaccuracies, to introduce into scientific circulation a number of new, previously existing ones. of unknown archival materials, contribute to the restoration of historical truth in relation to a number of famous historical figures of that period (Bogdo-gegen, S. Danzan, D. Bodoo, D. Suhe-Bator, X. Choibalsan, Baron Ungern, etc.).

The source base of the monograph is quite wide: published and unpublished official documents of the epoch, archival materials from the central archives of Mongolia and Russia( RGASPI), thematic collections of documents on the history of the Mongolian People's Party, the Revolution, the army, foreign relations, biographies of revolutionary figures, memoirs of Mongolian and Russian participants and witnesses of events, without dividing them into "red" ones."and " belykh", the Russian and Mongolian press of that time, the largest and most significant studies of Mongolian, Russian and other foreign authors.

Chapter 1, "Historiography of the Mongolian Revolution of 1921," provides a thorough review of the world literature on the subject of the monograph. It covers the largest works of Mongolian, Russian, American, Japanese, Chinese and other foreign authors published in Mongolia, Russia, USA, Japan and China over the past 90 years. The author aspired to an objective, benevolent and at the same time critical approach in evaluating the works of her predecessors, regardless of their belonging to a particular country, ideological and political views and positions.

N. Hishigt identified three main stages in the development of the national historiography of the revolution of 1921. The first stage (mid-1920s - mid-1950s) is the period of collecting and publishing documentary and archival materials, writing and publishing the first historical works, works and memoirs of Mongolian and Russian participants and witnesses of the revolutionary events in Mongolia. At this stage, the foundations were laid for the inclusion of the revolution of 1921 in

general problems of the recent history of Mongolia for further expansion and deepening of research in this direction. The second stage (mid-1950s-late 1980s) was Marxist, a time of development of historical science in the conditions of a one - party political system, one ideology, strict class approach, subordination of historical science to the policy of the ruling party, and strong ideological, political and methodological influence of Soviet historical science. The third stage (early 1990s-present) is a modern one, characterized by the elimination of the ideological and political monopoly of one ruling party, the ideology of Marxism-Leninism, the formation of a multi-party political system, the development of transparency and pluralism of opinions, the expansion of access to previously closed archival documents and materials, the free study of various sources and freedom of expression. opinions.

In the first paragraph, "A Study of National Historiography", the author consistently reviews and briefly describes the most important works of Mongolian authors, starting with the historical story of one of the active organizers and participants of the revolution Ts. Dambadorj's "Tolbo Lake", memoirs of the first revolutionaries by M. Dugarzhav (1925), pamphlets by N. Magsarzhav "Explanations of how state Power arose in People's Mongolia" (1925), books by J. Dugarzhav. Tseveen (Ts. Zhamtsarano) "A Brief History of the Revolution in Mongolia "(1926), memoirs of one of the" first seven " revolutionaries G. Dogsom "On the first steps to create a People's Party "(1926) , books by N. Magsarzhav " A New History of Mongolia "(1927), L. Dendev "A Brief History of Mongolia", collective monographs of the first revolutionaries X. Choibalsan, L. Losol and G. Damid "A brief history of the Mongolian People's and National Revolution" (1934) and others.

Particularly noteworthy is the author's good knowledge of Russian historiography of the Mongolian Revolution of 1921, from the 1920s to the present. At the beginning of the special section "The Mongolian Revolution of 1921 in Soviet and Russian historiography", N. Hishigt, in particular, notes that the first Russian authors who wrote about the Mongolian Revolution of 1921 were witnesses and direct participants of these events. The author emphasizes that the books and memoirs of employees of the NKID of Soviet Russia, the RCP (b) and the Comintern, Buryat and Kalmyk public and military figures, Russian merchants and entrepreneurs who lived and worked in Mongolia, on the one hand, and the White Guards who fled to Mongolia during the Russian Civil War, on the other, Naturally, they contain ambiguous assessments, conclusions and comments, but, in the author's opinion, due to their diversity, they are of great importance for enriching the overall historical picture (p.29).

N. Hishigt evaluates the advantages and disadvantages of the books and memoirs of a number of Soviet and Russian authors published in the 1920s and 1930s, including the famous Bolshevik, an active participant in the October Revolution in Siberia and the Mongolian Revolution of 1921 B. Z. Shumyatsky "Causes of the Mongolian Revolution" (1926), memoirs of the author of the book "Causes of the Mongolian Revolution". a representative of the NKID in the Red Army units that entered Mongolia, V. I. Yudin, a well-known Buryat and Mongolian public figure E. Rinchino, a merchant who later became a well-known Russian Mongol scholar A. V. Burdukov, a writer and public figure in Siberia D. P. Pershin, books by I. A. Maisky "Modern Mongolia" (1921), A. Kalinnikov "Revolutionary Mongolia". Mongolia" and "The National Liberation Movement in Mongolia" (1926), B. D. Tsibikov "The Defeat of Ungernovism" (1947), G. F. Kungurov and A. I. Sorokovikov " The Arat Revolution "(1957, 2nd ed.), etc.

Among the works of contemporary Russian historians who contributed to the further study of the revolution of 1921, N. Hishigt singled out the monographs of S. K. Roshchin "Political History of Mongolia (1921-1940)" (1999), S. G. Luzyanin " Russia-Mongolia-China in the first half of the XX century . Political relations in 1911-1946 "(2000), [E. M. Darevskaya] "Siberia and Mongolia", as well as works by Yu. V. Kuzmin, E. I. Lishtovannogo, Sh. B. Chimitdorzhiev, L. B. Zhabaeva, B. V. Bazarov, [V. Ts. Ganzhurov], I. Yu. Morozova, A.M. Mikhalev and others.

Speaking about the collective monograph " History of Mongolia. XX century" (2007), prepared at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, N. Hishigt noted the authors 'new approaches to questions about the causes, driving forces, nature and leaders of the revolution of 1921, in particular the fact that the revolution is characterized as "national-democratic", that D. Bodoo and S. Danzan are called its true leaders and D. Sukhbaatar, who "from the very beginning had their own positions, understood and defended national interests in their own way" (pp. 41-42).

N. Hishigt drew attention to the noticeably increased interest in the personality and actions of Baron Ungern in Mongolia in recent years in Russian historiography, which, in her opinion, reflects the large role of the Russian factor, without dividing it into "red" and "white", in the Mongolian events of that time. The author noted that the history of the white movement in Russia is currently attracting the attention of many Russian historians and readers. A large number of publications on this topic, according to N. Hishigt, expands opportunities for new approaches to the study and explanation of many issues related to the history of the Mongolian Revolution of 1921.

Currently, the average level of knowledge of the Russian language among the majority of the population of Mongolia, including among Mongolian historians, has noticeably decreased. In these circumstances, a thorough, professional, critical review of the Russian historiography of the Mongolian Revolution of 1921 is undoubtedly one of the great advantages of N. Hishigt's new monograph and serves as a good example for other Mongolian researchers.

The beginning of the second, Marxist stage in the history of Mongolian historical science (mid-1930s - mid-1950s), according to N. Hishigt, was associated with the preparation and publication of the collective monograph "History of the MNR", the first major joint work of Soviet and Mongolian historians (1954). The author notes that this work was the first to give an official assessment of the nature and driving forces of the 1921 revolution. Since the main goal of the revolution was recognized as the struggle against imperialism and feudalism, it was called a bourgeois-democratic revolution of a special, new type, and its main driving force was recognized as the class of Arats (nomadic pastoralists), led by a new type of party.

At the same time, N. Hishigt noted that this work, which interpreted the events in Mongolia from the standpoint of Marxist theory, marked the beginning of distortions of the historical events of 1921 (p. 20). The author gives specific examples of history distortion. For example, a letter written by D. Bodoo and D. Sent to the Mongol-Tibetan Section of the Section of the Peoples of the East of the Siberian Bureau of the RCP (b), the book was presented as a letter from D. Sukhbaatar and X Choibalsana, addressed to the Soviet Government. It was also written there that in 1920 D. Sukhbaatar and X. Choibalsan allegedly visited Moscow and met with V. I. Lenin and I. V. Stalin. The history of the revolution, from the formation of secret circles in Urga to the proclamation of the victory of the revolution, was described only in connection with the names of D. Sukhbaatar and X. Choibalsana. At the same time, many other revolutionaries were not mentioned, including D. Bodoo, S. Danzan, D. Dogsom, M. Dugarzhav, etc., as well as Russian Bolshevik revolutionaries who lived in Mongolia and helped the Mongolian revolutionaries: V. Ya. Gembarzhevsky, M. I. Kucherenko, S. Maslakov, etc., workers of the RCP(b) and the Comintern S. S. Borisov, O. I. Makstenek, B. Z. Shumyatsky, F. I. Gapon and others, Buryat figures J. Tseveen (Ts. Zhamtsarano), E. D. Rinchino, D. Tseden-Ish and others.

The author notes that "these and similar errors and superficial conclusions continued to occur in subsequent studies, which served as the basis for obscuring and confusing the history of the revolution of 1921" (p.21). The author explains the reasons for this phenomenon by saying that when writing the one-volume History of the MPR, historical research "did not rely so much on historical sources and facts, but rather followed the prevailing ideology in society, guided by the instructions of the ruling party's resolutions and decisions" (p.21). Despite this, N. Hishigt writes, this work laid the foundations for theoretical studies of the history of Mongolia and became "one of the variants of historiography", reflecting the level of research at that time.

At present, one cannot disagree with these observations and conclusions of the author. However, until 1990, any attempts to deviate from the party and government line in interpreting the history of the 1921 revolution were persecuted and resolutely suppressed. In addition, it should be recalled that in the first half of the 1950s, when the one-volume History of the MNR was being written, the cults of Stalin and Choibalsan were still in full swing in both the USSR and the MNR. In addition, the general level of study and theoretical understanding of the history of Mongolia, including the history of the revolution of 1921, was at an early stage, many documents and archival materials were classified and were not put into scientific circulation.

At the same time, I think that before proceeding to a largely fair criticism of the shortcomings of the one-volume History of the Mongolian People's Republic, the author probably should have noted that the publication of the first official history of Mongolia was undoubtedly a great achievement of Mongolian and Soviet historians, an outstanding event in scientific, cultural and socio-cultural life.political life of the MNR. This was the first fundamental scientific work in which the ideology of Marxism-Leninism that prevailed at that time was generalized and systematized. -

The history of Mongolia, from the earliest times to the middle of the 20th century, is presented in a chronological order and in a form accessible to the general reader. For almost 50 years, the one-volume "History of the Mongolian People's Republic", which went through three editions (1954, 1967, 1983), served as a scientific and methodological base and a kind of standard for Mongolian historians and social scientists, Soviet Mongolian and Oriental scholars, the main textbook on the history of Mongolia for all educational institutions of the Mongolian People's Republic and the USSR.

N. Hishigt noted significant shortcomings in the coverage of the revolution of 1921, which occurred in other major collective works, in particular in the three-volume " History of the MNR "(1966-1969), independently prepared by Mongolian historians. For example, she pointed out the obvious exaggeration of the influence of the external factor, the desire to adapt the interpretation of the key issues of the history of the Mongolian revolution of 1921 to Lenin's concept of the revolutionary situation, the definition of the goal of the revolution as "the struggle against imperialism and feudalism", the conclusion that the Mongolian revolution "in its profound content is a direct continuation of the October Revolution", underestimation of the national character of the revolution, defining it as a "people's, people's-democratic revolution", attempts to attribute it to the type of socialist revolution, etc. (p. 21). One of the reasons for the distortion and falsification of the history of the revolution of 1921 in the period up to 1990, N. Hishigt calls the need for researchers of that time to strictly follow the Marxist theory of class struggle, a class approach to all issues.

N. Hishigt noted the merits of B. Shirendib (B. Shirendev), who specialized in studying the history of the revolution of 1921 and raised its study to the level of a priority area of research in the political history of Mongolia in the XX century. B. Shirendib in his works, using the analysis of the socio-economic situation of Mongolia in the second half of the XIX - early XX century, gave a general description of the socio-economic situation of Mongolia in the second half of the XIX-early XX centuries.He described the general course of history in this period and the economic conditions of the emergence of the revolution. At the same time, according to N. Hishigt, in his monograph "The History of the Mongolian People's Revolution" B. Shirendib exaggerated the influence of the external factor when he wrote that "as a result of the change in the external situation, the national liberation movement of the Mongols expanded and turned into a popular revolution, which, with the help of Soviet Russia, achieved victory" (p. 22). Hishigt believes that B. Shirendib,"especially by closely linking the events in Mongolia with the October Revolution of 1917, with the policy of Soviet Russia and the actions of the Red Army, assessed the revolution of 1921 as part of the world proletarian revolution, and interpreted questions about the nature of the revolution, its leaders and leaders in the spirit of his time." Despite these shortcomings, N. Hishigt agreed with the assessment of the famous Japanese historian and Mongol scholar M. Onuki, who noted that" The History of the People's Revolution by B. Shirendib is one of the main works that reflected the way of thinking, methods and content of historical research in post-revolutionary Mongolia" (p.22).

At the beginning of the third paragraph, "From the works of Western and Eastern researchers on the Mongolian Revolution of 1921", N. Hishigt noted that her review of the Western and Eastern historiography of the revolution of 1921 was not complete enough, since in writing it she relied partly on those works that were available to her, and partly on published special historiographical works other historians, including the Russian Mongol scholar M. I. Golman on Mongol studies in the West, the Mongolian Japanese scholar T. Munkhtsetseg on Japanese historiography, and others.

N. Hishigt writes that the study of the history of the 1921 revolution in US Mongolian studies was initiated by the well-known American sinologist and Mongol scholar O. Lattimore, who in his article "The Situation of Outer Mongolia", written in the mid-1950s, for the first time put forward the idea that "the Mongolian revolution was independent of others" (p. 45). O. Lattimore described these views in detail in the book "Nomads and Revolutionaries" and other works. Further, N. Hishigt highlighted the monographs of R. Rupen "Mongols of the XX century", J. Murphy "Soviet Mongolia", the works of W. Ballis, P. Tan, A. Campy, K. Atwood, T. J. Olsen, A. Stolypin and others, and noted their positive aspects and shortcomings.

N. Hishigt's review of Japanese historiography of the Mongolian Revolution of 1921 is based mainly on the results of research by the Mongolian historian and historiographer of Japanese literature T. Munkhtsetseg. Studies of the recent history of Mongolia occupy an important place in Japanese Mongolian studies, and a significant number of books and scientific papers have been published in Japan on the history of the struggle of the Mongolian people for independence and on the revolutions of 1911 and 1921.

works. Among them, she highlighted books and articles by O. Shigeru, K. Sakamoto, K. Tanaka, F. Isono, M. Onuki, X. Futaki, I. Masanora, and others. If in the works of Japanese Mongol scholars published in the 1930s, the approach to assessing the Mongolian Revolution of 1921 as a "springboard" for the revolutionary policy of Soviet Russia in Asia prevailed, then after the Second World War, starting from the 1950s, works on individual figures of the Mongolian revolution appeared (D. Sukhbaatar, X. Choibalsane, S. Magsarzhave), on the relationship between the October Revolution in Russia and the revolution of 1921 in Mongolia. In particular, K. Sakamoto paid great attention to elucidating the internal causes of the 1921 revolution and wrote that "without taking into account the struggle of the Mongols against foreign invaders, it is impossible to understand the essence of the Mongolian Revolution", that the entry of Red Army units into Mongolia "cannot be considered as external interference in the internal affairs of Mongolia" (p.49).

Another well-known Japanese Mongol scholar, the author of several books about the 1921 revolution, K. Tanaka, in his book "The Steppe and the Revolution" (1971), emphasized the national character of the 1921 revolution: "The Mongolian Revolution was based on the traditions of uprisings and struggle against the Manchu Qing state, and its distinctive feature is that it was attended by non-Chinese people. not only the noens (representatives of the ruling class - V. G.), but also poor pastoralists and many representatives of the intelligentsia" (p. 50).

F. the Mongol scholar. Isono, in her study "The Mongolian Revolution" (1974), came to the conclusion that "the revolution was made by the hands of the Mongols themselves" (p. 50). The UNO was critical of the widespread view among American researchers that "the Mongolian Revolution was exported to Mongolia."

A distinctive feature of the works of the famous Japanese Mongol historian M. Onuki, according to N. Hishigt, is that he pays special attention to determining the place and role of the Mongolian Revolution of 1921 among other anti-imperialist and anti-feudal movements of the peoples of East Asia. From the same standpoint, he also approaches the assessment of the influence of the Russian Bolshevik Revolution on Mongolia. Ignoring the links of the Mongolian Revolution of 1921 with other national liberation movements of the peoples of East Asia, according to M. Onuka, leads to belittling the significance and value of both the Mongolian and October Revolutions. According to N. Hishigt, M. Onuki proposed a new approach, aimed at changing the previous, traditional approach, when the events of the Mongolian Revolution of 1921 were considered only in connection with the only factor of Soviet Russia. M. Onuki came to the conclusion that the revolution of 1921 was not only a "major coup" in the history of Mongolia, but also created a new state of affairs. the very first, qualitatively new elements in the world of East Asia and therefore is an event that occupies a prominent place in history (p. 51).

N. Hishigt highly appreciates the work of another well-known Japanese Mongol historian, H. Futaki, who came to the following main conclusions: : 1) the revolution of 1921 had a direct connection with the revolution of 1911; 2) D. Bodoo, S. Danzan and E. Rinchino were the three main leaders of the Mongolian Revolution of 1921; 3) the traditional definition of "people's revolution" is not suitable for describing the revolution of 1921. Futaki was the first among foreign scientists to put forward the idea that the Buryat scientist and public figure E. Rinchino was one of those who made the revolution of 1921, that the MNR was his brainchild, and in this sense he played an even more important role than the leaders of Khalkha - Mongolia Bodoo and Danzan (p.52).

N. Hishigt notes that Japanese Mongolian scholars who study the events of the first quarter of the XX century, as a rule, pay great attention to the study of Pan-Mongolism and events related to it, in particular, with the attempt to create the state of "Great Mongolia" on the initiative of Ataman Semenov and with the support of Japan.

After 1990, a new stage in the development of Mongolian studies in Japan began, connected with the expansion of scientific ties and cooperation with Mongolia and Mongolian scientists, as well as access to previously closed archives. A new generation of young Japanese Mongolian scholars, such as Aoki Masahiro, Tachibano Mokoto, and others, has emerged and is growing.

At the same time, N. Hishigt notes that in the works of Japanese Mongolian historians there are many cases of underestimation and distortion of the recent history of Mongolia, which requires a critical approach to them.

An important place in the historiographical review of N. Hishigt is occupied by the section on Chinese historiography of the Mongolian Revolution of 1921, in which she gave a fundamental assessment of the interpretation of the history of the Mongolian Revolution of 1921 by some Chinese historians.

She notes that some issues of Mongolia's recent history have been considered in the works of Chinese historians since the 1970s, when the concept of a "united multinational China"was developed. The author gave several vivid examples of falsification of the history of the Mongolian Revolution of 1921 in the monograph "A Brief History of the Mongolian Nation", published in China in 1977, and other works. The main point of disagreement between Mongolian and Chinese historians, according to N. Hishigt, is the denial of Mongolian independence by Chinese historians.

According to N. Hishigt, the most vivid and concentrated expression of these positions of Chinese historians is the book "The Secret Conspiracy on the Independence of Outer Mongolia", published in Beijing in 1993. The authors of this book, in their own words, set themselves the goal of "objectively, exhaustively and systematically showing the events related to the secession of Outer Mongolia". Mongolia from China and gaining its full independence, to reveal the secret that was hidden, and to show the true truth." The content of the book was reduced to presenting and justifying the following scheme of historical events related to the revolution of 1921: "Tsarist Russia staged a shameful performance called "Independence", played out by the Vanis and Huns (titles of the Mongolian nobility. Outside Mongolia, the living god Javzandamba sold out and committed treachery, Choibalsan secretly went to Soviet Russia for help, Lenin issued a decree, and the Red Army soldiers entered Mongolia " (p. 54). As a result of the October Revolution, Mongolia lost its foothold in China. At the same time, Xu Shuzhen's actions to eliminate the autonomy of Mongolia in 1919 were praised, and thus, as N. Hishigt writes, "the violent elimination of the national independence of the Mongols was presented as the desire and aspiration of the ruling circles of Mongolia."

N. Hishigt evaluated this book as follows: "The book is thoroughly imbued with the idea that" Mongolia is an integral part of China", which appeared at a time when the methodological basis of many research works on the modern history of the PRC was the concept of" China has been a single multinational state since ancient times", and, moreover, the book made an attempt to create an integral part of an attempt to show that the Mongols allegedly "yearn for China in difficult times" (p. 55). In her opinion, in addition to distortions of historical facts, the book contains many conjectures, obvious mistakes, etc.

As another example of falsification of the history of Mongolia, including the history of the Mongolian Revolution of 1921, N. Hishigt cited Liu Qiuwen's work "The Beginning and End of Relations between China, Russia and Outer Mongolia", partially translated and published in Mongolia (1995). According to this Chinese author, the three main reasons that led to the distance of the Mongols from China and pushed them to collude with "foreigners" were as follows:: 1) the Mongols went along with foreigners; 2) the actions of local authorities and officials on the outskirts, including Xu Shuzheng, ceased to enjoy mass support of the Mongols; 3) Chinese firms returned to Mongolia and demanded to repay them old debts, along with interest that ran up during 8 years of autonomy, as well as damage caused by during the establishment of independence (p. 56). In the section " The Conspiracy of Strangers "(mong. "Харийнхны хуйвалдаан") Liu Qiuwen simultaneously wrote about Japan's policy of seizing Siberia, Semenov's pan-Mongol movement, which received support from Japan,and Soviet Russia. Liu Qiuwen names the authorized ministers of the Chinese government in Mongolia, Zhang Zuolin and Chen Yi, as the main culprits of the events in Mongolia, including the declaration of independence by the Mongols.

As a positive example of the contribution of researchers from Inner Mongolia to Chinese Mongolian studies, N. Hishigt cites the works of a well-known scientist, a native of Inner Mongolia, Zhagchid Setsen. In his article "Military actions of Outer Mongolia and the guerrilla war (1912-1921)", Zhagchid Setsen, in particular, wrote that the main reason for the emergence of guerrilla warfare (this is how he described the revolutionary events in Outer Mongolia in 1921 - V. G.) was the elimination of autonomy as a result of the aggressive actions of the Chinese troops (p.57).

In conclusion of her review of national, Russian, American, Western and Eastern historiography, N. Hishigt came to a reasonable conclusion, in my opinion, that the Mongolian Revolution of 1921 still attracts the attention of scientists and researchers as a unique event in the history of national liberation and revolutionary movements of the XX century. The study of the history of the Mongolian Revolution was influenced by many factors, including the differences in national historical schools, the state of documents and other sources, and the impact of the Mongolian Revolution on the country.

current politics and ideology in each specific period of history. This in itself is valuable because it expands the possibilities for finding out the truth by enriching, comparing and deepening research.

N. Hishigt, on the whole, successfully coped with the task. Her new monograph supplemented the well-known picture of the history of the revolution of 1921, pointed out individual mistakes and distortions made by various researchers in the past and present, and showed the place and role of Soviet Russia and the Comintern in the victory of the Mongolian Revolution. The author was able to convincingly show that the Mongolian National-Democratic Revolution of 1921 was not the result of the Russian Bolsheviks ' export of the ideas and experience of the October Revolution to Mongolia, but the result of the country's internal political and socio-economic development at that critical moment in history, when the question of the very existence and survival of the Mongols as a separate, independent, on the impossibility of returning and continuing to exist as part of China, even after the change of power and the formation of the Republic of China.

With this new major study, N. Hishigt confirmed that she is currently one of the leading Mongolian historians and historiographers not only of the revolution of 1921, but also of the recent history of Mongolia in general, the history of Russian / Soviet-Mongolian relations, and Soviet and Russian historiography of Mongolia.

list of literature

Mongolulsyn tuukh (XXZUN) (History of Mongolia. XX century). Vol. 5. Ulaanbaatar, 2003.

Permanent link to this publication: