Talk:Occupation of Mongolia

Proposition

I'd say the current state of this article and Outer Mongolia, 1911-1919 is a bit confusing, since the monarchy nominally remained in existence until 1919, and the occupation was over by 1921. Also, it was not really a "successor state" to the Bogd Khanaate. I think the infobox is kind of misleading and coud be removed, with some of the lower portions of this article being moved to the other one (which could be renamed Outer Mongolia, 1911-1924). What do you think ? Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 11:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid I don't see what speaks for "Mongolia 1911-24". "Mongolia 1911-19" + "Mongolia 1919-1921" + "Mongolia after 1921" looks completely straightforward to me (theocratic rule + chinese rule + MPRP rule). I agree that this article is not in very good shape, but Outer Mongolia, 1911-1919 looked fine to me last time I read the thing. Maybe the infobox in that article needs a little cleanup. Yaan (talk) 13:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually Mongolia was still nominally a monarchy from 1911 to 1924, with Chinese occupation being the interruption. Outer Mongolian Revolution of 1921 would be the article for the post-1921 period. Actually the main confusion lies in the infobox, with the 1919-1924 dates. IMHO, the infobox in this article should be removed altogether, with the Outer Mongolia, 1911-1919 article using the People's Republic of Mongolia as a successor state, and visible links to this article and the 1921 communist takeover as subordinate articles. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

But the 1924 date in the infobox is from you, is it not? The Chinese occupation definitely ended in 1921, not 1924.

I kind of agree with removing the infobox. Maybe there are other, more useful boxes?

Sorry, I mixed up the dates between the two articles. Actually, I think the 1924 end date should be used in the Outer Mongolia article, since the Bogd Khanaate was only abolished that year. The current article uses the 1921 end date, which is a bit confusing, since the monarchy was not abolished in 1921, just the Chinese (and White Russian) rule. It was the end of a de facto political situation, not of a political regime per se. Also, the article deals with two different occupations, which makes it difficult to present it as a single regime. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The Outer Mongolia, 1911-1919 uses 1919 as an end date, and the Occupation of Mongolia uses 1921, just as both articles should. Theocratic rule de-facto ended in 1919, and Chinese rule ended in 1921. That the Jebtsundamba Khutughtu remained in office does, in my opinion, not justify lumping these three (1911-1919, 1919-1921, post-1921) quite different and distinct periods together. After all, it's not like there was no Jebtsundamba Khutughtu before 1911. Yaan (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It is out of question to lump the three distinct periods together : the fact that there are three articles makes it clear enough that the 1911-1924 period included three (or maybe four) quite distinct periods. Simply, the fact that the monarch remained nominally in office is the common denominator of the three periods of the independent Mongolian monarchy. Actually, I think the main problem lies in the infobox, which should be removed from this article IMHO. That's the problem with trying to stuff a complex situation into an infobox.

If you look at the infobox in the other article, you'll see that it lists, as "form of the government", "absolute monarchy" (which is the 1911-1919 period) and "constitutional monarchy" (1921-1924 period). That actually led me to believe that it would be more clear to the reader if we used 1924 as an end date with, as I said before, visible links to the other two articles. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid I still don't really understand what exactly you want to do. But I remain convinced that the year 1921 was a much more important turning-point than 1924. Yaan (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I just saw that another user changed the infobox and removed the post-1919 events, which is more logical. So the situation is different : we might keep the infobox here and, possibly, put instead a third infobox in the Outer Mongolian Revolution of 1921, covering the 1921-1924 period. But that would be only for the succession of event's sake, and it might actually be too complicated. Then again, the Mongolian People's Republic infobox has Outer Mongolia, 1911-1919 as a predecessor state, which ignores the 1919-21 and 1921-24 periods entirely. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The baron's invasion

http://books.google.com/books?id=8aanmN8DXIcC&pg=PA336#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=8aanmN8DXIcC&pg=PA337#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=8aanmN8DXIcC&pg=PA339#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=8aanmN8DXIcC&pg=PA332#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=8aanmN8DXIcC&pg=PA333#v=onepage&q&f=false

Composition of Chinese forces

Many of the Chinese troops were Tsahar (Chahar) Mongols from Inner Mongolia, which has been a major cause for animosity between Outer Mongols (Khalkhas) and Inner Mongols.

http://books.google.com/books?id=K3JZIdw8YDkC&pg=PA139#v=onepage&q&f=false

01:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)