Talk:Soviet invasion of Xinjiang

Sven Hedin's kidnapping
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=uuEsAAAAIBAJ&sjid=VCEEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4102,4064324&hl=en

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=JDcyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=FOMFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1116,806154&hl=en

Rajmaan (talk) 18:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Commanders and leaders
whi is Ishaq beg this sounds like a south asian name — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iqy007 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If you click on his page, he is Kyrgyz. Kyrgyz are recognized as a Chinese minority. He went to study in the Soviet Union. --2.245.147.188 (talk) 11:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

re neutrality-disputed tag
In January 2016 someone tagged the phrase "Soviet puppet" as of disputed neutrality, in the first sentence of the "Background section:
 * [t]he Soviet puppet[neutrality is disputed] Sheng Shicai...

but without engaging on the talk page (or writing in the "reason=" tag of the template). Since the person didn't do this, I don't know what his point is, presumably one of these: Since he didn't leave a note I have no idea which of these, alone or in combination, is in play. So let's drill down.
 * He thinks that Sheng Shicai wasn't a Soviet puppet. Sure maybe he was an ally of the Soviets, but he was his own man with his own power base -- or at least he arguably was.
 * He thinks that term "puppet" is inherently biased. We shouldn't call anyone a "puppet", anymore than we should call someone a "blackguard" or "doofus" and so forth, except to say "So-and-so was called a puppet by..." sourced to a direct quote.
 * He has no idea what he's doing and has no fixed opinion, he just saw the word "puppet" and just said "sounds wrong to me" and tagged. Maybe he's tag-happy or whatever, who knows.

As to whether Sheng Shicai was a puppet, there's this from his article (Sheng Shicai):
 * The Urumqi Soviet Consul General effectively was in control of governing, with Sheng required to consult them for any decision he made.

and this is sourced to to
 *  David D. Wang (1999). Under the Soviet shadow: the Yining Incident : ethnic conflicts and international rivalry in Xinjiang, 1944-1949 (illustrated ed.). Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press. p. 53. ISBN 962-201-831-9.

followed by
 * The [Soviet] Consul was the de facto power in Xinjiang, being the greatest in significance.

sourced to
 * Li Chang (2006). Maria Roman Sławiński, ed. The modern history of China (illustrated ed.). Księgarnia Akademicka. p. 161. ISBN 83-7188-877-5.

followed by
 * Xinjiang was considered a "Soviet Satellite", being under total Soviet control.

sourced to
 *  Andrew D. W. Forbes (1986). Warlords and Muslims in Chinese Central Asia: a political history of Republican Sinkiang 1911-1949 (illustrated ed.). Cambridge, England: CUP Archive. p. 144. ISBN 0-521-25514-7.

Sounds like a puppet to me. I assume the sources exist and are accurately used unless someone is trolling us unusually deeply on an very obscure subject; nothing's impossible but I severely doubt it. But since I don't have the actual books I can't use those sources in this article. So tagging with a "citation needed" tag you could do...

So, he's a puppet, but can we use the term "puppet"? There are such things as puppets. Certainly "ally" give the wrong feeling of mutuality. I guess the term "client" is maybe better. It means more or less the same thing, kind of, and it sounds a little better mayben. It's a more obscure term and we're going to lose a few ESL readers and young readers ("puppet" is pretty much self-explanatory, "client" not so much (in most contexts it denotes a voluntary engagement of more-or-less equals)). Also, I think it's wrong, definitionally -- "clients" are states, and "client" is really short for "client state", so Sheng Shicai can't really be a client I don't think, except kinda-sorta as a synecdoche. But that's the price you pay I guess.

So I changed "puppet" to "client" and removed the tag hoping that this is the best solution. Herostratus (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The article outlines only the official Chinese vermia of events. No versions of other parties. Your links are based on Taiwan’s position and do not meet plausibility criteria. This is a very conflicting side in historical matters. Therefore, the opinion of the opposite side must be presented. Namely the USSR. Your links are based on Taiwan’s position and do not meet plausibility criteria. This is a very conflicting side in historical matters. Therefore, the opinion of the opposite side must be presented. Namely the USSR.Hatchiko (talk) 06:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

By “Taiwan” I think you mean Kuomintang. Kaihsu (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Serious and the Appearance of History
In this event there were no whiteguards, as the former White Guards had already changed their citizenship and served the government of Sheng Shicai. – 2018-07-10T01:48:30 by anonymous IP user 109.239.219.49

Not Neutral
The article is clearly not neutral and reflects only about the Chinese point of view. It is based not on documentary sources. In particular

1. The White Army does not exist since October 25, 1922. The white partisans surrendered on July 17, 1923. Yes, the emigrants worked in the French foreign legion, and in the armies of Manchukuo and the troops of the countries of the Chakka War, etc. But this is not the Whites!

2. The article is clearly not the correct name of the detachments that were never used in the Red Army.

3. According to Soviet data, the 6th motorized infantry regiment of Dzerzhinsky's division took part in the operation. And the Muslim battalions(ex Bekbashi) of the Central Asian Military District (Frunze). They did not suffer heavy losses. They lost three armored vehicles BA-I. But this is not seven thousand but 4800 people.

4. Bigade Bekteev formed in Kuldzha and when formed have only 200 cavalery solders. Then expanded to 1800. she is from the Russian immigrants, the former Whites. 1000 them from Manchukuo

5. The Kuomintang troops lost this war, and then they lied that they won, 80% of the province were controlled by the separatists, and this is not a defeat. Soviet troops left only when the retiring corps of the Kuomintang retreated. – 2018-07-10T07:35:39 by anonymous IP user 109.239.219.49


 * I was wondering why the Whites would support such a Soviet campaign in China at this time. Kaihsu (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Seems the so-called “Whites” were these: zh:归化军. Kaihsu (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)