Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 2014, 344 p.

In recent decades, there has been an increased interest in the life and work of Baron R. F. von Ungern-Sternberg, a white general who left a significant mark on the history of the civil war in Transbaikalia in 1917-1921 and in 1921 liberated Mongolia from Chinese invaders. Most of the original materials are published in Russian and Mongolian. In recent years, only a few books have been published in Western European languages, mainly based on other publications. In this regard, the appearance of a new large book about Ungern in English seems relevant.

Willard Sunderland is an American researcher who has been studying this issue for over 10 years. The book consists of a preface, chronology of Ungern's life, introduction, 11 chapters, conclusion, acknowledgements, comments, bibliography, and index. It contains 9 maps and 27 photographs, using materials from 12 Russian, one Estonian and one Austrian archives. The list of references includes about 900 works in 8 languages.

In the preface, the author talks about what led him to study this topic; the most important events of the baron's life and work are given by year. The introduction provides a brief outline of Ungern's life and work. Sunderland substantiates the main idea of the monograph, which consists in analyzing the history of the Russian Empire at that time based on the history of Ungern.

W. Sunderland. The Baron's cloak. The history of the Russian Empire in War and Revolution. Ithaca London: Cornell University, 2014, 344 p.

KUZMIN Sergey Lvovich Candidate of Historical Sciences, Candidate of Biological Sciences, Senior Researcher at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, ipe51@yahoo.com.

page 191
An important place in the author's reasoning on this topic is occupied by the Mongolian robe (Mong. deel) of Baron Trofey, preserved in the Central Museum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation in Moscow. This, as Sunderland calls it, "cloak" serves for him as a kind of symbol of the processes that were going on in the Russian Empire at that time, and the symbol by which the author seeks to explain some features of Ungern personally and his activities.

Chapter 1 "Graz" is dedicated to the Austrian city of Graz at the time when R. F. Ungern was born there. With reference to the entry in the parish register, the date of his birth is indicated as January 10, 1886 according to the Gregorian calendar, and it is noted that the year 1885, often taken as this date, is an incorrect date. The history of the city is briefly described, including the Slavic root of its name, the layers of society and in some detail the aristocratic quarter of Gajdof, where Roman Ungern was born at 5 Leechgasse Street. This house has not been preserved; the author mentions an old photograph of it, but, unfortunately, does not reproduce it in the book. Sunderland notes that Ungern once visited this place as a boy. The article describes the genealogy of Roman Ungern on the maternal and paternal lines, respectively, information about the Ungern-Sternberg and Wimpfen families. The problem of German nationalism and cosmopolitanism in the German and Austrian Empires as a possible context of the Ungern family's position in society is discussed in detail. At the end of the chapter, the author reports that the Ungerns left Graz for Russia in early 1889, a few months after the birth of Roman's brother Konstantin (October 1888).

Chapter 2 "Estland" begins with a description of the island of Dago (Hiiumaa), where the estate of Roman Ungern's grandfather Robert-Eginhard von Ungern-Sternberg was located, who leased his land to Estonians. The article discusses the situation of Estonia in the Russian Empire, the ethnology of the province and its impact on R. F. Ungern.

Chapter 3, "St. Petersburg, Manchuria, St. Petersburg", describes R. F. Ungern's studies in St. Petersburg and his service in Manchuria during the Russo-Japanese War. According to the author, studying in St. Petersburg had a Russifying influence on R. F. Ungern, who became a loyal subject of the empire. Again, as before, special attention is paid to the role of cosmopolitanism in this process. Its causes and impact on society are discussed in detail.

According to Sunderland, the main opinion about "Easterners" or" Asians "in Russia was that they were inferior and backward, and educated Russians looked at them"through the glasses of race, which implies white superiority." The concept of "yellow danger"is given as proof. The author believes that only a few people in Russia did not share such views (pp. 55-57). One cannot agree with this. At least in Siberia, the opinion of these "few" prevailed, and they were representatives not only of the upper strata of society, but also of the Cossacks and industrialists. In the Russian Empire as a whole, national tolerance was more developed than in the West.

At the end of the chapter, a brief description is given of the Pavlovsk Military School, which Ungern graduated from after the Russo-Japanese War (although with very fragmentary information about the baron's own studies).

Chapter 4 "Beyond Lake Baikal" describes Siberia and Transbaikalia in the 19th and early 20th centuries and the world that the baron plunged into when he arrived there for service. A fairly large section of the chapter is devoted to the Cossacks, in particular the Trans-Baikal Cossacks, and a picturesque description of Eastern Transbaikalia, including its population. For Buddhism, the author uses the incorrect term "Lamaism". Describing the world around Ungern, Sunderland draws attention to an interesting fact: before his arrival, the Trans-Baikal military authorities were instructed "from above" to help their officers acquire Gustave Le Bon's book "The Psychology of Socialism". The author makes a well-founded assumption: Ungern in Transbaikalia could have read this book (as well as Le Bon's other book "The Crowd", although this is only an assumption). He discusses in some detail Le Bon's views and their possible application to the public consciousness of Russia in those years (pp. 80-82), but does not analyze the similarity of Ungern's specific ideas with the concepts of the book "Psychology of Socialism", with which the baron should have been familiar.

These similarities are so significant that they are worth listing: a broad understanding of socialism as a set of doctrines that declare the ideal of equality, freedom and justice (Ungern also included communism, Bolshevism and the views of Chinese revolutionaries); religion can be the rules governing life and the state structure (according to Ungern, you can only fight with religions), or one civilization could not arise and develop without religion (Le Bon); socialism is also a religion; it spreads from the West; there morality comes

page 192
socialism and revolutions are harmful to the peoples; socialists manipulate the consciousness of the masses to seize power; the essence of socialism is not peace, but struggle; socialists destroy traditionalism; under the old system, corporations were like families of artisans, did not leave them alone (Le Bon), Europe should return to the system of the guild system (Ungern); strengthening the power of the state. the struggle for existence and unemployment as a result of mechanization of production is accompanied by an increase in socialist sentiments; revolutionary sentiments flatter the self-esteem of the "lower classes", direct them to seize other people's property instead of independence and enterprise; a person is ruled by a fate that cannot be avoided; aristocracy is the law for human societies (Le Bon), states were strengthened by monarchs and aristocrats (Ungern) (sources: Ungern's letters and interrogations [Baron Ungern in documents and memoirs, 2004], eyewitness accounts [Legendary Baron..., 2005], Russian edition of Le Bon [Le Bon, 1908]). It should be noted, however, that in a number of aspects (attitudes to religion, monarchy, tradition, etc.), the views of Le Bon and Ungern differ significantly.

Chapter 5, "The River of the Black Dragon," discusses Ungern's departure from Transbaikalia to the Amur (kit. Heilongjiang - "Black Dragon River") and the possible reason for this is a duel. This is followed by a detailed description of the routine service of Cossack officers and life in the Amur region in general, as well as contacts with the Qing Empire from the 17th century. In a number of places, the author calls the latter China, although they are not equivalent [Dmitriev and Kuzmin, 2014, pp. 5-17].

According to Sunderland, the attitude of the Russian authorities against the" yellow danger " during the colonization of the Amur and Primorye territories reflected "anti-Asian racism", which resulted in constant anti-Chinese violence and discrimination (p. 97). It's hard to agree with that. These lands bordered Manchuria, and China, conquered by the Manchu Qing Empire, did not even have a common border with them. The "yellow danger" to these lands was considered specifically as a Chinese danger-the risk of their loss due to settlement by Chinese (Han) migrants. A striking example was Manchuria, where already in the 19th century the Chinese numerically prevailed over the Manchus. The colonization of Inner Mongolia was also rapid. By the way, the Mongols in Russia were not considered a "yellow danger".

Having considered the "anti-Asian phobia", the author discusses in detail and at length the anti-Semitism of the Russian authorities in the Far East at that time (pp. 97-98), although this question is rather indirectly related to the topic of the book.

Chapter 6 of Kobdo focuses on the central event of Ungern's dismissal from the army and his voluntary arrival in the town of Kobdo in western Outer Mongolia, where he intended to help the Mongols fight for independence. The author analyzes the path from the Mongolian capital to Kobdo based on the memoirs of A.V. Burdukov. The author calls Dambijantsan (known as Ja-lama) a "self-declared Princely Holy One", translating the Mongolian title" noen khutagt " (p.104). This title, however, Dambijantsan received from the Mongol monarch Bogdo-gegen VIII for participating in the capture of Kobdo (later, however, he was deprived of this title).

The author gives a short list of the main parameters of Mongolian Buddhism. This is accompanied by calculations that most Russians and Europeans did not understand Buddhism, and those who were inclined to "experiment" created eclectic mixtures with other religions, such as theosophy. Several paragraphs are devoted to the latter, concluding that although there is no evidence that Ungern attended any theosophical meeting, he may have done so, and that his conversion to Buddhism and mystical Christianity is very likely connected with ideas that lie in the field of theosophy (p.108). This is not supported by the facts. An analysis of documents and memoirs suggests that Ungern sincerely accepted Buddhism, tried to study and practice it (unlike those "experimenting" lovers), but did not abandon Lutheranism [Kuzmin, 2011, pp. 373-384]. Sunderland reasonably suggests that the baron's interest in Mongolia may have been due, among other things, to the fact that it seemed to him the opposite of the "varnished" European world known from childhood.

This is followed by a large section devoted to the history of Mongolia, its division into External and Internal, Qing rule, administration, religion, etc.The author writes that Mongolian tribal leaders (Khans) led the "banners" (Khoshuns) (p. 109). In fact, most of the Khoshuns were led not by khans, but by lower-ranking feudal lords. The general title for all Hoshun rulers was "zasak". With the title of Bogdo-gegen - "raised by many" is about the same. It was not an "unintentionally populist-sounding" title (p. 112). He was

page 193
it was used quite consciously according to the tradition of deriving the power of the Mongol great khans from the legendary ancient Indian king with the title Mahasamati ("Raised by many"). In general, the Mongolian sources are very poorly used in the work.

Sunderland discusses the new history of Mongolia in the context of the structure of empires that dominated most of the world at the beginning of the 20th century. The author makes an interesting conclusion that these empires were different internally, and one of the main sources of tension at that time was the leveling of this internal diversity. Describing the policy of Russia in Outer Mongolia at the beginning of the XX century, the author notes that the activities of "Buryat intellectuals" E.-D. Rinchino and Ts. Zhamtsarano there, in contrast to the tsarist policy, was aimed at building a "new Mongolia", and they themselves, like the colonial elites in other empires, considered themselves "champions and defenders of the nation" (p. 121).

Chapter 7, "Land of War," deals with the First World War and Ungern's involvement in it. Sunderland is once again appealing to multi-ethnicity, this time in every army and land where the fighting took place. This aspect is discussed in detail. It is noted that by the time of the outbreak of the First World War, all multinational belligerents of the eastern front were becoming nationalizing states. The article briefly discusses the Armenian Genocide in the Ottoman Empire and anti-Semitism in Russia in more detail. "Anti-German paranoia" in Russia is briefly discussed. Based on archival and published data, the author reconstructs Ungern's activities during the war and gives a map showing the places of military operations in which he participated. Although the author mainly describes the actions of the formations where Ungern was located, he cites important archival data that were not previously introduced into scientific circulation (for example, about the raid on the German trenches north of Warsaw in April 1915, which was led by Ungern. - p.136).

Chapter 8 "Domain of the Ataman" contains brief information about ataman G. M. Semenov, the beginning of his career, service during the war in Persia, relations with Ungern, activities during the February Revolution of 1917. According to the author, during the First World War, Persia, like the Qing Empire, although nominally independent, actually became a colony, divided into" spheres of influence " between Britain and Russia. In controlled territory, "the Russians pursued the same neo-colonial agenda that they had adopted in their other quasi-colonies in Northern Manchuria and Outer Mongolia" (p. 146). It should be noted that Russia's goal in Northern Manchuria was to strengthen its influence in the Far East and strengthen its military presence in the Pacific, and in Outer Mongolia to create a buffer against the danger from China and Japan. The Russian Empire did not set out to turn these territories into colonies (the term "quasi-colony" is arbitrary and vague, so it cannot be discussed). It was precisely the Qing "new policy" in Mongolia in the late 19th and early 20th centuries that was aimed at creating a classical colony out of this country.

Then we discuss the collapse of the Russian Empire and the creation of Ungern's "outpost" in Dauria. The author pays little attention to the formation, structure and actions of the Asian Cavalry Division, which was commanded by Ungern. It is funny that the author mentions Ataman Semyonov's mistress "Maria Sharaban" only in the context of the Jewish question (p. 152), without even indicating that her real name was M. M. Glebova.

The following comparison of the power and success of Semyonov and Ungern with those of Chinese militarists, including Zhang Zuolin and Xu Shuzhen (pp. 156-157), is rather artificial. They had different backgrounds, goals, military forces, connections, and internal and external support. It is difficult to agree with Sunderland that "the Chinese militarists were by and large more effective" than the Russian Ungern and Semyonov (p.156). The question is not that, unlike the latter, Zhang Zuolin controlled most of Manchuria for more than 10 years, was one of the main political players in China, had a large army, and Xu Shuzhen briefly occupied Outer Mongolia. More importantly, Ungern liberated Mongolia from Chinese occupation, and without it there would not have been a modern Mongolia. As a result, he had a greater influence on the course of its history than the Chinese militarists.

Subsequent analysis of events in Russia in the early twentieth century led Sunderland to the correct conclusion that "The Civil War was also much more murderous and socially destructive than even the cataclysm of the Great War", if we compare the human losses. He correctly points out that white terror was less centralized than red terror.

Chapter 9 "Urga" contains a schematic description of Ungern's actions in Mongolia (without mentioning the dates and course of the battles). According to Sunderland, "there is no field journal of Ungern's movements,

page 194
and we can't always tell where it is " (p. 164). It is not clear why the author considers the evidence left by both opponents and supporters of the baron to be "a cloying commitment that sticks to almost everything we read from that period and makes it impossible to believe what we hear" (p.164). Of course, these testimonies are incomplete and not unbiased, but they allow us to reconstruct in sufficient detail the course of Ungern's military operations (sometimes by day) and the places where he was in Mongolia.

At the same time, Sunderland worked deeply on the problems of relations between Russia and the former Qing Empire. He rightly notes that the entry of Ungern's troops into Mongolia can hardly be considered an "invasion". When discussing Ungern's battles for the capital of Outer Mongolia, Urga, the emphasis is placed on the needs of supplying the troops, using the Mongols, and the baron's dissatisfaction with the poor treatment of the Chinese by the Russians. At the same time, for some reason, the plan for the restoration of monarchies, which the baron reported in his letters, and then during interrogations, is not considered [Kuzmin, 2011, pp. 385-400].

Urga is described in some detail. However, the statue of Zhanraiseg (Avalokiteshvara Bodhisattva) was placed there not to "celebrate Mongol independence" (p. 170), but to restore the sight of Bogdo-gegen VIII. By the way, to be precise, "Nijslel-khure" does not mean "monastic capital" (p. 170), but "Capital-monastery". In addition, in modern Ulaanbaatar, not one palace of Bogdo-gegen VIII (p.171) has been preserved, but two: one has become a famous museum, and the second is little known and is being destroyed with the indifference of the Mongolian authorities.

On page 173, a map of the capture of Urga by Ungern's troops is given "according to the scheme left by one of Ungern's officers" - for some reason, not only without reference to the source (memoirs of M. G. Tornovsky in the book: [Legendary Baron..., 2005, p. 211]), but also with a simplification of the scheme itself.

Two pages are devoted to the Jewish pogrom carried out by the Ungernovites after the capture of Urga (the much larger Chinese terror against the Mongols and Russians, mentioned below, is given approximately 1/6 of the page). Sunderland gives indications that 300 Jews were killed, or all of them (p. 175). Giving my calculations (approx. on p. 286), that according to various sources, 100-120 Russians were killed in Urga, but for some reason he does not mention the data published in the same place, that not all Jews were killed and not among 300 Russians, Buryats and Jews, but 38 according to the list compiled by B. N. Volkov, a well-informed enemy Ungern (see [Kuzmin, 2010, p. 415, 417]). In other cases, the author refers to Volkov (pp. 286, 287).

It is interesting to analyze pan-Mongolism and its role in the abolition of Mongolian autonomy by General Xu Shuzhen. It is correctly stated that pan-Mongolism was a field of broad interpretations. Very interesting are the interpretations of events in Transbaikalia, Mongolia, and Manchuria of that time from the point of view of the dynamics of the development of empires and the parallel with Europe. Sunderland notes that the Pan-Mongolists wanted to eliminate the artificial division of the Mongols created by the Russian and Qing empires in order to build a great Mongol state. "This large-scale thinking was quite common at the time, the Mongolian counterpart to the concepts of 'great' Britain, Poland or Finland that we find on the opposite end of the continent in the same period. Graz, the birthplace of Ungern, was an early center of pan-Germanism, the German version of this idea" (p. 180).

But there are also minor inaccuracies. The idea that all the Mongol peoples (Khalkhas, Oirats, Barguts, Chakhars, etc.) should form a single state applies not only to the Late Tsin period (p. 180). It has existed since the time of Genghis Khan.

Discussing the Pan-Mongol congresses in 1919, the author writes that the period when Ungern was away from Transbaikalia is unclear. In fact, this period of his stay in Manchuria and China (February-September 1919) is established and generally described (Kuzmin, 2011, pp. 92-96).

Chapter 10 "Kyakhta" is preceded by a history and a detailed description of the role of this trading settlement on the border of Russia and Mongolia, noting that Ungern's defeat at Kyakhta meant the end of his division. It also briefly describes the creation of national liberation circles of Mongols in Urga, who fought against the Chinese occupation (whose members the author for some reason calls "anti-Chinese radicals" - p. 193, 194).

The well-known order No. 15 issued by Ungern before the campaign to Siberia is discussed. A significant part of the chapter is devoted to the analysis of the campaign to Siberia. Although this analysis almost does not concern the description or even the sequence of military operations, it is of interest for a better understanding of the circumstances of the campaign by readers who are not familiar with Russian-language or Mongolian-language sources.

page 195
Chapter 11 "Red Siberia" is devoted to the period from the capture of Ungern by the Reds to his execution. The article discusses life in general at that time in Siberia and Novonikolaevsk, where Ungern was brought to trial. This chapter is also not so much a description as an analysis. In particular, it examines in detail the differences and similarities in the ideology of Ungern and the Bolsheviks. The author considers empire building projects and cosmopolitanism to be an important parameter of this similarity. Unlike many other authors, W. Sunderland correctly noted that Ungern's anti-Semitism was "strangely non-national": apparently, it was connected with hatred of the revolution (p. 224). The author discusses in some detail the national question in the RSFSR of those times. In particular, he notes that unlike Ungern, the Reds understood the critical importance of the power of "minority" nationalism for retaining power.

The chapter ends with the assumption (however, not confirmed by sources) that Ungern was shot by S. A. Evreinov, the head of the secret department of the Cheka, who at that time worked in Novonikolaevsk under the head of the local Cheka, I. P. Pavlunovsky.

The conclusion contains information about what happened after the shooting of Ungern, in particular with the participants of his Mongolian epic. It should be noted that Pavlunovsky was shot not in 1940 (p. 228), but in 1937. A detailed discussion of the general features of imperial politics is interesting and contains a fair conclusion that when certain obligations were fulfilled, the tsars did not seek to change the people and places where they lived, which resulted in a high level of autonomy and, consequently, stability.

Sunderland showed what is still unclear to many in Russia and the West: Ungern was not a nationalist (neither German, nor Russian, nor anything else). He was also not a Nazi or Fascist. He was a consistent monarchist, a proponent of the idea of a traditional multinational empire, one in which all are loyal subjects of the tsar and live according to their own customs.

The monograph ends with "Acknowledgements", a list of abbreviations, and comments. While I am grateful to the author for the extensive citation of my works, I should note that one of the collections under my editorship is not called "Baron Ungern in Sources and Documents" (p. 238), but "Baron Ungern in documents and Memoirs".

So, the main content and scope of the book under review is the general imperial context, and not Ungern's military actions in Transbaikalia and Mongolia. This makes the story of Ungern himself in Sunderland's book rather sketchy and not detailed enough. At the same time, this approach allowed the author to draw a number of important conclusions, including theoretical ones. This is the main value of his book. It makes an important contribution to the study of imperial systems and the principles of their functioning during critical periods of history.

list of literature

Baron Ungern in Documents and Memoirs / Ed. by S. L. Kuzmin, Moscow: KMK, 2004.

Dmitriev S. V., Kuzmin S. L. The Qing Empire as China: Anatomiya istoricheskogo mifa [The anatomy of a historical myth]. 2014. N 1. pp. 5-17.

Kuzmin S. L. Istoriya barona Ungerna: opyt rekonstruktsii [The History of Baron Ungern: reconstruction Experience]. Moscow: KMK, 2011.

Le Bon G. Psychology of socialism. St. Petersburg, 1908.

The legendary baron. Unknown Pages of the Civil War, Moscow, 2005.
RGVA - Russian State Military Archive. Moscow.

REFERENCES

Dmitriev S.V., Kuzmin S.L. Imperiia Qing kak Kitai: analomiia istoricheskogo mifa // Vostok (Oriens), 2014. No. 1. pp. 5-17.

Kuzmin S.L. (ed.) Baron Ungern v dokumentakh i memuarakh. Moscow: KMK, 2004.

Kuzmin S.L. Istoriia barona Ungerna: opyt rekonstruktsii. Moscow: KMK. 2011.

Le Bon G. Psikhologiia sotsializma. Sankt-Petersburg, 1908.

Legendarnyi baron. Neizvestnye stranitsy Grazhdanskoi voiny. Moscow, 2005.

page 196

Permanent link to this publication: