Send message to Author

Abstract

In November 1933, a short-lived government was established in Kashgar in southwestern Xinjiang. Although it initially mobilized segments of local society, the regime collapsed within months under military pressure from the forces of Ma Zhongying. This paper reexamines the circumstances of its rapid demise by situating Kashgar within the wider geopolitical landscape of Central Eurasia in the 1930s.

Drawing on newly examined German diplomatic archives, the study argues that the Kashgar leadership’s prospects depended significantly on access to external military resources. In a frontier environment characterized by shifting alliances and limited institutional capacity, local political actors sought to consolidate authority not only through regional mobilization but also through cross-border procurement networks. Efforts to secure foreign arms were facilitated by an international intermediary whose connections extended to both European actors and Soviet authorities. Information regarding these negotiations reached Moscow and was subsequently communicated to the Nationalist government in Nanjing, prompting diplomatic protests and discouraging further external involvement.

German correspondence further indicates that foreign representatives in the region were aware of the intermediary’s complex affiliations but refrained from direct intervention, prioritizing broader strategic considerations. The interruption of anticipated arms supplies left the Kashgar authorities without the material resources necessary to withstand sustained military pressure. Deprived of external support, the regime was quickly defeated.

By tracing the circulation of information, diplomatic calculation, and material constraints across Eurasian networks, this paper highlights how political initiatives in Xinjiang were shaped by forces extending beyond the province itself. Kashgar functioned as a nodal space within overlapping spheres of influence, where local projects of governance were conditioned by regional power dynamics. The case illustrates how borderland politics in the 1930s unfolded within a transregional arena structured by competing strategic priorities, rather than solely by internal ideological agendas.

Send message to Authors

Abstract

This paper examines the Kazakh steppe as a zone of mobility between the Russian Empire and Central Asian states, especially Khoqand, from the onset of indirect Russian rule in the 1820s to the conquest of Tashkent in 1865. The steppe appeared to offer legally restricted individuals, such as deserters, escaped convicts, runaway serfs, and enslaved people, a rare chance to evade state control and renegotiate their circumstances. Although both Russia and Khoqand sought to limit movement within their ascriptive societies, neither could effectively police the vast, sparsely populated steppe, enabling those with local knowledge to shift between jurisdictions. Kazakhs themselves proved most adept at exploiting weak state control and ambiguous borders to negotiate improvements in their political and juridical standing. Mobility increased after Russia’s 1853 conquest of Ak Masjid, which brought imperial and oasis-state frontiers closer together. Yet runaways often fled both sides, indicating the limited prospects in either settled society. At the same time, designations of “slave” and “escapee” were elusive, as some escapees claimed to be victims of kidnapping while many former slaves preferred to remain within Kazakh households even after being granted their freedom.

Send message to Author

Abstract

This paper examines Turkestan as a crucial but understudied space of wartime displacement, imperial governance, and coerced mobility during and after the First World War. Focusing on the years 1914–1922, it explores how refugees and prisoners of war were incorporated into the administrative, economic, and social landscape of Russian Turkestan. While existing scholarship on the First World War has often privileged the European fronts and the western borderlands of the Russian Empire, this study shifts attention to Central Eurasia as a frontier where imperial power, labor extraction, humanitarian action, and social control intersected in distinctive ways.

The paper asks three main questions. First, how did imperial and local authorities classify, manage, and redistribute refugees and POWs across Turkestan? Second, what role did these displaced populations play in the regional wartime economy, especially in relation to labor demands and state needs? Third, how did the collapse of empire and the revolutionary transformations after 1917 reshape the status and experience of these groups? Drawing on archival materials, administrative records, committee reports, and contemporary periodicals, the paper argues that Turkestan was not merely a distant place of confinement or transit, but an active arena in which war reshaped relations between state institutions, local society, and mobile populations.

By placing POWs and refugees into the same analytical frame, this study reveals how categories of displacement were politically produced and unevenly governed. It also demonstrates that the history of wartime Central Eurasia cannot be understood only through military or colonial narratives, but must also be approached through the history of humanitarian structures, labor regimes, and the movement of people across imperial space. In doing so, the paper contributes to broader discussions on space, sovereignty, and the social consequences of war in Central Eurasia.

Send message to Author

Abstract

During the late Soviet period, Kazakhstan experienced significant outmigration from rural areas. Between 1970 and 1989, the rural population increased from 6.47 to 7.06 million people. But it happened due to the high birth rate, the net migration outflow from rural areas between 1966 and 1988 was 2.55 million people. In 1970-1980, the migration outflow of the rural population in Kazakhstan per 1,000 persons was among the highest in the Soviet Union: approximately 1.5 times higher than the average for the Union republics, though 3-4 times lower than in other Central Asian republics. I argue that this trend resulted from several factors: reduced investment in agriculture after the initial development of the Virgin Lands, the growth of urbanization and the increasing demand for labor in cities, favorable migration opportunities to the RSFSR, mostly to Siberia and the Far North in RSFSR and the lower standard of living in rural areas compared to urban settlements. Ethnic composition also played a significant role. Due to the intensive development of the Virgin Lands, the Slavic population (Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians) constituted 41 percent of the rural population according to the 1959 census. Between 1970 and 1989, the Slavic population declined by approximately 450,000 people despite their positive natural growth. Many people returned to their home republics after the Virgin Lands campaign or moved to cities within predominantly the Kazakh SSR, RSFSR, and less often UkrSSR and BSSR, as they adapted more easily to Russian-speaking urban environments. At the same time, the Kazakh population also left rural areas at higher rates than the titular ethnic groups in other Central Asian republics. This study is based on published Soviet statistical materials as well as archival documents from the Central State Archive of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian State Archive of Economics.