Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Kumul Rebellion

The Kumul Rebellion (1931–1934), also known as the Hami Uprising, was a Muslim-led revolt in eastern , , primarily by of the Kumul () oasis against the provincial administration of Jin Shuren, precipitated by the forcible annexation of their semi-autonomous following the death of Maksud in 1930. Jin's refusal to recognize the designated successor Shah Khwaja, coupled with land expropriations granted to settlers, exorbitant taxation, and restrictions on Muslim religious practices, fueled widespread discontent among the local Turkic Muslim population. The immediate spark occurred in February 1931 when local forces killed Han officials after an attempted of a Uyghur woman by a chief, igniting armed resistance led by figures such as Haji. The rebellion escalated with the intervention of Hui Muslim warlord Ma Zhongying, who led the 36th Division of the National Revolutionary Army—composed of Chinese Muslim troops and Turkic conscripts—into Xinjiang to support the insurgents, aiming to overthrow Jin's regime and establish Muslim governance. Ma's forces captured Kumul in 1931 and advanced westward, linking with southern uprisings that proclaimed the short-lived Turkish-Islamic Republic of Eastern Turkestan in 1933, reflecting aspirations for Turkic-Islamic autonomy amid the power vacuum of Republican China's warlord era. Jin sought Soviet assistance, resulting in aerial bombings of rebel positions and a full-scale Soviet invasion of northern Xinjiang in 1934 to safeguard strategic interests and install the pro-Soviet Sheng Shicai as governor, who ultimately suppressed the revolt through brutal counteroffensives. The conflict highlighted ethnic and religious tensions, the fragility of central authority in frontier regions, and foreign powers' opportunistic involvement, ending with the reassertion of provincial control under Soviet-backed rule but sowing seeds for future separatist movements.

Historical Context

Xinjiang under Republican Rule

Following the Xinhai Revolution of 1911, transitioned from Qing imperial rule to provincial status within the fragile Republic of China, yet central authority in exerted minimal influence amid the broader fragmentation across the country. Local control solidified under , a holdover Qing administrator who assumed power in January 1912 after suppressing rival factions and formally acceding to the Republic in April of that year. Yang's governance emphasized autonomy, employing a "weak army" strategy to curb military coups and perpetuating late Qing bureaucratic structures that balanced influence among , , Hui, and other Muslim groups alongside limited presence to avert ethnic upheavals. Yang's rule from 1912 to 1928 maintained relative stability through divide-and-rule tactics, restricting expansion beyond urban centers like and incorporating migrants primarily from , , and provinces for administrative or commercial roles rather than mass settlement. This approach limited economic disruptions but sowed seeds of administrative rigidity. On July 7, 1928, Yang was assassinated at an official banquet in by subordinates, including Fan Yaonan, amid internal power struggles, triggering a brief of factional violence. Jin Shuren, previously Yang's civil affairs commissioner, consolidated power and received formal appointment as governor from the on November 17, 1928, holding office until May 1933. Jin pursued more assertive centralization, imposing heavy direct taxes on and while establishing state monopolies over exports like wool and hides, which enriched corrupt officials and exacerbated fiscal burdens on rural Muslim communities. His administration's favoritism toward appointees in key posts and tolerance of undermined ethnic equilibria, fostering resentment through exploitative levies and inefficient governance that prioritized revenue extraction over development.

The Kumul Khanate and Its Subjugation

The , situated in the oasis of eastern , originated as a Turkic polity that submitted to Qing in 1697 after Qing forces subdued the local rulers allied with the Dzungar . Hereditary khans, who were Muslims descending from the lineage, retained substantial local authority, including the collection of internal taxes, administration of justice, and management of agrarian resources, in exchange for annual tribute payments—typically consisting of horses, camels, and local produce—to the Qing court. This arrangement persisted through the Qing era, with the khans providing auxiliary support, such as during the decisive campaigns against the Zunghar Khanate in the mid-18th century, thereby securing the khanate's semi-autonomous status amid broader imperial oversight. Following the of 1911, the continued under nominal Chinese sovereignty, with the last ruler, (r. 1908–1930), upholding traditional prerogatives despite the weakening central authority in . Maqsud Shah's death on June 6, 1930, prompted Governor —who had assumed office on November 17, 1928, after the assassination of his predecessor —to declare the abolished and integrate its territories directly into provincial administration. Jin restructured the region into three standard districts: , , and , installing officials to enforce direct rule and eliminating the hereditary framework. The subjugation entailed aggressive economic measures, including the seizure of communal and elite-held lands for redistribution to Han settlers recruited from province, often enticed by initial tax exemptions lasting two years to accelerate . Previously insulated obligations were supplanted by provincial direct taxation on and , burdening local farmers and merchants without the mediating buffer of khanal intermediaries. These policies alienated Kumulik nobles, who forfeited ancestral estates and privileges, and galvanized broader popular discontent, interpreting the reforms as an assault on Islamic customs and ethnic autonomy by Han-dominated provincial authority.

Causes and Outbreak

Grievances against Jin Shuren's Administration

, who assumed the governorship of in 1928 following the assassination of , pursued policies aimed at centralizing control and promoting settlement, which exacerbated ethnic tensions. A key grievance arose from his land redistribution efforts in the oasis, where, amid a famine in province, he resettled thousands of refugees on fertile lands traditionally cultivated by farmers. This displacement forced local to relocate to marginal areas, undermining their agricultural livelihoods and sparking resentment over perceived favoritism toward migrants at the expense of indigenous Muslim communities. Similar encroachments affected pastoralists in northern regions, as administrative reallocations prioritized state revenue and settler expansion over rights. Fiscal exactions further alienated the Muslim majority, with imposing heavy taxation on agricultural produce, livestock, and trade, often exceeding previous levies under Yang's more decentralized rule. These burdens fell disproportionately on , , and Hui populations, whose economic activities were scrutinized through new checkpoints and audits, while settlers received exemptions or lighter assessments. demands compounded the strain, as provincial authorities pressed Muslim communities into labor and to support projects and defenses, leading to reports of forced recruitment and evasion penalties that disrupted family and religious life. An illustrative incident involved a tax official in who, in early 1931, sought to coerce a local Muslim into , highlighting broader abuses of power that intertwined fiscal enforcement with personal violations against Islamic norms of and family . Administrative measures under also targeted Islamic institutions, as land reforms abolished traditional endowments—religious trusts funding mosques and madrasas—redirecting revenues to provincial coffers and eroding clerical autonomy. Restrictions on to and oversight of religious schools were enforced to curb perceived separatist influences, alienating ulema and devout who viewed these as assaults on sharia-based practices. While Jin's regime extended protections to non-Muslim merchants, including and Indian Hindus engaged in cross-border trade, such accommodations contrasted sharply with the scrutiny faced by Muslim traders, fostering perceptions of against the province's Islamic majority. These policies, justified by Jin as modernization efforts, instead amplified grievances rooted in economic displacement and cultural suppression across ethnic lines.

Initial Uprising in Kumul (February 1931)

The initial uprising in Kumul erupted in February 1931 amid escalating grievances over the provincial government's expropriation of lands for resettlement by immigrants from , following the 1930 abolition of the semi-autonomous under Governor . A precipitating incident involved a or official attempting to force a girl into marriage, violating local Islamic customs and igniting widespread outrage; this led to the killing of the official and his escorts during a confrontation. Enraged tribesmen, armed with limited weapons, launched revenge attacks, massacring approximately 100 settler families and overrunning nearby outposts such as Tuluhu and Laimahe, where they seized around 30 rifles and additional arms from demoralized garrisons. Local leaders, including —a former chancellor and advisor to the deposed khan—and Khoja Niyaz Hajji, quickly consolidated the rebels' gains by capturing the Muslim quarters of Kumul with minimal resistance, given the city's overwhelming majority and the fragility of provincial defenses comprising small, low-morale contingents prone to desertion. The insurgents established a provisional aimed at restoring the Khanate's autonomy and expelling settlers, who fled to the fortified Old City under Chinese control. This early phase demonstrated the rebels' ability to exploit local ethnic tensions and administrative overreach, repelling initial relief attempts by killing around 300 provincial soldiers dispatched from Urumqi and capturing their rifles, ammunition, and a machine gun, though they failed to breach the Old City's defenses.

Rebel Forces and Leadership

Kumulik Uyghur Insurgents

The Kumulik insurgents comprised mainly tribal militias drawn from Uyghur clans in the (Kumul) oasis, bound by loyalties to the hereditary rulers of the former Khanate of Kumul rather than broader ethnic nationalist ideologies. These groups emerged in response to Governor Jin Shuren's direct annexation of the khanate after the death of Khan Maksud Shah on March 18, 1930, which revoked longstanding privileges such as tax exemptions and local judicial autonomy granted under Qing and early Republican oversight. Leadership centered on khanate loyalists, including , a court advisor who coordinated efforts to reinstate the khan's heir and rallied tribal begs (chiefs) through appeals emphasizing restoration of traditional hierarchies. Motivations fused tribal with religious grievances, as Han administrative abuses—including arbitrary taxation, forced , and land seizures for settlers—fueled perceptions of cultural erasure and economic exploitation. Islamic clerics, such as the preacher Niaz Alam, mobilized recruits via mosque networks, framing the conflict as a against irreligious overreach while invoking pan-Islamic solidarity to unify fractious clans. This approach prioritized defense of local Islamic practices and customs over abstract Turkic unity, distinguishing Kumulik forces from later separatist movements. Tactically, the insurgents employed hit-and-run guerrilla methods suited to their light armament—primarily seized from garrisons and traditional blades—exploiting superior of Hami's arid steppes and surrounding gorges for ambushes on supply lines. In the initial outbreak around spring , they overwhelmed isolated outposts during a staged disturbance at a tribal , disarming soldiers and sparking widespread defections among local garrisons due to the oasis's overwhelming demographic majority. These operations secured Hami city with minimal casualties, establishing a foothold but exposing vulnerabilities to organized counteroffensives without or mechanized support.

Ma Zhongying's Hui Muslim Army

, a Hui Muslim warlord born in 1910 in the Linxia region of province, emerged from the influential of Chinese Muslim military families known for their resistance to communist forces and regional power consolidation efforts. As commander of the —a cavalry-heavy unit officially designated by the in 1932—he entered in late 1931 with an initial force of approximately 500 men, drawn from Gansu Hui militias, driven by anti-communist sentiments against the Soviet-aligned provincial governor and ambitions to carve out territorial influence in the chaotic northwest. By early 1931, Ma had gathered intelligence on 's unrest, positioning his incursion as support for the loyalists rebelling against Jin's administration, though his actions reflected opportunistic expansion rather than strict allegiance to Nanjing's central authority. His forces rapidly expanded through recruitment of local Hui and Turkic elements, reaching several thousand troops by 1932, and forged tactical alliances with Kumulik insurgents, providing the rebels with disciplined and that complemented their guerrilla efforts against provincial garrisons. These partnerships enabled coordinated advances, such as shared and flanking maneuvers, which bolstered the rebellion's momentum without merging under unified command, as Ma pursued parallel goals of supplanting Jin and establishing control over eastern Xinjiang oases. Ma's operated with the hallmarks of warlordism, prioritizing and over sustained ; his troops, often underfed and reliant on , employed scorched-earth reprisals, including documented killings of civilians in areas contested with White Russian mercenaries and provincial loyalists, as seen in 1934 clashes where Hui forces retaliated against perceived Cossack ambushes by executing non-combatants en masse. Such tactics, while effective in demoralizing opponents and securing supplies, underscored the expedition's predatory character, alienating potential local allies and prioritizing Ma's personal dominion over any broader anti-imperialist or religious crusade, in contrast to the more ideologically framed Kumulik grievances.

Expansion of the Conflict

Uprisings in Southern Xinjiang

In early , a wave of uncoordinated revolts spread to southern oases such as Khotan, Yarkand, and , mirroring northern grievances against Governor Jin Shuren's regime but driven by autonomous local initiatives. These uprisings were spearheaded by religious figures including khojas and mullahs, who rallied Turkic Muslim communities against exorbitant taxation, forced labor levies, and policies restricting Islamic practices, such as bans on traditional dress and . By February , insurgents in Khotan overthrew provincial garrisons, establishing temporary control and dispatching forces toward Yarkand to consolidate gains. The rebels comprised primarily , supplemented by smaller contingents of Kirghiz nomads and Tajik highlanders from peripheral mountain districts, who formed fluid alliances to overwhelm thinly spread Chinese troops. These coalitions lacked centralized command, relying instead on charismatic clerical authority to sustain momentum through fatwas denouncing Jin's administration as . In Yarkand, captured the old city quarter in spring 1933, expelling officials and seizing arsenals, while similar seizures in disrupted administrative control over surrounding bazaars. For several months, rebels held sway over vital southern caravan routes linking the to , halting silk and trade flows that underpinned Xinjiang's and forcing provincial authorities to divert scarce resources southward. Local proclamations demanded sharia-based governance to replace Han-dominated rule, framing the revolts as against cultural erasure, though these efforts remained fragmented without broader coordination. Jin's forces, hampered by logistical strains from northern fronts, responded with sporadic counter-raids but failed to dislodge entrenched positions until mid-1933 reinforcements arrived.

Formation of the First East Turkestan Republic

On November 12, 1933, following the capture of Old City by Khotani rebel forces, the Turkic-Islamic Republic of Eastern Turkestan (TIRET) was proclaimed as an independent in southern , aiming to sever ties with the and establish governance based on Islamic principles. Sabit Damulla, an educated cleric who had emerged as a political leader among the Khotani insurgents, served as the initial , while was designated president, though he did not arrive in until January 1934 with approximately 1,500 troops. The proclamation originated from the Committee for National Revolution in Khotan, led by figures including the Bughra brothers— Amin, Abdullah, and —as emirs, who sought to unify Turkic-Muslim factions against administration. Administrative structures were rudimentary, featuring a provisional , a drafted , and a tax code, with adopted as the foundational legal framework for courts and daily governance to appeal to local religious sentiments and legitimize rule among and other populations. Sufi leaders like Amin Bughra pushed for as the exclusive legal code, viewing it as essential to preserving native against perceived secular impositions, yet this approach clashed with emerging nationalist aspirations for Pan-Turkic reforms inspired by modernizing influences. Factionalism quickly eroded cohesion, pitting religious conservatives—insistent on orthodox rule—against more pragmatic nationalists open to Soviet overtures for support, while ethnic tensions between and Tungans (Hui ) further fragmented leadership unity. Territorial authority remained precarious, extending primarily to Kashgar, Khotan, and adjacent Tarim Basin oases, enforced through loosely organized irregular militias rather than a professional , which limited effective control and exposed vulnerabilities to counterattacks. The republic's isolation, marked by the absence of diplomatic recognition from major powers such as or , compounded these weaknesses, as internal divisions among oasis-based identities prevented broader mobilization and foreshadowed rapid disintegration without external validation or resources. This reliance on ad hoc alliances and ideological appeals, without a viable economic or , highlighted the state's structural brittleness amid competing provincial loyalties.

Foreign Entanglements

Japanese Interests and Puppet State Efforts

Japanese strategic interests in Xinjiang during the early 1930s centered on countering Soviet expansion by exploiting local Muslim and Turkic unrest to establish a pro-Japanese buffer state. Amid the Kumul Rebellion, Japanese ultra-nationalists pursued covert operations to install an Ottoman prince, Şehzade Mehmed Abdülkerim Efendi, as ruler of an independent Islamic entity in the region, leveraging Pan-Asianist networks and anti-Soviet sentiments. The prince, grandson of Sultan Abdul Hamid II, was invited to Japan around 1932, where he engaged with Japanese intelligence and propagandists aiming to legitimize a puppet regime amid the 1933 uprisings in southern Xinjiang. Efforts included outreach to Uyghur exiles and rebel figures, with plans to transport the prince to to rally support from insurgents like those under , though direct contacts with remain unverified beyond Soviet allegations. Japanese agents reportedly supplied minimal arms and propaganda materials to stir Pan-Turkic sentiments, but declassified accounts indicate these initiatives were largely abortive, hampered by logistical challenges and interception by Chinese provincial forces. The scheme collapsed without the prince ever reaching ; he departed for the in 1934, where he died by suicide in 1935, underscoring the failure of these opportunistic maneuvers. Soviet and Sheng Shicai's provincial authorities propagated claims of substantial backing for , including the capture of two officers on his staff in 1933–1934, to justify interventions portraying the rebellion as foreign-orchestrated. However, contemporaneous analyses note as one of the few Chinese regions devoid of significant agent activity, suggesting these accusations served primarily as to delegitimize local movements rather than reflecting empirical . Overall, efforts exerted negligible causal impact on the rebellion's trajectory, which was predominantly driven by indigenous grievances against Jin Shuren's rule and inter-factional Hui-Uyghur alliances, with ambitions remaining confined to unfulfilled planning stages.

Soviet Support for Provincial Forces

The Soviet Union extended logistical and military assistance to Xinjiang's provincial authorities under Jin Shuren beginning in late 1931, driven by strategic imperatives to stabilize the shared border and preempt threats from Japanese expansionism in Manchuria or pan-Turkic agitation that could destabilize Soviet Central Asian republics. Jin dispatched representatives to Moscow seeking material, financial, and arms support, culminating in a secret agreement in October 1931 that enabled the influx of weapons and supplies critical for countering rebel sieges, including the relief of Kumul. This aid reflected Soviet pragmatism, prioritizing containment of disorder over ideological export, as unchecked rebellion risked facilitating foreign proxies or inspiring ethnic unrest among Uyghurs and Kazakhs within USSR territory. Provincial forces leveraged this support by integrating White Russian émigrés—anti-Bolshevik exiles numbering in the thousands in , many with prior Imperial Russian or experience—into mercenary units commanded by , enhancing infantry and reconnaissance capabilities without requiring Soviet troop commitments. Soviet influence extended indirectly through arms transfers that sustained these hybrid formations, allowing to mount offensives that recaptured key northern positions by early , though the aid stopped short of overt advisory roles to maintain amid Comintern sensitivities. Economic leverage, with Soviet entities controlling approximately 80% of Xinjiang's trade by 1931, further underpinned this arrangement, ensuring compliance via barter for , , and in exchange for munitions. After Jin's overthrow in April 1933 amid rebel advances, his successor inherited and expanded these ties, receiving continued arms shipments and technical expertise that shaped provincial reorganization, including the training of local militias to hold Urumqi against Ma Zhongying's Hui forces. This pre-invasion phase underscored Soviet caution, confining involvement to proxies and to avoid accusations of while monitoring Japanese overtures to rebels; direct escalation occurred only post-stalemate in 1934, when logistical limits exposed provincial vulnerabilities. Such measured support preserved Soviet border integrity, averting a potential domino effect of autonomy movements akin to those in .

Military Engagements

Early Victories and Northern Advances

The Kumul Rebellion gained initial momentum in early 1931 when Uyghur forces led by and Hoja Niyaz seized control of (Kumul) amid provincial disarray following Jin Shuren's 1930 annexation of the khanate and redistribution of lands to settlers. Government garrisons, hampered by poor logistics and low morale, offered minimal resistance, allowing rebels to consolidate the oasis region rapidly. This swift victory exploited defections among local troops and the absence of unified provincial command, enabling further incursions into surrounding territories. Ma Zhongying's arrival in late 1931 with his mobile Hui cavalry from the 36th Division proved decisive in sustaining rebel advances northward. His forces, emphasizing speed and flanking maneuvers, repeatedly outmaneuvered static garrisons, breaking sieges and securing supply lines toward by mid-1933. These operations capitalized on the provincial government's fragmented response, with Ma's estimated 10,000 troops leveraging to inflict disproportionate casualties on larger but less agile defenders. By spring 1933, rebel momentum peaked as combined Kumulik and Hui forces approached Urumqi, eroding Jin Shuren's authority and prompting his temporary flight from the capital. This psychological blow, amid reports of mass defections and collapsing morale in provincial ranks, underscored the rebellion's early successes in challenging central control over northern before stiffer resistance coalesced.

Key Battles in Southern Xinjiang

In February 1933, rebels under Sabit Damulla and the Bughra brothers initiated an uprising in , establishing a on February 20 and seizing control of the city from provincial garrisons; this involved the slaughter of local by the Bughra emirs, an act that alienated non-Muslim minorities and underscored the rebels' ethnic and religious targeting, contrary to broader alliance-building needs against authorities. The insurgents' reliance on religious rhetoric mobilized irregular militias, but their failure to secure defections from Hui Muslim garrison troops—due to prior frictions—limited tactical gains, as these militias prioritized jihadist fervor over coordinated strategy, resulting in disorganized advances and vulnerability to counterattacks. The rebellion spread to Yarkand, where on September 26, 1933, the New City gates were opened to rebels without significant resistance, allowing consolidation of control in southern ; however, this bloodless entry masked underlying weaknesses, as rebel forces under leaders like lacked the artillery or discipline to repel provincial reinforcements, foreshadowing their inability to hold gains amid internal factionalism. In June 1933, near Kizil, and Kyrgyz fighters massacred approximately 800 retreating Hui soldiers of the 36th Division, violating a truce and executing prisoners en masse; this atrocity, documented consistently across Muslim and Western observer accounts, severed potential alliances with Hui forces—who shared anti-Han sentiments—and provoked retaliatory executions of civilians by both sides in subsequent clashes, eroding rebel legitimacy among local Muslim communities. At in , rebels led by the Bughra brothers and Syrian Arab launched assaults on the New City held by Chinese Muslim troops under Ma Zhancang, suffering several hundred casualties—including over 150 Kyrgyz—in failed attacks repulsed by disciplined defenses; 's integration of fanatical religious militias emphasized suicidal charges over , yielding high losses without territorial breakthroughs and highlighting tactical errors that prioritized ideological purity over pragmatic warfare. Contemporary estimates from British consular reports and ' analysis place total southern deaths in the low thousands, debunking later nationalist exaggerations of rebel victories and minimal casualties, which ignore the insurgents' self-inflicted isolation through atrocities like civilian executions and the Kizil betrayal. These battles, marked by rebel overreach, ultimately facilitated the short-lived First East Republic's formation in November but sowed seeds of defeat by alienating Hui allies and exhausting irregular forces in static, casualty-heavy defenses.

Battles around Urumqi and Stalemate

In spring 1933, Ma Zhongying's clashed with provincial forces under Governor in the First Battle of Urumqi, engaging in fierce combat around the capital but ultimately withdrawing southward after sustaining heavy losses amid logistical strains. The conflict underscored the rebels' initial overextension in northern advances, with urban skirmishes contributing to significant on both sides. Provincial defenses, though outnumbered, held due to entrenched positions and control of supply lines. By late 1933, following Jin Shuren's ouster and Sheng Shicai's assumption of power, regrouped and initiated a renewed offensive. Secret negotiations led to the of General Zhang Peiyuan, who commanded troops in the Ili region and switched allegiance to Ma's side, providing additional manpower against Sheng's regime. This alliance enabled the Second Battle of Urumqi, commencing in December 1933, where joint rebel forces besieged the city, incorporating defected provincial units into assaults involving close-quarters urban fighting. Sheng's defenders, augmented by Soviet-supplied armaments, auxiliaries, and White Russian mercenaries, repelled repeated probes, inflicting and suffering thousands of casualties in protracted engagements that drained rebel ammunition and provisions. The siege exposed critical vulnerabilities in rebel cohesion, as allied contingents—ranging from Hui Muslim cavalry to newly defected Han infantry—struggled with command integration and faltered under prolonged exposure to fortified positions equipped with machine guns and . Ma's personal maintained momentum initially, but by early 1934, a tactical stalemate solidified, with attackers unable to penetrate core defenses despite encircling the outskirts. Resource exhaustion from extended supply lines across arid terrain, compounded by harsh winter conditions, highlighted the limits of irregular forces in sustained , forcing Ma to consolidate gains elsewhere while the capital remained contested.

Suppression and Soviet Invasion

Invasion and Rebel Defeats (1934)

In early February 1934, Soviet forces, disguised as White Russian volunteers and totaling around 7,000 to 10,000 troops including GPU border guards and units, crossed into to bolster Sheng Shicai's provincial army against Ma Zhongying's 36th Division. These units were equipped with armored cars, , , and , providing a technological edge over the rebels' primarily cavalry-based and lightly armed irregulars. Coordination between Soviet commanders and Sheng's forces enabled rapid advances, with Soviet aviation conducting bombing runs using 25-kg fragmentation bombs to disrupt Ma's positions near Urumqi and key southern oases. By mid-February, Soviet-supported assaults lifted the prolonged siege of Urumqi on February 11, after clashes on February 8-9 where disguised "" units defeated elements of the 36th Division, forcing their withdrawal. Further operations captured strategic oases including Turfan, , and (Kulcha), as well as Chuguchak, compelling Ma Zhongying's forces into disorganized retreats southward amid escalating supply shortages that hampered their mobility and logistics. The rebels, reliant on local requisitions and facing ammunition and food deficits, could not counter the Soviet air superiority, which included runs that scattered concentrations of horsemen and . Ma Zhongying's army suffered decisive setbacks by spring 1934, with the 36th Division evacuating northern and central positions; by May, remnants retreated to Khotan, where persistent shortages led to with local populations due to forced levies. Tank-supported ground advances overwhelmed the ' traditional tactics, marking the collapse of their offensive capabilities in the region without significant rebel counteroffensives. Soviet withdrawals began by late April, leaving behind limited detachments but having secured Sheng's control over contested areas through this projection of mechanized force.

Destruction of Rebel Strongholds

In early 1934, following the Soviet invasion that secured northern , provincial forces under , augmented by Soviet weaponry and , targeted the fragmented rebel positions in the south, where the (ETR) maintained its primary bases. Internal betrayals compounded the rebels' vulnerabilities; commander Khoja Niyas, previously allied with Ma Zhongying's 36th Division, defected to Sheng's side in July 1933 along with thousands of troops, providing crucial local and manpower that facilitated provincial advances against remaining loyalists. This , occurring amid escalating infighting between separatists and Hui Muslim irregulars, hastened the dispersal of ETR fighters and eroded coordinated resistance. Kashgar, the ETR's de facto capital and a fortified rebel stronghold, fell on February 6, 1934, after a concerted assault by Muslim forces that inflicted heavy casualties on and Kirghiz defenders, leading to the execution of several ETR officials and the flight or surrender of surviving combatants. Subsequent operations dismantled other southern holds, such as Yengisar, which capitulated to advancing troops on April 16, 1934, effectively collapsing the ETR's territorial control and scattering its remnants into guerrilla bands or . These victories relied on Soviet-supplied for and provincial superiority, which overwhelmed lightly armed rebels in urban and rural redoubts. Sheng Shicai's consolidation involved systematic purges of institutions linked to the , including the destruction of mosques used as command centers and the of imams and mullahs suspected of fomenting unrest, measures that neutralized potential revival points for Islamic-led insurgency. By mid-1934, these actions had dismantled organized rebel infrastructure across southern , with fighters either integrated into provincial units, executed, or driven across borders.

Aftermath

Collapse of the Rebellion

By early 1934, the departure of General , the primary military leader allied with Kumulik forces, created a profound leadership vacuum that accelerated the rebels' internal disintegration. Ma, commanding Hui Chinese Muslim troops, withdrew his forces northward toward following defeats and Soviet aerial interventions, abandoning allied contingents without coordinated succession. This fragmentation exacerbated existing tribal divisions among Kumulik s and their irregular allies, rendering unified command impossible and shifting the rebellion from structured offensives to sporadic, localized holdouts. Organized resistance effectively ended by late 1934 through mass surrenders of remaining rebel units to provincial authorities and the flight of survivors into Soviet-controlled territories or the remote Gobi regions. Deprived of Ma's logistical support and facing encirclement, groups under subordinate commanders like remnants of Niyaz's forces capitulated en masse in southern strongholds, with truces formalized by September among Dungan elements. Displaced fighters, numbering in the thousands, dispersed eastward or northward, evading capture but unable to regroup, marking the cessation of coherent opposition. Casualty estimates for the rebellion, drawn from military assessments, place combat deaths at around 4,000, though broader tolls including and amid disrupted supply lines likely reached tens of thousands among combatants and civilians in affected oases. Archival reports highlight how collapse compounded from starvation and epidemics in besieged areas like and , where isolated garrisons succumbed without resupply. The rebellion's failure to secure underscored its character as transient contention rather than viable , rooted in opportunistic alliances prone to upon key figures' exit. Lacking institutional frameworks or broad ethnic cohesion beyond Kumulik cores, the uprising devolved into factional infighting, precluding sustained or external diplomatic .

Rise of Sheng Shicai and Provincial Reconsolidation

In the midst of the Kumul Rebellion's disruptions, Sheng Shicai orchestrated a coup d'état on April 12, 1933, deposing Xinjiang's incumbent governor Jin Shuren and assuming the position of provisional military governor (duban). This power shift, facilitated by alliances with disaffected provincial officers and indirect Soviet encouragement, marked the beginning of Sheng's authoritarian rule, which prioritized rapid stabilization over democratic processes. Sheng's regime immediately relied on Soviet military advisors and logistical support to suppress lingering provincial factionalism, framing his governance as a necessary bulwark against anarchy rather than an organic reconsolidation of Chinese authority. To solidify , Sheng initiated purges targeting perceived rivals among former loyalists and warlords, executing or exiling dozens of high-ranking officials in the months following the coup to eliminate internal threats. Concurrently, he incorporated select defectors from fragmented and Hui contingents into his reorganized provincial , expanding its ranks to approximately 40,000 by mid-1934 through coerced oaths and incentives, thereby co-opting potential adversaries while diluting ethnic insurgent cohesion. This selective , however, served primarily as a tool for and , with Soviet-trained officers overseeing the process to ensure alignment with Moscow's security imperatives. Under Soviet guidance, Sheng pursued economic reforms aimed at infrastructural modernization, including a 1934 with Soviet authorities to Xinjiang's networks and telegraph lines, which facilitated resource extraction and troop mobility. These initiatives, funded partly through Soviet credits totaling over 30 million rubles by 1935, temporarily mitigated unrest by generating employment in and sectors, though they entrenched dependency on imported machinery and expertise. Such measures quelled sporadic provincial through economic co-optation, yet they masked underlying , as local participation was often compelled under threat of . Soviet dominance over persisted through Sheng's tenure until 1942, with the province operating as a virtual where dictated trade monopolies, military deployments, and policy vetoes, rendering local "stability" contingent on foreign occupation rather than autonomous . This era saw 's oriented toward Soviet needs, including raw material exports like tin and , while Sheng's suppressed autonomous initiatives to avoid antagonizing his patrons. The arrangement's fragility was evident in its reliance on periodic Soviet interventions, underscoring that provincial reconsolidation was less a triumph of local agency than an extension of external influence.

Controversies and Assessments

Claims of Japanese Manipulation

Sheng Shicai and Soviet authorities alleged that Ma Zhongying's forces were directed by agents, claiming the capture of two officers embedded in his staff during operations in in 1933–1934. These assertions portrayed Ma as a in Japan's broader expansionist strategy post-Manchukuo, aiming to destabilize Soviet borders and establish a puppet . However, independent analyses indicate these captures were likely misidentified locals or White Russian émigrés, with no corroboration from diplomatic or military records, suggesting propagandistic exaggeration to legitimize Soviet to Sheng. Ma Zhongying's anti-Soviet incursions, including raids into Soviet territory from bases, stemmed from his independent warlord ambitions and alignment with anti-communism, rather than puppeteering; his forces operated autonomously, funded primarily through local taxation and plunder in Turkic regions. While policymakers in promoted pan-Asian and pan-Islamic outreach to counter —evidenced by overtures to Hui warlords like the Ma family for potential collaboration—archival evidence shows no substantive material support or operational control extended to Ma's campaigns in . This opportunistic alignment of interests, amid Japan's focus on consolidating after the 1931 invasion, underscores the Soviet narrative's overreach, as lacked the logistical reach or documented commitment to orchestrate distant rebellions. Detailed studies of Ma's 1931 invasion emphasize regional Muslim networks and dynamics, absent any directive role.

Soviet Atrocities and Propaganda

During the Soviet intervention in in early , OGPU-led forces supported Sheng Shicai's provincial troops against rebel strongholds, employing aerial bombings and chemical weapons that inflicted heavy casualties on both combatants and civilians. In the Battle of Tutung (February ), Soviet aircraft dropped on positions held by Ma Hushan's 36th Division, affecting approximately 20% of his roughly 10,000 troops and compelling their withdrawal from Dawan Pass after weeks of resistance. , Hui Muslim, and other civilians in affected areas fled en masse from the gas bombs, which exacted a severe toll on non-combatants amid the chaos of retreating forces. These tactics, including runs near Urumqi to repel Ma Zhongying's Dungans, prioritized rapid suppression over minimizing collateral damage, contrasting with claims of a purely defensive or stabilizing operation. Captured rebels and suspected sympathizers faced summary executions or , with Soviet advisors facilitating the of pan-Turkic elements deemed threats to border stability. Sheng Shicai's regime, bolstered by personnel, initiated purges targeting "traitors" and "enemies of the people" as early as 1934, escalating into broader repressions by 1937 that claimed thousands of lives through , , and firing squads. Eyewitness accounts from defectors and local survivors, corroborated in historical analyses, describe mass killings in camps near Soviet border outposts, where thousands of Turkic fighters and civilians were processed and eliminated to eliminate potential Basmachi-inspired insurgencies. These actions, while securing short-term control, sowed resentment among ethnic groups, as Soviet-backed forces disproportionately targeted and nationalists while sparing cooperative Hui units. Soviet propaganda portrayed the rebels as puppets of fascist or imperialist agitators—implicitly tying them to pan-Turkic schemes—thereby justifying the as a against external rather than acknowledging indigenous drivers like Jin Shuren's extractive policies and religious restrictions. Broadcasts and directives from emphasized "counterrevolutionary" threats to socialist solidarity among Central Asian minorities, eliding the USSR's strategic imperative to fortify its frontier against spillover unrest and potential encirclement via Xinjiang. This narrative, disseminated through Sheng's administration and Soviet consulates, deflected scrutiny from the intervention's role in entrenching a proxy regime. Causally, the Soviet incursion preserved Moscow's leverage over Xinjiang's resources and routes but intensified ethnic fractures via divide-and-rule strategies, as Sheng—under OGPU guidance—reclassified populations into hierarchical categories that pitted Turkic against Han settlers, Hui militias, and rival nomads, fostering dependency on Soviet arbitration for survival. Such tactics, evident in selective purges and favoritism toward pliable factions, eroded pre-rebellion inter-ethnic alliances rooted in shared anti-Han , yielding a fragmented primed for future conflicts rather than unified autonomy.

Modern Interpretations of Ethnic and Religious Motivations

Modern scholarship, particularly Andrew D. W. Forbes's analysis in Warlords and Muslims in Chinese Central Asia, rejects portrayals of the Kumul Rebellion as a cohesive expression of or pan-Islamic , emphasizing instead the dominance of tribal factionalism and personal opportunism among local warlords. Forbes documents how rival clans, such as the pro-Kumul loyalists under Niyas and the anti-Khanate insurgents backed by figures like Sabit Damulla, pursued localized power grabs rather than a unified agenda, with alliances shifting based on immediate territorial gains. This view counters narratives in some separatist that retroactively frame the conflict as proto- victimhood against domination, noting the absence of coordinated ethnic manifestos or broad mobilization beyond elite rivalries. Empirical evidence from participant alignments further undermines religious or ethnic purity claims, as Hui Muslim forces under forged tactical partnerships with troops against fellow Muslims while committing atrocities against civilians, illustrating pragmatic warlordism over ideological solidarity. Correspondence among rebel leaders, including overtures from to authorities, reveals ambitions tied to governorships and tribute rights rather than jihadist unity, with pan-Islamist rhetoric serving as expedient amid internal betrayals. Analyses critiquing left-leaning academic tendencies to romanticize such uprisings as anti-colonial heroism highlight how these overlook mutual brutalities, including rebel massacres of settled populations, and the lack of sustained inter-ethnic coalitions for . The rebellion's legacy underscores the perils of ethnic in state vacuums, where weak central authority enabled exploitation of religious grievances, fostering prolonged instability without birthing viable separatist institutions. This interpretation privileges causal factors like loyalties and economic predation—evident in the rapid dissolution of rebel gains post-1934—over mythic constructs of inherent Uyghur , cautioning against ahistorical analogies to contemporary conflicts. Scholarly consensus, informed by archival records of factional infighting, attributes the upheaval's dynamics to endogenous power contests amplified by external meddling, rather than ethnic or confessional .

References

  1. [1]
    Xinjiang Wars | World War II Database
    Kumul Rebellion and the First Soviet Invasion 1931-1934. ww2dbaseLocated in eastern Xinjiang, the Kumul Khanate had been a semi-autonomous vassal state under ...
  2. [2]
    Warlords and Muslims in Chinese Central Asia: A Political History of ...
    This book provides a detailed study of Sinkiang - China's largest province, and of great strategic importance on the Russian border during the Warlord and ...
  3. [3]
    [PDF] MUSLIM SEPARATISM IN NORTHWEST CHINA DURING THE ...
    Particular emphasis has been placed on the narration and analysis of events surrounding the'Kumul rebellion ... Involvement of Ma 'Chungt-ying. 4.5 The ...
  4. [4]
    Governors of Xinjiang Province 新疆 - Chinaknowledge
    Yuan Dahua 袁大化. Provincial governor (xunfu 巡撫) since XT 2/10. Military governor (dudu 都督) from Mar 15,1912, Mar 15-Apr 25,1912, Yang Zengxin 楊增新
  5. [5]
    [PDF] Xinjiang in the Context of Central Eurasian Transformations
    Feb 28, 2021 · Yang Zengxin had governed Xinjiang from 1912 to 1928 largely by maintaining the administrative structures and policies of the late Qing. His ...
  6. [6]
    [PDF] the preservation of Chinese rule in Xinjiang, 1884-1971 - eScholarship
    who would later orchestrate the assassination of Yang Zengxin in 1928, used to baptize his troops with a fire hose. Governor Yang, who, in good Confucian ...
  7. [7]
    Yang Zengxin - X-Boorman - ENP China
    Only a week later, on 7 July 1928, Yang was assassinated while attending an official banquet in Urumchi. The planner of the murder allegedly was Fan Yao-nan, ...Missing: details | Show results with:details
  8. [8]
    The Residential Characteristics of the Han Nationality in Xinjiang ...
    Some of their Yunnan people came to Xinjiang for political work (Because Yang Zengxin is from Yunnan), and some Shanxi people came to Xinjiang for business.Missing: governance | Show results with:governance<|separator|>
  9. [9]
    Jin Shuren - X-Boorman - ENP China
    ... corruption. Chin's economic policies, including heavy direct taxation and the establishment of government companies which controlled the principal export ...Missing: Xinjiang | Show results with:Xinjiang
  10. [10]
    (PDF) The Soviets In Xinjiang - Academia.edu
    ... Jin's weakened regime, were willing to accomodate the Chinese in this matter. Meanwhile, Jin's corrupt and incompetant administration of Xinjiang had ...
  11. [11]
    Sibe History and Society | British Academy Scholarship Online
    Dec 23, 2004 · He was replaced by Jin Shuren, under whose weak rule corruption flourished (Lattimore 1950:65). Visitors to Xinjiang at the time laid the ...
  12. [12]
    Kumul Khanate (Qing) - Phersu Atlas
    Was a Turkic Khanate under Qing rule located in present-day Hami prefecture of Xinjiang. Establishment. January 1697: It came under Qing rule in 1696 and ...
  13. [13]
    Kumul Khanate - Kazakhstan Encyclopedia
    Apr 27, 2025 · The khans of Kumul were direct descendants of the khans of the Chagatai Khanate. It came under Qing rule in 1696 and remained a khanate as a ...
  14. [14]
    3.131 Fall and Rise of China: Complicated Story about Xinjiang
    Dec 23, 2024 · Xinjiang's first Republican governor was Yang Zengxin, a Yunnanese native. ... Xinjiang Provincial Government under the KMT, Fan attacked.Missing: governance | Show results with:governance
  15. [15]
    [PDF] The Islamic Republic Of Eastern Turkestan And The Formation Of ...
    Sep 13, 2006 · At the same time, Jin settled Han refugees of famine from Gansu on the land cultivated by Uyghurs of Hami. This policy forced native ...
  16. [16]
    [PDF] Print and Power in the Communist Borderlands: The Rise of Uyghur ...
    Apr 4, 2019 · redistribute land in the oasis to Han settlers from Gansu.5 These actions finally lit the powder keg of long-standing Muslim grievances over ...
  17. [17]
    [PDF] China's Internal and External Relations and Lessons for Korea and ...
    immigration to Hami, Jin's heavy taxation and anti-Muslim poli- cies, his checkpoint officer's coerced marriage directly caused the conflicts between them ...
  18. [18]
    [PDF] The New Silk Road Diplomacy - eScholarship@McGill
    Apr 15, 2006 · the Kumul khanate, the restrictions on pilgrimage to Mecca, and the Han tax collector's wish to marry the daughter of a Uighur, religious ...
  19. [19]
    [PDF] The fracturing of China? ethnic separatism and political ... - Calhoun
    Jin Shuren's general misrule created relative deprivation for Xinjiang's Muslims ... Land reform and collectivization did take away the revenue base of Islam as ...Missing: redistribution | Show results with:redistribution
  20. [20]
    [PDF] MILITARY INFORMATION: SINKIANG REBELLIONS 1931-1937 - CIA
    In February, 1931, one of the soldiers of the troops protecting the Chinese immigrants forced a Uighur girl to marry him. At the marriage ceremony the enraged ...Missing: initial | Show results with:initial
  21. [21]
    3.132 Fall and Rise of China: Beginning of the Kumul Rebellion
    Dec 30, 2024 · of Xinjiang. Xinjiang ... His annexation of the Kumul Khanate in 1931 incited unrest among the local Uyghurs, setting the stage for rebellion.
  22. [22]
    An Uyghur Chieftain in China's Civil War - Belfer Center
    Jan 1, 2024 · The tomb belongs to Yolbars Khan, a Uyghur chieftain who came to play an unlikely role supporting the Nationalists during China's civil war.
  23. [23]
    Calamity In Kashgar [Part I]: The 1931-34 Muslim Revolt And The ...
    Jan 8, 2025 · Roots of Revolt. In 1930 Xinjiang's governor-general Jin Shuren annexed the historically autonomous Turkic khanate at the Kumul oasis. However, ...Missing: Rebellion | Show results with:Rebellion
  24. [24]
    Uyghur Figures – Khoja Niyaz Haji
    Dec 20, 2024 · In the spring of 1931, Khoja Niyaz led an armed revolution against Chinese oppression in the city of Kumul. His leadership sparked revolutionary ...
  25. [25]
    None
    Nothing is retrieved...<|separator|>
  26. [26]
    The Ma family | CQ2 | Ed Murphy
    Sep 5, 2008 · The two most famous members of the clan were Ma Bufang and Ma Zhongying, who fought with Chiang Kai-shek against the Communist forces. Ma ...Missing: motives | Show results with:motives
  27. [27]
    In 1934, the Ma family army fought against the Cossack cavalry in ...
    The angry Ma family army soldiers began a retaliatory massacre, and a large number of civilians became victims.
  28. [28]
    National Identity Contestation Among the Uyghurs - Oxford Academic
    Andrew Forbes also divided up Xinjiang in this way; see Forbes, Warlords and Muslims in Chinese Central Asia. 8. Before the Qing Empire started consolidating ...<|separator|>
  29. [29]
  30. [30]
    1933 to 1939 - Muslim Slaughter in Xinjiang - Asia Harvest
    ... Muslims belonging to a host of different ethnic minority groups including the Uygur, Kazak, Kirgiz, Uzbek, Tajik, and Hui. Xinjiang is much more ...
  31. [31]
    [PDF] The Islamic Republic of Eastern Turkestan and the Formation ... - DTIC
    Sep 13, 2006 · Upon this marginal success in Kashgar Old City, Sabit Damulla, an educated Uyghur who had become the political leader in the Khotani forces of ...
  32. [32]
    None
    Nothing is retrieved...<|separator|>
  33. [33]
    (PDF) On the Question of Prince Abdulkerim Effendi's Becoming the ...
    Japan supported the 1933 uprising in East Turkestan with the intention of making Sultan Abdulhamid's grandson Prince Abdulkerim Effendi, the Emperor and Caliph ...
  34. [34]
    How Japan tried to crown an Ottoman prince in Central Asia
    Aug 7, 2025 · In this context, Prince Abdul Kerim Efendi emerged as a symbolic figure who could lend legitimacy to a new Islamic state envisioned by Japanese ...
  35. [35]
    [PDF] JAPANESE INFILTRATION AMONG MUSLIMS THROUGHOUT THE ...
    Apparently in anticipation of an eventual Muslim victory, Japan gets hold of a young. and naive Turkish prince, by the name of Abdul Kerim, and grooms him ...<|separator|>
  36. [36]
    1931 Kumul Uprising - NamuWiki
    Jul 27, 2025 · In February 1931, when Hami (Kumul) 's Xiaopu village, the police chief and police chief, forced the Uighur beauty to be his wife, the angry ...<|separator|>
  37. [37]
    [PDF] Soviet–Xinjiang Development Cooperation during the Governorate ...
    This article looks into the nature and dynamics of Soviet assistance to the. Governorate of Sheng Shicai, a military de facto state that existed in Xinjiang ...
  38. [38]
    3.133 Fall and Rise of China: Kumul Rebellion #2: Uprisings in ...
    Jan 6, 2025 · In 1931, tensions in Kumul escalated after a Muslim girl spurned Han tax collector Chang Mu, leading to his violent death at a family dinner.
  39. [39]
    Ma Zhongying - X-Boorman
    Ma Chung-ying (1911- ? ), Chinese Muslim military leader, took part in the 1931 rebellion of Muslims in Sinkiang against Chinese rule.
  40. [40]
    Jin Shuren - Academic Dictionaries and Encyclopedias
    Jin ruled Xinjiang for about half a decade, and his reign was characterized by corruption and suppression. Under his rule, both ethnic and religion ...Missing: appointment policies
  41. [41]
    Sinkiang Soviet army Aptekar Kiyan Turkestan 1934 intervention ...
    At the end of 1933 Sheng Shih-ts'ai first asked the USSR for aid, and he was not kept waiting for long. A Red Army group arrived in the beginning of 1934 with ...
  42. [42]
    Southern Asia 1934: Soviet invasion of Xinjiang - Omniatlas
    The 1933 invasion of Xinjiang by the Nationalist Chinese-allied Ma family alarmed the Soviet Union, which responded by mounting its own invasion of the ...<|separator|>
  43. [43]
    First East Turkistan Republic (1933-1934)
    General Mehmut Muhiti organized a rebellion against Sheng in Kashgar and fled to India in April 1937, and later fled to Japan, where he lobbied the Imperial ...
  44. [44]
    Sheng Shicai as a Successful Warlord in Xinjiang, 1931–34
    Dec 5, 2021 · Amid numerous talented Chinese military officers, Sheng rose in rank and successfully secured Xinjiang as a part of the Republic of China even ...<|separator|>
  45. [45]
    List of wars by death toll | Military Wiki - Fandom
    4,000 - Kumul Rebellion (1931-1934); 4,000 - Third Anglo-Dutch War (1672-1674) ... ↑ "At least 240 killed in Congo after fighting between army and rebels".
  46. [46]
    A Guide to Intra-state Wars: An Examination of Civil, Regional, and ...
    When Jin Shuren (Chin Shu-jen) assumed the governorship of Xinjiang (Sinkiang) in 1928, he aligned himself with the Soviet Union, which was economically ...<|separator|>
  47. [47]
    [PDF] A Study on the Relationship between Sheng Shicai and the ...
    In 1933, after the April 12 coup in Xinjiang, the Jinshuren regime was overthrown and Sheng Shicai was elected as the provisional governor of Xinjiang.
  48. [48]
    [PDF] Maximizing Soviet Interests in Xinjiang The USSR's Penetration in ...
    incarceration and elimination of Turkic Muslim rebels. Sheng subdued the Turkic Muslim rebellions in varied scales also with the help of the Soviet troops, ...
  49. [49]
    The Sheng Shicai Archive
    In 1937, in parallel with the Soviet Great Purge, Sheng launched his own purge in Xinjiang to eliminate "traitors", "pan-Turkists", "enemies of the people", " ...
  50. [50]
  51. [51]
  52. [52]
    (PDF) The Muslims of China and the "Frontier Question" after Empire
    The Muslims of China and the "Frontier Question" after Empire: Revisiting Ma Zhongying's 1931 Invasion of Republican Xinjiang. Profile image of Paul Gosselin ...
  53. [53]
    Soviet invasion of Xinjiang | Military Wiki - Fandom
    Ma invaded Xinjiang in support of Kumul Khanate loyalists and received official approval and designation from the Kuomintang as the 36th Division. In late 1933, ...Missing: Kumuliks | Show results with:Kumuliks
  54. [54]
  55. [55]
  56. [56]
    Why the Soviet Union Called All State Enemies “Fascists” and “Nazis”
    Oct 2, 2025 · As a metaphor of the “Hitlerite path” and the “old fascist road,” as well as with a swastika and the physiognomy of the Führer, the actions of ...Missing: Kumul | Show results with:Kumul
  57. [57]
    A most rebellious territory - Engelsberg Ideas
    Apr 5, 2023 · In 1933, a group of rebellious Muslim leaders proclaimed the establishment of a 'Turkish-Islamic Republic of Eastern Turkestan'. It was ...Missing: coalitions | Show results with:coalitions
  58. [58]
    Andrew D. W. Forbes: Warlords and Muslims in Chinese Central Asia
    In this connexion, Forbes insists that the bloody con- flict between the Hui troops of Gansu warlord Ma Zhongying and the Turkic-speaking Muslims in the 1930s ...