A century of China-Russia relations

Author: Yang Chuang, Gao Fei, Feng Yujun / Country: Mainland China
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2006-09-01
Features:
Lenin condemned the atrocities committed by the Tsarist Russia. The editorial of the Russian newspaper "Amur Region" on July 25, 1900, admitted, "This war was from the very beginning a war of annihilation." Russian officers, on the other hand, eloquently justified themselves by saying, "War is about conquest, and this is the right of the strong." To evade responsibility, the Tsarist government later ordered an investigation into the "Heilongjiang Incident," but reached a strange conclusion: the military commander of the Amur Region, Gribsky, ordered the expulsion of the Chinese, while he was completely unaware of the brutal massacre of innocent Chinese civilians. When he learned about it, he stopped the massacre. Gribsky's punishment was merely being dismissed. The Tsarist government found a scapegoat, trying to wash away their guilt in instigating the "Heilongjiang Incident," covering up their role as the mastermind, and their intention to occupy Northeast China.
In response to the "Heilongjiang Incident," Lenin published an article titled "The War in China" in the newspaper "Izvestia" in December 1900, severely condemning the Tsarist government's policy in China as a "criminal policy" and an "arrogant policy." Lenin pointed out, "They burned villages, killed people, drove the civilians into the Heilongjiang River to drown them, and shot and stabbed unarmed residents and their wives and children."
In 1920, the newly established Soviet government, having just won the revolution, announced a new policy toward China. Inspired by this, the people of Aihui County submitted a petition to the Heilongjiang Provincial Assembly, demanding the return of the 64 in the east of the Heilongjiang River. On January 1, 1921, the Heilongjiang Provincial Assembly passed a resolution, and through the Provincial Office, it submitted a demand to the Beijing government for the return of the 64 in the east of the Heilongjiang River. On March 14, 1921, the Russian representative to the Far East Republic, Yulin, was ordered to express to the Beijing government that after the Sino-Russian trade, the 64 in the east of the Heilongjiang River could be returned to China. The Soviet Union linked the granting of diplomatic recognition and full trade with China to the abolition of the unequal treaties and the termination of Russian predatory land and privileges in China. In reality, the abolition of unequal treaties did not materialize, so there was no basis for demanding the return of the 64.
P15-16