Why is Mongolia Neutral?



  • "During the war, Mongolia was ruled by the communist government of Khorloogiin Choibalsan and was closely linked to the Soviet Union. After the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact of 1941, Mongolia remained neutral throughout most of the war, but its geographical situation meant that it in fact served as a buffer between Japanese forces and the Soviet Union. In addition to keeping around 10% of the population under arms, Mongolia provided supplies and raw materials to the Soviet military, and financed several units, for example the Revolutionary Mongolia tank squadron.

    Mongolian troops took part in the Battle of Khalkhin Gol in Summer 1939 and in the Soviet invasion of Manchuria in August 1945, both times as small part in Soviet-led operations against Japanese forces and their Manchu and Inner Mongolian allies. For Mongolia, the most important result of World War II was the recognition of its independence by China, as provided by the Yalta agreement."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participants_in_World_War_II#Mongolia

    They clearly weren’t neutral.  Why aren’t they painted red and given to the Soviet Union?  Or at least a pro-Soviet Union neutral?  They even had tanks, which is not  represented on the board.  Even when they are attacked, they don’t fight as a unified army to defend the country, as though they represent militia and that Mongolia had no army.  Unless Wikipedia is wrong, Mongolia’s status in this game shows a complete disregard for history on the part of Avalon Hill and Milton Bradley before them, since Mongolia has been neutral in all Axis and Allies games to date.



  • They clearly weren’t neutral.  Why aren’t they painted red and given to the Soviet Union?

    After the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact of 1941, Mongolia remained neutral throughout most of the war, but its geographical situation meant that it in fact served as a buffer between Japanese forces and the Soviet Union.

    They wouldn’t be a buffer, if they were just made part of the Soviet Union.

    Maybe the global game will include more complex rules that deal with Neutral Powers, instead of just treating all the neutrals as independent territories.



  • well this brings up the example of why is spain neutral?
    Simply, because they didnt declare war. Sending volunteers and letting another nation use a base or two of yours does not constitute war.

    Nations like mongolia and spain didnt declare war because they were fragmented countries, with dissident elements within that could cause major headaches. It would be like if the US declared war, but half the states refused to participate. For nations like spain and mongolia, figting at 1/2 power would be tantammount to suicide.

    Look at what happend to Italy, it was almost totaly unprepared for modern warfare and had a 50-50 split within it of wether to be at war or not. All told, italy suffered for going to war, and eventualy embroiled itself in a civil war.

    Franco knew better, he let the rabid spanish facists volunteer to serve the germans so they wouldnt try to overthrow him for being a coward, complied with the Italian and german uses of some spainish ports to not anger them into invading spain. And importantly DIDNT declare war so that their country didnt become a battlefield.

    Also i bet the USSR dictated mongolian communist policy of the early 40’s “dont fight the japs”



  • Moompix:
    What you say is true, however, if this game can finally get the Soviet-Japanese neutrality pact to work, then the buffer thing shouldn’t matter.  The Soviet Union, however, should still be able to collect IPCs from them, even if it’s only one or two, and even if Mongolia were neutral, they should still fight as a unified army and not some tribal people who sit back and watch other regions of their country get attacked.

    Oztea:
    Mongolia certainly took part in the war, unlike Spain.  It had a few battles within its own country.  And yes, Italy was underprepared, but that 1.) does not determine how Mongolia should be set up, and 2.) They are still their own power.  I’m not debating whether or not Mongolia was prepared to enter the war, but the fact that they were in the war at all.

    The Japanese invaded Mongolia in 1939, and the Soviets and Mongolians together pushed them back, and it wasn’t until after this when the non-aggression pact was signed between the Soviet Union and Japan which included Mongolia and that Mongolia was not to be attacked by Japan.

    In the game, Mexico is controlled by the US because it historically declared war, even though it provided minimal assistance directly to the fighting (outside of some airbattles in the Phillipines towards the end of the war) and mainly just helped supply resources.  Mongolia should have a similar status in the game, except with the USSR instead of the US.



  • well i was using an allied neutral (mongolia) and an axis neutral (spain) in the same example when i probably shouldnt have

    Mongolia was dealing with an expansionist empire on its doorstep, and yes I know japan tried to weisel in there in 1939.

    Spain was dealing with the allies, who were on the defensive untill 43-44 in europe, so no battles were going to take place there, so long as Franco made sure he didnt get involved.

    My point is, deciding to join the war opened your nation up to the horrors of modern war, strategic bombing, cities razed, millions dead. The spanish didnt want that, and neither did the mongolians, they just didnt stand to gain as much as the other powers. Specificly italy, who was in the same boat as spain, and to a lesser extent mongolia, however italy stood to gain immensley from joining the war, IF it could take advantage of the confusion and push the British out of Egypt, and the French out of north africa. Mussolini wanted a reborn roman empire, and all the stood in his way was the brits at cairo, if he could just get them out it would have been a victory for him, and would have turned the tide of the war immensely.


  • 2019 2018 2017 '16 '15 '14 '13 '10

    Uruguay was another one of those nations that were neutral but let other nations use its bases.

    Then there is Argentina.

    Plus as to the tank thing in Mongolia I believe a tank in Axis and Allies is more than just a few tanks.  Like an Infantry unit being more than just a few troops.

    Sean


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    The real question is why does Mongolia have any more than one infantry?

    The answer is the same for this question and the one regarding why it is neutral.

    It is to balance the game rather than appeal the history.  If it had a historical army, then Japan would cut thru it like a knife and hot butter and basically skip China on route to perform a serious ahistorical plan…to drive its pathetic tanks 5,000 miles to Moscow to win a victory for Germany and gain Japan nothing for its troubles.

    So one rule was made that is not historical in order to ‘fix’ a more serious and unrealistic outcome or strategic trick by the japanese player.

    You cannot appeal always to history to solve the games problems because the game offers minimal complexity in order to remain fun to play.



  • I’m sold…lets make Mongolia (but not Canada) a major power!



  • With three major industrial complexes!



  • Only if one of their NOs is to take over Canada.



  • Considering the Soviets attacked Manchuria from Mongolia, it’s just another example of a number of historical details that get steam rolled under by balance and playability. Three fighters in New Zealand, contiguous Japanese control of the Chinese coastline, Siam depicted as a puppet of Japan in 1940 are also some examples.



  • @Imperious:

    The real question is why does Mongolia have any more than one infantry?

    The answer is the same for this question and the one regarding why it is neutral.

    It is to balance the game rather than appeal the history.  If it had a historical army, then Japan would cut thru it like a knife and hot butter and basically skip China on route to perform a serious ahistorical plan…to drive its pathetic tanks 5,000 miles to Moscow to win a victory for Germany and gain Japan nothing for its troubles.

    I don’t think so. Well, at least with a logical set of rules for China (one that doesn’t include that silly ACME wall), China would attack Japan’s flank if they try ignore them and attack only Mongolia. Take into account that, with crappy current rules, Japan can still ignore China, and nor China nor the own Mongolians (whtf?) can do nothing about it. Zero. All due ACME wall

    The true answer is WOTC didn’t let Larry enough time to do a logical or tested set of rules for Mongolia. The question is if this crappiness will translate to Europe/Global and we are going to have ACME walls in Spain, Portugal, Turkey, etc.

    Mongolia should be pro-soviet neutral and an attack over any territory should activate the full Mongolia (global game). In AAP40, they should be impassable as part of non-agression treaty



  • I never really considered any Axis and Allies game a historical recreation of WW II. There are plenty of far more in depth games for that, but, most of those games are 12 hours or more to play. Axis and Allies is a World War Two-ish game that I can play in an afternoon. Honestly, the problem with the hyper accurate WWII simulations is that I all ready know who wins (thanks to Wikipedia), so what’s the fun.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

  • 44
  • 11
  • 18
  • 24
  • 7
  • 11
  • 1
  • 3
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

54
Online

14.4k
Users

34.9k
Topics

1.4m
Posts