Journal articles on the topic 'Soviet nationalitites policy'
To see the other types of publications on this topic, follow the link: Soviet nationalitites policy.
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the top 50 journal articles for your research on the topic 'Soviet nationalitites policy.'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Browse journal articles on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.
1
Pod’iapol’skii, Sergey A. "Soviet Nationalities Policy of the 1960s - early 1980s." Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences 9, no. 04 (April 2016): 904–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.17516/1997-1370-2016-9-4-904-926.
Full text
2
Shcherbak, Andrey. "Nationalism in the USSR: a historical and comparative perspective." Nationalities Papers 43, no. 6 (November 2015): 866–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00905992.2015.1072811.
Full textAbstract:
The late 1980s and early 1990s were characterized by the sudden rise of nationalist movements in almost all Soviet ethnic regions. It is argued that the rise ofpoliticalnationalism since the late 1980s can be explained by the development ofculturalnationalism in the previous decades, as an unintended outcome of Communist nationalities policy. All ethnic regions are examined throughout the entire history of the USSR (49 regions, 1917–1991), using the structural equation modeling (SEM) approach. This paper aims to make at least three contributions to the field. First, it is a methodological contribution for studying nationalism: a “quantification of history” approach. Having constructed variables from historical data, I use conventional statistical methods such as SEM. Second, this paper contributes to the theoretical debate about the role of cultural autonomy in multiethnic states. Finally, the paper statistically proves that the break between early Soviet and Stalinist nationalities policy explains the entire Soviet nationalities policy.
3
Sergey A., Podyapolskiy. "Nationalities Policy of the First Year of the Soviet Regime." Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences 11, no. 5 (May 2018): 795–813. http://dx.doi.org/10.17516/1997-1370-0271.
Full text
4
Legvold, Robert V., and Gerhard Simon. "Nationalism and Policy toward the Nationalities in the Soviet Union." Foreign Affairs 70, no. 5 (1991): 197. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/20045065.
Full text
5
Thompson, Ewa M. "Nationalist Propaganda in the Soviet Russian Press, 1939-1941." Slavic Review 50, no. 2 (1991): 385–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2500213.
Full textAbstract:
The nationalities policy in the Soviet Union under Stalin, and specifically during the period of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, was more complex than has been indicated by many American interpretations. In the Soviet press of that period, many newspapers and periodicals carried articles that dealt with nationality issues. I will consider here the possibility that publication of these articles was part of a propaganda program originated by state policy.
6
Motyl, Alexander. "Part I: Morning Session: The View from Above." Nationalities Papers 17, no. 1 (1989): 5–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00905998908408094.
Full textAbstract:
Ladies and gentlemen, permit me to welcome you to the Nationality and Siberian Studies Program's first annual conference on “The Soviet Nationalities and Gorbachev.” With so distinguished a collection of experts, I am certain that our discussion will prove to be both a stimulating intellectual experience and a permanent addition to the debate on Soviet nationality policy.
7
Wigglesworth-Baker, Teresa. "Language policy and post-Soviet identities in Tatarstan." Nationalities Papers 44, no. 1 (January 2016): 20–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00905992.2015.1046425.
Full textAbstract:
This paper examines language policy and language use as identity technologies in the Republic of Tatarstan approximately 23 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Although Tatarstan is an autonomous republic politically situated within the Russian Federation, it has its own language policy which was implemented in 1992 and which declares Russian and Tatar as the official state languages having equal status in all spheres of language use. Additionally, as a result of an education policy implemented in 1997, Tatar language learning was made a compulsory subject in schools for all nationalities. This research examines how these policies have legitimized the Tatar identity alongside Russian from the top-down perspective, but how these legitimacies are not reflected from the bottom-up perspective [Graney 1999. “Education Reform in Tatarstan and Bashkortostan: Sovereignty Projects in Post-Soviet Russia.”Europe-Asia Studies51 (4): 611-632; Yemelianova 2000. “Shaimiev's ‘Khanate’ on the Volga and its Russian Subjects.”Asian Ethnicity1 (1)]. The focus of this research was to find out how effective these language and education policies as top-down identity technologies have been in post-Soviet Tatar society. An empirical research was carried out in Kazan in 2013 and revealed that asymmetrical bilingualism still prevails in contemporary Tatar society: Russian is used for everyday purposes by all nationalities, whereas Tatar is used as an in-group marker among Tatars within informal settings.
8
Hoppe, Hans-Joachim. "Bulgarian Nationalities Policy in Occupied Thrace and Aegean Macedonia." Nationalities Papers 14, no. 1-2 (1986): 89–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00905998608408035.
Full textAbstract:
After the outbreak of World War II, the Bulgarian government pursued a policy of non-alignment. In the fall of 1940 it rejected plans for a combined Italian-Bulgarian attack against Greece. And when Italy alone invaded Greece, Bulgaria facilitated Greek resistance by her own passivity. When Germany called on Bulgaria to enter the Tripartite Pact and make its territory available for a German attack against Greece, the Bulgarian leadership succeeded in retarding the talks. At the same time, the Soviet Union, Germany's Balkan rival, tried to entice Bulgaria into concluding a pact of mutual assistance by offering the whole of western and eastern Thrace at the expense of both Turkey and Greece. Bulgaria refused, and on 1 March 1941 joined the alliance with Germany in hope of territorial gains. It took this step only when it seemed unavoidable.
9
Ishanxodjaeva, Z. R., and R. Makhkamova. "FORCED RELOCATION OF KOREANS TO UZBEKISTAN IN 1937-1938." European International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Management Studies 02, no. 05 (May 1, 2022): 220–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.55640/eijmrms-02-05-43.
Full textAbstract:
As a result of the repressive policy pursued by the Soviet authorities, even a small part of the nationalities living in the country were unjustifiably expelled from the territories where they lived. As a result of this policy, it was relocated to Uzbekistan, along with other republics of the former Soviet Union. The mass forced relocation of Koreans to Uzbekistan, along with other minorities, began in 1937-1938. In short, this article discusses the history of the resettlement of Koreans.
10
Weitz, Eric D. "Racial Politics without the Concept of Race: Reevaluating Soviet Ethnic and National Purges." Slavic Review 61, no. 1 (2002): 1–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2696978.
Full textAbstract:
Eric D. Weitz argues that the Soviet Union promoted the development of national institutions and consciousness and explicidy rejected the ideology of race. Yet traces of racial politics crept into Soviet nationalities policies, especially between 1937 and 1953. In the Stalin period particular populations were endowed with immutable traits that every member of the group possessed and that were passed from one generation to the next. Recent scholarship, he suggests, has been resistant to drawing out the racial elements in the Stalinist purges of certain nationalities. Francine Hirsch challenges Weitz’s argument, arguing that the Soviet regime had a developed concept of “race,” but did not practice what contemporaries thought of as “racial politics.” Hirsch argues that while the Nazi regime attempted to enact social change by racial means, the Soviet regime aspired to build socialism dirough the manipulation of mass (national and class) consciousness. She contends that it is imperative to analyze the conceptual categories that both regimes used in order to undertake a true comparative analysis. Weiner proposes that Soviet population politics constandy fluctuated between sociological and biological categorization. Although the Soviets often came close to adapting bioracial principles and practices, at no point did they let human heredity become a defining feature of political schemes. Race in the Soviet world applied mainly to concerns for the health of population groups. Despite the capacity to conduct genocidal campaigns and operate death camps, the Soviets never sought the physical extermination of entire groups nor did they stop celebrating the multiethnicity of tiieir polity. The radicalization of state violence in the postwar era was triggered by the nature and role of the war in the Soviet world, the alleged conduct of those who failed to rise to the occasion, and the endemic unstable and unassimilated borderlands, and not by the genetic makeup of the internal enemies. Alaina Lemon’s contribution suggests that scholars seek racialized concepts by treating discourse as situated practice, rather than by separating discourse from practice. This allows consideration of the ways people use language not only to name categories but also to point to social relationships (such as “race”) with or without explicidy naming them as such. Doing so, however, is admittedly more difficult when the only available evidence of past discursive practices are printed texts or interviews. In conclusion, Weitz responds to these critics.
11
Hirsch, Francine. "Race without the Practice of Racial Politics." Slavic Review 61, no. 1 (2002): 30–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2696979.
Full textAbstract:
Eric D. Weitz argues that the Soviet Union promoted the development of national institutions and consciousness and explicidy rejected the ideology of race. Yet traces of racial politics crept into Soviet nationalities policies, especially between 1937 and 1953. In the Stalin period particular populations were endowed with immutable traits that every member of the group possessed and that were passed from one generation to the next. Recent scholarship, he suggests, has been resistant to drawing out the racial elements in the Stalinist purges of certain nationalities. Francine Hirsch challenges Weitz’s argument, arguing that the Soviet regime had a developed concept of “race,” but did not practice what contemporaries thought of as “racial politics.” Hirsch argues that while the Nazi regime attempted to enact social change by racial means, the Soviet regime aspired to build socialism dirough die manipulation of mass (national and class) consciousness. She contends that it is imperative to analyze the conceptual categories that both regimes used in order to undertake a true comparative analysis. Weiner proposes that Soviet population politics constandy fluctuated between sociological and biological categorization. Although the Soviets often came close to adapting bioracial principles and practices, at no point did they let human heredity become a defining feature of political schemes. Race in the Soviet world applied mainly to concerns for the health of population groups. Despite the capacity to conduct genocidal campaigns and operate death camps, the Soviets never sought the physical extermination of entire groups nor did they stop celebrating the multiethnicity of tiieir polity. The radicalization of state violence in the postwar era was triggered by die nature and role of the war in the Soviet world, the alleged conduct of those who failed to rise to the occasion, and the endemic unstable and unassimilated borderlands, and not by die genetic makeup of the internal enemies. Alaina Lemon’s contribution suggests that scholars seek racialized concepts by treating discourse as situated practice, rather than by separating discourse from practice. This allows consideration of the ways people use language not only to name categories but also to point to social relationships (such as “race”) with or without explicidy naming them as such. Doing so, however, is admittedly more difficult when die only available evidence of past discursive practices are printed texts or interviews. In conclusion, Weitz responds to these critics.
12
Weiner, Amir. "Nothing but Certainty." Slavic Review 61, no. 1 (2002): 44–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2696980.
Full textAbstract:
Eric D. Weitz argues that the Soviet Union promoted the development of national institutions and consciousness and explicidy rejected the ideology of race. Yet traces of racial politics crept into Soviet nationalities policies, especially between 1937 and 1953. In the Stalin period particular populations were endowed with immutable traits that every member of the group possessed and that were passed from one generation to the next. Recent scholarship, he suggests, has been resistant to drawing out the racial elements in the Stalinist purges of certain nationalities. Francine Hirsch challenges Weitz’s argument, arguing that the Soviet regime had a developed concept of “race,” but did not practice what contemporaries thought of as “racial politics.” Hirsch argues that while the Nazi regime attempted to enact social change by racial means, the Soviet regime aspired to build socialism dirough die manipulation of mass (national and class) consciousness. She contends that it is imperative to analyze the conceptual categories that both regimes used in order to undertake a true comparative analysis. Weiner proposes that Soviet population politics constandy fluctuated between sociological and biological categorization. Although the Soviets often came close to adapting bioracial principles and practices, at no point did they let human heredity become a defining feature of political schemes. Race in the Soviet world applied mainly to concerns for the health of population groups. Despite the capacity to conduct genocidal campaigns and operate death camps, the Soviets never sought the physical extermination of entire groups nor did they stop celebrating the multiethnicity of tiieir polity. The radicalization of state violence in the postwar era was triggered by die nature and role of the war in the Soviet world, the alleged conduct of those who failed to rise to the occasion, and the endemic unstable and unassimilated borderlands, and not by die genetic makeup of the internal enemies. Alaina Lemon’s contribution suggests that scholars seek racialized concepts by treating discourse as situated practice, rather than by separating discourse from practice. This allows consideration of the ways people use language not only to name categories but also to point to social relationships (such as “race”) with or without explicidy naming them as such. Doing so, however, is admittedly more difficult when die only available evidence of past discursive practices are printed texts or interviews. In conclusion, Weitz responds to these critics.
13
Lemon, Alaina. "Without a “Concept”? Race as Discursive Practice." Slavic Review 61, no. 1 (2002): 54–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2696981.
Full textAbstract:
Eric D. Weitz argues that the Soviet Union promoted the development of national institutions and consciousness and explicidy rejected the ideology of race. Yet traces of racial politics crept into Soviet nationalities policies, especially between 1937 and 1953. In the Stalin period particular populations were endowed with immutable traits that every member of the group possessed and that were passed from one generation to the next. Recent scholarship, he suggests, has been resistant to drawing out the racial elements in the Stalinist purges of certain nationalities. Francine Hirsch challenges Weitz’s argument, arguing that the Soviet regime had a developed concept of “race,” but did not practice what contemporaries thought of as “racial politics.” Hirsch argues that while the Nazi regime attempted to enact social change by racial means, the Soviet regime aspired to build socialism dirough die manipulation of mass (national and class) consciousness. She contends that it is imperative to analyze the conceptual categories that both regimes used in order to undertake a true comparative analysis. Weiner proposes that Soviet population politics constandy fluctuated between sociological and biological categorization. Although the Soviets often came close to adapting bioracial principles and practices, at no point did they let human heredity become a defining feature of political schemes. Race in the Soviet world applied mainly to concerns for the health of population groups. Despite the capacity to conduct genocidal campaigns and operate death camps, the Soviets never sought the physical extermination of entire groups nor did they stop celebrating the multiethnicity of tiieir polity. The radicalization of state violence in the postwar era was triggered by die nature and role of the war in the Soviet world, the alleged conduct of those who failed to rise to the occasion, and the endemic unstable and unassimilated borderlands, and not by die genetic makeup of the internal enemies. Alaina Lemon’s contribution suggests that scholars seek racialized concepts by treating discourse as situated practice, rather than by separating discourse from practice. This allows consideration of the ways people use language not only to name categories but also to point to social relationships (such as “race”) with or without explicidy naming them as such. Doing so, however, is admittedly more difficult when die only available evidence of past discursive practices are printed texts or interviews. In conclusion, Weitz responds to these critics.
14
Weitz, Eric D. "On Certainties and Ambivalencies: Reply to My Critics." Slavic Review 61, no. 1 (2002): 62–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2696982.
Full textAbstract:
Eric D. Weitz argues that the Soviet Union promoted the development of national institutions and consciousness and explicidy rejected the ideology of race. Yet traces of racial politics crept into Soviet nationalities policies, especially between 1937 and 1953. In the Stalin period particular populations were endowed with immutable traits that every member of the group possessed and that were passed from one generation to the next. Recent scholarship, he suggests, has been resistant to drawing out the racial elements in the Stalinist purges of certain nationalities. Francine Hirsch challenges Weitz’s argument, arguing that the Soviet regime had a developed concept of “race,” but did not practice what contemporaries thought of as “racial politics.” Hirsch argues that while the Nazi regime attempted to enact social change by racial means, the Soviet regime aspired to build socialism dirough die manipulation of mass (national and class) consciousness. She contends that it is imperative to analyze the conceptual categories that both regimes used in order to undertake a true comparative analysis. Weiner proposes that Soviet population politics constandy fluctuated between sociological and biological categorization. Although the Soviets often came close to adapting bioracial principles and practices, at no point did they let human heredity become a defining feature of political schemes. Race in the Soviet world applied mainly to concerns for the health of population groups. Despite the capacity to conduct genocidal campaigns and operate death camps, the Soviets never sought the physical extermination of entire groups nor did they stop celebrating the multiethnicity of tiieir polity. The radicalization of state violence in the postwar era was triggered by die nature and role of the war in the Soviet world, the alleged conduct of those who failed to rise to the occasion, and the endemic unstable and unassimilated borderlands, and not by die genetic makeup of the internal enemies. Alaina Lemon’s contribution suggests that scholars seek racialized concepts by treating discourse as situated practice, rather than by separating discourse from practice. This allows consideration of the ways people use language not only to name categories but also to point to social relationships (such as “race”) with or without explicidy naming them as such. Doing so, however, is admittedly more difficult when die only available evidence of past discursive practices are printed texts or interviews. In conclusion, Weitz responds to these critics.
15
Nunan, Timothy A. "Soviet Nationalities Policy, Ussr in Construction, and Soviet Documentary Photography in Comparative Context, 1931–1937." Ab Imperio 2010, no. 2 (2010): 47–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/imp.2010.0113.
Full text
16
Jääts, Indrek. "Illegally denied: manipulations related to the registration of the Veps identity in the late Soviet Union." Nationalities Papers 45, no. 5 (September 2017): 856–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00905992.2017.1315393.
Full textAbstract:
This article raises questions about the relationship between theory and practice, legality and illegality in the late Soviet nationalities policy, and the role played by various branches of power. It focuses on the Veps, an indigenous ethnic minority in the northwest of Russia. In the Brezhnev era, quite a few officials and census takers refused to register the Veps nationality in personal identification documents and during censuses, claiming, incorrectly, that the Veps were not in the official list of nationalities or that they were a people (narodnost'), not a nationality (natsional'nost'), and hence could not be registered as one. The Veps were counted as Russians instead. These bureaucratic practices, widespread in Leningrad and Vologda oblasti, but not in Karelia, contradicted official nationalities policy, passport regulations, and census instructions. It seemed that the Soviet state no longer recognized the Veps as an ethnic community. The article claims that the mass refusal to register the Veps nationality was intentional and directed by the regional authorities. The goal was to accelerate the assimilation of the Veps, a policy that worked well. The official number of Veps decreased extremely rapidly in the 1970 and 1979 censuses, only to recover in 1989, after the manipulations had ended.
17
Ludanyi, Andrew. "Soviet Nationality Policy and East Central Europe: An Overview." Nationalities Papers 24, no. 3 (September 1996): 437–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00905999608408458.
Full textAbstract:
The Sovietization of East Central Europe between 1945 and 1948 led to a complete reformulation of the “nationalities question” on the basis of Marxist-Leninist theory and the practical experience of the USSR. The changed political and ideological context provided the expanded camp of peoples' democracies with new guidelines for the treatment of their minorities. From this time onward, the ethnic/national minorities of these states were guaranteed an existence which was “national in form,” but “socialist in content.”
18
Jääts, Indrek. "“The Permiak question”: Bolshevik central authorities, Russian and non-Russian provincial elites negotiating over autonomy in the early 1920s." Nationalities Papers 40, no. 2 (March 2012): 241–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00905992.2011.652607.
Full textAbstract:
This is an article on Bolshevik nationalities policy and ethnic engineering, asking who, in fact, decided which populations belonged together as ethnic groups (narodnost') and thus had the right of national self-determination, and how the level of autonomy was determined for each ethnic unit. Scholars have dealt with Russian and Soviet nationalities issues for decades already, but they have turned their attention mainly to the larger nationalities (at the level of SSR, and to a lesser degree the levels of ASSR and autonomousoblast). I argue that the lower levels of national territorial autonomy in the Soviet Union (nationalokrug, raion, volost', andselsovet) are worthy of greater academic attention, at least from the ethnological point of view. Having this kind of low-level territorial autonomy has often been a question of to be or not to be for the small ethnic groups concerned, and hence the subject is connected with the question of preservation of cultural and linguistic diversity in Russia.
19
Noyan, Oliver Musa. "Zentrum in der Peripherie. Nationalitätenpolitik in der SSR Georgien." historia.scribere, no. 10 (June 19, 2018): 35. http://dx.doi.org/10.15203/historia.scribere.10.133.
Full textAbstract:
The following bachelor thesis will deal with the policy of national minorities in the Soviet Republic of Georgia and its impact on the wars of secession in the early 1990s. The analysis will be framed in a center- periphery model to explain the complex struggle between the soviet authorities in Moscow and Tbilisi on the one hand, and Tbilisi and its autonomous regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia on the other hand throughout the 20th century. The paper tries to examine the contemporary ethnic conflicts in Georgia though the lenses of an historical conflict-analysis to show the deeper historical roots of those frozen conflicts and the effects of the policy of nationalities in the Soviet Union on those conflicts.
20
Tagangaeva, Maria. "“Socialist in content, national in form:” the making of Soviet national art and the case of Buryatia." Nationalities Papers 45, no. 3 (May 2017): 393–409. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00905992.2016.1247794.
Full textAbstract:
This article examines the fine art of the Soviet national republics and its discourse in the Soviet Union, which were considerably shaped under the influence of socialist realism and Soviet nationality policy. While examining the central categories of Soviet artistic discourse such as the “national form,” “national distinctness,” and “tradition,” as well as cultural and scientific institutions responsible for the image of art of non-Russian nationalities, the author reveals the existence of a number of colonial features and discursive and institutional practices that foster a cultural divide between Russian and non-Russian culture and contribute to the marginalization of art. Special attention is paid to the implications of this discursive shaping for the local artistic scene in Buryatia.
21
Tuminez, Astrid S. "Nationalism, Ethnic Pressures, and the Breakup of the Soviet Union." Journal of Cold War Studies 5, no. 4 (September 2003): 81–136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/152039703322483765.
Full textAbstract:
Nationalism and ethnic pressures contributed to the breakup of the Soviet Union, but they were not the primary cause. A qualified exception to this argument is Russian elite separatist nationalism, led by Boris Yeltsin, which had a direct impact on Soviet disintegration. This article provides an overview of Soviet policy vis-à-vis nationalities, discusses the surge of nationalism and ethnic pressures in the Soviet Union in 1988–1991, and shows how ethnic unrest and separatist movements weakened the Soviet state. It also emphasizes that the demise of the Soviet Union resulted mainly from three other key factors: 1) Mikhail Gorbachev's failure to establish a viable compact between center and periphery in the early years of his rule; 2) Gorbachev's general unwillingness to use decisive force to quell ethnic and nationalist challenges; and 3) the defection of a core group of Russian elites from the Soviet regime.
22
Stefano, Carolina de. "An old Soviet response and a revolutionary context: Dealing with the national question in the committees of the USSR Congress of People’s Deputies (1989–1991)." Journal of Eurasian Studies 11, no. 1 (January 2020): 53–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1879366520904837.
Full textAbstract:
The article deals with the parliamentary representation of ethnic/national interests and demands in the crisis years between 1989 and 1991, culminating in the collapse of the Soviet Union. It focuses primarily on the proliferation of committees dealing with ethnonational questions after the creation of the USSR Congress of People’s Deputies, a parliamentary body that existed from 1989 until 1991. The article shows that the new parliamentary architecture was not only the inevitable consequence of social and national mobilization but also an expression of the Union center’s response to the ongoing national crisis. Building mostly upon unpublished archival material, the article focuses on debates in 1989–1991 within the Committee of Nationalities Affairs and Interethnic Issues of the USSR Supreme Soviet. In so doing, it identifies some of the dilemmas the committee faced and some of the changes in its functioning brought about glasnost and perestroika. The article makes two key contributions. First, it helps to shed much-needed light on Soviet nationalities policy during perestroika. Second, the analysis of debates internal to parliamentary committees in those critical years contributes to the existing literature on Soviet and Russian parliamentarism and institutional transformation during the transition from the USSR to the Russian Federation.
23
Martin, Terry. "Interpreting the new archival signals [Nationalities policy and the nature of the Soviet bureaucracy]." Cahiers du monde russe : Russie, Empire russe, Union soviétique, États indépendants 40, no. 1 (1999): 113–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/cmr.1999.994.
Full text
24
Amanzholova, D. A. "Soviet Nation-building: Organizational Practices and Problems of Federalism. 1920s." BULLETIN of L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University. HISTORICAL SCIENCES. PHILOSOPHY. RELIGION Series 134, no. 1 (2021): 22–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.32523/2616-7255-2021-134-1-22-35.
Full textAbstract:
The article analyses some problems of Soviet nation-building and the formation of the federal system in the 1920s, using a new source on the activities of the Nationalities Department of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee (VTsIK). The activity of the Department of Nationalities of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee (1919-1937) was directly linked to the implementation of nationality policy in the RSFSR, although it occupied a subordinate position in the emerging Soviet system of national-state building. During the formation of the USSR and after the liquidation of the People’s Commissariat for Nationalities, it was the Department that accumulated in its practice the integrative organizational, administrative, socio-cultural, and other functions that were associated with the modernizing efforts of the authorities in the multi-ethnic space of the USSR and the RSFSR itself. As part of the executive body of the supreme power of the largest USSR republics, the Department dealt with many operational and planning issues related to the organization of local executive bodies on national issues, helping the representations of autonomies in the capital, preparing normative acts on nation-building issues, and providing direct administrative, financial, economic, social and cultural support to autonomies. The relationship between the center and the autonomies was a major focus, and the tasks of the Nationalities Division required them to act as intermediaries in their cooperation with various agencies in the center and in the regions. The author focuses on several fundamental issues of nation-state building through the prism of the AllRussian Central Executive Committee Department and its head S.D. Asfendiyarov in 1926-1927, when the important discussions and appeals of the leaders of several autonomies to the center were held to settle the relations between different subjects of the federation, all-Russian and all-union process of state building.
25
Fonzi, Paolo. "Non-Soviet Perspectives on the Great Famine: A Comparative Analysis of British, Italian, Polish, and German Sources." Nationalities Papers 48, no. 3 (December 16, 2019): 444–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/nps.2019.27.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThe present contribution analyzes systematically diplomatic reports written by German, Italian, British, and Polish representatives in the Soviet Union at the time of the Great Famine. Based on both published documents and unpublished archival sources, the article examines comparatively the perception of the Great Famine in these four countries. After providing a short overview of the diplomatic relations between the Soviet Union and the four countries at the time of the famine, this article examines how German, Italian, British, and Polish diplomats explained three key issues for understanding the Great Famine: (1) the role of the conflicts between state and peasantry in unleashing the famine; (2) the issue of whether the Soviet government intentionally caused the famine; and (3) the role of intentions in the development of the famine and the relationship between the nationalities policy of the Soviet government and the famine.
26
Botev, Nikolai. "The Ethnic Composition of Families in Russia in 1989: Insights into the Soviet "Nationalities Policy"." Population and Development Review 28, no. 4 (December 2002): 681–706. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2002.00681.x.
Full text
27
Broers, Laurence. "Filling the Void: Ethnic Politics and Nationalities Policy in Post-Conflict Georgia." Nationalities Papers 36, no. 2 (May 2008): 275–304. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00905990801934363.
Full textAbstract:
Of all the post-Soviet states, the challenge of managing ethnic diversity has perhaps been the most problematic in Georgia. Following the secessions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in the early 1990s, Georgia has recent experience not only of the radicalization of ethnic relations but also of defeat in violent ethnic conflict. Current debates surrounding the conceptualization and management of ethnic diversity are thus inseparable from urgent questions concerning the future of the Georgian state, and explanations of the conflicts and questions of power and domination. Perceptions of the issue are further overshadowed by memories of the chauvinist rhetoric and illiberal policies of the early phase of sovereignty under President Zviad Gamsakhurdia. Abroad, perceptions of Georgia as a “micro-empire” continue to be fuelled by references to the Gamsakhurdia era, above all in the Russian press, and short-sighted recourse in Western sources to theories of “ancient hatreds.” Defeat also means that contrary to demographic evidence of a proportional expansion of the ethnic Georgian population, independence has not imparted to the Georgian majority a sense of security associated with majority status. As a result of Georgia's apparent inability to influence outcomes in either the peace processes or internal developments in the seceded territories, and the decline in the Georgian population in real terms, the attainment of sovereignty has not allayed Georgian fears of either permanent territorial fragmentation or ethnic “degradation.” Georgians consequently approach issues of majority-minority relations from a position of perceived weakness, coupled with as yet unfulfilled “post-colonial” desires for Georgianization.
28
Brinegar, Sara. "The Oil Deal: Nariman Narimanov and the Sovietization of Azerbaijan." Slavic Review 76, no. 2 (2017): 372–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/slr.2017.83.
Full textAbstract:
This essay, with a focus on Baku, Azerbaijan, demonstrates that the need to secure and hold energy resources—and the infrastructures that support them—was critical to the formation of the Soviet Union. The Azerbaijani statesman Nariman Narimanov played a pivotal role in the establishment of Soviet power in Azerbaijan by attempting to use Baku's oil to secure prerogatives for the Azerbaijan SSR. In part, Narimanov gained his position by striking a deal with Vladimir Lenin in 1920, an arrangement that I am calling the oil deal. This deal lay the foundations of Soviet power in the south Caucasus. Lenin charged Narimanov with facilitating connections between the industrial stronghold of Baku and the rural countryside of Azerbaijan and Narimanov agreed to do what he could to help supply Soviet Russia with oil. Lenin put Narimanov in charge of the Soviet government of Azerbaijan, with the understanding that he would be granted significant leeway in cultural policies. Understanding the role of the south Caucasus in Soviet history, then, is also understanding how the extraction and use of oil and other natural resources were entangled with more familiar questions of nationalities policy and identity politics.
29
Ivešić, Tomaž. "Words Instruct, Illustrations Lead: The National Question after the October Revolution." Monitor ISH 20, no. 1 (June 13, 2018): 33–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.33700/1580-7118.20.1.33-49(2018).
Full textAbstract:
The paper focuses on the development of Marxist-Leninist views on the phenomenon of nationalism and on the evolution of nations. The germs of the idea of a socialist nationality can be found already before WWI. After the October Revolution, the Stalinist practice of solving the national question was marked by the process of Korenizatsiya: the Bolsheviks emphasised the nationalities in the Soviet Union, hoping that this would accelerate the transition to socialism. This policy was likewise adopted in Yugoslavia during and immediately after WWII.
30
Matviyishyn, Yevhen, and Tomasz Michalski. "Language Differentiation of Ukraine’s Population." Journal of Nationalism, Memory & Language Politics 11, no. 2 (December 29, 2017): 181–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/jnmlp-2017-0008.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract While people of many nationalities live in Ukraine, Ukrainians and Russians constitute the majority of its population. Territorially, the Ukrainian language is spread unevenly, which results in pronounced bilingualism and language bipolarity. The influence of the Soviet policy of the Russian language dominance is still present in Ukraine. Ukrainian prevails in the sphere of public administration and education. Russian dominates in most mass media. Under such circumstances it is important to maintain conditions for the preservation of the language identity of other ethnic minorities, which would promote the development of linguistic diversity in Ukraine.
31
Braham, Randolph L., and Michael Bruchis. "Nations--Nationalities--People: A Study of the ationalities Policy of the Communist Party in Soviet Moldavia." American Historical Review 91, no. 3 (June 1986): 710. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1869251.
Full text
32
Averyanov, Anton V. "Ставропольские шереты в контексте советской национальной политики в 1920–1930-е гг." Oriental studies 15, no. 4 (November 15, 2022): 673–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.22162/2619-0990-2022-61-4-673-681.
Full textAbstract:
Introduction. In the 1920s and 1930s, one of the most important directions of Soviet nationalities policy was the building of Soviet nations on the basis of various ethnic groups. Utmost difficulties were to be faced when it came to identify small dispersed ethnic communities located in ethnocultural ‘borderlands’. In Stavropol Region, one such community were Sherets to have emerged as a result of historical synthesis of Kalmyk and Turkmen cultures and ethnic environments. Goals. The article seeks to analyze government policies towards Sherets and attempts a scientific understanding of their phenomenon in the Soviet era. Materials. The study examines archival documents housed by the State Archive of the Russian Federation, as well as other archival papers and published sources. Results. The work delineates main approaches to the study of Sherets in the prerevolutionary and Soviet periods. It shows that religion was chosen as a key identification factor for the group by Russian ethnographers and officials, which made it logical enough to cluster Stavropol Sherets with Turkmens. However, the Soviet approach rested on the primacy of primordialism and actual ethnic origins, and proclaimed Sherets an integral part of the Kalmyk people. The paper reveals main directions and mechanisms of work among Sherets at municipal, regional, and republican levels aimed at their rehabilitation and relocation to the native village of Kucherli in Turkmensky District. It is proved that Sherets — despite small numbers — sought to retain their identity based on clan system. The 1930s curtailment of the korenization policy resulted in accelerated assimilation of Sherets into the Turkmen population.
33
Averyanov, Anton V. "Ставропольские шереты в контексте советской национальной политики в 1920–1930-е гг." Oriental studies 15, no. 4 (November 15, 2022): 673–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.22162/2619-0990-2022-62-4-673-681.
Full textAbstract:
Introduction. In the 1920s and 1930s, one of the most important directions of Soviet nationalities policy was the building of Soviet nations on the basis of various ethnic groups. Utmost difficulties were to be faced when it came to identify small dispersed ethnic communities located in ethnocultural ‘borderlands’. In Stavropol Region, one such community were Sherets to have emerged as a result of historical synthesis of Kalmyk and Turkmen cultures and ethnic environments. Goals. The article seeks to analyze government policies towards Sherets and attempts a scientific understanding of their phenomenon in the Soviet era. Materials. The study examines archival documents housed by the State Archive of the Russian Federation, as well as other archival papers and published sources. Results. The work delineates main approaches to the study of Sherets in the prerevolutionary and Soviet periods. It shows that religion was chosen as a key identification factor for the group by Russian ethnographers and officials, which made it logical enough to cluster Stavropol Sherets with Turkmens. However, the Soviet approach rested on the primacy of primordialism and actual ethnic origins, and proclaimed Sherets an integral part of the Kalmyk people. The paper reveals main directions and mechanisms of work among Sherets at municipal, regional, and republican levels aimed at their rehabilitation and relocation to the native village of Kucherli in Turkmensky District. It is proved that Sherets — despite small numbers — sought to retain their identity based on clan system. The 1930s curtailment of the korenization policy resulted in accelerated assimilation of Sherets into the Turkmen population.
34
Mineeva, Elena K., and Alevtina P. Zykina. "ACTIVITIES OF THE RSFSR NARKOMNATS (PEOPLE’S COMMISSARIAT OF NATIONALITIES) ON CREATION OF NATIONAL AUTONOMIES." Vestnik Chuvashskogo universiteta, no. 4 (December 25, 2021): 92–105. http://dx.doi.org/10.47026/1810-1909-2021-4-92-105.
Full textAbstract:
The national question was one of the most painful in the multi-ethnic Russian Empire, it sounded especially acute at the beginning of the XX century. In order to attract representatives of different ethnic groups to its side, the new Soviet state pursued a purposeful policy of implementing national-state construction. It should be emphasized that in the historical realities of 1918-1920s such a solution to the national question, which was implemented by the Soviet government, was unique. In no other country in the world at such a level (granting nations the right for self-determination up to separation and formation of their own state), the issue has not been raised or resolved. That is why the Bolsheviks did not have the opportunity to adopt anyone’s experience in this area, which should be attributed to one of the objective reasons for the mistakes made by Moscow in implementing this process. The article is devoted to the study of the experience in national-state building in the RSFSR, which was conducted under the leadership of the People’s Commissariat for Nationalities. The current work on preparing conditions to form autonomies in specific regions of the country (strengthening the Soviet authorities, conducting the policy of education and indigenization, publishing textbooks and organizing education in schools in national languages, etc.) was implemented by special not only functional, but also territorial Narkomnats departments such as, for example, Chuvash, Mari, Votsky ones, etc. Based on the analysis of materials from archival funds and generalization of research literature, the article shows the role of Narkomnats and its national departments in creating national-territorial autonomies in the RSFSR. In the opinion of the authors, it is necessary to continue the work on further studying the history of establishing individual autonomous associations that have not received proper coverage in the historiography of the problem to date. These, for example, include the autonomy of the Crimea and the Volga Germans. In this article, the authors dwell in more detail upon the activities of the Chuvash Department of Narkomnats, the choice of which is due to several reasons. Firstly, the work experience of this department turned out to be quite successful (it was established in May 1918, abolished after autonomy proclamation in June 1920), since in a relatively short period of time it was able to prepare the necessary prerequisites for autonomy establishment. Secondly, in 2020, the Chuvash people celebrated the 100th anniversary of statehood, in connection with which the interest in this page of the history of Chuvashia began to attract the attention of modern scientists again. The study makes no claims to be exhaustive, but makes a certain contribution to the coverage of the issue.
35
Liber, George, Gerhard Simon, Karen Forster, and Oswald Forster. "Nationalism and Policy toward the Nationalities in the Soviet Union: From Totalitarian Dictatorship to Post-Stalinist Society." Russian Review 52, no. 4 (October 1993): 572. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/130675.
Full text
36
Jesperson, Sasha. "Ethnicity, Nationalism and Conflict in the South Caucasus. Nagorno-Karabakh and the Legacy of Soviet Nationalities Policy." Europe-Asia Studies 65, no. 1 (January 2013): 160–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2012.736677.
Full text
37
Jääts, Indrek. "Building a State in a State." Anthropological Journal of European Cultures 18, no. 1 (March 1, 2009): 69–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.3167/ajec.2009.180105.
Full textAbstract:
This article analyses the conceptual path to the creation of national territorial autonomies of the Komi (Zyrians) and Komi-Permiaks in the 1920s. It focuses on the history of the idea of Komi autonomy and on the formation of the borders of the Komi Autonomous Oblast. The creation of the Komi autonomy was, first of all, the project of the small group of nationalist Komi communists. They tried to unite all the Komi politically, and were successful as far as their aims were in accordance with contemporary Soviet nationalities policy. However, they were not able to include Permiak areas, mainly because of the opposition of neighbouring Russian provincial elites.
38
Tregubova, Natalia D., and Maxim L. Nee. "Beyond Nations and Nationalities: Discussing the Variety of Migrants’ Identifications in Russian Social Media." Changing Societies & Personalities 4, no. 3 (October 9, 2020): 323. http://dx.doi.org/10.15826/csp.2020.4.3.104.
Full textAbstract:
This article examines how transnational labor migrants to Russia from the five former Soviet Union countries – Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan – identify themselves in social media. The authors combine Rogers Brubaker's theory of identifications with Randall Collins' interaction ritual theory to study migrants' online interactions in the largest Russian social media (VK.com). They observed online interactions in 23 groups. The article illuminates how normative and policy contexts affect the Russian Federation's migration processes through a detailed discussion of migrants' everyday online interactions. Results reveal common and country-specific identifications of migrants in their online interactions. Migrants from Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan employ identifications connected to diasporic connections. Migrants from Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan in their identifications refer to low-skilled labor migration to Russia as a fact, a subject for assessment, and as a unifying category. For these countries, the present and the future of the nation is discussed in the framework of evaluation of mass immigration to Russia.
39
Gelb, Michael. "The Western Finnic Minorities and the Origins of the Stalinist Nationalities Deportations." Nationalities Papers 24, no. 2 (June 1996): 237–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00905999608408440.
Full textAbstract:
Wept the boat without her oars,Pined she for her rowlocks,For her oarsmen did she grieve,To take her o'er the waves….From a Karelian folk songThe Gulag Handbook states that in 1936 “the entire native populations of Finns, Estonians, Letts, Lithuanians, Poles, and Romanians…were transported” from the border zone of the USSR. Many such peoples began to appear unreliable through Stalinist eyes because they “had relatives across the border,” and “might undermine [propaganda that people] abroad were suffering and that no better life existed than that in the USSR.” Several former officers of the security police confirm that the 1930s saw purges of “unreliable elements” from border regions, including not only “class aliens” and political malcontents, but also minorities whose kinship with populations of neighboring states facilitated the movement of people and of information across borders. More importantly, numerous personal accounts gave rise to the perception in the contemporary Finnish government and popular circles that their brethren were being systematically eliminated from the Soviet borders with Finland and Estonia.
40
Derii, O., and A. Kryzhevskyi. "LEGAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL FOR THE MIGRATION POLICY OF THE SOVIET UKRAINE (1922-1991)." Bulletin of Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv. Legal Studies, no. 108 (2019): 21–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.17721/1728-2195/2019/1.108-3.
Full textAbstract:
The article deals with the legal and organizational principles of the migration policy of Soviet Ukraine. The authors aim to analyze and characterize the whole range of methods and means of regulating migratory flows used by the Soviet authorities. The article analyzes the components of the Soviet migration policy: the passport system, the controlled and compulsory population movements, the regime of external migration, and the like. It is noted that the migration legal framework was formed without taking into account generally accepted international legal standards. Regulatory acts in the field of regulating the movement of population had one goal – to achieve full control by the state for the movement of a person and subordinate these movements to the interests of the state. The methodological basis of the article consists of the principles of historicity, objectivity, versatility, complementarity and reasonableness. To analyse the development of the migration policy of the Soviet Ukraine, dialectical, chronological, systemic-structural, historical, comparative and other general scientific, as well as special scientific methods according to the subject of research are used. The study finds the main instrument for monitoring and streamlining migration flows in the Soviet Ukraine was the long-standing passport system, and but not the economic policy and human rights and freedoms. The freedom to choose a place of residence has been kept to a minimum. This was in line with the migration doctrine of the Soviet era, which was determined in the All-Union Centre and was reduced to the strict control over the movement of the population, the extreme limited travel abroad. The choice of personality was to be subject to public interests that were understood as the interests of the state. In the last years of the Soviet Union's its most odious limitations gradually weakened, but only marginally. State interests were motivated by a number of diverse controlled displacements. However, the authors prove that the desire to strictly regulate migration processes by the Soviet authorities was not fully realized. Firstly, organized resettlement had never been a dominant form of displacement of the population in the USSR, even during the most rigid totalitarian regime. Secondly, a significant part of the organized resettlement ended with the return of migrants to their former residence or relocation to another place. The authors draw attention to the fact that the constituent part of the migration policy of the Soviet Ukraine was the forced migration, which was carried out in the form of deportation of entire ethnic groups. Such voluntarist events have affected millions of different nationalities, and Ukraine has been experiencing their results to this day. Thus, the authors conclude that at the time of Ukraine's independence proclaimed, migration policy and its institutes in Ukraine were in fact absent, which is explained by the presence of only a surrogate statehood and the predominance of administrative methods over political management of migratory flows.
41
RAMAZANOVA, D. Sh. "SEPARATED DAGHESTAN NATIONALITIES (THE LEZGINS, THE TSAKHURS, THE AVARS): POPULATION AND SETTLEMENT PATTERN IN THE END OF THE XIX CENTURY THE BEGINNING OF THE XXI CENTURIES." Historical and social-educational ideas 10, no. 3/2 (August 4, 2018): 125–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.17748/2075-9908-2018-10-3/2-125-135.
Full textAbstract:
Being the part of Russia throughout different periods Daghestan had various administrative and political status (as an oblast being the part of the empire) an autonomous Republic of the RSFSR (USSR), as a Republic of the Russian Federation. Upon that, the borders of Russia as a state were set without regard for the interests of the nationalities, populating it, but taking into account the interests of the state exclusively. In the XIX century this policy gave birth to the problem of separation among daghestani nationalities (the Lezgins, the Tsakhurs, the Avars, the Kumyks) and the Nogais as well as in 1922-1923 their territory was included on the list of nationalities – the members of the Daghestan Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, but later it was the issue of exchanges between the RSFSR subjects. If the problem under discussion was topical within administrative and territorial borders of the Russian State, then, by the end of the 20th century it had the status of interstate problem – the first 3 of the enumerated nationalities were separated by state borders with the neighboring states of Azerbaijan and the Republic of Georgia. With the reference to the literary sources and the results of the demographic census, the author of the article shows the population changes and the settlement of the Lezgins, the Tsakhurs and the Avars in the Caucasian region in the end of the 20th the beginning of the 21st centuries, continuing the article serves on the problem of separation among Daghestan nationalities. In 2011 the problems of the Avars from the Kvarelski region in Georgia were discussed in the article published in “Izvestya Daghestanskogo Pedagogicheskogo universiteta”, where as in 2018 the problems of the Nogais, separated by administrative borders of the Russian Federation subjects on the North Caucasus were discussed on the pages of the magazine “Society: philosophy, history, culture”. All the above mentioned ethnic communities are officially labeled as “title (subject-forming) nationalities” in the contemporary Republic of Daghestan.
42
Mironov, Boris. "De-Russification of Government as a Factor in the Disintegration of the USSR." Russian History 47, no. 4 (September 8, 2021): 362–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.30965/18763316-12340017.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract In the Soviet Union from 1917 to 1990, the political inequality of the nationalities’ representation in institutions of governance was overcome, non-Russians’ participation in the power structures increased, and Russians’ role in administration correspondingly decreased. The increased non-Russian percentage in governance was mainly due to the introduction of the democratic principle in government formation, according to which ethnicities should participate in proportion to their number. By 1990 in the USSR overall, Russians had a slight majority in all power structures, corresponding roughly to their higher share in the country’s population. In the union republics, however, the situation was different. Only in the RSFSR did all peoples, Russian and non-Russian, participate in government administration in proportion to their numbers, following the democratic norm. Elsewhere, Russians were underrepresented and therefore discriminated against in all organs of power, including the legislative branch. Representatives of non-Russian titular nationalities, who on average filled two-thirds of all administrative positions, predominated in disproportion to their numbers. Given these representatives’ skill majority in legislative bodies, republican constitutions permitted them to adopt any laws and resolutions they desired, including laws on secession from the USSR; and the executive and judicial authorities, together with law enforcement, would undoubtedly support them. Thus, the structural prerequisites for disintegration were established. Thereafter, the fate of the Soviet Union depended on republican elites and the geopolitical environment, because of the Center’s purposeful national policy, aimed toward increasing non-Russian representation among administrative cadres and the accelerated modernization and developmental equalization of the republics.
43
Rezvani, Babak. "Islamic Immaterial Culture and Ethnopolitical Symbols in Georgia and the Russian Federation." Anthropology of the Middle East 15, no. 1 (June 1, 2020): 80–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.3167/ame.2020.150107.
Full textAbstract:
This article discusses the ethno-political and immaterial cultural representations of Russia’s and Georgia’s Muslim minorities as reflected in their anthroponyms, toponyms, flags and coats of arms. It is obvious that Such representations reflect cultural expressions, as they may depict ethnic or religious symbols. Both Russia’s and Georgia’s attitudes towards Islamic cultural expressions are rather liberal. Symbols and names tell a lot about a people’s cultural freedom and orientation. However, it appears from research that religious practice and freedom do not necessarily correlate perfectly with representation of symbols. In accordance with the legacy of the Soviet nationalities policy, by which certain ethnic groups were afforded privileges in an autonomous region, the current representations of immaterial culture and ethno-political culture seem to have a territorial rationale.
44
Gorelikov, Andrei I. "LIBERALIZATION OF THE NATIONALITIES POLICY OF THE SOVIET STATE CONCERNING INDIGENOUS MINORITIES IN THE FAR EAST (LATE 1950s - 1960s)." Scholarly Notes of Komsomolsk-na-Amure State Technical University 2, no. 14 (June 30, 2013): 18–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.17084/2013.ii-2(14).4.
Full text
45
Dönninghaus, V. "“We are not so Fuzzy to Build Riots and Rebellion...”: Attempt of Massive Exemption of German Population from the USSR to Canada in 1929." Problems of World History, no. 11 (March 26, 2020): 53–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.46869/2707-6776-2020-11-4.
Full textAbstract:
The mass exodus of German peasants to Moscow in 1929 attracted international attention to the plight of Soviet Germans. The unexpectedly stubborn resistance of the German rural population to the policy of socialist transformations, his desire to leave the USSR for Canada, accompanied by appropriate calls for the West, reinforced the regime’s distrust of “disloyal” nationalities. As relations between the USSR and Germany worsened, prejudice grew in Moscow against the Germans as an extremely reactionary group of people that discredited the Soviet system in the eyes of the world community. The Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks (Bolsheviks) paid great attention to the “emigrants” not only because the periphery was unable to cope with this problem, but also because it was a question of Western national minorities. Moreover, this group, which in an organized manner opposed the policy of the Soviet regime, did not fit into the “class” scheme, since among the German peasants who decided to emigrate from the USSR, there were mainly middle peasants and poor people. The opposition to the Soviet system was not a social, but a national group. The regime resolved this contradiction by ceasing to consider the German peasants engulfed by the “American fever” “neutral” and collectively transferring them to the category of “class enemies”. Against the background of forced collectivization, the Kremlin regarded the mass movement of Germans for leaving the USSR as direct support for the “right deviators”, which gave this movement an “anti-Soviet character”. The belonging of the fugitives and their many supporters to the Western minority prompted the organs of the OGPU to look for the organizers of the emigration movement on the other side of the border. Peaceful emigration of Germans from the USSR turned out to be a specific, but very effective way of protesting collectivization. Its avalanche-like character, as well as the appeal for help to Germany as a “historical homeland” was considered a manifestation of disloyalty to the USSR of the entire German population of the country. Germany’s protectorate policy aimed at protecting the life, property and fundamental rights of its “diaspora” was expressed both in diplomatic pressure on the Kremlin and in specific acts of assistance to Soviet Germans. Such patronage of the Germans in the USSR inevitably aroused fears among the Kremlin leadership that they, especially in the atmosphere of impending war, pose a threat to the security of the state.
46
Kuzmenko, N. "Problems of socio-economic development of national districts and village councils in the Ukrainian SSR in 1920–1930 s: legal aspects." National Technical University of Ukraine Journal. Political science. Sociology. Law, no. 1(45) (December 14, 2020): 59–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.20535/2308-5053.2020.1(45).226498.
Full textAbstract:
The article considers the legal aspects of socio-economic development of national districts and village councils in the Ukrainian SSR in the 1920 s and 1930 s.It is established that during the 1920 s and 1930 s the legal policy on the socio-economic development of the territories of compact residence of the national minorities of the USSR had different tendencies and different intensity of implementation. At the stage of the establishment of Soviet power, the essence of the national policy of the Bolsheviks was mainly to equalize the rights of representatives of different nationalities. At the same time, national equality in the USSR was enshrined at the constitutional level and proclaimed in all social spheres: political and legal, socio-economic and cultural-national. It was found that the equal redistribution of landholdings of foreign colonists in favour of Ukrainian or Russian peasants led to the liquidation of national parishes and economic decline of national minorities, as well as increased emigration among colonists and laid the groundwork for worsening interethnic relations.It is proved that the policy of indigenization initiated in the mid-1920 s, which extended to the socioeconomic sphere, contributed to the more active involvement of national minorities in productive activities, improving their socio-economic situation, increasing their political activity and culture, overcoming tensions. Sphere of interethnic relations. The refusal of the Soviet leadership in the early 1930 s from the achievements of the national policy of the 1920 s led to growing dissatisfaction among national minorities and protests, as well as aggravated interethnic relations in the USSR. The necessity of taking into account socio-economic factors in the process of legal regulation of interethnic relations is substantiated
47
King, Charles. "The Ambivalence of Authenticity, or How the Moldovan Language Was Made." Slavic Review 58, no. 1 (1999): 117–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2672992.
Full textAbstract:
The Bolshevik revolution represented a remarkable opportunity for many academics and professionals. The demands of governing a region as vast as the new Soviet state necessitated official patronage of the sciences, and the party and government provided sources of support for disciplines that had been underfunded, underdeveloped, or completely nonexistent before 1917. After the revolution, cartographers, linguists, geographers, ethnographers, social hygienists, and others found themselves the beneficiaries of a regime eager to learn about the lands that it had suddenly inherited and to spread the news of revolution to the backward peoples of the former empire. As much recent scholarship has shown, far from being the mere conduits for policies devised at the center, these specialists were professionals of variable talent and training with interests, projects, and agendas of their own. Government policy toward the nationalities, and perhaps toward scientific research in general, emerged not simply as a result of Moscow's diktat, but as a complex interplay among the center's patronage and attendant demands, the professional interests and programs of the specialists dispatched by the center, and the local interests of their colleagues and subjects in the outlying reaches of the Soviet state.
48
McGuire, Gabriel. "Aqyn agha? Abai Zholy as socialist realism and as literary history." Journal of Eurasian Studies 9, no. 1 (January 2018): 2–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.euras.2017.12.001.
Full textAbstract:
In Mukhtar Auezov's 1942 novel Abai Zholy, socialism is an end anticipated not just by history but more specifically by Kazakh literary history. In his earlier scholarly writings, Auezov had presented Abai as a transformational figure in the emergence of written Kazakh literature. In the novel, Abai becomes not only a literary innovator but also a political reformist: Auezov's Abai is horrified by the harsh and feudalistic behavior of his father Qunanbai, a wealthy local leader, and finds companionship and inspiration in his encounters with a series of famous 19th century Kazakh aqyns (bards). Auezov thus used Abai Zholy to argue that Kazakh folk literature had always been animated by a spirit of social critique which, in its laments and desires, had anticipated the Soviet world. This paper compares these aqyns’ depiction in the novel first with Auezov's earlier scholarship on the 19th century and second with the content of the aqyns’ own surviving works. These ideas reflected both contemporaneous shifts in Soviet nationalities policy and the influence of socialist realist literary models, which commonly staged both literary history and generational conflicts as allegories of political change.
49
Mineeva, Elena K., Alevtina P. Zykina, and Alexey I. Mineev. "PEOPLE’S COMMISSARIAT OF NATIONALITIES OF THE RSFSR AND THE CREATION OF THE CRIMEAN ASSR." Vestnik Chuvashskogo universiteta, no. 2 (June 30, 2022): 75–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.47026/1810-1909-2022-2-75-88.
Full textAbstract:
Just recently, Russia celebrated the 8th anniversary of the return of Crimea “to its native harbor.” This important event, both for the whole country and the region, makes us once again turn to the historical fate of the Crimean Peninsula. At almost all important stages of historical development, from the time of colonization of the Northern Black Sea region by the Greeks and to the present, this region attracted the attention of all neighbors, both close and the most remote ones, which is due to the special geopolitical position of the Crimea. We can say that whoever owns the peninsula controls the entire Northern Black Sea region, and is an intermediary between Europe and the Middle East. The geographical location enables the Crimean Peninsula to play an important role as a commercial and military-political port, which also indicates the strategic importance of the region.
The years 1991 to 2008 are one of the most difficult periods in the history of Crimea. And most of the problems of the Crimean people at the turn of the XX–XXI centuries were associated with the consequences of the not fully thought-out policy of the Soviet leadership. In this regard, we consider it necessary to analyze more carefully most of the events of the Soviet Union era, since in one way or another they continue to influence modern processes. So far, a complete compromise has not yet been reached among individual active figures of the Crimean Tatar social movement and the leadership of the Republic of Crimea. History already has the experience of successfully resolving such a confrontation between representatives of the Soviet government in Crimea, on the one hand, and the Crimean Tatars in 1920-1921, on the other. As a result, the Crimean ASSR was created as part of the RSFSR. This problem has not yet received proper coverage in historiography. A certain obstacle for those wishing to be engaged in this research topic was the fact that documentary materials have long been part of the archival repositories of two states: the State Archive of the Republic of Crimea (until 2014 in Ukraine) and the State Archive of the Russian Federation. Current international events also do not contribute to an objective and impartial assessment of the problem of the formation of the Crimean Autonomy, which in October 2021 marked the 100th anniversary of the Crimean ASSR. Despite the anniversary date, this historical event, in our opinion, has received insufficient attention and coverage in society.
In modern conditions, further study and generalization of the experience of the creation and existence of the Crimean ASSR is required. It can be useful at the current stage of the national-state development of the peninsula. The purpose of the study is to analyze the historical conditions in which the formation of national-territorial autonomy on the Crimean Peninsula took place with the active and leading role of the People’s Commissariat. The study does not pretend to be exhaustive, but makes a certain contribution to the coverage of the issue.
50
Kassymova, D. "HOW Z. SHAYAKHMETOV AND D. KUNAYEV LEFT THEIR POSTS: COMMON AND PARTICULAR." edu.e-history.kz 31, no. 3 (October 20, 2022): 225–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.51943/2710-3994_2022_31_3_225-236.
Full textAbstract:
In the history of soviet Kazakhstan Zhumabai Shayakhmetov (1902-1966) and Dinmukhamed Kunayev (1912-1992) are special ranked due to some reasons. They were the heads of the Kazakh SSR in the Stalinist and post-Stalinist times; their names are associated with achievements in the social-economic development of the republic within the USSR but with the specifics of external ethnocratic administration. On one side, appointment of Zhumabai Shayakhmetov Dinmukhamed Kunayev as the first leaders of the union republic corresponded with some principles of the Leninist nationalities policy (each people has its own leader) and demonstration of the trust to the republican party nomenclature, that was forged in the severe confrontation during the party cleansings since late 1920s and had to internalize the Kremlin administrative formats. But on the other side, their appointment was seen as a restoration of justice by the population of Kazakhstan (and by Kazakhs, mainly) as the right to have an ethnic representative as a leader, not a stranger. In addition, demotion of Z. Shayakhmetov in 1954 and D. Kunayev in 1986 by the decision of the republican congresses by the Moscow scenario was interpreted as a distrust to Kazakhs, deprivation of the right to administer their republic in case of Shayakhmetov and violation of the Leninist principles of nationalities policy (D. Kunayev). The article in aimed to figure out common and specific in evaluation of the reasons behind the demotion of Zhumabai Shayakhmetov and Dinmukhamed Kunayev from the posts first secretary of the Kazakh SR Communist party from the post-colonial analysis view point.