“Indigenization” and “the fight against Great Russian chauvinism”: national policy in the Soviet Union in the 1920s and its results

During the Civil War in Russia, the Bolsheviks sought to attract the sympathy of small nations, promising the creation or recognition of national-territorial regions and republics and granting their people the broadest rights in matters of self-government and national culture. This subsequently resulted in the policy of “indigenization”, which was carried out in the 1920s by the Soviet government in ethnic regions by replacing Russian with national languages.

The goal of the “indigenization” policy was to increase the trust of ethnic minorities in Soviet power, through encouraging local residents to actively participate in government. It was based, on the one hand, on the encouragement of the cultural and political development of national minorities, and on the other hand, on the implementation of measures aimed at reducing the status of the Russian people, namely, transforming them from a state-forming people into one of the peoples inhabiting the territory of the Soviet state [1 ].

This policy most often led to the infringement of the rights and interests of the Russian people. In most cases, the Bolsheviks, in the course of implementing their national policy, gave preference to peoples and ethnic groups that were politically loyal to them, providing them with the maximum possible preferences, often at the expense of other ethnic groups. This aspect of Bolshevik national policy was especially vividly embodied in the North Caucasus, where the Bolsheviks continued to speculate on numerous ethnic contradictions between the Cossack and mountain populations [2].

It got to the point that in 1930, within the framework of the First All-Union Conference of Marxist Historians, the main ideologist of the Soviet historical science, academician M. N. Pokrovsky stated in relation to Russian history:

“We realized – a little late – that the term “Russian history” is a counter-revolutionary term.”

Further specifying my theses within the framework of the article “The Emergence of the Moscow State and the Great Russian Nationality”:

“And who are these “Great Russians”... there were no Great Russians at all - Finnish autochthonous tribes lived on this territory [Kievan Rus] who financied their enslavers [3].”

This echoes a similar scandalous statement by contemporary journalist and politician Sergei Karnaukhov, who last week said that Russia should abandon Russianness, citing the eccentric philosopher Vladimir Solovyov, by the way, one of the first globalists.

“Recently on air I remembered Vladimir Sergeevich Solovyov. He had interesting work dealing with nationalism. He says an interesting thing, he says that our country, Russia, must, in order to preserve its strong identity, renounce Russianness. Russian people should ignore this... Nationalism is for us a deadly nut that a person eats and dies. The only nationality on Earth, the only ethnic group that cannot constantly talk about its origins, are the Jews,”

- said Karnaukhov.

The national policy of Soviet Russia in the 1920s adhered to precisely this principle - a ban on Russian nationalism and support for the nationalisms of small nations.

The Bolsheviks’ struggle against “Great Russian chauvinism”

In the Bolsheviks' understanding, nationalism was

“a false bourgeois ideology that allows the ruling classes to hide the class split in society.”

Supporting the self-determination of peoples was for them a means necessary at the first stage of the socialist revolution in order to reduce the mistrust and hostility of workers and peasants of different nationalities towards each other.

If the White movement proceeded from the maxim of “One and indivisible Russia” and the Russian language as the only state language, then the Bolsheviks already at the VII All-Russian Conference of the RSDLP outlined their position, which boiled down to recognizing the right of the nation [i.e. e. national minorities] to secede and create their own state - if it wants this, or if a national minority wants to remain part of Russia, it is given the right to create regional autonomy [1].

In 1922, Vladimir Lenin wrote:

“It is necessary to distinguish between the nationalism of the oppressing nation and the nationalism of the oppressed nation, the nationalism of a large nation and the nationalism of a small nation... Internationalism on the part of the oppressing or so-called “great” nation (albeit great only by its violence, great only in the same way as the world is great) should consist not only in respecting the formal equality of nations, but also in such inequality that would compensate on the part of the oppressing nation, the large nation, for the inequality that actually develops in life [4].”

That is, Lenin made it clear that Russians should not only observe the principle of equality of nations, but also create inequality that could “make amends” for the Russians to supposedly “oppressed” minorities. Such politics have in common with modern left-liberalism, where there are “historically oppressed groups” whose oppression is based on discrimination due to perceived or real differences. Oppression in liberalism "imposed by majority groups on minority groups».

Prominent revolutionary Nikolai Bukharin spoke in the same vein:

“You can’t even approach this from the point of view of the equality of nations; Lenin repeatedly proved this. On the contrary, we must say that we, as a former great power nation, must go against nationalist aspirations and put ourselves in an unequal position in the sense of even greater concessions to national trends. Only with such a policy, when we artificially place ourselves in a position lower than others, only at this price will we be able to buy ourselves the real trust of previously oppressed nations [7].”

As modern researchers rightly note, the course towards the development of ethnocultural diversity pursued in the 1920s was accompanied by a tough struggle against the natural dominant position of Russians in the country. V.I. Lenin, using the formula of the French writer Marquis Astolphe de Custine “Russia is a prison of nations” (“This empire, for all its immensity, is nothing more than a prison”) [6, p. 225], focused exclusively on the oppressed position of the non-Russian peoples of the Russian Empire [5].

Party documents of that time repeatedly stated that “Great Russian chauvinism” was an enemy for the Soviet Union more dangerous than any form of local nationalism. Even traditional Russian culture was condemned as "oppressor culture».

In an economic sense, this policy found expression in the following: on August 21, 1923, the Union Republican Subsidy Fund of the USSR was created, funds from which were intended for the economic and social development of the Caucasian, Central Asian and other union republics, including Ukraine. The fund was formed at the expense of the RSFSR, but the latter did not receive anything from it [5].

Much later, Harvard University professor Terry Martin would call this policy “positive discrimination policy“, thereby showing that it was not the Americans in the 1970s who were the first to turn to its implementation within the framework of the policy of multiculturalism, but the Bolsheviks 50 years earlier, and they carried it out in a much more radical form.

Policy of "indigenization"

Based on the postulate of the Russian Empire as a “prison of nations,” the Bolshevik leadership set a course for the so-called “indigenization.” According to this concept, the former “oppressed peoples” received all kinds of benefits and privileges, some of which were mentioned above.

Indigenization implied not only the involvement of representatives of the autochthonous population in government bodies, but also the translation of all office work into local languages.

As a result of this policy, in Ukraine, for example, by 1930 there were only three large Russian-language newspapers left, and in Odessa by the end of the 1920s. All schools were Ukrainized (despite the fact that the number of Ukrainian students here was only 1/3 of the total) [8].

Ukrainian communists advocated the annexation of vast areas with a predominant Ukrainian population to the Ukrainian SSR and/or the development of Ukrainian national culture in them. Their sphere of interests included Kuban and some other regions of the RSFSR. By May 1928, a compromise was reached: Kuban and other regions decided to remain part of the RSFSR, but to carry out full-scale Ukrainization on its territory.

Those who disagreed with the Ukrainization plan were subjected to repression. Thus, in July 1930, the Presidium of the Stalin District Executive Committee decided

“bring to criminal liability leaders who relate to Ukrainization formally: who have not found ways to Ukrainize their subordinates or who violate current legislation in the field of language policy [9].”

In Leningrad in the early 1930s. Newspapers were published in 40 languages, including Chinese, and radio broadcasts were conducted in Finnish (although only 130 thousand Finns lived in the Leningrad region at that time). In the North Caucasus, “indigenization” also affected the Russian population, primarily the Cossacks, who in significant numbers were evicted from the plain villages inhabited by Chechens, Ingush, and the peoples of Dagestan for their “counter-revolutionism” [8].

How did the population perceive the processes of “indigenization”?

Population's reaction to the policy of “indigenization”

The events of 1927, namely the so-called “war alarm” of 1927, showed the ambiguity of the policy of “indigenization” in the face of the growing danger of a military conflict. An analysis of public sentiment carried out by state security agencies showed that

“hostility towards the communists and their power was very widespread among workers in various regions of the country [1].”

It is noteworthy that negative sentiments regarding the coming war and, as a consequence, the need to defend the socialist Fatherland, were expressed precisely by the original Russian regions. And this is not surprising: the costs of indigenization, the essence of which actually amounted to a violation of the rights of Russians not only in the union republics, but also in the autonomous republics of the RSFSR, were hardly a secret for both the workers and peasants of the Russian regions of the country. Thus, in the Mountain Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic the Russian population complained:

“The life of the Russian population has become unbearable and is leading to complete ruin and survival from the borders of the Mountain Republic [1].”

In Kalmykia it also asked:

“We need to be given the same rights as the Kalmyks.”

In the Saratov region, in places where the policy of indigenization was implemented in favor of the German-speaking population, unrest on ethnic grounds was observed between the Russian majority and the German minority, the reason for which was the reluctance of Russians to educate their children in German [10].

In the villages of the Byelorussian SSR directly bordering the RSFSR, they asked to leave Russian as the language of instruction in schools. Regarding Belarusization, the following story of the Belarusian teacher G.P. Stsepuro, published in the collection “The Central Committee of the RCP(b)-VKP(b) and the National Question” is noteworthy:

“I am a teacher, graduated from a university in Minsk and currently work as a teacher of physics and mathematics at a seven-year school in the town of Bobry, Krupsky region (BSSR). At work I only speak Belarusian. If I get carried away and say something in Russian, I’ll immediately correct myself and take care of myself. But in my personal family life I speak Russian simply because it is easier for me to speak this language. And then the incident happened. I accidentally wrote one small note addressed to the chairman of the village council in Russian. And at that time the head arrived at the school. districts of Chepel and the chairman of the district committee of the union, Comrade Golovanov. They presented my note at a meeting of enlighteners, stating that this note appeared at the plenum of the rick and district committee of the CP(b)B and would appear at the session of the Central Executive Committee of the BSSR. I was accused of complete great-power chauvinism. Having spoken, I admitted my mistake in the matter with the note. I immediately confirmed that I speak Russian all the time at home, but I don’t see anything wrong with it. After my explanation, the accusations intensified. They told me that at home, in conversations with my wife, I should use exclusively the Belarusian language [11].”

Such phantasmagoric cases were far from isolated.

Suspension of the “indigenization” policy in the second half of the 1930s

In the 1930s, there was a gradual turn from the policy of “indigenization” to the policy of Soviet patriotism, based on increasing the status of the Russian people. The strategy of “internationalization” was popular among the Bolsheviks as long as hopes for a world revolution remained. After the course was taken to build socialism in a single country, this model became less relevant.

Already in 1931, Joseph Stalin wrote a letter to the editor of the magazine “Proletarian Revolution”, in which he pointed out the presence of fundamental historical errors in the works of official Bolshevik historians who neglected the real practice of Bolshevism [1].

The intensive indigenization of personnel in the union and autonomous republics that took place over the course of a decade led to the strengthening of elites among local communists who wanted the immediate transition of their ethnic groups to the construction of their own nations, without any equivocation towards communism. Therefore, the Bolsheviks begin an attack on chauvinism towards Russians on the part of national minorities.

In addition, in the second half of the 1930s, rehabilitation was carried out as personalities who made a significant contribution to the development of Russian science and culture (the most notable example is giving A. S. Pushkin the status of “great Russian national project"), and a number of statesmen of Tsarist Russia.

However, despite the fact that mass “indigenization” was stopped, mass Russification never began. I. Stalin sharply slowed down “indigenization,” which had already begun to represent a potential ground for separatism, but did not stop it completely, and it, although not at such a fast pace, continued to be carried out, which led in the 1970s to the final consolidation of the power of local elites in the allied republics [5].

According to the data of the All-Union Population Census of 1939, the trends of “indigenization” of the Soviet nomenclature continued. According to the census, in 10 union republics (without the RSFSR) in 1939 there were 619,2 thousand executive employees, of which 346,9 thousand, or 56%, belonged to persons of the titular nationalities of these republics. For example, in Ukraine, among all management personnel, Ukrainians made up 59,6%, in Armenia, Armenians - 86,2%, in Georgia, Georgians - 67,1%, in Uzbekistan, Uzbeks - 51,9%.

It can be stated that the change in the status of the Russian people towards its improvement never fully occurred. This is probably due to the fact that the concept of “Soviet people”, based on those laid down in the 1930s. ideas about the role of the Russian people as “elder brother” and “first among equals” was never accepted as the main identification matrix by the peoples of the USSR, which ultimately led to an aggravation, among other reasons, in the late 1980s and early 1990s. x years national contradictions, ethnic conflicts and the collapse of the country [1].

Today's Russian Federation largely continues Soviet national policies. For example, in the formula “multinational people of the Russian Federation”, included in the Preamble of the 1993 Constitution, echoes of the slogan about the “multinational Soviet people” are clearly heard. The practice of “positive discrimination” in national republics also continues, as does flirting with local nationalists. These processes continue by inertia due to the lack of their own clearly formed national policy.

Использованная литература:
[1]. Arshin K.V. Stopping the policy of “indigenization” in the USSR (historiosophical aspect). // Abyss (Questions of philosophy, political science and social anthropology) 2023. No. 1(23). pp. 124-131.
[2]. Solovov E. M. Interethnic interaction and national policy of the Bolsheviks during the civil war. [Electronic resource] URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/mezhetnicheskoe-vzaimodeystvie-i-natsionalnaya-politika-bolshevikov-v-gody-grazhdanskoy-voyny-1917-1920-gg
[3]. Kuznechevsky V.D. Stalin and the “Russian question” in the political history of the Soviet Union. 1931-1953, M.: Tsentrpoligraf, 2016.
[4]. Letter from V.I. Lenin “On the question of nationalities or “autonomization””. December 30-31, 1922 // V.I. Lenin. Full collection cit., vol. 45, pp. 356-362.
[5]. Achkasov V. A. “National revolution” of the Bolsheviks and “national policy” of modern Russia // Bulletin of St. Petersburg University. Political science. International relationships. 2018. T. 11. Issue. 1. pp. 3-14.
[6]. Custine A. de. Russia in 1839 / Transl. from fr. O. Grinberg, S. Zenkina, V. Milchina, I. Staff. – St. Petersburg: Kriga, 2008.
[7]. Twelfth Congress of the RCP(b). April 17-25, 1923. Verbatim report. M., 1968. P. 613.
[8]. Markedonov S. Turbulent Eurasia: interethnic, civil conflicts, xenophobia in the newly independent states of the post-Soviet space. – M.: Moscow Bureau for Human Rights, Academia, 2010.
[9]. Mozgovoy V.I. Ukrainian legislation in the field of national language policy and the reality of social processes (1917-2021) // Neophilology. 2022. T. 8, No. 2. P. 228-242. https://doi.org/10.20310/2587-6953-2022-8-2-228-242.
[10]. German A.A. The policy of “Indigenization” in the autonomous republics of the RSFSR in the 1920s (based on the materials of the Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic of the Volga Germans) // Izv. Sarat. University of Nov. ser. Ser. Story. International relationships. 2013. No. 4. pp. 94-97.
[eleven]. Central Committee of the RCP (b) - CPSU (b) and the national question. Book 11: 1-1918 – 1933 (SUE IPK Ulyan. Printing House).

Comments

[Uncle lee]

The national issue is very complex...And it has not yet been resolved. And no one knows how to solve it.

[Vladimir_2U]

This "indigenization" was a mistake of the Bolsheviks, but in tactical terms it gave additional chances for victory in the Civil War, reduced tensions in the outskirts when the Bolsheviks were strengthening their grip on power, and let's not forget that it allowed the non-Russian population to be attracted to the Soviet Army during the Great Patriotic War and attracted much more people to the Army of the Russian Empire than in WWI.
And let me remind you that even in late Soviet times in the RSFSR there were not nearly as many “valuable specialists” as there are now.

[Silhouette]

Indigenization was not the Bolsheviks' mistake. It was a crime of the Bolsheviks against the Russian people.
The mistake was to recruit non-Russians into the Red Army in large numbers, which did not justify itself. National divisions in the Red Army were the most ineffective and unreliable. They experienced mass surrenders, murders of Russian commanders and desertion. The defense of Crimea in 1941 collapsed largely due to the mass desertion of Crimean Tatars, the Crimean Front in 1942. The Caucasian Front collapsed due to the mass use of Caucasians and Transcaucasians. The Kalmyks also did not show their best side, they had to be deported. During the Great Patriotic War, the idea of ​​national military units was abandoned.
The combat effectiveness of the army of the Republic of Ingushetia rested on the Russian population and representatives of the national outskirts were not drafted into combat units. Attempts to recruit them in 1916 to auxiliary units (construction battalions) ended in uprisings in Turkestan and Kakvkaz.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Silhouette

Indigenization was not the Bolsheviks' mistake. It was a crime of the Bolsheviks against the Russian people.

The crime against the Russian people was first the Tsar-father's bringing Russia to revolution and the liberal bastards from the Provisional Government to the subsequent civil war. And "indigenization" is a mistake. Because the number of the Russian people grew under the Bolsheviks, despite the miscalculations of collectivization. The Great Patriotic War does not count.

Quote: Silhouette

During the Second World War, the idea of ​​national military units was abandoned.

And don’t confuse the saturation of mainly infantry units with a Slavic backbone with non-Russian fighters since 1942 with the two and a half “Wild Divisions” of 1917.

Quote: Silhouette

The mistake was the involvement of the non-Russian population in the Red Army in large numbers, which did not justify itself.

At least 15 percent of the spacecraft in 1945 were not even Russian, not Slavic. And also, spacecraft fighters from Central Asia and the Republic. The Caucasus and Transcaucasia fought mainly in the infantry, and in the technical branches of the army Great Russians, Belarusians and Little Russians predominated.

And let me remind you again.

Quote: Vladimir_2U

And let me remind you that even in late Soviet times in the RSFSR there were not nearly as many “valuable specialists” as there are now.

[Sergej1972]

National military units existed in small numbers until the mid-50s. For example, the 16th Lithuanian Rifle Division existed until 1956. But their total number was small, they constituted a small part of the Soviet Army. Naturally, they were not mono-national. They were staffed by people from one or another republic, of different nationalities. Plus, a significant part of the officers, and often the majority, were Russians and representatives of other peoples of the USSR, people from other republics. Since 1944, the 1936 Constitution of the USSR contained an article on the right of republics to create republican military formations. It was preserved in the 1977 Constitution. But it was stillborn. The USSR Ministry of Defense was formally union-republican in 1944-1977. Although the people's commissariats (ministries) subordinate to him actually existed only from 1944 to the end of the 40s, and only in a few union republics. Moreover, they did not have combat units under their command; they were, in fact, republican military commissariats with a grandiose name. Although, apparently, there were some plans to give these people's commissariats real content, but Stalin soon cooled to this idea. Beria tried to return to it again in 1953. He generally called for a sharp increase in the role of republics governed by national cadres in governance. But, as we know, his career ended that same year.)

[Silhouette]

Quote: Sergej1972

The 16th Lithuanian Rifle Division existed until 1956.

It was an honorary title of a division that distinguished itself in the liberation of Lithuania, not a national formation. The constitutional right to form national military formations was as suicidal and destructive as the right of republics to self-determination, which led to the collapse of the USSR.

[Sergej1972]

During the war, it was a 1943% national formation, although, in addition to Lithuanians (including those who had never lived in Lithuania), there were many Lithuanian Jews, Poles, Russians, and a significant part were people from different regions of the USSR of different nationalities. And since XNUMX it was called Lithuanian, when the liberation of Lithuania was still far away. After the war, the division was commanded by Moteka, then Ziburkus, both Lithuanians by nationality.

[Silhouette]

Quote: Sergej1972

During the war it was a XNUMX% national formation,

Initially, there were only 36% Lithuanians there (3720 Lithuanians, 3064 Russians, 2973 Jews).

[Sergej1972]

Lithuanian Jews and Lithuanian Poles also come from the Lithuanian SSR. After all, the Jews who served there were precisely Lithuanian Jews. Have you read Ephraim Sevela? "Monya Tsatskes is the standard bearer." There were even a number of Russians from Lithuania. On the other hand, there were ethnic Lithuanians who had never lived in Lithuania. From Siberia and other regions. In the USSR, when national units were created, there was never any talk that representatives of one nation would serve there. We were talking about people from one or another republic, plus sometimes with the addition of representatives of local peoples who lived outside the borders of the respective republics. Plus, some of the soldiers and especially officers were always Russians and representatives of other nationalities. Especially when there were big losses.

[Silhouette]

When you talk about a 16% national formation, you mean nationality, not geography. Don't get out of it. Only Crimean Tatars served in the Crimean Tatar Regiment of the Russian Empire. That was a national military formation. There was an Ingush regiment in the Native Division, where only Ingush served, etc. The XNUMXth Lithuanian Division was the second national formation. And before that, there was a Lithuanian corps of two divisions, which, with the start of the war, for the most part immediately went over to the enemy's side, killing all the Russian officers.

[Sergej1972]

The Constitution contained the right to form not national, but republican (exclusively in union republics) military formations. From a formal point of view, during the period when the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs was absent at the union level in 1960-1966, the Internal Troops of the ministries for the protection of public order of the union republics can be considered republican military formations.

[Saburov_Alexander53]

Who knows, tell me... Now in Russian schools on the territory of national republics, is there a requirement to study the national language?
As a child, I lived in Ukraine in several places, where in a Russian school there were Ukrainian lessons until the 5th grade. For us, the children of Russian officers, these lessons turned into a mockery of the poor teachers. We defiantly wrote dictations with a bunch of mistakes or simply in Russian, knowing from the experience of older students that in any case they would get a “C” and be promoted to the next grade. No amount of calling parents to school helped; parents themselves expressed to teachers the pointlessness of teaching Russians the Ukrainian language. Almost all universities and even technical schools in Ukraine taught in Russian, and even without lessons we understood and even spoke Surzhik perfectly.

[Ruslan Saidov]

In Dagestan we have native languages, at the request of children and parents, if, for example, the Russian population does not want it, that is, the subject “Russian as a native language” is actually a mixture of the Russian language and literature. No one is imposing anything, I speak as a historian.

[Saburov_Alexander53]

if, for example, the Russian population does not want it, then the subject “Russian as a native” is actually a mixture of the Russian language and literature.

Ruslan, thank you for your participation, but I still don’t understand from your comment, is there a compulsory subject in Russian schools in Dagestan - the local national language? I know that there are so many of them in Dagestan that there are jokes about this, as if the inhabitants of two villages on different slopes of the mountain do not understand each other. And in this case, it is even more doubtful that in any Russian school in Kaspiysk, where children of military personnel study, there is a compulsory subject in one of the national languages. And if so, which one?
Or do I generally misunderstand school education in Dagestan and everything is the other way around, lessons are taught in the local language, and “Russian as a native language” is one of the subjects?

[Ruslan Saidov]

Apparently I didn’t express myself correctly, the curriculum is common throughout Russia, in addition to standard subjects we have a native language, it is not compulsory, and there is no such thing as a Russian or non-Russian school, we have a multinational republic and general education schools))), so here we are , if children want to learn the Avar language, for example, then they study it, if they don’t want to, then they don’t study it; for children who do not have their native language at school, due to the small number of such children, then they can choose the subject “Russian as a native language” , this is actually the same Russian language, which is already in the program as in any school in the Russian Federation, but also in addition... Training is in Russian because it is our common language, it is not possible to speak another language here, due to the fact that 30-odd peoples in the republic with their own languages, not counting dialects. In short, everything is the same, but there is also a native language, depending on the nationality of the children, it is optional and not mandatory

[Saburov_Alexander53]

Ruslan, thank you for your answer! Now I understand the difference between teaching Ukrainian in Russian schools in Ukraine during the USSR and national languages ​​in the regions of modern Russia. Now we have Russia everywhere and, as you say, a single school curriculum in Russian with optional option learn the local language. But there is no compulsory education that was in the union republics under the USSR, where the national language was a compulsory subject up to 5th grade. And we wrote dictations in Ukrainian and read literature in it.
But was this the case in all the republics of the USSR, for example in the Baltic states, Transcaucasia and Central Asia, where the languages ​​were radically different from Russian? I don't know... Those can say that
who lived and studied in these republics.
In Ukraine, we ignored the study of the Ukrainian language, not considering it necessary, since everyone already perfectly understood Ukrainian speech by ear. And it’s a completely different matter in other republics... But it was hardly possible to teach a Russian schoolchild Estonian or Armenian in primary school. The best example is that few people managed to learn English or German at school.

[paul3390]

Actually, it is impossible not to admit that Ilyich, with all my great reverence for him, has gone nowhere further on the national question. It would have been better if he had listened to Joseph Vissarionovich when a dispute arose on this issue. Because whatever one may say, he was right then. But the creation of the USSR was a mistake for many peoples.

For not every nation has reached its stage of development to socialism and the realization of independent existence. First, clan relations must be eliminated in it. Well, you can’t jump through all stages of development from early feudalism with elements of slavery - straight to socialism!

And Comrade Stalin, being himself a representative of such a people, clearly understood this. His views are set out in the work “Marxism and the National Question”.

The national question in the Caucasus can only be resolved in the spirit of involving belated nations and nationalities into the general mainstream of higher culture. Only such a solution can be progressive and acceptable for social democracy. Regional autonomy of the Caucasus is acceptable because it draws belated nations into the general cultural development, it helps them emerge from the shell of small-national isolation, it pushes them forward and facilitates their access to the benefits of higher culture. Meanwhile, cultural-national autonomy acts in exactly the opposite direction, for it locks nations into old shells, secures them at the lower stages of cultural development, and prevents them from rising to the highest levels of culture.

But Lenin wanted everything faster, he thought that the accelerated development of an individual people was possible. It turned out - no, the mental breakdown of tribal relations is a long and complex task. For at least three or four generations. And this Leninist mistake was costly, very costly. Both Russia and the world socialist movement.

[Sergej1972]

Stalin's idea of ​​“autonomization” and the entry of Ukraine, Belarus, and Transcaucasia into the RSFSR, instead of creating a superstructural structure of the USSR, was more productive. But, to be honest, Stalin himself also made a lot of sense when he was the People's Commissar of the RSFSR, and even later, after the formation of the USSR, when, with his participation or approval, a mass of autonomous republics and autonomous regions were created in the RSFSR, often territorially inflated, with large territories with Russian by the majority. In many of them, initially the “titular” peoples constituted a minority of the population, and Russians predominated. What is typical is that in some cases the locals themselves did not ask for any autonomy due to the low level of national self-awareness. Such a territorial monster was created as the Yakut Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, in a significant part of whose territory there was no Yakut population. On Stalin's initiative, new union republics were created from parts of the RSFSR, such as the Kazakh, Kyrgyz and Karelo-Finnish. If the presence of Russian cities and regions as part of the Kazakh Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic as part of the RSFSR could still be somehow explained (although the explanations were far-fetched), then their leaving as part of Kazakhstan after it acquired the status of a union republic was not entirely clear. Under Stalin, two enlargements of Belarus were carried out in 1924-1926, as a result of which its territory and population tripled. In general, the role of Stalin and his ideas on the national issue should not be idealized.

[paul3390]

Comrade Stalin, after Lenin pushed through the format of creating the USSR, had no choice. For if you gave the rights of the SSR to the Armenians, how can you deny the same to the Kazakhs?

And the question is not at all about the territorial scale of the entities, but about their rights in a common state. Well, who was especially bothered then, which SSR is this or that territory included in? For people, there was no difference; this concerned exclusively the administrative part.

[your1970]

Quote: paul3390

Well, who was especially butted then, which SSR this or that territory was included in? For people there was no differenceWell, this concerned exclusively the administrative part.

aha .....
Ozinki Saratov region of the RSFSR - across the border - Belenkiy village of the West Kazakhstan region of the Kazakh SSR.
For the same work, collective farmers/workers received a salary there that was 30% more. That is, a conventional tractor driver who received 120 here received 160 there. the same work....
And the supply there was better.
A difference of 20 km = a difference in salary of 30% + deficit...
To those living along the borders in the USSR, the difference was obvious....

[Foul skeptic]

For the same work, collective farmers/workers received a salary there that was 30% more. That is, a conventional tractor driver who received 120 here received 160 there. For the same work...

Why did you decide which one is the same?
It doesn’t bother you that now in the neighboring buildings the grandmother’s watchmen receive different amounts of money simply because they work in different management companies. Who have different incomes, and therefore the ability to pay different salaries.

[pavel.tipin]

Russia is a country with a difficult climate; it is really difficult to live when the summer is so short. If Russians are deprived of the Russian language and faith, they will simply leave Russia.

[pavel.tipin]

Russia is a country with a difficult climate; it is really difficult to live when the summer is so short. If Russians are deprived of the Russian language and faith, they will simply leave Russia.

[nikolaevskiy78]

That's interesting. On the one hand, there are sincere admirers of the Soviet system, which assumed that the Soviet system was raising national personnel from the “outskirts”. On the other hand, they are fiercely opposed by fans of Tsarist Russia, who say that there was a “correct Russian empire” back then. At the same time, the latter forget that under the Empire, the outskirts were generally ruled entirely by national elites and aristocracies and only at the top by governors and military representatives from the center. In fact, the outskirts under the empire lived according to their own internal rules. When developing the outskirts, the center shared with the national aristocracy, and sometimes simply incorporated it into itself.

The only difference was that there was no right to secede. The outskirts were essentially ruled by local bais and their analogues, the center collected “tithes” and supervised, and also shared shares with the local aristocracy.

[Dutchman Michel]

Quote: nikolaevskiy78

under the Empire, the outskirts were generally ruled entirely by national elites

I will only add that all this is true under one condition - loyalty to the Center. A representative of the titular nation was only slightly taller than a resident of the outskirts, and the small nations of the Empire felt completely safe. The Empire brought order and tranquility to the regions. But when the Empire collapsed, everyone tried to kick it. Remember Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman and Russian empires. And the USSR is no exception either.

[Stirbjorn]

Quote: Dutchman Michel

and the small peoples of the Empire felt completely safe. The Empire brought order and tranquility to the regions.

During the peasant wars of Razin and Pugachev, this was fully demonstrated. Small nations actively supported the rebels.

[AAK]

And now most of the “outskirts” collect from the “center” and not at all a tithe...

[Sergej1972]

I agree only partly. The situation was different in the different outskirts. Tsarism rather carried out an individual version of national policy in relation to each region. Much depended on the geographical location of the region, the time of its incorporation into the state, the degree of loyalty of the local elites. The percentage of the Russian population also played a significant role. Plus, the degree of national self-awareness of certain peoples and their elite was taken into account. For example, in the Ural-Volga region, Russian officials dominated at all levels of government. Strictly speaking, this region was not considered a "outskirts", despite its multinational, but predominantly Russian, national composition. In most of Siberia and the Far East, where the Russian population absolutely predominated, no special division of power with representatives of the elite of the local not very numerous peoples was also particularly observed. After the suppression of the second Polish uprising, the Poles in the Kingdom of Poland were represented in government bodies exclusively at the lower level, at the level of gmina and city self-government. They could have quite a successful career in both the civil and military spheres, occupying good leadership positions, but not in the territory of the Kingdom of Poland.

[parusnik]

Author, explain the following: if the Russian Empire was not a "prison of nations", why did the White movement fail to create a united front of free nations in the fight against the Bolsheviks? Somehow, the participation of the military forces of Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Ukraine in battles was not noticed on the side of Denikin. Even the highlanders of the Caucasus did not favor the White movement? Didn't they really want to be united and indivisible? Mannerheim set conditions for Yudenich and Kolchak: guys, I will help, only Finland, outside of Russia, and you also throw me some land. The general of the imperial army, a monarchist by conviction, did not dream of creating a united and indivisible.

[glock-17]

The white movement was heterogeneous and did not have a single ideology. The only thing they had in common was the fight against the Bolsheviks. Small nations, as a rule, rushed between whites and reds.

[parusnik]

Small nations, as a rule, rushed between whites and reds.

By the small nations that rushed about, who do you mean? Azerbaijanis? They didn’t rush about, they created their own DAR, the Georgians? So these created the GDR (Georgian Democratic Republic) and even occupied the Black Sea coast, right up to Tuapse, the Reds knocked them out of Tuapse The Taman Army, and Denikin’s army from Sochi. Armenians? They created their own republic and fought with both Georgians and Azerbaijanis. UNR, BPR, Baltic states? Kazakhstan? The states of Central Asia? Kokand? Bukhara? They didn’t rush about; they were already in touch with the British. Yes, and Yudenich and Miller recognized Kolchak as the Supreme Ruler. They all had an ideology then, as now, that was anti-Soviet.

[glock-17]

Well, at least for example, the Bashkir national units, which until 1919 mainly fought for the whites, and when the reds began to take over, went over to them.
The fact that Kolchak was recognized as supreme does not mean a single ideology. Dutov also supported Kolchak, but he himself actively worked even with the Mensheviks.

[Silhouette]

Quote: parusnik

Somehow they were not noticed on the side of the same Denikin, participation in the battles of military forces

What about the Wild Division, made up of Caucasian volunteers? She completely went over to the side of the White Movement.

Quote: parusnik

The general of the imperial army, a monarchist by conviction, did not dream of creating a single and indivisible army.

Mannerheim did not want to be part of Soviet Russia and deal with the Bolsheviks. And the fact that he bargained - well done, he defended his interests. By the way, he was a Swede, not a Finn. 26 Swedish families still rule Finland.

[Foul skeptic]

What about the Wild Division, made up of Caucasian volunteers? She completely went over to the side of the White Movement.

She accelerated so much during the transition that she forgot to brake and as a result found herself in the Caucasian Islamic Army in the service of the Turks.

[Silhouette]

What are you getting at?...Explain your deep thought to my response to a specific comment.

[Foul skeptic]

What are you talking about?

Besides, your example with the Wild Division does not fit as an answer to

Quote: parusnik

Even the mountaineers of the Caucasus did not favor the White movement? Didn’t they really want to be united and indivisible?

[Silhouette]

“Not suitable” is not your personal opinion, not an argument.

[Foul skeptic]

“Not suitable” is not your personal opinion, not an argument.

The M10 bolt does not fit the M8 nut, not because this is the personal opinion of the person who reports it, but simply the reality given in sensations.

[Silhouette]

Carving has nothing to do with sensations. Are you measuring it by taste or color? ....You have problems with either logic or associations. Or maybe both.

[Foul skeptic]

Carving has nothing to do with sensations. Are you measuring it by taste or color? ....You have problems with either logic or associations. Or maybe both.

the patient is probably dead...
Dear, take an M10 bolt and an M8 nut in your hands and try to connect them. And, lo and behold, you will find that your vision and touch will tell you that they are not connected.

[Silhouette]

Idiot's logic. There are calipers for that. You don't need to feel anything. You need to know.

[Foul skeptic]

There is a caliper for this. You don't need to feel anything.

Seriously? Don't you read the caliper readings with your eyes?
And a child who doesn't know anything about calipers yet will take an M10 bolt and an M8 nut with his hands - and imagine, without knowledge of calipers, after a couple of attempts he will know that these two specific incomprehensible parts do not connect. What a miracle.

[parusnik]

Silhouette

What about the Wild Division, made up of Caucasian volunteers? She completely went over to the side of the White Movement.

Which Wild Division do you mean? If the one that took part in the Kornilov mutiny, then it was sent to the North Caucasus and was disbanded. Since it did not represent a combat unit, it was propagandized. And yes, its commander D.P. Bagration, later became the head of the Higher Cavalry Courses of the Red Army and yes, he was not shot, he died a natural death in 1919. After Chechnya was occupied by the Volunteer Army and General E. Aliyev was proclaimed ruler, the Chechen Cavalry Division began to form, consisting of four Chechen and Kumyk regiments. This was the Wild Division, which fought on the side of the Volunteer Army. Its maximum strength by 1919 reached 2200 sabres with 19 machine guns. But I will console you, there is a myth that this division was smashed to dust by Makhno near Aleksandrovsk. This is not true.

[Silhouette]

The Kornilov rebellion involved separate regiments of the Native Division, which subsequently refused to participate in the Russian civil strife, was sent by the Provisional Government to the Caucasus and disbanded as unreliable and counter-revolutionary to the Provisional Government. From its ranks, the very same White Guard Wild Division that I have in mind was formed. These were the same people.

[Nikolay Malyugin]

We live in difficult times. Some people like it, some don’t. National policy largely depends on morality in the areas of politics, economics, culture and social structure. Without this quality, everything turns into an abstraction. Which you can only see, but not touch with your hands.

[north 2]

that Russia should renounce its Russianness, so Solovyov then and Karnaukhov today, these are only visible boils on the body of Russia. In reality, there are so many of them that it is necessary to urgently treat the immune system, before it comes to the need for blood transfusions, knowing that if we follow the instructions of Solovyov and Karnaukhov, then there should be no more Russian blood group at all, which means there will be nothing to transfuse into the sick body of Russia. Here you have death, since Russia and Russians can live in their state only when this state is in a state of Empire. Moreover, this is not a colonial Empire, the colonies of which are robbed by the colonizers. Russia is an empire where Russians build and create everything for the national outskirts, and many have even been taught to relieve themselves by taking off their pants and sitting down! The question is, where is at least the gratitude for this Russianness ...

[Hypertension]

Quote: north 2

if we follow the instructions of Solovyov and Karnaukhov, then there should be no more Russian blood type at all

I am not a supporter of blaming Jews for all the troubles, but seeing this Solovyov kahal, who advises Russians to abandon their self-identification, while Jews, it turns out, can and should declare that they are Jews (what a chutzpah!) - some involuntarily creep in what thoughts...
The Noviops will take us to the zugunder...
And then the Dagestani deputy Khamzaev proposes to call all Russians Russians. This has never happened, and here it is again... Why such characters were not pleased with the term “Russians” that unites all the peoples of Russia is absolutely not clear. They appeal to the fact that, they say, abroad, for foreigners, we are all Russian. It would seem - what does it matter to us, who thinks what? In the West, some people think that here we have bears in every family and play the balalaika. This does not mean that, in order to please someone’s stereotypical thinking, it is necessary to have a clubfoot in the house or to level out ethnicity.

[sevryuk]

Why such characters did not like the term “Russians” that unites all the peoples of Russia is absolutely not clear.

Didn’t please because of Yeltsin’s “dear scattered people.” Apparently, we will have to use the term “Russian”.

[Silhouette]

Quote: Hyperion

Why such characters did not like the term “Russians” that unites all the peoples of Russia is absolutely not clear.

By replacing the word “Russians, Russian,” he depersonalizes Russians. How the “Russian Federation” replaced the pre-revolutionary concept of Russia.

[Hypertension]

Quote: Silhouette

By replacing the word “Russians, Russian,” he depersonalizes Russians.

Russians are depersonalized precisely by attempts to call all the peoples of the Russian Federation Russian. And if small nations retain their own ethnic group: Tatar, Yakut, Ingush, etc., then what will remain for the Russians?

Quote: Silhouette

How the “Russian Federation” replaced the pre-revolutionary concept of Russia.

The "Russian Federation" replaced the USSR in general.

[Gardamir]

The events of a hundred years ago have nothing to do with the fact that the current government hates Russians and worships migrants.
First, they optimized medicine by firing entire departments of Russians. Now in clinics you go - ogly and - kyzy.

[Ryaruav]

Gardamir, in 1981 I had a chance to visit Narva and Ivangorod, it would seem that the cities are separated only by a river, and the difference in the standard of living was simply cosmic and this is in one state, what words can you call such a national policy? Is this kind of internationalism special for Russians?

[Gardamir]

Here, as they say, everything is complicated. For example, I myself am from the Kirov region. And the neighboring Mariskaya is like heaven from earth. Another example: during school years we moved from Kirovskaya to Saratovskaya, it would seem that both were Russian and yet there was a big difference. During my student years, a classmate invited me to visit him in the Kuban village, and everything was also different from his native place.

[Sergej1972]

Those who were in Tajikistan in the 69-79s say that a significant part of rural Tajiks lived quite poorly, the standard of living was lower than that of the collective farmers of the Non-Black Earth Region. I am saying this in connection with the fact that supposedly everywhere in other union republics people lived better than in the RSFSR. But the RSFSR was a huge republic, in different regions, areas, republics the standard of living differed both from each other and in comparison with other union republics. After all, Moscow and Leningrad, and Krasnodar Krai, and the northern, Siberian, Far Eastern regions are also the RSFSR, and life there was by no means worse than in most union republics. The most problematic region of the RSFSR, it must be admitted, was the Non-Black Earth Region. Although, on the other hand, relatives claim that in the Donetsk region of the Ukrainian SSR it was somewhat better than in the Rostov region (I have relatives in both regions). Well, maybe with the exception of Rostov itself. But in both Donetsk and Rostov regions people lived much better than in Oryol region, for example. Which does not exclude the fact that there was significant progress in the development of the same Oryol region in the 60-80s. Much depended on the availability of resources in the region, and on the personalities of the leaders, their influence in the Union's ruling circles. Moreover, even in different districts and cities of the same region the situation could differ somewhat. Of course, all these inter-republican, inter-regional, inter-district differences should not be exaggerated either, after all, they lived in the same country, with regulated prices, tariff scales, etc.

[Silhouette]

Quote: Gardamir

The events of a hundred years ago have nothing to do with the fact that the current government hates Russians and prays for migrants.

This is a direct consequence.
Just as Lenin and Trotsky hated Russians, inventing and painstakingly describing "Great Russian chauvinism." The Bolsheviks replaced the concept of "Russian" with "Soviet," and their re-colored grandchildren hate everything Russian in exactly the same way, painstakingly using the newly invented term "Russians," "Russian," "Russian-speaking," etc., often getting confused in the process.

[Vladimir80]

using the newly invented term “Russians”, “Russian”, “Russian-speaking”

where to go? What word would you use to call the participants of “Nightingale TV”? or what to call youth idols and other tiktokers like Milokhin and Morgenstein?

[Silhouette]

Not Russians. Marginalized. Idiots. There are a lot of words. The essence is the same.

[DNS-a42]

Quote: Silhouette

How Lenin and Trotsky hated Russians, inventing and diligently describing “Great Russian chauvinism.”

Foreigners, the Pale of Settlement - these terms were not invented in Soviet Russia. You need to read less White Guard manuals.

The Bolsheviks replaced the concept of “Russian” with “Soviet”

Yeah. And they forgot to remove the column in the passport. It's a blatant lie. Soviet is a supranational community, at least they would read the textbooks.

the newly invented term “Russians”, “Russian”, “Russian-speaking”, etc., often getting confused.

Citizens who did poorly at school still do not know how to distinguish between a nation (political community) and nationality (ethnic origin).

[Silhouette]

Quote: DNS-a42

You need to read less White Guard manuals

I don't read them. I write them. The White Guards didn't write manuals.

Quote: DNS-a42

Soviet - supranational community

What are you talking about, my dear?...And where did this community go after 1991? What happened to it? And did it really exist? That is the question..... Or are there only gullible and poorly educated Russian fools left in it, as the backbone and foundation of this "community"?

[DNS-a42]

Quote: Silhouette

I don't read them. I write them. The White Guards didn't write manuals.

It can be seen. They wrote. First with European money, then with CIA money.

Quote: Silhouette

What are you talking about, my dear?...And where did this community go after 1991? What happened to it? And did it really exist? That is the question.....

She was destroyed along with the country. The decades spent in capitalism have done their job.

Quote: Silhouette

Or are there only gullible and poorly educated Russian fools left in it, as the backbone and basis of this “community”?

You have a good opinion of your fellow citizens.

[Edward Vashchenko]

processes continue by inertia due to the lack of their own clearly formed national policy.

You criticize - offer.
But there are no specifics.

[Edward Vashchenko]

Without a "big brother" led to

"to the exacerbation, among other reasons, in the late 1980s and early 1990s of national contradictions, ethnic conflicts and the collapse of the country."

If the Russian people were a “big brother”, like the French in Vietnam or Algeria, or the British in India, then there would be no national contradictions, ethnic conflicts, etc.
Was the USSR definitely broken up because of ethnic conflicts? Or the policy of "indigenization" in the 20s and early 30s of the XNUMXth century?

[Dutchman Michel]

Quote: Eduard Vaschenko

Would the Russian people be a “big brother”, like the French in Vietnam or Algeria, or the British in India?

Neither the French nor the English were ever big brothers in their colonies. These were colonial empires, where relations were built on the principle of “master-serf”

[Edward Vashchenko]

Neither the French nor the English were ever big brothers in their colonies.

And if the French or the English were the "big brothers", then the empires would stand still?
But in the North American states in the 70s. XVIII century Weren't the English big brothers? And the English king was strict, but a pope for the colonists, protecting them from the Indians and the French?

[Dutchman Michel]

Quote: Eduard Vaschenko

And if the French or English were “big brothers,” then would the empires stand still?

Of course not. These empires would have been destroyed by nationalism, which in relation to the colonies in the Soviet era was called the “national liberation movement”

Quote: Eduard Vaschenko

But in the North American states in the 70s. XVIII century Weren't the English big brothers?

No, the English were never their elder brothers, because the North American colonists, mostly evangelicals, were voluntarily-forcibly expelled from England as enemies of the king. The American Revolution has somewhat different roots

[Edward Vashchenko]

No, the British were never big brothers for them, because the North American colonists, most of them evangelicals, were voluntarily and forcibly expelled from England as enemies of the king.

Of course this is not true. There was a significant element of Protestants in the colonies, but most belonged to the Church of England and prayed for the king for the sake of a dear soul. The royal officer Washington...and Jefferson may have formally belonged to this church.
However, they were all English.

[Dutchman Michel]

Quote: Eduard Vaschenko

There was a significant Protestant element in the colonies, but most belonged to the Church of England

I think you are mistaken.
1. Pennsylvania - Quakers and Puritans
2. Rhode Island - Baptists
3. New Jersey - Puritans
4. New York - Reformed
5. Massachusetts - Puritans and Independents
6. Etc.
In all the rebellious colonies, evangelists prevailed and set the tone there. The Anglicans were mainly in what is now Canada. The royal administration, army and naval base were located there. There's not much to rebel there

P.S. I always thought Washington was a Methodist and Jefferson was a Lutheran. Miracles!

[Unknown]

Of course, the Bolsheviks, who created the USSR, are to blame for all the troubles. According to the author, the events of almost a hundred years ago

It can be stated that the change in the status of the Russian people towards its improvement never fully occurred. This is probably due to the fact that the concept of “Soviet people”, based on those laid down in the 1930s. ideas about the role of the Russian people as “elder brother” and “first among equals” was never accepted as the main identification matrix by the peoples of the USSR, which ultimately led to an aggravation, among other reasons, in the late 1980s and early 1990s. x years national contradictions, ethnic conflicts and the collapse of the country [1]

influenced the extinction of Russians in the current Russian Federation. How similar

- The leaders of the 17th year planted a time bomb under the building of the state, which was called Russia.
- The Bolsheviks destroyed what draws and unites the peoples of civilized countries - they destroyed the market as such, they destroyed the emerging capitalism

GDP. So in market relations, essentially one people enthusiastically fights among themselves. Somehow we forget the earlier times of Gorbachev, when nationalism bloomed in full bloom in the republics of the USSR. Yeltsin and his entourage, who in one fell swoop abandoned more than 20 million compatriots outside the Russian Federation, everything is not taken into account. It's not that, you understand, but back then in those distant times they, the damned communists, are to blame. As IV Stalin said

“The Russian tsars... did one good thing - they put together a huge state as far as Kamchatka. We inherited this state. And for the first time, we, the Bolsheviks, united and strengthened this state as a single, indivisible state, not in the interests of landowners and capitalists, but in the benefit of the working people, of all the peoples that make up this state. We united the state in such a way that every part that would be torn off from the general socialist state would not only cause damage to the latter, but would also not be able to exist independently and would inevitably fall into someone else's bondage "Therefore, everyone who tries to destroy this unity of the socialist state, who seeks to separate a separate part and nationality from it, is an enemy, a sworn enemy of the state, the peoples of the USSR. And we will destroy every such enemy."

They weren’t completely destroyed, and that’s the result in ’91.

[Old electrician]

Another pseudo-historian:

If the White movement proceeded from the maxim of “United and indivisible Russia” and the Russian language as the only state language, then...

- another song about the bloody Bolsheviks and noble whites. At the same time, it doesn’t even smell like any kind of analysis.
Nationalism is a superweapon for the destruction of Empires. It was thanks to nationalism that the Russian Empire collapsed and our so-called “allies” did everything to ensure that it fell and was not revived. Let me remind you that the center of the February Revolution was in the British embassy. List of the “government of trust” headed by the Freemason Prince G.E. Lvov, the British embassy distributed back in 1916 - a classic Maidan with the distribution of cookies by the British ambassador to the Russian Empire, Buchanan.
On November 15 (28), 1917, the Supreme Council of the Entente made an official decision to intervene in Russia.
In development of this decision, on December 10 (23), 1917, the Anglo-French convention on the division of the territory of Russia was signed in Paris. In history it is known as the "Franco-English Agreement of December 23, 1917". According to this convention, Russia was divided as follows: the Caucasus and the Cossack regions entered the British zone, and Bessarabia, Ukraine and Crimea entered the French zone; Siberia and the Far East were seen as areas of interest for the United States and Japan. Moreover, Great Britain also claimed the North of Russia.
On November 13, 1918, the Anglo-French, under the patronage of the United States, indefinitely extended the validity of the convention on the division of Russia. It has not yet been officially canceled.
Like the modern Armed Forces of Ukraine, the White movement had the only right and privilege - to die for the interests of the White sahibs. On May 26, 1919, the Allied Coalition Powers sent a “Note from the Supreme Council to Admiral Kolchak”:

...
Fourthly, the independence of Finland and Poland must be recognized, and if any issues concerning the borders or any other relations between Russia and these countries cannot be resolved by mutual agreement, the Russian government will agree to appeal to arbitration League of Nations.
Fifth, in the event that relations between Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, the Caucasian and Trans-Caspian territories and Russia are not quickly established through mutual agreements, this issue will also be resolved with the help of the League of Nations, and until then the Russian government undertakes to recognize autonomy all these territories and to reaffirm the relationship that may exist between their existing de facto governments and the governments of the Allied coalition powers.
Sixth, the government of Admiral Kolchak must recognize the right of the peace conference to determine the future of the Romanian part of Bessarabia.
...
J. Clemenceau, Lloyd George, Orlando, Woodrow Wilson, Saionji

.
This note (essentially an ultimatum) demanded from the “Supreme Ruler” a written refusal to restore the previous regime. Those. The Entente was not satisfied not only with the tsarist regime, but even with the Provisional or any other government, as long as it was All-Russian. This was echoed by another point in the note, which demanded not to interfere with the free election of local self-government bodies. In conditions when the fire of separatism of all stripes was blazing in the country, this meant its end. On June 12, 1919, Kolchak responded to this ultimatum with his written consent separately for each of its points. Therefore, you need to be a clinical idiot to believe in the white fairy tale about “United and indivisible Russia.” It's like Zelie's tale of borders from 1991.
author-->author-->author once again repeat the tale of the mythical unity of the RCP(b), uniting all its factions with the vague word "Bolsheviks". Only supporters of Lenin can be called Bolsheviks. His work was continued by Stalin. The Bolsheviks were opposed by ideological supporters of Trotsky. The forces were approximately equal, and all decisions in the RCP(b) were made collegially. Therefore, after Lenin left politics and until 1935, Stalin could not independently pursue his own line.
After the civil war, a layer of jingoist revolutionaries arose in the RCP(b), who could not imagine themselves in a peaceful life. The war gave them everything - power, impunity, a beautiful life and the veneration of hangers-on. Of course, they did not launch a bayonet attack, but each of them considered himself at least the Leader of the world proletariat, so uniting them under one banner was impossible. They were united only by hatred of Lenin and Stalin with their ideas of adherence to the law and building socialism in one country. Only the disunity of these jingoist revolutionaries gave Stalin a chance.
One of these cheerful revolutionaries was Trotsky, a born orator capable of hypnotizing any crowd, and a most incompetent administrator. After the war, the rallies ended and people like Trotsky began to rapidly lose popularity. How it would have ended is unknown, but Trotsky promptly provided an ideological basis for the general wishes of the jingoist revolutionaries: the USSR is getting ahead of itself, Stalin is a traitor to the World Revolution, and therefore the USSR must be destroyed along with Stalin at any cost. There are two ways to do this:
1. The USSR had to get involved in any wars for the sake of the World Revolution. The subsequent intervention should liquidate the USSR along with the population, the proletariat of all countries will be indignant and the World Revolution will begin.
2. The party must constantly provoke social conflicts in the country, cultivate opposition, and then heroically fight it until the fall of the USSR. After this, the proletariat of all countries will be indignant...
All together this is called the “Permanent Revolution”:

... The second aspect of the "Permanent" theory already characterizes the socialist revolution as such. Over an indefinite period of time and in constant internal struggle, all social relations are rebuilt. Society is constantly shedding. One stage of transformation follows directly from the other. This process, by necessity, retains a political character, i.e. unfolds through the collisions of different groups of the rebuilding society. Explosions of civil war and external wars alternate with periods of "peaceful" reforms. The revolutions of economy, technology, knowledge, family, everyday life, morals, unfold in complex interaction with each other, preventing society from achieving equilibrium. This is the permanent character of the socialist revolution as such ...

– Gorby called it Perestroika.
The goal of Perestroika, sorry, the Permanent Revolution, is the liquidation of the USSR. To do this, you need to “tighten the screws” on the population so that they themselves climb onto the barricades. Then push this counter and again tighten the nuts to the bitter end - an eternal Maidan for the sake of the Maidan. In the 20s, there were four such nuts: famine, excesses in collectivization, nationalism and anti-religious dislocations. During Perestroika, two things turned out to be sufficient: empty shelves and nationalism.
Around 1935, Stalin finally gained a majority in the Politburo and the Central Committee. The establishment of legal order and the end of Trotskyist excesses began in the country.

In the 1930s, there was a gradual turn from the policy of “indigenization” to the policy of Soviet patriotism, based on increasing the status of the Russian people

- gee-gee-gee!
The policy of “indigenization” and other excesses in Ukraine were led by innocent victims of political repression:
Kosior Stanislav Vikentievich. From 1928 to 1938, General (from 1934 - first) Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine (Bolsheviks).
Chubar Vlas Yakovlevich. For a number of years he headed the government of the Ukrainian SSR, and then worked as Deputy Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR. Member of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, All-Russian Central Executive Committee, Central Executive Committee of the USSR and its Presidium. Member of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR since 1937.
Postyshev Pavel Petrovich. From January 1933, second secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party (Bolsheviks) of Ukraine and secretary of the Kharkov regional committee), comrade-in-arms of Kosior and Chubar in organizing the “Holodomor”, etc. After the capital of the Ukrainian SSR moved to Kiev in July 1934, he became 1st secretary of the Kiev regional committee.
Khataevich Mendel Markovich. Since 1925, member of the Central Audit Commission of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, since 1927, candidate member, since 1930, member of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks. In 1932-1937 - member of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Communist Party (b) of Ukraine. Postyshev's faithful ally.
As they say, etc., etc. You can't count them all. Fortunately for himself, Academician M.N. Pokrovsky died in 1932. He would not have survived 1937.

[Silhouette]

Quote: Old electrician

The policy of “indigenization” and other excesses in Ukraine were led by innocent victims of political repression:

They weren't Bolsheviks?
Was only Ukraine subject to indigenization?
What a mess in your head.....

[Old electrician]

Silhouette
Today, 09: 41

Quote: Old electrician
The policy of “indigenization” and other excesses in Ukraine were led by innocent victims of political repression:

They weren't Bolsheviks?
Was only Ukraine subject to indigenization?
What a mess in your head...

.
- If you don’t see the difference between those whose political views presupposed the construction of a state and those whose political views included the destruction of this state (it doesn’t matter in the name of the World Revolution or in the name of Western democracy - it doesn’t matter), then you have It’s not a mess in the head, but a vacuum. From Yeltsin's speech in the US Congress:

The communist idol, which sowed social discord, enmity and unparalleled cruelty throughout the Earth, which instilled fear in the human community, collapsed! Collapsed forever! And I am here to assure you that on our land we will not let him rise again

- Do you also consider Yeltsin a Bolshevik?
Not only Ukraine was subjected to indigenization, but the fate of indigenizers to this day in an absolute number of cases is hidden under the heading “Secret” and not a single “truth teller” Biryukov will mention them. For you and for the Biryukovs, it is not those who destroyed the country who are to blame, but those who built it. Just one example of the implementation of “peaceful” methods of carrying out the Permanent Revolution. From a letter from M.A. Sholokhov to Stalin dated April 4, 1933:

...
4. At the Napolovsky collective farm, the representative of the Republic of Kazakhstan, a candidate member of the bureau of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Plotkin, during interrogation, forced him to sit on a hot bench. The prisoner shouted that he could not sit, it was hot, then water was poured from a mug under him, and then he was taken out into the cold to “cool off” and locked in a barn. From the barn back to the stove and interrogated again. He (Plotkin) forced one individual farmer to shoot himself. He put a revolver in his hands and ordered: “Shoot, but if you don’t, I’ll shoot you myself!” He began to pull the trigger (not knowing that the gun was unloaded), and when the firing pin clicked, he fainted.
...
10. In the Zatonsky collective farm, a propaganda column worker beat those interrogated with a saber. In the same collective farm, they mocked the families of Red Army soldiers, opening the roofs of houses, destroying stoves, forcing women to cohabitate...

- traditional methods of fascist punitive forces and appanage revolutionary princes. You can’t count the number of liberal hacks these days who, using this example and this quote, would not throw mud at the “Bolsheviks.”
In this particular case, the reprisals were carried out at the instigation of the first secretary of the North Caucasus Regional Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks (Bolsheviks) B.P. Sheboldaeva. The incident in the Veshensky district, described by Sholokhov, was egregious, so on April 23, 1933, a Politburo meeting was held. In this Politburo, the majority was behind Kosior (shot in 1939), Rudzutak (shot in 1937), Chubar (shot in 1939), Postyshev (shot in 1938) and other Trotskyists. The result is predictable:

...
5. All other penalties imposed by party and Soviet authorities against Comrade Plotkin and Pashinsky are considered annulled...

Sheboldaev himself was reprimanded for excessive revolutionary romanticism and transferred from the post of first secretary of the North Caucasus regional committee of the CPSU (b) to the post of first secretary of the Azov-Black Sea regional committee of the CPSU (b). The pike was thrown into the river as punishment.
In 1937, Maslenitsa was sung for the cat and those who mocked the families of the Red Army soldiers got theirs:
Sheboldaev Boris Petrovich. In 1934-1937 First Secretary of the Azov-Black Sea Regional Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks. Shot in 1937.
Zimin Nikolai Nikolaevich. From December 1932 to July 4, 1933, second secretary of the North Caucasus Regional Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks. A rare scoundrel. Shot in 1938. He is included in the list of victims of political repression by the Memorial Society. - fisherman's fisherman...
Ovchinnikov Grigory Fedotovich. Secretary of the Rostov City Party Committee; loyal ally of Sheboldaev, after the “punishment” for the events in Veshenskaya

Severely reprimand Comrade Ovchinnikov, remove him from his post as secretary of the Rostov City Committee and prohibit him from working in the village for a year

On July 4, 1933, he received another severe reprimand for excesses during dispossession and grain procurements. Shot in 1937.
Kravtsov Ivan Alexandrovich First Secretary of the Organizational Bureau of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks for the Krasnodar Territory (1937). He was part of the special troika of the NKVD of the USSR. Shot in 1938. And others. I can list the entire list of executed fighters for the World Revolution in the North Caucasus region.
“Perestroika 0” or the Permanent Revolution began in 1928 with a significant event: throughout the country it was forbidden to ring bells on Easter and other church holidays. However, in 1937 - 1939, supporters of “indigenization”, etc. excesses in the name of the World Revolution have taken their toll almost throughout the country. In his fiery report at the XNUMXth Congress of the CPSU N.S. Khrushchev stated:

...Based on the materials of investigative cases of that time, it turns out that in almost all territories, regions and republics there were supposedly widely ramified “right-wing Trotskyist espionage-terrorist, sabotage-sabotage organizations and centers” and, as a rule, these “organizations” and “centers” for some reason they were headed by the first secretaries of regional committees, regional committees or the Central Committee of the National Communist Parties.
As a result of this monstrous falsification of such “cases”, as a result of believing various slanderous “testimonies” and forced slander of themselves and others, many thousands of honest, innocent communists died. In the same way, “cases” were fabricated against prominent party and government figures - Kosior, Chubar, Postyshev, Kosarev and others.

In a word, the “indigenizers” from the National Communist Parties in 1937 suddenly felt worse. Well, it goes without saying that the Kosiors, Sheboldaevs, Plotkins and other fighters for the World Revolution after the 20th Congress of the CPSU were immediately rehabilitated by the Trotskyist Khrushchev. The fact that Khrushchev is a Trotskyist is not a curse, but a statement of fact. In the XNUMXs, Khrushchev was part of the Trotskyite circle, and then abruptly changed his color. We still have to look for a second such “indigenizer.”
To describe all the meanness of the Trotskyists, you need to write not a commentary, but a multi-volume book. However, this is practically impossible:
1. Criminal cases of “innocent victims of political repression” were usually destroyed immediately after rehabilitation. The rest are classified to this day. Access to the archives is possible only for those who preach the state ideology.
2. It is alleged that state ideology is prohibited in the Russian Federation - it is impossible to imagine greater nonsense. Our state ideology is anti-Sovietism and Russophobia. Suffice it to say that in the name of the dictates of this ideology, So'Lzhenitsin is taught at school. There was no trace of such fooling of schoolchildren in the USSR. The Russophobic Yeltsin Center thrives on state funds. Monuments to the interventionists are multiplying throughout the country. Etc. Under these conditions, it is impossible to imagine that anyone would be allowed into the archives to write an honest book. And it is even more difficult to imagine that the author of such a book will be able to publish it with impunity.
PS. A mandatory requirement for historians wishing to defend a candidate or doctoral dissertation in the Russian Federation is the availability of articles in Scopus and Web of Science, i.e. in Russophobic countries. It follows from this that in the Russian Federation only an inveterate Russophobe can be a “professional” historian.

[kalibr]

Quote: Old electrician

A mandatory requirement for historians wishing to defend a candidate or doctoral dissertation in the Russian Federation is the availability of articles in Scopus and Web of Science, i.e. in Russophobic countries. It follows from this that in the Russian Federation only an inveterate Russophobe can be a “professional” historian.

There is no need to write nonsense. Articles there are desirable, but not required. There are enough articles in journals from the Higher Attestation Commission list - for example. in "QUESTIONS OF HISTORY". There is a list of VAK Russian magazines. There will be enough without Scopus.

[Old electrician]

kalibr (Vyacheslav)

Quote: Old electrician
A mandatory requirement for historians wishing to defend a candidate or doctoral dissertation in the Russian Federation is the availability of articles in Scopus and Web of Science, i.e. in Russophobic countries. It follows from this that in the Russian Federation only an inveterate Russophobe can be a “professional” historian.

There is no need to write nonsense. Articles there are desirable, but not required. There are enough articles in journals from the Higher Attestation Commission list - for example. in "QUESTIONS OF HISTORY". There is a list of VAK Russian magazines. There will be enough without Scopus.

Don’t make me laugh with the fairy tale that “Articles there are desirable, but not required” - do you have a different Higher Attestation Commission? When the Higher Attestation Commission says “preferably,” it means die, but give me a plan.
What is noteworthy is that this entire campaign of foreign publications from the very beginning proceeded from the thesis of the racial inferiority of Russians - only the West can teach these gray-legged people anything!
PS. In the West, you humanists are also paid extra for Russophobic articles, but we techies are torn off three times over for them. The minimum price for publishing an article in Scopus or Web of Science journals is from $450 to $750 and above. This is called reparations for defeat in the Cold War. Thank God that due to the widespread sanctions, this nonsense was at least stopped, but, unfortunately, it was not canceled completely.

[kor1vet1974]

once again repeating the tale of the mythical unity of the RCP(b)

And it didn't exist until the very last congress of the CPSU. Look how many factions were present at the very last congress. About Trotsky. Organizationally, the RSDLP(b), as a party, not as a faction, but specifically as a party, was formed in 1912. Trotsky and his group of "inter-district people" joined in 1917. Before that, it was hanging around between the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks. During the civil war and several post-war years. Many left-nationalist parties and movements joined the RSDLP(b)-RKP(b). Their leaders occupied various posts in the Soviet and party apparatus. They had local supporters. One of the main ideologists of "Ukrainization" was Rakovsky H.G. (who, before joining the RSDLP(b) in 1917, hung around between the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks). At the XII Congress of the RCP(b), he resolutely spoke out against Stalin's national policy. Rakovsky stated that it was necessary to take away nine-tenths of the rights of the union commissariats and transfer them to the national republics. Throughout the existence of the CPSU, there was a struggle within the party not for power, as they like to write, but for the paths of development of the country. But nevertheless, a myth of alleged unity within the party is steadily created. During Lenin's lifetime, a resolution was adopted to ban various factions in the party, but nevertheless factions in the party arose throughout the entire period of its existence, in one form or another. Consider my comment as an addition to yours.

[Sergej1972]

Postyshev at one time was on very good terms with Stalin. He was considered his man in Ukraine.

[G17]

I thank the author for the article. The most important point is correctly stated - from 1917 to this day, the Russophobic national policy has not undergone any changes. Moreover, it took on completely wild and catastrophic forms for the Russian and other indigenous peoples of the Russian Federation, when the authorities deliberately arranged a new Great Migration of Peoples to Russia from Central Asia and Transcaucasia, and characters like Karnaukhov openly invite us to forget about our Russianness.

[paul3390]

from 1917 to this day, the Russophobic national policy has not undergone any changes

Please note - for all the mistakes of the Soviet government on the national issue, it in no way allowed the actual colonization of the RSFSR by the peoples of the remaining SSRs. Did you see a lot of non-Slavic faces on the streets of our cities back then? No - only those national men who were extremely valuable and educated specialists in some necessary industry were allowed into Rus'. For example, Azerbaijani oil workers in Siberia. It was simply impossible to pick up and move from a village to a Russian city - the notorious institution of registration prevented this. And even if you received an education at the center, in the vast majority of cases you were sent back home. So, compared to the current bacchanalia, the Soviet government was actually pro-Russian, whatever one may say.

[ANB]

. Just like that - to take and move from a village to a Russian city

It was also impossible to simply move from the village to Leningrad and Moscow. At the same time, large construction projects accepted people from all over the country. Only the Tajiks, Kyrgyz and Uzbeks were not very eager to attack them. They had a good time at home too.

[kalibr]

Quote: paul3390

this was prevented by the notorious institution of registration

Essentially a feudal institution!

[Stirbjorn]

Quote: G17

The most important point is correctly stated - from 1917 to this day, the Russophobic national policy has not undergone any changes.

Just what do we mean by the Russian people?! Judging by the works of the classics, there was a clear division - into nobles and others. So, before 1917, “Russophile” concerned only noblemen, and for the rest, “Russophobia” after 1917 was childish babble. Read Dostoevsky too

[S.Z.]

"These processes continue by inertia due to the lack of our own clearly formed national policy."

In Russia, as in any other country with a Western mentality, it is absolutely impossible to grant any one nation any advantages at the legislative level. Both for reasons of mentality and for more prosaic reasons, for example, for reasons of the composition of the legislative corps.

The Russian language is fixed - this is the maximum that can be allowed. Russia is a federation.

There is a national policy - it protects small nations from extinction, preserving their languages ​​and culture (within the budget).

[Gardamir]

Listen and think about it.

[kor1vet1974]

Another "Tale of how the Bolsheviks planted a bomb under the Russian Empire and the USSR". The author, speaking about "Ukrainization" in Ukraine and Kuban, keeps silent about many facts. For example, after the liberation of most of Ukraine from the White Poles in 1920, Dzerzhinsky wrote a letter to Vladimir Lenin in which he indicated that the majority of the Ukrainian intelligentsia was "through and through Petliurite." And what is typical of the intelligentsia? To change their shoes. In Ukraine, it was "yellow-blue" and with the establishment of Soviet power it became "red-son", since there was no other intelligentsia, and it was attracted to work, moreover, this intelligentsia joined the ranks of the Bolsheviks, but pursued a "yellow-blue" policy. Then, Kuban. They forget that on the territory of Kuban, the PRC was formed, the Kuban People's Republic, or, more simply, the Kuban Rada, which negotiated with the Ukrainian Rada on unification. Active supporters of Kuban "independence" were hanged by the nicest man Anton Ivanovich Denikin. Zealous supporters of "independence" were offended and went to the red-green partisans. Then it happened again, everything like in Ukraine, with Ukrainization.

due to the lack of its own clearly formed national policy.

What are your suggestions on this issue?

[vovochkarzhevsky]

Oh, how the author reeks of liberalism. Such a vigorous rotten piece of liberal manuals. Especially fake ones made in the nineties as evidence.
What did all this struggle really boil down to? Moreover, those working in Soviet authorities and party organizations knew local languages. And that was right.
And then, those who actually lived in the USSR, and were not just born in it, know how the Russian language supplanted national languages, and entire generations grew up who did not speak their native language.

[kor1vet1974]

Moreover, those working in Soviet authorities and party organizations knew local languages. And that was right.

That's right. Because it turned out that instead of Russian tsarist officials, Russian, Soviet officials would have come. And nationalism would have flared up with renewed vigor. And it's strange, such a good tsarism, for some reason, not particularly zealously forged national cadres, opened schools where the local population would be taught in Russian. "Scoundrels-internationalists-Bolsheviks", at first opened schools for locals in the same Central Asia, where they taught in Russian, it was later, when they figured out who was Tajik, who was Uzbek, who was Turkmen, who was Kazakh, they began to teach national languages ​​in schools and invented an alphabet for them, based on the Russian language. And it turns out, according to the meaning of the article, they did all this to harm, so that the state would fall apart.

[bober1982]

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

Such a vigorous rotten piece of liberal manuals. Especially fake ones made in the nineties as evidence.

Not quite so. All liberal manuals were created and successfully implemented under Soviet power, as an example - something like forced Ukrainization (read: Banderization) of the same Ukraine, what can we talk about if the leadership of the late Union were representatives of the Ukrainian clan. They worked strictly according to the manual, that is, Banderization of citizens.
In the 90s, liberal citizens did not care about training manuals, no one was interested, no one wrote them because they were unnecessary.

[DNS-a42]

Quote: bober1982

something like forced Ukrainization (read, Banderization)

The elderberry garden, and the uncle in Kiev.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

Not quite like that. All liberal training manuals were created and successfully implemented under Soviet rule, as an example - something like the forced Ukrainization (read, Banderization) of the same Ukraine

There was no forced Ukrainization or other actions. It's time to clear our minds of liberal mantras.

[Andobor]

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

Not quite like that. All liberal training manuals were created and successfully implemented under Soviet rule, as an example - something like the forced Ukrainization (read, Banderization) of the same Ukraine

There was no forced Ukrainization or other actions. It's time to clear our minds of liberal mantras.

In the 70s I lived in Kuban as a child, there was no forced Ukrainization, it was "soft", it was impossible to subscribe to even popular children's publications, but to Ukrainian-language analogues, please, instead of "Krokodil" there was "Perets", instead of Vesyoliye Kartinki Barvinok, the communists were in power and ruled all this. And they subscribed, and read, since then I understand Ukrainian perfectly.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

In the 70s, I lived in Kuban as a child, there was no forced Ukrainization, it was “mild”, it was impossible to subscribe to even popular children’s publications, but for Ukrainian-language analogues please, instead of “Crocodile” “Pepper”, instead of Funny Pictures Periwinkle, The communists were in power and in charge of it all. And they signed and read, since then I understand Ukrainian perfectly.

Since you were still a child, you could be forgiven for not knowing the specifics of a newspaper subscription. Both “Crocodile” and “Pepper” were very popular, because despite the fact that they were large, the circulations were not enough. At the same time, “Crocodile” was distributed throughout the USSR, unlike national publications.
However, many national publications were required to allocate quotas for subscribers who were settled in other republics.
Therefore, in the Ukrainian SSR itself it was difficult to subscribe to both “Pepper” and “Krokodil”. But in Kuban, “Pepper”, being in less demand, was available.
Therefore, do not breed essence.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: vovochkarzhevsky

There was no forced Ukrainization or other actions. It's time to clear our minds of liberal mantras.

Yes, yes, yes, the liberals rewrote history. Moreover, in the past, replacing the texts of the speeches of the leaders of the CPSU (b).

Further, I have a note that we, communists, are supposedly implanting Belarusian nationality artificially. This is incorrect, because there is a Belarusian nation that has its own language, different from Russian, which is why it is possible to raise the culture of the Belarusian people only in their native language. The same speeches were heard about five years ago about Ukraine, about the Ukrainian nation. And recently it was said that the Ukrainian republic and the Ukrainian nation are an invention of the Germans. Meanwhile, it is clear that the Ukrainian nation exists, and the development of its culture is the responsibility of the communists. You can't go against history. It is clear that if Russian elements still predominate in the cities of Ukraine, then over time these cities will inevitably be Ukrainized.

I hope you yourself know the author of this report.
And away we go:

No forced Ukrainization, what are you saying? Either you learn the language or you get fired. Moreover, since 1926, when dismissal for ignorance of the Ukrainian language, the provisions of the Labor Code are not applied.

[Foul skeptic]

Moreover, in the past, replacing the texts of the speeches of the leaders of the CPSU (b)

Alexey, in this case you also need an explanation of the “speech”. You don't understand what is written.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

I hope you yourself know the author of this report.
And away we go:

Have you even read the screenshots provided?
There they only obliged the staff who worked with the local population to know their language.
Or do you think the population was obliged to adapt to the staff?

[sevryuk]

Quote: Silhouette

The Bolsheviks replaced the concept of “Russian” with “Soviet”

The Bolsheviks replaced the concept of “Great Russian” with “Russian”, and also “Little Russian” with “Ukrainian”.

[ivan2022]

Quote: sevryuk

The Bolsheviks replaced the concept of “Great Russian” with “Russian”, and also “Little Russian” with “Ukrainian”.

You write about all sorts of nonsense from a hundred years ago instead of thinking about the main thing: "The Bolsheviks did a lot of things, but now Russians are better off without the Bolsheviks? BUT UNDER THE BOLSHEVIKS ALL NON-RUSSIANS LEARNED RUSSIAN LANGUAGE"
The Bolsheviks in the early 30s abandoned indigenization and moved on to Russification.
The difference is that the Russian bydlo is now mumbling about Bolshevik Russification, but the Russian one is mumbling about indigenization. And everyone is happy.

In the Bolshevik Party all positions were elective and most of the Bolsheviks were Russian. And if in the end they were elected to the point that they made traitors and thieves their leaders - they got what they deserved. Lenin was 100% right in everything. Natural selection "according to Darwin" today decides what the Bolsheviks did not decide.

[dump22]

In the Bolshevik Party, all positions were elected

For any vacant elective position in the CPSU, a candidate from a higher party committee was proposed. Moreover, there was only one - it was proposed to “choose” it!
The secretary of the party committee was elected on the recommendation of the district committee, the secretary of the district committee was elected on the recommendation of the regional committee, and the secretary of the regional committee on the recommendation of the Central Committee.
And all candidates for “elections” to the Central Committee were presented to the congress by the Politburo.

[ivan2022]

Quote from: dump22

For any vacant elective position in the CPSU, a candidate from a higher party committee was proposed. Moreover, there was only one - it was proposed to “choose” it!

Baby talk...;"but the nanny didn’t allow us and suggested....to poop and pee on the party charter."
If party members are not satisfied with the party charter and are unable to comply with it, then they are the descendants of serfs. For whom the law is not enough. They also need a Master who allows them to use the law. And then why do they need a charter or a law?

Alexander III answered this question: "The Russian peasant needs a Tsar and a whip." Your post confirms this completely..... Heh... heh... that's some psychology..... if they "offered" to shit on the charter and the law, we'll shit! The main thing is that the Master is happy...Heh..heh... The master was pleased, but the state collapsed...

[dump22]

Baby talk...;"but the nanny didn’t allow us and suggested....to poop and pee on the party charter."

This is what Stalin’s times clearly taught: if you go against the “line of the Central Committee”, you will be ground into powder.
There are no dull ones left in the party.
And the very last slow-witted party idealists (like General Grigorenko) were trampled underfoot in the 60s.

I met one such last slow-witted person in the military school. The teacher, a captain of the 1st rank, a participant in the Great Patriotic War, brought his thoughts on Marxism to the MLF department in the form of an essay "On the Errors in Marx's Economic Theory". He wanted to discuss
Kicked out of the party and fired from my job.

[ivan2022]

Quote from: dump22

Baby talk...;"but the nanny didn’t allow us and suggested....to poop and pee on the party charter."

This is what Stalin’s times clearly taught: if you go against the “line of the Central Committee”, you will be ground into powder.
There are no dull ones left in the party.
And the very last slow-witted party idealists (like General Grigorenko) were trampled underfoot in the 60s.

At the military school I found one such last dull guy. .

You confirm my words, but why does this look like an objection in your head?
Heh...heh...You confirmed that people like you are, in principle, incapable of truly creating their own Party.
Just about the military school, don’t pour salt into the wounds. All of you, for the sake of a pension, betrayed the Oath given in the USSR, and now you will still be struggling here? Let’s face it, the servile fate is such that whatever the Master says, that’s what they do. The nobility have not yet grown up to such things as the workers' party and the socialist fatherland, if they have never been masters in their own country and have done everything that is possible and seemingly impossible...

[Silhouette]

Quote: ivan2022

In the Bolshevik Party, all positions were elected and most of the Bolsheviks were Russian. And if in the end they got to the point where they made traitors and thieves their leaders, they got what they deserved.

The Bolshevik leaders were mostly either Jews or foreigners. But not Russians. Now rearrange your words correctly and then the meaning of your words will be correct.
As for the elections in the Bolshevik party, everyone who has encountered this procedure in life knows very well that all elections are carefully prepared by specially trained people. And the Bolshevik elections were managed by an entire organizational department headed by Yankel Miraimovich Gaukhman (Sverdlov).

[Oleg133]

Basically nothing has changed, starting with the Romanovs, Holstein Gottorp, the USSR against the Russians in exactly the same way.
Russians are the building material, the cement that holds them together and the lubricant in interethnic tensions.
Standard Model

[ivan2022]

Quote: Oleg133

Basically nothing has changed, starting with the Romanovs, Holstein Gottorp, the USSR against the Russians in exactly the same way.
Russians are the building material, the cement that holds them together and the lubricant in interethnic tensions.
Standard Model

Old Aloizych said the same thing. It’s as if you took it right out of his mouth: “Russians are inferior because they are not capable of building a state for themselves.”. The only curious thing is how is it that “Russian patriots” are not sent to sunny Magadan for promoting the inferiority of the Russian people? Stalin sent people like you and did the right thing.

[Sergej1972]

The Bolshevik policy regarding the territorial demarcation of Great Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians and the proclamation of them as separate, albeit related, peoples seems to me to be not entirely correct. If we take other peoples and territories, then I have a rather positive attitude towards this policy. National-cultural policy is definitely a plus. National-territorial - here it depends on the specific region. The claims are that the territories of a number of union, autonomous republics and other autonomous entities were excessively inflated due to the inclusion of areas with a clear Russian majority. Although the inclusion of areas with a Tatar majority in Bashkiria also seems questionable. It seems to me that in a number of cases the issue was not ideology, but the lack of reliable scientific knowledge about the national composition of the population of certain regions, about the degree of national self-awareness of different peoples. In the conditions of interspersed and (or) mixed settlement of many peoples, as well as numerous internal migrations of the population, it was simply impossible to draw internal borders that suit everyone and always. Perhaps, in some cases, instead of national entities, it would be worthwhile to create territorial and (or) multinational entities. But in the latter case, without the dominance of one people. Plus, in our conditions, it seems to me, the principle of "one people - one territorial entity" does not always work. If we have a lot of Russian territories and regions, then the existence of several territorial units for other peoples is quite possible. This is a better option than the artificial creation of inflated territorial entities with the inclusion of Russian or other territories of other nationalities. We have several Nenets autonomous districts and regions with a special status (everywhere with a Russian majority), I do not see anything wrong with this. Equally, in the existence, along with the Buryat Republic, of two Buryat districts in the Zabaikalsky Krai and Irkutsk Region. A completely possible option for some other peoples.

[Yuras_Belarus]

The author clearly expressed the main idea of ​​his “footcloth”: the Bolsheviks allegedly “humiliated” the Russian people. The thesis is not at all new, if you remember about the “bomb under Russia”. And again the text equates Soviet nationality policy with liberal-bourgeois policy. In short, the main goal of the article is to promote the conservative-bourgeois concept of a “state of ranks”, where every cricket knows its own backyard: every nation, ethnicity or national group must occupy and not violate the established hierarchy by someone (that is, those in power and money). To put it even more briefly: there are ubermenshi and there are untermenshi.

[Sergej1972]

It seems to me that the policy of “indigenization” of the party state apparatus and the policy of “Ukrainization” and “Belarusization”, etc. if connected, then only partially. It's not exactly the same thing. The policy of indigenization was not abandoned in the 40-50s, and in a later period. If you don't go too far, then there is nothing wrong with it. Simply, if in a particular region, in addition to the “titular” ones, there was a large percentage of Russians or representatives of other peoples, then they also had to be represented in the local party state apparatus in accordance with their share in the population. And, of course, this policy should have been applicable to a lesser extent in relation to allied structures in the region: the prosecutor’s office, control agencies, and security forces. However, that’s how it was.

[dump22]

Even though I will be scolded for “kowtowing to the West,” but in my opinion, the American policy of a “melting pot” for all nations and races (and its more modern modification of the “salad bowl”) looks more promising than the cultivation of national autonomies.

[Bolt cutter]

American "melting pot" policy for all nations and races

Doesn't work now.

a more modern modification of the “salad bowl”

Leads to the formation of ghettos and resistance cores in a possible civil war when dark times come.

[S.Z.]

Quote from: dump22

Even though I will be scolded for “kowtowing to the West,” but in my opinion, the American policy of a “melting pot” for all nations and races (and its more modern modification of the “salad bowl”) looks more promising than the cultivation of national autonomies.

The USA did not go through the stage of a nation state; it was a melting pot there from the very beginning.

Russia skipped the stage of a national state, becoming an empire very early. The USSR tried to forge a "Soviet people", but not very decisively. In fact, we are the last large empire in Europe. Well, or a federation...

[dump22]

The USSR tried to melt down the “Soviet people,” but not very decisively.

Alas, I didn't even try.
Because the very first and most logical step towards this is the abolition of the “nationality” column in documents and any application forms. But in the USSR, on the contrary, they held on to this column until the last.

Moreover, the documents of the USSR clearly stated how a citizen was obliged to choose a nationality - only from an officially approved list of nationalities, only by father or mother, and then he had no right to change nationality!

That is, it was as if it was specifically emphasized that nationality is not a cultural feature, but rather the blood of ancestors.

[Sergej1972]

It got to the point that in the 30s, sometimes siblings who had common parents could be given different nationalities.

[dump22]

This is not only in the 30s. I know of at least one such fact in the 80s. The boy was registered as Armenian on his father’s side, but the Russian mother wanted to register the girl as Russian.

[Sergej1972]

This was not uncommon. It was allowed by law when parents were of different nationalities. I have such relatives of my wife, some Ukrainians, others Russians. But I am talking about the initial passportization, when people began to enter their nationalities in documents. Then there were sometimes cases when parents and their children, or brothers and sisters living in different places, could be given different nationalities when issuing passports. In Central Asia, it was rare for an entire Uzbek family to be recorded as Tajiks or vice versa. Moreover, locals often did not know exactly what nation they belonged to, and often associated themselves with small local semi-tribal entities. Tatars were sometimes recorded as Bashkirs in Bashkiria, Bashkirs in Tataria as Tatars. And so on. And they could also distort the surnames of siblings living in different places, changing one or two letters, not out of malice, of course. I will not claim that all of the above was a mass phenomenon. But I myself have spoken with people who claimed that they do not consider themselves representatives of the nationality that was indicated in their passport.

[Oleg133]

Quote: Sergej1972

If we have a lot of Russian territories and regions

Name at least one

[Sergej1972]

Without exception, all territories, regions and cities of federal significance of the Russian Federation are in fact Russian territorial units; in all of them, without exception, Russians predominate. Republics such as Crimea, DPR, LPR, Karelia or Khakassia are, in fact, also Russian subjects. And the Jewish Autonomous Region too.)

[Oleg133]

Quote from: dump22

the American policy of a “melting pot” for all nations and races (and its more modern modification of the “salad bowl”) - looks more promising

It just looks like it.
In fact, everything is very bad with this.

[Oleg133]

Quote from: dump22

the American policy of a “melting pot” for all nations and races (and its more modern modification of the “salad bowl”) - looks more promising

It just looks like it.
In fact, everything is very bad with this. And it’s deliberately getting worse and worse.

[Oleg133]

Quote from: dump22

as if it was specially emphasized that nationality is not a cultural feature, but the blood of ancestors

If this were a cultural feature, then the mongrels, having been trained, would be sold at the price of purebred dogs.
But the buyers - the ultimate Nazis - don't share your views on "blood or nurture."

I myself am from Siberian and Ivanovo peasants, but I “specially emphasize” that I have a cultural peculiarity - I consider myself Napoleon Bonaparte.

[dump22]

If this were a cultural feature, then the mongrels, having been trained, would be sold at the price of purebred dogs.

People are not dogs.
And nationality is still not blood, but rather upbringing.
Take an Ossetian and raise him from birth in a Russian environment - and what will be the result?
It turns out Valery Gergiev

[Oleg133]

People are not dogs

Yes, you can’t tell them the value

Quote from: dump22

It turns out Valery Gergiev

The result will be an Ossetian who has adopted Russian values.
He did not become Russian, and I think if you ask him, he does not consider himself Russian.
There are the Russian people and the peoples allied to them. (1)
It is not at all necessary to renounce your blood in order to join Russian values.
Russians are not racists, they accept everyone.

(1) why do the authorities and stubborn patriots want to either write everyone out of the Russians, or, on the contrary, push everyone into the Russians.
There is nothing wrong with being a Tatar, Yakut, Russian or Chechen with Russian values

[dump22]

He did not become Russian, and I think if you ask him, he does not consider himself Russian.

He has already been asked:

https://www.mknews.de/articles/2014/11/18/valeriy-gergiev-ya-russkiy-i-tesno-svyazan-so-svoey-stranoy.html

Valery Gergiev: “I am Russian and closely connected with my country”

There are the Russian people and the peoples allied to them.

But in my opinion there are no “allied peoples”. This is all current political speculation. Here are the Russians and the Chechens - allied or not? Unclear.
At first, the Republic of Ingushetia conquered Chechnya for a very long time and bloodily.
Then they lived in the same state, both in the empire and in the USSR.
Then they were evicted en masse - as traitorous people.
Then they rehabilitated and returned.
Then they fought bloodily again in the 90s.
Now we live in the same state again and seem (?) friendly. How long will it last?

What about the Georgians? What about the Armenians? What about the Kazakhs? Allied to the Russians? Unclear!

[hipper]

Mistakes, mistakes. Oppression of the "titular" nationality. What is oppression if you eliminate age-old biases in favor of the titular nation? Give people the opportunity to speak, write, read in their native language, but who took this opportunity away from the "titular" nationality? And about some excesses and distortions at the local level, even from this selection it is clear that this occurs over a relatively short period. About the distortions and distortions, excuse me, but have you ever done anything for the first time in the world? Does everything work out right away? And if you look at the end result, then this is not where you should look for the reason for the collapse of the USSR. Even within the framework of the theses of this article, it turns out that the peak of indigenization occurred in the 30s. That is, there were more prerequisites for the collapse during the Great Patriotic War, but this did not happen. Instead, we have Kazakh guys stopping tanks near Moscow. I don't know how they oppressed us so much in the outskirts, but do people from the former Soviet republics really speak Russian so poorly (of course, those who studied in the USSR)? Many are definitely better than me. In Kyrgyzstan, for example, medicine is still studied only in Russian.

[stankow]

I still don’t understand what mistakes are being blamed on the communists and Russians. In general, we did everything right. The USSR was destroyed not by nationalism, but by consumerism.

[Eugene Zaboy]

The Bolsheviks and their entire policy are basically continuous, alternating mistakes. As genetic research confirms today, the expansion of the Russian Empire was due to territories where the genetic code related to Russians prevailed among the population. Where this percentage decreased, the expansion of the Russian Empire stopped. Consequently, the transfer of all power to national minorities was stupidity, or an unforgivable mistake of the Bolsheviks. The issues should have been resolved differently and certainly not at the expense of infringing on the rights of the Russian-speaking population of these territories, where it often prevailed. Equality in rights is certainly justified, but not the suppression of some in the interests of others.

[hipper]

What kind of genetic research? Have you read it yourself?

[Eugene Zaboy]

Quote from Hipper

What kind of genetic research? Have you read it yourself?

Look at the distribution of haplogroup R1a across the territory of the former Russian Empire. If they came to Europe from Transbaikalia thousands of years ago, then it is natural that their descendants continue to live along this entire path. More or less in percentage terms, but they have not gone anywhere. Of course, they may look different and consider themselves a different people, confess a different faith, but nature does not change from this. If they move to Russia, then in 3 generations their descendants will be indistinguishable from Russians.

[hipper]

Like this? https://yandex.ru/images/touch/search?img_url=https%3A%2F%2Fs1.showslide.ru%2Fs_slide%2Fddac1f9c48267e2679e4e635d8446d30%2F7627f777-9993-47dc-8a86-881877bec15a.j peg&lr=80&pos=13&rpt=simage&source= serp&text=%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8 %D0%B5%20%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%D1%80%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%BF%D1%8B %20r1a%20%D0%BD%D0%B0%20%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B5 where is our Alaska, non-Metchina, Scandinavia? How does it work, a Cossack came to a foreign land, thought, smelled, felt that there was no smell of the Russian spirit here and did not set up prisons, trade and shoot sable? Why then did the RI drawn from contour haplomaps crumble a hundred years ago?

[Eugene Zaboy]

Quote from Hipper

Why then did the RI drawn from contour haplomaps crumble a hundred years ago?

The Russian Empire is not drawn according to contour maps, or haplomaps, only because haplogroups are much older than any maps, empires, and even Cossacks. There were no names like:

Quote from Hipper

where is our Alaska, non-Metchina, Scandinavia?

There was also no Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, etc., there were simply territories where people and mammoths roamed, or people behind mammoths, or people together with mammoths. Unfortunately, nothing is known about this, except speculation.
The only thing that is obvious is that they were able to live together peacefully and cooperate, otherwise the rest would have been exterminated.

[hipper]

[/quote]Unfortunately, nothing is known about this except speculation[quote]

Well, you are basing your concept of establishing a multinational state on these pseudo-scientific speculations.

[Mazunga]

Well, who was in charge then? It was all Leibs and Moishes. Really take a look at the members of the top brass at that time. They were all boys from Berdichev and Bobruisk.

[hipper]

Give the composition of any all-Union body on any date by name. Well, at least 80 percent are not Russian.

[Berezin]

If we return from history to today, then we have a certain (or maybe complete) analogue of the BLM (black life matter) movement. Russia has “previous statements” from almost all of its “brothers” in the USSR. Except, perhaps, Belarus (and even that is not a fact, Grygorych is a difficult person). And Ukraine is the first time that the Russians are finally trying to somehow correct the situation into which they have driven themselves.

[S.Z.]

Quote from: dump22

Alas, I didn't even try.
Because the very first and most logical step towards this is the abolition of the “nationality” column in documents and any application forms. But in the USSR, on the contrary, they held on to this column until the last.

A new community - the Soviet people, that was the goal. That is, there was an idea. The abolition of the “nationality” column is not the first step, but a step closer to the end.

[ivan2022]

Specifically, who “had the idea”? But did this idea not contradict the idea of ​​the flourishing of all cultures?


And "closer to the end" - this is the fate of our compatriots, who generally have two arguments: "talk to me some more"... And the second: "but I know what you think."

It is only those like you who know what all politicians of all times and all opponents thought and wanted Here it is, the end is coming...

[dump22]

The abolition of the “nationality” column is not the first step, but a step closer to the end.

By the way, can you explain why it was necessary for government agencies to do this? assign and know the nationality of the citizen? If the state needed this for 70 years, to divide you “by blood” - does this mean that this fact influenced something in your life?
And there was no noticeable sign that the state was going to abandon this forced divisions into different nations.

[S.Z.]

Quote: ivan2022

Specifically, who “had the idea”? But did this idea not contradict the idea of ​​the flourishing of all cultures?

No, it didn't. At the university where I studied, we were taught this, I think the subject was called Scientific Communism, later - Marxism - Leninism (or vice versa). Dialectics, if you understand what I mean (dialectics was also taught).

At congresses of the CPSU this term was also often voiced; Khrushchev first spoke about it at the 22nd Congress, then it was included in textbooks.

Why did you decide that this did not happen? Where did you study scientific communism?

[ivan2022]

Quote: S.Z.

Quote: ivan2022

Specifically, who “had the idea”? But did this idea not contradict the idea of ​​the flourishing of all cultures?

No, it didn't. At the university where I studied, we were taught this, I think the subject was called Scientific Communism, later - Marxism - Leninism (or vice versa). Dialectics, if you understand what I mean (dialectics was also taught).

At congresses of the CPSU this term was also often voiced; Khrushchev first spoke about it at the 22nd Congress, then it was included in textbooks.

Have you forgotten that you have quietly equated the idea of ​​abolishing the "nationality" column with the idea of ​​a "new community"? This has never happened and has never been stated anywhere. These are not the same thing. For example, in modern Russia, the community of "Russians" does not contradict national ideas. The column in the passport was abolished after the CPSU was banned. All of this is the consequence of your confidence that you know the secret thoughts of the leaders of the CPSU. They probably existed, but they were different, we can only guess about them.

Without being a dogmatist, I claim that the idea of ​​melting all nations into one absolutely contradicts the idea of ​​the flourishing of all cultures. Which no one has ever rejected. There is no need to learn scientific communism here. It is enough to just be a normal person.
And to be more precise, the flourishing of all cultures in the USSR was linked to the idea of ​​rapprochement and strengthening of economic cooperation of the republics. I don’t see any contradictions here.

Besides, if for you Khrushch’s sayings are “scientific communism”, then I wash my hands of it... I should have warned you. At the CPSU Congress, Khrushchev even declared his rejection of the idea of ​​the dictatorship of the proletariat. If you have really studied Lenin's works, you must understand that without this there is neither Marxism nor Leninism... ... and everything they said there was just servile chatter, if not worse. Because all of Khrushchev's chatter then smoothly transitioned into the ideas of "convergence".

[S.Z.]

Quote: ivan2022

Have you forgotten that you slowly equated the idea of ​​abolishing the “nationality” column with the idea of ​​a “new community”?

I didn't forget because it didn't happen. Take a closer look at the correspondence.

[ivan2022]

Quote: S.Z.

Quote: ivan2022

Have you forgotten that you slowly equated the idea of ​​abolishing the “nationality” column with the idea of ​​a “new community”?

I didn't forget because it didn't happen. Take a closer look at the correspondence.

Heh..heh...what, what “didn’t happen”? Well, here you are, sliding down to what I already wrote about. Look at Your words today 8:10;
“A new community - the Soviet people, that was the goal. That is, there was an idea. The abolition of the “nationality” column is not the first step, but a step closer to the end.” Everything is accurate - starting from the strange confidence that you know the "secret thoughts of the leaders" - and ending with the stupidest lies. Further discourse is inappropriate.

[S.Z.]

Quote: ivan2022

Without being a dogmatist, I assert that the idea of ​​​​melting all nations into one absolutely contradicts the idea of ​​​​the flourishing of all cultures.

Assert that no one is bothering you. And there is nothing to argue with - Scientific communism no longer exists.

[ivan2022]

Quote: S.Z.

Assert that no one is bothering you. And there is nothing to argue with - Scientific communism no longer exists.

First of all, well, what, you have nothing to counter with? It happens.
Secondly, not me, but the other way around - you were telling me about Scientific Communism, which doesn’t exist - in your reply today is 12:03, and why?

[S.Z.]

Quote: ivan2022

In addition, if for you Khrushchev’s sayings are “scientific communism”, then I wash my hands... I should have warned. At the CPSU Congress, Khrushchev even proclaimed the rejection of the idea of ​​the dictatorship of the proletariat. If you really studied Lenin's works, you must understand that without this there is neither Marxism nor Leninism... ... and everything they said there is just servile chatter, if not worse. For all Khrushchev’s chatter then smoothly turned into the ideas of “convergence.”

This was the idea of ​​the first person of the party and the first person of the state, which later became one of the points of the program of scientific communism.

This subject was taught in universities.

Your opinions, especially expressed in such language, indicate that you are most likely a person who has not received a systematic education, right? You have not studied at all? Then your views are completely understandable, they most likely do not exist at all, right?

[ivan2022]

Quote: S.Z.

This was the idea of ​​the first person of the party and the first person of the state, which later became one of the points of the program of scientific communism.

This subject was taught in universities.

Your opinions, especially expressed in such language, indicate that you are most likely a person who has not received a systematic education, right? You have not studied at all? Then your views are completely understandable, they most likely do not exist at all, right?

Here, here.. the main “argument” from Shura Balaganov: “Who are you”?..
You have no arguments on the essence of the issue and you move on to another topic: you try to compensate for the lack of arguments even... heh... with the "authority" of Khrushchev as a "theorist"... I should have thought of it!! In addition, switching to a discussion of the opponent’s personality is already on the verge of rudeness. The discourse is over, as I have already mentioned above. If it is still not clear, consult a doctor. You have obvious problems with perception. .

[S.Z.]

Quote: ivan2022

Quote: S.Z.

Quote: ivan2022

Have you forgotten that you slowly equated the idea of ​​abolishing the “nationality” column with the idea of ​​a “new community”?

I didn't forget because it didn't happen. Take a closer look at the correspondence.

Heh..heh...what, what “didn’t happen”? Well, here you are, sliding down to what I already wrote about. Look at Your words today 8:10;
“A new community - the Soviet people, that was the goal. That is, there was an idea. The abolition of the “nationality” column is not the first step, but a step closer to the end.” Everything is accurate - starting from the strange confidence that you know the "secret thoughts of the leaders" - and ending with the stupidest lies. Further discourse is inappropriate.

:) Not this way. I was responding to a post saying that you need to start by canceling the mark in your passport. I said that canceling the column is at the end of the road, but I did not at all insist on this very cancellation.

And no secret plans - just knowledge of the subject.

[S.Z.]

Quote: ivan2022

Quote: S.Z.

Assert that no one is bothering you. And there is nothing to argue with - Scientific communism no longer exists.

First of all, well, what, you have nothing to counter with? It happens.
Secondly, not me, but the other way around - you were telling me about Scientific Communism, which doesn’t exist - in your reply today is 12:03, and why?

:) Cover? Are we playing cards? We need to warn you :)

I said that it is now impossible to argue with scientific communism - it died along with the USSR, that’s all.

After all, the whole conversation was about how nations should develop when moving towards communism, and this, you see, is exactly what was written in scientific communism as a subject. And I mentioned Khrushchev precisely in this context - he was the first to introduce such a term.

[Alexander Petrovich]

First, you should learn what communism is, because basically, no matter how you ask, none of you know what it is, but the main thing is that he died)))

[S.Z.]

Quote: ivan2022

Quote: S.Z.

This was the idea of ​​the first person of the party and the first person of the state, which later became one of the points of the program of scientific communism.

This subject was taught in universities.

Your opinions, especially expressed in such language, indicate that you are most likely a person who has not received a systematic education, right? You have not studied at all? Then your views are completely understandable, they most likely do not exist at all, right?

Here, here.. the main “argument” from Shura Balaganov: “Who are you”?..
You have no arguments on the essence of the issue and you move on to another topic: you try to compensate for the lack of arguments even... heh... with the "authority" of Khrushchev as a "theorist"... I should have thought of it!! In addition, switching to a discussion of the opponent’s personality is already on the verge of rudeness. The discourse is over, as I have already mentioned above. If it is still not clear, consult a doctor. You have obvious problems with perception. .

:) Not so, I'm just trying to understand how much you know about the subject you're trying to talk about. After all, everything that concerns the problem of nationalities in the movement towards communism is a topic of science - already dead - which was called "Scientific Communism".

It was there that it was described what would happen to nations under communism. And Khrushchev was the first to mention this term officially - it’s not a fact that he invented it himself, of course.

My arguments are based precisely on this science - alas, dead.

If you have not studied it, then, of course, you will not understand my arguments, since, most likely, you do not even know the terminology.

[224VP_MO_RF]

lies, socio-economic laws cannot be abolished, just like the laws of physics, for example. There will be communism!

[224VP_MO_RF]

nationalism of any color turns into fascism, as current events prove. The Bolsheviks were right a hundred times when they eradicated nationalism! "Brotherhood of workers and no others!" While idiots are arguing about who dug up the Black Sea and what nationality Christ was, the bourgeoisie of all nationalities is rummaging through the pockets of the common people.

[S.Z.]

Quote from: dump22

By the way, can you explain why it was necessary for government agencies to assign and know the citizen’s nationality? If the state needed this for 70 years, to divide you “by blood” - does this mean that this fact influenced something in your life?

I don’t know :) Probably, it’s not about the 70s - they took it from the empire, they wrote nationality there.

[Alexander Petrovich]

It was precisely the so-called indigenization that allowed the country not to fall apart, because the Bolsheviks correctly believed that the nation was a secondary and even tertiary concept, because they fairly put the class question forward, and even in this situation, the Russian language acquired the status of a world language, as did culture, and what do we have now? That is why all sorts of monarchists and other filth will never win here, because they once showed their love for the Russian people, working either for the Entente or for the Nazis.

[tank64rus]

It’s just that all this flirting with the national elites in the republics, territories and regions led to the fact that they understood a simple thing: by 1991, a crisis had come in the leadership of the USSR. All the national elites realized that in this case they could snatch a bigger piece for themselves. There will be no more need to be afraid of those at the top who can deprive you of a place of bread or imprison you, otherwise you may end up shot. Therefore, it was necessary to get out of the USSR, and for this there was one tool - nationalism.

[storm]

If a division has less than 60% Russians, then it is not combat-ready - this is the bitter experience of the Great Patriotic War.
This rule applies not only in war, but in all areas of life...
Since 1917, power in Russia was seized the Jews, and for 50 years representatives of small nations were at the helm...
As a result of their criminal activities, the basis of the Russian community, culture and life - the Russian Village - was destroyed.
The Russian people had their roots cut off in experiments to create a Soviet man, while the authorities in every possible way developed and economically supported the non-Russian republics.
Georgia, the Baltic republics, Central Asia openly parasitized the Russians......
That is why the USSR collapsed so quickly in 91. The Russians, the foundation of this artificial state created on the ruins of the Russian Empire, had neither the strength nor the desire to create a good life for everyone except the Russians. In addition to the “brotherly” republics, they fed and provided for the socialist camp in Eastern Europe and dozens of other states in Asia, Africa and Latin America....

[hipper]

[/quote]If a division has less than 60% Russians, then it is not combat-ready[quote]

Do you think so or do you have reliable statistics at hand?

[storm]

These are the words of General Panfilov, not my statistics.
Panfilov had to see for himself what soldiers from Central Asia were worth...

[hipper]

And if he said “less than 80,” would you believe it too?

[storm]

I would believe General Panfilov, but probably not you.

[hipper]

And if Panfilov had written in his memoirs that 5 percent of Russians were enough for a division to be combat-ready, would they have believed him? How is a division's combat-readiness measured? Maybe more factors and parameters are taken into account for this? Maybe you didn't read the memoirs carefully and the general wrote something else, but you remembered this phrase so strongly?

[storm]

Or maybe you’ll stop talking nonsense here and read the memoirs yourself?

[hipper]

Would you be willing to share the link?

[ivan2022]

Quote: assault

Russian people were “cut off their roots” in experiments to create a Soviet man,

...ah.....ah..."the roots!....the roots were cut off-and-and-! You can’t do that to the eggs and roots!” From everywhere we hear the groans of the descendants of serfs about their "roots" and about how "the red master was bad, but that can't be! We need the master to be kind and good..."...

The hardest thing is that it is impossible to explain the simplest thing to the serfs - in the State, the order is determined by its Laws, and not by kindness or "experiments of the master" (after all, experiments are conducted on rats). But not a single mangy dog ​​will remember Soviet legislation, and the revolution began for its sake... Over a hundred years, they've shit everything out and still don't understand a damn thing...The existence of laws is not enough for them - they also need a Kind Master who will implement them. They themselves can't... do it!! But then why do they need a State and Laws at all?

In fact, this servile psychology was noticed a hundred years ago by old man Adolf Aloisych, who logically formulated in his anti-people opus something like the following:"If they are not capable of creating a normal State for themselves, they are not complete, therefore, beat them!" Unfortunately, all modern propaganda of all kinds of "assaults" and other "so-called patriots" is built on this thesis about the inferiority of the Russian people, their name is legion... And this is complete darkness...

P.S. It would seem that everything is so simple! Nothing can prevent mentally normal people from living, except thieves and traitors, and even fools.......

[storm]

Well, Vanya has twisted it up, whipped up some mud, but the whole truth is that the Jewish commissars, with their false promises of "land for the peasants," plunged the Russian people into the bloody slaughter of the civil war, then carried out the robber-smoking collectivization and for 40 years set up a Soviet slave system for the farmer, working without money for "sticks," without days off or vacations....
Documents were not issued so that people could not leave the village voluntarily.
After the terrible famine of the early 30s, dispossession and plundering of the village, a terrible war came and the Russian village became depopulated, women and cows were used to plow the fields because almost all men, horses and tractors were mobilized, and at best one in ten returned from the war...
The post-war hungry 46-47th, when thousands of tons of Russian bread were transported abroad to feed the Germans, Poles, Czechs and all the "euro*raz" who fought against Russia, and their own people, adults and children, were plump from hunger...
For former fascists, coffee was purchased for gold in Brazil...
In the 50s, extortionate taxes were introduced, forcing peasants to slaughter cows and cut down apple trees.
Paying penny salaries on collective and state farms and issuing passports began only in the late 60s with Brezhnev coming to power...
What other people besides the Russians can withstand this...

[UrraletZ]

Again, another anti-Soviet lying vomit. Another one bitten by Solzhenitsyn...

[23ronin]

I have a question: What is GREAT RUSSIAN CHAUVINISM!? and what to do with it...the Armenians and others...are fighting...they just won't leave this rotten Russia...they're fighting...

[Artyom Savin]

All this, of course, happened, indigenization, positive discrimination and all that, only then came ’37 and Comrade Stalin stirred up 11 “national operations” during which the nationalities from the Greeks to the Koreans were thoroughly cleansed. 335 thousand were convicted, of which 245 thousand were spent - that is, 3/4 received a lead filling in the back of the head.
As the classic said - pass us by more than all sorrows, both lordly anger and lordly love

[ivan2022]

Quote: Artem Savin

All this, of course, was indigenization....

As the classic said - pass us by more than all sorrows, both lordly anger and lordly love

The classic said this in the first third of the 19th century. He was normal.....mentally.

And when it was repeated in the USSR under democratic legislation, it became clear that the main sadness was in the brains of the descendants of serfs. Who continue to live under serfdom right up to the 20th and 21st centuries. And they dream of returning!

The joke about the partisan who derailed trains 20 years after the end of the War is just a child's joke in comparison.

[Zvi_Zamir]

Alas, as a result, no one even remembers about this policy, as well as about the economic and industrial development of the republics of the USSR. For many years there was brainwashing about how “bad” it was in the USSR and how rights and freedoms were supposedly suppressed there. In fact, now only Belarus is holding on thanks to the dad, who in time turned the country away from the path that leads to the abyss along which Ukraine is now moving