Talk:National delimitation in the Soviet Union

message: What were some of the key factors in determining if a region should become a full-fledged SSR, or simply be an ASSR of Russia (or another SSR).   For example, why was Azerbaijan allowed to become its own SSR, whereas Bashkortostan became an ASSR within Russia?  If all of these geo-political regions were created by delimitation, then what was the factor in determining full-fledged union republic status, or simply autonomy within an existing republic? 98.221.120.104 (talk) 13:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Decision Making

message: The folowing paragraph is removed as bearing little relevance to the topic.
:Eliminating illiteracy, introducing native languages to the education system, and creating a native proletariat were the other significant goals to be achieved in order to accomplish a “modern socialist state.” The elimination of illiteracy was among the most successful policies, especially in the underdeveloped nations of Central Asia. Despite the lack of adequate materials and specialists for education, illiteracy rates fell dramatically. Another education-related problem was the introduction of native languages; some native languages did not even have a written source or alphabet. In some regions people resisted the use of their mother tongue as the official language. In some cases native languages had several dialects. Despite these obstacles education was the bright side of the revolution. Developing a proletariat in every national community was also an inalienable goal of the revolution. This was also successful for a period. The number of native proletariat rose observably in the 1920s and 1930s, but this development was not uniform across all regions. In Slavic regions, Georgia and Armenia the number of native workers were actuallly rising, but in Central Asia, the mass movement of Russian workers to the industrial capitals of this region was a great factor. 
I put in into talk page as a reminder for use in some future articles about national minorities in the Soviet Union. `'Míkka 22:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is in fact central to the article. I have restored the section. -- Petri Krohn 01:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Education is irrelevant to the topic of the title, which is "national delimitation", and it has no place here, however central it is to this original essay. If you disagree, then please (a) explain how education is related to delimitation using references to reliable sources and (b) please provide sources to the claims made in this paragraph `'Míkka 02:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted piece

message: I have been looking at on-line material that might be used as references or external links. Here is one. Will list more later. -- Petri Krohn 14:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References and external links 

message: Wasn't the "process of national delimitation and nation building" the earliest form of Apartheid?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.184.41.226 (talk) 01:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anyone was actually obliged to live in the designated areas though. The Jewish area, for example, contained almost no Jewish people, and there were minorities all other the place. Apartheid forced groups into certain constrained places, so was quite different. This is more like Quebec in Canada being a "nation within Canada" without Francophones being actually being legally comeplled to live in Quebec. Or how Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales are in the UK. Scottish people are allowed to move out of Scotland. Soviet Armenians were allowed to move out of Armenia. I recall there was actually a Soviet propaganda movie advocating how racial integration was tolerated in the Soviet Union and how that made them better than the United States. 2001:569:7BB7:D200:1EE:BA17:4313:B126 (talk) 21:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This is by no means a form of apartheid. The term apartheid is associated exclusively with the racist policy in South Africa of dividing the white population and black indigenous people with severe restrictions. This was not the case in the Soviet Union. When the Bolsheviks came to power in 1918, they inevitably faced a national question, when, culturally, less developed peoples needed to be raised culturally (to educate on a mass scale, to smooth out interethnic contradictions). To give an impetus to this issue, the authorities decided to carry out a national-territorial demarcation, since the indigenous population already constituted the majority on their lands. At the same time, no special restrictions comparable to apartheid in the Soviet Union were introduced.--Modun (talk) 05:19, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

text: Simply put, the national-territorial demarcation was carried out for the indigenous population to exercise their cultural and political rights.--Modun (talk) 05:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apartheid 

message: Someone has to cross-check names and dates bot with sources and across wikipedia. I've noticed a couple discrepancies, but I don't have resources for careful research. - Altenmann >t 04:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracies in details 

message: I have added to this section considerably, keeping the bulk of what was there but re-wording it in places and adding references. I have taken out some of the specifics (e.g. Tajik-Uzbek disuputes) as I am in the process of creating Wikipedia entries for each individual border and will deal with specifics in the History section of these pages.
Sdrawkcab (talk) 23:25, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Central Asia