Would a non-Communist Russia have been more successful at Russifying the "Near Abroad"?

Oct 2013
13,497
Europix
#31
Makes sense.

BTW, it's interesting that the Kuban was very thoroughly Russified in the 1930s as a result of Stalin forcing the Ukrainians there to identify as Russians. This ended up sticking and that's why the Ukrainians in the Kuban still overwhelmingly identify as Russians even right now.
Well, Ukraine and Bielorussia are bit of a special cases: both languages are extremely close to Russian. In other contexts, they could (even would) be considered dialects of Russian.

Wasn't the Kuban more of a Cossack region?
At the end of the 19th, Cossacks were largely Russian native speakers, AFAIK.

We can consider them a different ethnicity, but like Germans and Austrians, or Australians and Americans: different ethnicities speaking the same language.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
15,559
SoCal
#32
Well, Ukraine and Bielorussia are bit of a special cases: both languages are extremely close to Russian. In other contexts, they could (even would) be considered dialects of Russian.
Yes, very possibly.

At the end of the 19th, Cossacks were largely Russian native speakers, AFAIK.

We can consider them a different ethnicity, but like Germans and Austrians, or Australians and Americans: different ethnicities speaking the same language.
Actually, it appears that 47% of the population of Kuban spoke Ukrainian back in 1897:

 
Oct 2013
13,497
Europix
#34
Thank You for the maps.

As I said, Ukrainian and Bielorussian are close to Russian. A long term policy can make them closer and closer to Russian, transforming them from a separate language into a dialect and even change the locutor's perception on it.

The reverse was tried in URSS, and worked out in a certain measure: parts of populations that entered the Russian Empire/URSS became (or were tried to made become) a different people, speaking a different language. I refer to Turcic populations in south and Romance in west.

It went though changing the alphabet, introduction of neologisms from Russian, slight changes in sintax, grammar, aso.

Nothing else than forcing a phenomenon that happened in history (see Latin that become more Romance languages).
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
15,559
SoCal
#35
Thank You for the maps.

As I said, Ukrainian and Bielorussian are close to Russian. A long term policy can make them closer and closer to Russian, transforming them from a separate language into a dialect and even change the locutor's perception on it.
Agreed--though it might be easier for Belarusian than for Ukrainian due to the smaller amount of nationalism of the former in comparison to the latter. Please keep in mind that a lot of Ukraine voted for Ukrainian parties (specifically the Ukrainian Socialist Revolutionaries) back in 1917--which showed that they already had a national identity even back then:



Anyway, if I was in charge of Russia back then, I would have tried to--non-coercively, of course--get anyone to speak Russian and identify as Russians but also encourage large-scale Russian migration to other parts of the empire as a fail-safe option in the event that large numbers of Belarusians and especially Ukrainians would still refuse to identify as Russians.

The reverse was tried in URSS, and worked out in a certain measure: parts of populations that entered the Russian Empire/URSS became (or were tried to made become) a different people, speaking a different language. I refer to Turcic populations in south and Romance in west.
The only Romance population in the USSR was the Moldovans/Romanians. They were relatively few in number. There were much more Ukrainians and even Belarusians in comparison to Moldovans.

It went though changing the alphabet, introduction of neologisms from Russian, slight changes in sintax, grammar, aso.
Yep.

Nothing else than forcing a phenomenon that happened in history (see Latin that become more Romance languages).
Didn't the various Romance languages develop as a result of peasants making various additions to Latin?
 
Oct 2013
13,497
Europix
#36
The only Romance population in the USSR was the Moldovans/Romanians. They were relatively few in number. There were much more Ukrainians and even Belarusians in comparison to Moldovans.
Not exactly: they were some 2-4 millions, regrouped in a quit small territory, with a relatively small percentage of other ethnicities on that territory (=>compact).

though it might be easier for Belarusian than for Ukrainian due to the smaller amount of nationalism of the former in comparison to the latter. Please keep in mind that a lot of Ukraine voted for Ukrainian parties (specifically the Ukrainian Socialist Revolutionaries) back in 1917--which showed that they already had a national identity even back then:
Yes and no.

Romanian example can be suggestive: Bessarabia was part of Tzarist Russia (1 or 2 centuries, I think) and the "remodeling" started already then, and continued by the URSS.

Today, a lot of Moldavians doesn't consider themselves Romanians.

Meaning, that on long term, You can split a part of a nation and create another nation.

Again, it's less odd that it seems: it's a bit like making "in vitro" what is happening "in vivo". After all, in a different historical context, Serb and Croat would be one people, Serb and Croat wouldn't be two different languages but one, for example.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
15,559
SoCal
#37
Not exactly: they were some 2-4 millions, regrouped in a quit small territory, with a relatively small percentage of other ethnicities on that territory (=>compact).
That is a relatively small number in comparison to the size of the Belarusian and especially Ukrainian population, though.

Yes and no.

Romanian example can be suggestive: Bessarabia was part of Tzarist Russia (1 or 2 centuries, I think) and the "remodeling" started already then, and continued by the URSS.

Today, a lot of Moldavians doesn't consider themselves Romanians.

Meaning, that on long term, You can split a part of a nation and create another nation.

Again, it's less odd that it seems: it's a bit like making "in vitro" what is happening "in vivo". After all, in a different historical context, Serb and Croat would be one people, Serb and Croat wouldn't be two different languages but one, for example.
I completely agree with your train of thought here. However, I would like to point out that making one nation a part of another nation after this nation already develops a strong national consciousness might not be that easy to successfully do.