Jump to content

Talk:Russification

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 85.83.243.13 (talk) at 08:00, 30 July 2023 (→“Form of cultural assimilation” change to “Form of genocide”: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Moldovan

There's one point missing about the Moldovan (Romanian) language. Originally, that language was written in Cyrillic, and introduction of Latin script was politically motivated. Thus, use of Cyrillic in the MSSR can be regarded as restoration of the original script. Today, quite many Moldovans continue using Cyrillic in spite of the fact that it's no longer official in Moldova (however, it is in the Transnistrian Moldovan Republic). Some of them say that use of Cyrillic stresses their national identity (not being Romanian). --Gabix 10:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian vanity

rv Romanian vanity: Romanian was never written in Cyrillic (User:Ghirlandajo)

I don't understand what you mean by "vanity". Moldovan is the same thing as Romanian. Two-thirds of the Moldovans declared "Romanian" as their native language at the last census. bogdan | Talk 18:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So why Moldova hasn't been reunited with Romania proper as yet? Germans somehow managed to resolve a similar issue 15 years ago. --Ghirlandajo 20:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about Russification, so mentioning the origin of Moldavian language is highly relevant. What reason do you have to remove it ? --Lysy (talk) 20:37, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Romanian and Moldovan languages linguistically are not different; reunification is not done for various reasons; the fact that German and Austrian languages are not different does not means these countries unite, or that all Arabic countries unite or such. As well, Romanian was written in cyrillic alphabet in XIX century Burann 12:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Russophobic POV

I plan to rewrite this article, removing all the unreferenced POV comments like "some say" or "some opposition forces argue". IMHO it is another way of saying "I think..." or "my neighbour argues..." Also, can anybody clear up the phrase "in all Russian regions, including those of Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan", before I rephrase it too? --Ghirlandajo 20:07, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary - I find it quite Russophilic as it is now. Please discuss your proposed edits first before changing the article. --Lysy (talk) 20:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I find it to be quite phobic of left-winged views. To make a point, I've removed parts of the following sentence:
"Even though V.I. Lenin was a Marxist-anarcist and opportunist, he was an intelligent realist also, seeing clearly that in order to keep the main parts of Russia the Bolshevics should give up Finland."
It now reads:
"V.I. Lenin, seeing clearly that in order to keep the main parts of Russia, the Bolshevics should give up Finland."
Although it may be improper English, it is still better than to be so inaccurate. I'd also like to point out that Lenin wrote a book about Left Communism, in which he clearly denounces it. The original sentence even implies that being a Marxist, or an Anarchist is wrong, and that Lenin was an opprotunist while providing no citation.

Ghirlandajo's edits

Ghirlandajo, if you insist that these sentences are not about Russification:

Russification policy succeeded in many former Soviet republics, where many people prefer to speak Russian with their own children, believing that this will provide them a happier future. In Kazakhstan and Kyrghyzstan, for example, Russian has been declared a state language. In Ukraine this issue is being under discussion.

then why did you put them into this article in the first place ? --Lysy (talk) 14:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ghirlandajo, I beg you again, stop pushing your POV, don't call me a vandal and start discussing instead. --Lysy (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Russian in Crimea

"Russian is an offical language in Crimea, an autonomous republic within Ukraine, however." It is not. It is widespread, but it's not official according to Crimean constitution (state 10 of it says, that Russian, Crimea-tatar and other languages can be used and must be protected as good as state language (which is ukrainian, as at all the other Ukraine territory).

I see. Should we remove the information about it being the official language of Crimea too then from articles Crimea and Russian language? I asked in talk pages of those articles about it as well Burann 12:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

False statement

The following statement is false. "As such, schools where non-Russian Soviet languages would be taught weren't available outside the respective ethnically based administrational units of these ethnicities; the same could be said about the cultural institutions." My grandma worked as an accoucheur for some 10 years serving a group of three neighboring Tatar-populated villages in the South of Gorky oblast (now Nizhniy Novgorod oblast). Like all of the social life, the school teaching was in Tatar language; Russian language was taught additionally, in higher classes. My grandma did study the language (despite another claim in the article) to communicate with the local citizens. There were and are Tatar schools in Gorkiy/Nizhniy Novgorod, which, although generally Russian-populated, has quite a large Tatar diaspora. --Achp ru 15:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, there were exceptions. I know that for example Poles (many of whom lived in Belarusian SSR, Latvian SSR (Latgale) and the Lithuanian SSR since the times of Polonization of those areas) had their own schools (by "their own" here I mean the schools were the language of instruction would be Polish) - of course, it should be noted that Poles in fact did not have their own territorial unit in the USSR. Tatars had their own territorial unit (Tatarstan), however it should be noted that due to historical reasons many surrounding territories were also Tatar-inhabitted, but Tatars there were more or less intermixed with other nationalities, such as the Russian or Bashkirs, so it would have been very hard to draw any ethnic boundary (e.g. in Bashkirostan according to the 1989 census there were actually more Tatars than Bashkirs, 28% and 22% respectively). Situation was different elsewhere in the Union. I don't know very much about the Tatars however, and I am interested in several questions regarding this issue: At what grade they would have started learn Russian at those Tatar-language schools and at what grade the Russian-language schools would have started Tatar-language lessons? How many lessons of those subjects were would have been a week (I know that might be impossible to answer now)? And, did the situation in those areas changed over the time? E.g. was it so for long, or was this system introduced at some time, or was it later changed to Russian-schools system there? I am just interested comparing that to the situation in Latvia, and I am interested in how the situation on these issues differed or not in different parts of the Union, etc. Thanks in advance. Burann 19:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe those not to be exceptions. The main purpose of Soviet educational system (like any other) was to provide enough educated people to the economy.
Starting with the youngest age, you cannot teach a child if you speak a language he/she doesn't understand. So, for practical reasons it was just impossible to teach a Tatar child living in a Tatar environment in Russian language (which is the case with the Tatar enclaves in the countryside).
On the other hand, it is practically impossible to provide everybody with a national school everywhere.
The other question is the future of pupils as they grow. Obviously, if one grows in a large national entity, in coutryside, there's a bigger chance that he won't need much communication in Russian. If one lives in a city, the chance is less. If one lives in a small enclave surrounded by a Russian-speaking (or another) environment, there's a real need in Russian (or other language) because one day he/she will surely have to communicate with someone outside. If one lives in a mostly-Russian or mostly-Uzbek city, knowledge of Russian or Uzbek is vital.
So, the way education was organized depended and depends on ad-hoc circumstances:
* City or countryside?
* Which nationalities inhabit the area? Which are their percentages?
* Is the nationality numerous or small?
* National entity or enclave?
* Size of enclave?
* Level of development of national culture? Are there national universities or high schools?
* National spirit strong or weak? How strongly are the people attached to their language?
Thus, some national languages were/are used even in high school, some were/are only used in a limited way, locally, only in the earliest years of school study.
In some places, sparce minorities have day-off schools where they have the opportunity to learn their national culture in addition to usual school studies. For instance, in general (Russian) schools of Gorkiy/Nizhniy Novgorod, Tatar language is not studied. Though Tatars are quite numerous (tens of thousands in the city), that's not that much in 1.3 million city. They don't have a specific district where they settle, they are distributed all over the city, and that makes it hard to organize their national studies. AFAIK in Nizhniy Novgorod there is (are?) Tatar day-off school(s?) in mosque(s?). Alas, many of ethnic Tatars (especially non-Muslim) are not interested in it.
There are some languages which are now mostly spoken in countryside. Alas, such things happen simply because the people were not motivated to preserve their native language, and the motivation is not by repression, but by life itself.
There were also some languages and national cultures whose mention was not encouraged for political reasons.
--Achp ru 20:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I believe you are right about the things you have noted. Basically, most of urban dwellers were indeed exposed to the Russian language - I doubt many Riga's inhabittants of my age and older learned Russian at school for the first time; most had Russian friends at courtyard, watched Russian animated films and such. The situation was like that in most Soviet cities I assume. As the first sentence of this article says, Russification is the adoption of Russian language/lifestyle/etc. *werether voluntary or not*, therefore, it does not needs to be repression - this article is merely about the process. And such things as a language that is in common use in cities being changed by Russian are parts of that process. As for the Soviet education systems I believe what you have said about werether it used to be chosen to teach in some language or not, is correct. And this is exactly why most of the populations outside their respective territorial units did not have such oppurtunity to study in the schools of their original language - because of the reasons you have named (multiethnic cities, enclaves, etc.) - and the particular examples that are written in the article are correct. Burann 22:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And this is exactly why most of the populations outside their respective territorial units did not have such oppurtunity to study in the schools of their original language That's the point. The article says that nobody outhside their respective national entity could study in their language. That's not true. Where organizing such studies was practically possible, they were organized.
Ok, I have edited it now :) . Burann 11:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russification or Russianization

Or is it the same thing?--68.85.27.47 23:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the same. Burann 23:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the article on Korenizatsiya I have cited a useful essay by V. Aspaturian, who makes a clear distinction between Russianization and Russification (and Sovietizatioin as well). While these terms are sometimes used interchangeably, some information is lost by failing to maintain the distinction. I agree with others that this article still needs a rewrite.--Mack2 23:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Later. I've worked a bit on this article trying to add or straighten out the facts. Much of the concrete research on this topic for the Soviet era was overlooked. For example, the assertion that children of mixed Russian-nonRussian parents usually became Russians is contradicted by a lot of research, and specifically by findings that this depended greatly on the context (geographic location and other factors). I've added several references. Another problem that remains in the article is the lack of consistent distinction between Russification as policy and Russification as result -- i.e., does a policy of Russification automatically lead to Russified minorities? More generally, the distinction that I raised in previous paragraph needs to be built in as a definitional matter; and a further distinction is needed between linguistic Russification (learning Russian and adopting Russian as a mother tongue) and ethnic Russification (or change in self-identification of ethnicity or nationality). I'll try to work on this at a later time.--Mack2 16:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Still later. I've added new material, including Stalin's famous Victory Day 1945 speech in which he praised the Russians for, in effect, saving the country from facism -- a speech that first articulated a policy of "first among equals" and reversed his declaration in 1923 that rooting out Russian chauvinism was most important step toward assuring the survival of socialism in a multinational state.--Mack2 14:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-section headings

Because a lot of new material has been added to the Soviet Union section, I have identified major subsections based first of all chronologically, with substantive labels for sub-subsections where appropriate. Also, I have added numerous citations and footnotes to facts and background literature. I hope this is helpful.--Mack2 19:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Moved from the article page to talk. SeventyThree(Talk) 17:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

{{Image requested}}

any apt material to break the sections into easier to read segments and provide support for the article visually

Polish Communist schools

I had to learn Russian at school, even if I wanted to learn English. I had to read Murzilka or something like that. The same was in any Soviet block country. Hungarians and East Germans were quite resistant. Xx236 15:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

in part by the sense of impending war and the fact that the language of command in the Red Army was Russian.

The same sentence twice.Xx236 15:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lessons of Soviet Russian

I mean that the Russian language was taught as a tool of Sovietization rather than classical Russification. So not typo but basic difference.Xx236 16:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to word it differently then. The way it was written before it sounded as if a special "Soviet" variety of Russian was taught in schools, so my impression was that it had been a typo. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was partially Soviet Russian, partially classical texts. Maybe people from other countries can add their opinions. BTW - is the word tovarishch Soviet or standard? Xx236 17:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand what you mean. Are you referring to heavily politicized texts in Russian, which were used as primary means to teach the language? If so, I don't believe it was called "Soviet Russian", it was just Russian about Soviet-specific topics. It's just that the term "Soviet Russian language" stikes me as quite odd. If this term is used somewhere, I've never heard it before.
As for tovarishch, it's a regular Russian word, a synonym of "friend". The way Soviets used it, of course, it gained a whole new meaning ("colleague", "compatriot", "citizen", etc.). Still, unlike abominations such as glavk or minobr, the word has been in general use well before the Revolution.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I want to say, that Sovietization and Russification used to have a common part, but there existed a difference, too. Russian was a common language when I spoke to young Rumanians or sometimes Hungarians. Later it was replaced by English.Xx236 11:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to clarify it in the article then. Like I said, if you just write "Soviet Russian language", it sounds very confusing and probably isn't even a valid term. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No citation needed

Someone take that "citation needed" sign from "it was mandatory for all children to learn russian in school" or whatever. Some one is darn blind or plane stupid. I CITATE and my whole family, and my whole family's friends, and a whole nation, and a whole eastern block that WE WERE FORCED TO LEARN RUSSIAN IN SCHOOLS!!! It's like doubting that killing is imoral for the reason that we need citations... dumb... And there is no sovietatization or whatever without russification because the ultimate goal is the merging into one mentality to ease the denationalization of the minorities (although russians were NOT in an absolute majority in the Soviet Union even if the censuses state they were 50%. blind fake.)

Cool down. Citation is needed, that's the rule. BTW, who told you that killing is immoral? Are you a vegetarian? If yes, why are you killing plants? `'mikka 21:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, OP statement is false. Russian was not mandated. Actually, it was LESS mandated than English is today in the Czech republic, for example. The problem of the articke is it is (intentionally ?) mixing the natural cultural change of a society as it moves from an isolated agrarian one where most people cannot read to industrial one with radio newspapers etc. which naturally prefers a "common language" to be used for practical purposes. With a government-imposed policy of changing the cultural environment. Both happened in the USSR, but it is demagogy to use consequences of former as a proof of latter and vice versa depending of the POV of the author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.240.61.60 (talk) 13:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Problems

Unreferenced claims:

The comparison with other countries may have some merit however it should be referenced and written in encyclopaedic style. Alæxis¿question? 11:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the discussion about France of USA really belongs to this article. Besides, it is clear soapboxing. --Lysytalk 11:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Ethnographic territories in the beginning of 1900s versus Today

I have some collection of international links to Ukrainian and European ethnographic maps. Maybe it will help to see the difference with the current state:

"Present times" section

This section is not only very lacking in sources but it does not treat the subject in any systematic way. It relates a few undocumented anecdotes about some regions of the former Soviet space (e.g., Tatarstan, Belarus, Ukraine), but leaves out most of the Russian Federation and doesn't touch on some of the regions that were covered earlier in the (main) article (Baltic, Moldova). What would be most helpful is a well documented section on the current status of Russification (or derussification) in each area of the former Soviet space, including perhaps a focus on Russian language and culture in the media and education.--Mack2 (talk) 06:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Galassi: If nobody takes ownership of this section, given that it hasn't been improved for more than a year despite terrible flaws, it needs to be removed. It harms the quality and impact of the overall article.~Mack2~ (talk) 16:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Discrimination of Ukrainian language.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Discrimination of Ukrainian language.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests - No timestamp given
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Discrimination of Ukrainian language.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Russification of non Russian Orthodox Churches and peoples (Georgian Orthodox, Armenian Orthodox)

The article doesn't go into the Russian Empire's attempts to russify Non Russian Orthodox churches, especially in the caucasus like the Georgiana dn Armenian churches.

http://nftu.net/abolish-church-slavonic-institute-vernacular/

http://books.google.com/books?id=RSxt-JB-PDkC&pg=PA8#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=q_189OeDwSMC&pg=PA54#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=50GTIhntKvYC&pg=PA190#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=-XzKVba8xN8C&pg=PA195#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=aRJJ9qs6PeQC&pg=PA13#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=UFETmNH-nm4C&pg=PA197#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=JQRTev1AHjQC&pg=PA194#v=onepage&q&f=false


http://books.google.com/books?id=TlD2z8KiE_AC&pg=PA232#v=onepage&q&f=false

23:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Jewish Russification

Why is there is no mention that during czarist rule, the Russian government made great efforts to convert Jews to Christianity and forcibly assimilate them into Russia? Military conscription where Jews were encouraged to convert to Christianity, the state government heavily regulating Jewish communal life, forcing Jews to use Russian, French, or German instead of Yiddish.

And of course there was the even harsher forms of Russification during the Soviet Union. The commies outright banned Hebrew, shut down synagogues and converted them into Communist offices, and forced Jews to give up their religion and culture in favor of Russian identity. The Communists recruited self-hating Jews called Yevsektsiya to do their dirty work.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:fd07:e900:8422:2271:e028:5d6 (talk • contribs)

Why? - because you did not write about it. -M.Altenmann >t 20:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now, how conversion to Christianity and forcing to speak French means Russification? Please try to think coherently, re-read wikipedia article, then do some reasearch, find references, and then fix wikipedia. We are all volunteers here. -M.Altenmann >t 20:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Russification of naming structures

The article lacks information about russification of names. Most Soviet republics were forced to use the russian name structure, which would include a first name, a patronym (your father's first name) with -ovich/ovna, and a last name with -ev/a or -ov/ova, but didn't allow any other names. For example, a person named George Walker Bush (whose father is also named George) would be forced to rename himself as George Georgovich Bushov. This naming structure still persists in many ex-Soviet nations, although many are abandoning it and reverting to their culture/ethnicity's original naming structures. Someone with more knowledge should write/add more info about this to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donbom2 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Russification/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Has shown continuous improvement in coverage and accuracy. Needs more attention to the situation in the Russian Federation since 1991 as well as to the situations in some of the former non-Russian republics of the Soviet Union in which substantial numbers of Russian-speakers still reside.--Mack2 (talk) 20:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 20:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 05:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Too much about the USSR

Too much of this article is about the USSR, and some of that material is about the opposite of Russification. This is partly because the information about Tsarist times has not been expanded, but the effect is that it creates a very biased article, whether intentionally or not.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Russification. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mikhail Muravyov-Vilensky's purpoted quote "что не доделал русский штык – доделает русская школа"

In the part about the Russification of Poland and Lithuania the above quote is mentioned as being attributed to Muravyov.

It can be translated as: what the Russian bayonet didn't complete - the Russian school will complete. (more or less. or "the Russian school will finish")

However, I've searched around on the internet and did not find a serious source mentioning a work/letter/etc where Muravyov said it. I found this article by Nasha Niva in which the author says they believe it is a quote from Ivan Petrovich Kornilov, a prominent Russian official in Lithuania in the 1860s. However the article also doesn't mention hard evidence, saying that his memoirs are in the "national library" – I presume the author means the Belarusian one?

I found this article from some humanity studies journal (it doesn't have a Wikipedia page) which attributes the following quote to Kornilov:

Русская пропаганда, действующая через школы, церкви, администрацию, делает своё дело; она возбуждает в массах ясное сознание и убеждение, что здешний край − исконно русский, что здесь колыбель русского государства и Православия… Русский язык и русская вера перестают называться холопскими; русского языка не стыдятся как прежде, а польским не щеголяют. Русское образование сильнее русского штыка.

Translation: Russian propaganda, acting through schools, churches, administration, is doing its job; it arouses in the masses a clear consciousness and conviction that this region is primordially Russian, that here is the cradle of the Russian state and Orthodoxy... The Russian language and Russian faith cease to be called servile; Russian language is not ashamed as before, and Polish is not flaunted. Russian education is stronger than the Russian bayonet.

One can only notice the similarity. This quote has a notably less "offensive" tone. The stated source for the quote is Корнилов И.П. Русское дело в Северо-Западном крае: Материалы для истории Виленского учебного округа преимущественно в Муравьёвскую эпоху. 2-е изд. Вып. первый. СПб., 1908.

I'm also not 100% certain of its veracity – I didn't find a digital version of the quoted source.

It seems that this quote is mentioned in a fair amount of books and publications (in Russia and Belarus), at least according to my humble google searches. The first one seemed to be mostly in articles and personal blogs, and I found nothing that points to a hard source.

Note that both quotes are "exploitable" for controversial topics in the present day, one being used by Belarusian nationalists to underline cultural oppression, portraying Russian schools as mankurt factories, and the other used by pro-Russians. For instance, I found a book mocking "small-town nationalists" for using the first quote.

I didn't remove the quote from the section. I'm curious to hear feedback on what I wrote here. --Spafky (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

“Form of cultural assimilation” change to “Form of genocide”

Russification as a state policy fulfills at least 3/5 acts defined as genocide (one is sufficient to be labelled genocide). Namely, killing members of the group, causing serious physical and mental harm, and imposing living conditions intended to destroy.

”Cultural assimilation” does not adequately reflect the systematic cruelty of this state imposed process. 85.83.243.13 (talk) 08:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russification&oldid=1167857987"