Talk:Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic
|This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, realise, defence), and some terms used in it are different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Flag is wrong
- 2 UN seat
- 3 Unreferenced?
- 4 Wikiproject Ukraine, Importance scale.
- 5 Map quality
- 6 Proposed move to Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic
- 7 Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic
- 8 Holodomor cat
- 9 File:Ukrainian National Republic map 1917 1920.jpg Nominated for Deletion
- 10 failure to collectivise on a voluntary basis
- 11 Today a Part of...
- 12 Did Ukrainian SSR existed until 1996?
Flag is wrong
"After World War II it was internationally recognised as an independent state in its own right (with a seat in the United Nations)." It was? There any documentation of this? Thanx 220.127.116.11 03:56, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
here is an article off of the united nations page that should clear up your doubt
I simplified the following lengthy
- This had only a symbolical meaning at that time's reality where Ukraine (as a Soviet republic) had no voice of its own in international affairs. In reality it meant little more than giving the Soviet Union extra seats (and votes) in the UN, which in itself was rather symbolical and had little effect in international affairs. The important seat of the UN Security Council permanent member was occupied by the USSR.
- In reality it simply meant giving the Soviet Union extra seats (and votes) in the UN, since Ukraine (as a Soviet republic) had no voice of its own in international affairs.
Which says basically the same, but without POVish weasels: "symbolical meaning" (twice!), "little more", etc. Also, the permanent seat sentence is irrelevant here: there is nothing special that Ukraine, like nearly all otther countries, didn't have perm. Also, "at that time's reality" is a useless (and I would say misleading) phrase, since Ukrainian SSR never had any independent say. mikka (t) 02:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
The original phrase might have been sloppily written but the new one misses a significant point that the vote Stalin gave to Ukraine (in UN General Assembly) meant little since there were 100+ members and the General assembly resolutions are meaningless anyway since there is no enforcement mechanism. OTOH, the resolutions of Security Counsil, where the seat belonged to the USSR itself, did matter, hence the vote there too. That what I wanted to say originally. --Irpen 03:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- I am afraid you are a bit wrong: Ukraine sat several times at the Security council, where her vote did matter to an extent. USSR had a permanent seat, which had the power of veto, which was used when USSR (or USA, btw) could not outvote by majority. To say or to hint in any way that General Assembly resolutions are meaningless is a disrespect to the body and misunerstanding of its purpose. Nevertheless the point is not missed, since it is covered in the overall general-purpose claim: Ukraine had no international say of its own.
- On the other hand, if it is true that UkrSSR had no other, even nominally independent, international authority, this should be mentioned. For example, UkrSSR was not a member of Comecon, Warsaw Pact, etc. Do you know anything in this respect? mikka (t) 03:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I will see what I can find out. Also, the Ukr SSR had its own Ministry of Foreign Affairs, perhaps just to support the UN mission. I don't know. Many states had consulates in Kiev, but so did they in Leningrad, so it doesn't mean much international recognition. It is interesting to find out to what international organization Ukraine belonged as a separate member. I will see whether I can find anything out.
On the side note, I am sorry if it hurts the General Assembly, but its resolutions were indeed meeningless. Every year or so it passed (and maybe still the passes) resolutions condemning Israel for something and it has no effect and they are not ever remembered. OTOH, the single UN Security Council Resolution 242 despite being so old is being brought up all the time despite this particular resolution had no enforcement mechanism. --Irpen 03:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- I look at this from other side. It would be truly horrible to have a single world power with abilities to crush anyone. UN is good to arrange cooperation where cooperation is possible. Where it is not possible, it shows who sits on which side of the fence. What it does is pretty useful. mikka (t) 03:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Please explain at talk what in particular is doubted by "underefenced" tag? Entire article? Something particular? Thanks! --Irpen 23:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Wikiproject Ukraine, Importance scale.
I think this article diserves to be of "Top" importance to the Wikiproject Ukraine, it is literally Ukraine. Why would it not be ranked at the top of the importance scale? Any ideas? Bogdan 00:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I don't know, maybe it should be, because it existed for quite a long time (±80 years). —dima/talk/ 01:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I added the reqmap tag because the current map isn't very helpful. It looks like it was scanned from an atlas; can anyone replace it with a better one, perhaps one with clearly readable text? Bry9000 (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- I have removed the reqmap tag from this page, and instead directly tagged the map image file to request cleanup. Bry9000 (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Proposed move to Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic
It seems that given that the formal name for this nation was "Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic", the soviet prefix abbreviation (-"SSR") shouldn't be in the full article name. Therefore, I propose to move the article to its full form, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. We wouldn't have an article about North Korea titled "DPRK", would we? --Micahbrwn (talk) 10:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic
The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (ССР - Украины) was stablished in 25.july.1938 in the 1st session of Supreme Soviet of Ukrainian SSR (Верховного Совета Украинской ССР). Before it, the name was Ukrainian Popular Republic (Украинской Народной Республики) (11 december 1917). The same as Tsentralnaya Rada or Directorate are know now!!!! (known as Tsentralnaya Rada or Directorate... or worse words). --Shliahov (talk) 23:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- What? The Soviet Union was established, from which countries? The real problem is the introduction table. the UkrSSR was established on the territory of the UPR and therefore there should be only one political entity identify that was preceding its formation. I do not see how Romania pretains to the formation of the UkrSSR. The fact that Soviet Union occupied the Romanian and Polish territories does not automatically refer to the formation of such pseudo-country.Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
File:Ukrainian National Republic map 1917 1920.jpg Nominated for Deletion
|An image used in this article, File:Ukrainian National Republic map 1917 1920.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
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.
failure to collectivise on a voluntary basis
The phrase has been unsourced since September 2014. Enough is enough, if collectivisation is good, why British or US farmes don't collectivise on a voluntary basis? Xx236 (talk) 09:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Well, yes, agreed. Per WP:NOR, either the description is attributable, or it's WP:EUPHEMISM. I think a neutral, attributable (i.e., WP:RS) descriptor needs to be found, or any of us can write our own description. Per NPOV, I could just as easily replace it with "... failure of farming communities to give their only source of revenue to the government and go to work for the government with no idea of whether they would even provide enough food to survive on in exchange for people's worldly possessions and labour (as well as the communal village life traditional to the vast majority of Ukrainians, with the rural population accounting for well over 80% of the population at that time)."
- Honestly, the turn of phrase is painfully contrived and smacks of Soviet rhetoric rather than maintaining a neutral tone. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Today a Part of...
Can someone clarify to me what part of the Ukrainian SSR is today a part of Poland? Or Moldova?--BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 18:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- 1951 Polish–Soviet territorial exchange is about it. And small part of former Бендерский уезд of Moldova was in 1940 part of USSR. And till 1940 Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic territory was the part of Ukrainian SSR Cathry (talk) 20:21, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks.--BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 23:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Did Ukrainian SSR existed until 1996?
From what I understand, although Ukraine had declared independence in 1991, it still used the existing 1978 Ukrainian SSR constitution based on the fact that 12 of the 15 post-Soviet states used their respective Soviet constitutions from 1978. Can anyone ratify this issue? Wrestlingring (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- Ukraine declared itself independent and changed its name to the Republic of Ukraine in 1991, and there are absolutely no arguments to back up that this state existed until 1996. That would be rewriting history. A new state is not just a matter of all-new constitutions, but also of its status and form of government. Afghanistan has had a lot of states since the abolishment of monarchy in the 1970s: the First Republic (1973–1978), Democratic Republic/Second Republic (1978–1992), the Islamic State (1992–2001), the Islamic Emirate (1996–2001), the Afghan Interim Administration (2001–2002), the Afghan Transitional Administration (2002–2004), and the present-day Islamic Republic since 2004. Yet they have only had four constitutions since then: 1976, 1987, 1990 and 2004. Is that to say that we should change these yearspans totally as well, so that most of these states didn't exist? The People's Republic of Hungary ended in 1989, but an all-new constitution was first made in 2011. Should we also say that the PR of Hungary existed until 2011, then? That would make little sense. Although Ukraine did not adopt a new constitution before 1996, there's no doubt about that it was a totally different state. It had a totally different form of government, its name was changed, it was an independent state (not a federated state), it was not a Soviet socialist republic. These factors are a lot more independent than the adoption of an all-new constitution. And although the constitution was not all-new, and formally the same constitution although heavily amended, it was amended to fit a new state and was not really the same constitution in practice. You'll have to agree that the 1991 transition is a lot more historically significant change in Ukraine's history than the adoption of a new constitution. Te og kaker (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)