Thread: новый вопрос!

Что это значит АССР

А вот контекст:

Он охранял лагеря для уголовных преступников в Коми АССР.

Спасибо, Джентльмены!

Автономная Советская Социалистическая Республика.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Автономная Советская Социалистическая Республика.

Thanks a lot Ramil, what is the best way to translate that in English and what is the difference between this and CCCP????


Thanks for your help.

Originally Posted by uno

Originally Posted by Ramil

Автономная Советская Социалистическая Республика.

Thanks a lot Ramil, what is the best way to translate that in English and what is the difference between this and CCCP????


Thanks for your help.

АССР=Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic
СССР=Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Soviet Union)
(it's not the same thing politically, but lingusitically a useful way to think of it is the US: Iowa is a state, it is a member of the United States)

It breaks down like this:
-СССР was the overall Soviet Union
-Within the Soviet Union, there were different member republics (Russia, Georgia, Ukraine, etc.) -- when it broke up, all of these became independent countries.
-Within Russia itself (remember it was only one of the Soviet Republics) there were OTHER "republics". Komi was/is one of these.

Awarding "republic" status was a way of both keeping minority, non-Slavs happy (which usually were a minority even within their ethnic zones) as well as making sure that ethnic Slavs didn't get too powerful and start rebellions (which is essentially what ended up destroying the USSR -- Yeltsin, the RUSSIAN president, told Gorbachev, the SOVIET Premier, to basically go to hell and it all came down not long after...

The ASSRs were not all in Russia.

There were many in other SSRs. Like the Moldavian ASSR used to be part of the Ukrainian SSR, then it became a seperate Moldavian SSR.

Also Abkhazian ASSR in the Georgia.


For most of the Soviet Union's history (this was the final makeup, as in 1990), was:

Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics:
The Soviest Socialist Republics were:
Russian SFSR (Soviet Federative Socialist Republic)
Ukrainian SSR (Soviet Socialist Republic)
Belarussian SSR
Estonian SSR
Latvian SSR
Lithuanian SSR
Moldavian SSR
Georgian SSR
Armenian SSR
Azerbaijan SSR
Uzbek SSR
Kazakh SSR
Turkmen SSR
Kyrghyz SSR
Tajik SSR

There were others that existed for certain periods of time. Like Karelia, which is along the border with Finland (just about Petersburg), used to be a proper SSR. It was then aborbed into the RSFR as an ASSR.

Most ASSRs became Autonomous Republics after the collapse of the USSR.

E.g. The Tatar ASSR became the Republic of Tatarstan. Basically if you take the Soviet and Socialist out of ASSR you get Autonomous Republic.

The Crimean ASSR was part of the Russian SFSR, but it was transfered in the 1950s (I think) to the Ukrainian SSR, and reduced in status to a normal Область (Region). After Ukraine became independance though, it got pissed off and went Autonomous Again.

Очень полезно Тату. Спасибо.

Originally Posted by uno

Очень полезно Тату. Спасибо.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e ... s_1989.jpg

This map is handy.

Oh yes, there were also AOs, which were Autonomous Oblasts (Autonomous Regions), which were of a lower status than ASSRs.

E.g. the Jewish Autonomous Region (in the far East of Russia).

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, most became Autonomous Republics, expect the Jewish one which is now Russia's only Autonomous Oblast' (with a Jewish population of less than 1% :P )

In Russia today there are also Automonomous Okrugs. I don't know exaclty what an Okrug is.

Administrative division of USSR by national characteristic was in fact the thing that ultimately destroyed it. It was a delayed-action mine layed in 1922 when USSR was forged.
Stalin had a huge amount of effort to mix-up the population throughout the whole territory to be sure that there were no separatism. But it didn't help.
Much more I like the artificial division of the United States territory. That squares (states) on the map are just it - the squares on the map, so there will be no attempts to get separated .
In 1991, everyone knew, where would the new borders be . Russians here, Ukranians there, Georgians there etc. I wonder what might have happened in 1991 if USSR had been divided "by squares".
(By the way, did I write the last sentense correctly?)

Yes, the problem was by making them individual Soviet Republics, no matter how independant or not they were from Moscow, they layed out the borders that would define the countries in 1991.

Originally Posted by TATY

Yes, the problem was by making them individual Soviet Republics, no matter how independant or not they were from Moscow, they layed out the borders that would define the countries in 1991.

They didn't actually lay out borders then. Those borders are more or less historical. Their error was in the fact they didn't change them.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Administrative division of USSR by national characteristic was in fact the thing that ultimately destroyed it. It was a delayed-action mine layed in 1922 when USSR was forged.
Stalin had a huge amount of effort to mix-up the population throughout the whole territory to be sure that there were no separatism. But it didn't help.
Much more I like the artificial division of the United States territory. That squares (states) on the map are just it - the squares on the map, so there will be no attempts to get separated .
In 1991, everyone knew, where would the new borders be . Russians here, Ukranians there, Georgians there etc. I wonder what might have happened in 1991 if USSR had been divided "by squares".
(By the way, did I write the last sentense correctly?)

I don't really know what you mean by the "artificial division" of US states. I guess you mean they aren't ethnically-linked regions? That's true, but they're also not just randomly generated borders -- there's a lot of historical and geographical reasoning behind them (well, except some of the western states). Besides, all the states have different laws and don't lack of conflict/rivalry with each other (although it involves armies of lawyers and PR men rather than tanks and planes).

Anyway, arbitrary borders aren't any better than ethnic borders. The fact remains that people still grow attached to them. Crimea is an example of that -- it was arbitrarily given to the Ukrainian SSR in 1954 as a 300th "birthday gift" by La Femme Nikita. It's part of Ukraine today -- even though it's predominantly ethnic Russian -- and there's still a lot of resentment about that. Ukraine has the technical claim to Crimea and Russia the ethnic claim.

Oh, and your last sentence there is pretty good Ramil. Only, I would say:
I wonder what might have happened in 1991 if the USSR had been divided into "squares".

I believe the Crimea was given to Ukraine under Nikita Khrushchev, not Stalin.

I know the deal with the Crimea. The thing was about that is the Crimea is not connected by land to Russia. It is only conected to Ukraine, so it wasn't that arbitary. And also wasn't the Crimea arbitarly cleansed of the Tatars who were the inhabitants before the Russians arrived?

Originally Posted by TATY

I believe the Crimea was given to Ukraine under Nikita Khrushchev, not Stalin.

You believe incorrectly. Stalin was so great that he was able to control Russia in the afterlife. You are of course correct, since Stalin died in 53'. I have edited my earlier post. I'm blaming the humidity for that brain spasm.

I know the deal with the Crimea. The thing was about that is the Crimea is not connected by land to Russia. It is only conected to Ukraine, so it wasn't that arbitary. And also wasn't the Crimea arbitarly cleansed of the Tatars who were the inhabitants before the Russians arrived?

I'm sure you do know about Crimea -- I wasn't challenging that or lecturing. I was just pointing out that just because something is assigned boundaries that aren't based on ethnicity doesn't mean that there won't be tensions over it.

Originally Posted by Бармалей

That's true, but they're also not just randomly generated borders -- there's a lot of historical and geographical reasoning behind them (well, except some of the western states). Besides, all the states have different laws and don't lack of conflict/rivalry with each other (although it involves armies of lawyers and PR men rather than tanks and planes).

True, but still no one in his right mind may put claims on the territory of some state just because some national majority lives there.

(The only annexed state, I think, is Texas and it's being the only state that might be separated on some legal basis at least theoretically). USSR didn't have a chance because every republic broke free because it was just too easy thing to do.

Originally Posted by TATU

After Ukraine became independance though, it got pissed off and went Autonomous Again.

I hate it when my missus gets pissed off and goes autonomous.

Originally Posted by Ramil

True, but still no one in his right mind may put claims on the territory of some state just because some national majority lives there.

:cough: South Ossetia :cough:

Originally Posted by scotcher

I hate it when my missus gets pissed off and goes autonomous.

Better than her going atomic -- that could get kind of messy...

Originally Posted by Ramil

(The only annexed state, I think, is Texas and it's being the only state that might be separated on some legal basis at least theoretically). USSR didn't have a chance because every republic broke free because it was just too easy thing to do.

A. No. Hawaii was also annexed (in a very technical sense there were a couple other states that existed as independent countries, but not long enough to really matter). Sugar and pineapple = big $$$ back in the day.
B. Texas also had the right to break up into five states if it wanted -- that's been annulled though.