Soviet Nationality Policy Research Articles

Belarusization in Russian Regions in the 1920s in Modern Russian Historiography

The article presents a historiographical review of publications on the policy of Belarusization carried out in the Russian regions in the 1920s. This work does not address the publications of Belarusian and foreign researchers on the practice of implementing the new Soviet national policy within the territorial borders of the Belarusian Republic. The main attention is paid to the three Russian provinces bordering Belarus – Pskov, Smolensk and Bryansk. At the same time, the eastern territories of the RSFSR – the Urals, Siberia, and the Far East, where Belarusians found themselves as a result of the resettlement policy, especially at the beginning of the 20th century during the Stolypin agrarian reform, were not ignored. Belarusization, as part of the general policy of Korenization, proclaimed in 1923 at the XII Congress of the Russian Communist Party (b), in modern research is closely linked to the need to show new principles and directions of Soviet national policy for the development of Belarusian statehood and culture in contrast to the all-out polonization carried out by the Pilsudski government in Western Ukrainian and Belarusian lands ceded to Poland by the Riga Peace Treaty of 1921. A significant role in this process was assigned to the expansion of the state borders of the BSSR at the expense of Russian territories, especially in 1924 and 1926. However, Belarusization did not find any real support from the local authorities, who considered Belarusians to be part of the Russian population until the end of the 1920s, as well as due to the significant self-Russification of the Belarusian population in the Russian regions that had already taken place by the middle of the decade. Formally, these tasks were constantly on the agenda of the party and Soviet authorities in the second half of the 1920s. But they have not received any significant practical implementation.

Ethnic Relations between Lithuanians and Poles in the Eastern and South-Eastern Part of Lithuania 1960–1985

The article explores the manifestation of the Soviet national policy in the eastern and south-eastern part of Lithuania during the Khrushchev Thaw period and the Brezhnev Era of stagnation by focusing on the ethnic relations between Lithuanian and Poles who, in terms of numbers, dominated in the region. The situation in the eastern and south-eastern part of Lithuania (multi-ethnic population, geographical location, historical heritage, etc.) was very favourable for the implementation of the Soviet national policy. Based on the slogans of “friendship between nations” and “internationalism”, the concept of the convergence of the nations was realised. It manifested in closer relations between various ethnic groups, soviet republics and their population. As far as eastern and south-eastern part of Lithuania was concerned, relationships were promoted with neighbouring republics, firstly with Belarus, rather than with other regions of the Republic of Lithuania. Such policy led to the formation of a specific situation in Vilnius region. A certain part of the inhabitants of the region more often identified themselves with the Belarusian population and had a poor understanding of the life of other regions in Lithuania. This determined segregation between the Lithuanian and Polish communities, and alienation of the Poles. The Soviet authorities controlled ethnic relations between Lithuanians and Poles; any potential ethnic tension was immediately repressed and hardly ever surfaced. Ethnic disagreements between Lithuanians and Poles (due to different interpretation of historical past, etc.) were frozen for several decades and broke out only at time of the decline of the Soviet period. The position of the Polish population in the region was fuelled by attention and support from the Polish authorities and society. However, only relationships sanctioned by the Soviet authorities were allowed. Therefore any nationalist ideas from Poland were immediately stifled. Seeking faster indoctrination of the population, the Soviet authorities used the Polish language factor in the eastern and south-eastern part of Lithuania. The Polish population in this region was provided an opportunity to develop education and culture in their mother tongue, yet this was controlled and Sovietised. The support for nurturing the Polish ethnic identity by the Soviets formed a stereotype among Lithuanians that Poles were protected and the eastern and south-eastern part of Lithuania was deliberately Polonised. In the 1970s, when attempts to consolidate the society in the USSR were made on the basis of the Russian language and culture, assimilation efforts (Russification) strengthened in Lithuania. This process particularly affected the position of the Poles in the eastern and south-eastern part of Lithuania (Polish schools became Russian schools, the number of mixed marriages increased, the Russian language was increasingly used for communication, etc.). Such policies led to the assimilation of certain part of the Polish population in the region.

The Belarusian Frontier of the 1920s: Did Belarusization Take Place in the Russian-Belarusian Border Area?

The paper analyzes the historical circumstances of the 1920s, under which in three regions of the Russian-Belarusian borderland – Pskov, Smolensk and Bryansk governorates – it was necessary to reach the objectives of ‘Belarusization’: the size of the Belarusian population, the state of the school network in the NEP era and staffing for the solution of the “Belarusian question.” Belarusization is regarded as an integral part of the new Soviet national policy based on the resolutions of the 10th and 12th Congresses of the RCP. The purpose of the study is to identify and characterize the basic conditions for carrying out Belarusization in Russian regions with compact residence of the Belarusian population. First, this concerns the size of the Belarusian population in these governorates at the beginning and during the process of Belarusization, and detection of the dynamics and reasons for its significant reduction, starting from the end of the 19th century. Secondly, special attention must be paid to the problems in the school education system during the NEP era (financial, material, personnel), the solution of which was of much higher priority for local authorities in comparison with the objectives of Belarusization. The results of the study show that the policy of Belarusization in the Russian border regions failed to receive the due support either from local authorities overloaded with many other urgent tasks, or from the residents of the above mentioned governorates, including Belarusians. The practice of “self-Russification” became a kind of hidden form of protest among the Belarusian part of the population of the Russian border regions. Conclusions: The policy of Belarusization in the Russian-Belarusian border regions was not carried out in full even in the “minor format” proposed by Moscow, largely due to its artificiality and implementation without taking into account the opinions of the majority of Russian Belarusians themselves. The study is intended for specialists in national and regional politics, and in Russian and Belarusian history.

Ethno-Graphics: Folklore and Baltic Printmaking in the Period of Late Socialism

Visual representations of folklore and mythology played an ambivalent role in Baltic art and society during late socialism. On the one hand, it was often a safe choice promoted by Soviet national cultural policy; on the other, artwork tapping into national and ethnic identities carried a subversive, anti-Soviet potential. Exploring folkloric themes, Baltic artists of the 1970s developed different strategies to navigate the cultural field between Soviet censorship, folklore revival, modern forms of expression, and resistance to sovietisation in their home countries. The renowned Estonian printmaker Kaljo Põllu (1934–2010) created a powerful fusion of ethnographic research and creative practice to re-imagine Finno-Ugric mythology and build an alternative foundation for Estonian identity. Latvian printmaker Dzidra Ezergaile (1926–2013) laid the groundwork for an ethno- and eco-critical approach towards Soviet modernisation through a novel visual exploration of Latvian folklore motifs. Finally, Lithuanian illustrator and monumental painter Birute Žilytė (b. 1930) revolutionised Lithuanian childhood imagery, providing Lithuanian folklore and myths with bright and brave contemporary forms. A postcolonial reading of Baltic printmaking during late socialism generates an interpretive grid for understanding the role of folklore and folklorism within broader cultural trends and political dispositions. A combination of folklore studies and art history might efficiently contribute also to gender studies and environmental humanities.

Soviet State and Nomadic Peoples of Southern Russia: Social-Political Processes and Natural-Climatic Factors (1920s-1930s)

This study examines Soviet national policy towards nomadic peoples during the 1920s1930s, a period when the foundations of national-state building in the USSR were being laid and developed. The research focuses on a specific region — Southern Russia, one of the most multiethnic macro-regions of the country. The study investigates the implementation of socio-economic and national policies of the Soviet state in the territory of ethnic minorities such as the Kalmyks, Nogais, and Stavropol Turkmen. Common specific characteristics of the nomadic population are noted: religious fanaticism, social isolation, innate closedness. Eradicating these negative qualities among the Kalmyks, Nogais, Stavropol Turkmen, and integrating them into the all-Russian space required authorities to adopt a differentiated approach to working with each ethnic group. It is proven that by implementing the national policy of the Soviet state through solving urgent socio-economic problems of the Kalmyks, Nogais, and Stavropol Turkmen, the authorities were able to achieve at least two main objectives to some extent. The first objective was to lift the mentioned nomadic peoples out of socio-economic crisis, mainly through stimulating and developing agriculture, despite the challenging natural-climatic conditions of the region. The second objective was to ensure the transition of nomads to a settled way of life.

From Stalin to the Aliyev clan: 70 years of hindered autonomy in Nagorno‐Karabakh

AbstractDespite Azerbaijan's 2020 military victory over Armenia and the forcible expulsion of all Armenian residents from Nagorno‐Karabakh in September 2023, the South Caucasus remains far away from lasting peace and stability. This article addresses the following puzzle: why did secessionism strengthen in Nagorno‐Karabakh despite enjoying autonomy for 70 years from 1923 to 1991? Drawing from the securitization theory and Brubaker's institutionalist nationalism approach, the article identifies three variables: the historical context of Soviet nationalities policies, Soviet Azerbaijan securitization policies; and the lingering Armenian fear of a possible new genocide. The consequences of precluded autonomy impaired any prospects for a peaceful settlement as the Second Karabakh War in 2020, a nine month economic blockade of Karabakh commencing in 2022 followed by the ethnic cleansing of all residents in 2023 demonstrate. The methodology followed in this research is a qualitative analysis based on document analysis and interviews with key stake holders. The conclusion summarizes the main research findings.

On Common Ground: Soviet Nationalities Policy and the Austro-Marxist Premise

This article argues that nationalities policy under Lenin and Stalin, its commitment to territorial autonomy notwithstanding, effectively put into practice the Austro-Marxist vision of a socialist multinational state and party that patronised national culture to assuage separatist tendencies. Highlighting the ideological common ground between Habsburg remedies for imperial disintegration along national lines and Soviet policies for imperial integration along the same lines, it argues that the Bolsheviks’ Marxist premise of promoting national diversity and culture to defuse nationalism was prefigured and informed by the Austro-Marxist premise of making national cultural autonomy the hallmark rather than the antithesis of socialism.

“Mine from ’33; Yours from ’41”

AbstractAt many points in modern history, Ukrainian identity has been bound up with the Ukrainian language, Ukrainian forms of Christianity, and specific collective experiences of trauma as Ukrainians. This sense of national identity was particularly felt in the immediate post-Soviet period; for although Soviet nationalities policy attempted to eradicate dangerous forms of nationalism and ethnic prejudice, these policies often had the reverse effect, creating a heightened sense of competition between individual ethnic groups, which persisted into the post-1991 reconstruction of East European borders. In the wake of the 2013–14 Euromaidan protests, poets in Ukraine have sought to correct the failures of both Soviet nationalities policy and post-Soviet Ukrainian national-identity formation by weaving Jewish, Ukrainian, and Crimean Tatar histories of collective trauma into their writing. This article focuses on the recent work of the poet Marianna Kiyanovska, whose attempt to bridge seemingly irreconcilable histories can be read as part of what scholars have identified as a recent shift from viewing Ukrainian identity as an ethnic category to a civic one. Reading Kiyanovska in the context of other recent Ukrainian poems and songs, the author argues that this “civic turn” in Ukrainian identity formation is both a direct response to conversations taking place about the meaning of the Maidan, and part of a global conversation about privilege, erasure, and culpability.

The issue of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgian-russian interstate relations

In this article the authors explore historical and legal grounds of separatist tendencies in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the role of russia in stirring up the confrontation of autonomies with Georgia and influence of these processes on Georgian-russian interstate relations. In the authors’s opinion separatist tendencies in South Ossetia and Abkhazia are of a long-term nature and were shaping through Soviet national policy, the federal system of the USSR, lack of centralized power in Georgia during the period of disintegration of the USSR, dissatisfaction of regions because of Georgia implementing ethnonational policy, active participation of russia in inciting separatist movements. Over the years, russia has actually interfered in the internal politics of Georgia, explaining this with the concept of «special responsibility». russia’s policy was carried out under the guise of neutrality and peacemaking, which helped for a certain period of time to convince the international community that russia was trying to resolve the conflict.The rapprochement policy and creation of a system of agreements with self-proclaimed republics is part of Russia’s plan to maintain influence in the South Caucasus region, create obstacles for Georgia on its way to Euro-Atlantic integration, and prevent any US advance in the region. Prospects for conflict resolution in the short term are insignificant, since it is beneficial for russia to delay the frozen state as long as possible. On the other hand, Georgia is unable to solve the issue of the return of Abkhazian and Ossetian autonomies on its own without sufficient military power, economic potential and the support of Western allies, who currently have a war in Ukraine on their agenda. Therefore, the most likely development of events in the region is strategic patience, which over time will most likely benefit only one side of the conflict.

Этнографические экспедиции под руководством Д. А. Золотарёва и политика коренизации в Карелии

The Soviet national policy, its pluses and minuses for modern Russia is a topic that causes constant discussion. In this situation, for the professional community of ethnologists, such interconnected problems as the role of ethnographic knowledge in solving the national question, the relationship between scientists and authorities, and the influence of the dominant Marxist-Leninist ideology on research have acquired particular relevance. Despite the large number of domestic and foreign publications devoted to these problems, many of them (the zigzags of the Soviet nationality policy, its features in various national regions and their influence on the work of ethnographers) have not yet been sufficiently studied. The article for the first time in the historical context (national policy, attitude of the authorities to ethnography) examines the activities of the first Soviet ethnographic expeditions in Karelia under the leadership of the outstanding ethnographer and anthropologist D.A. Zolotarev in the 1920s. The main sources for the analysis were the works devoted to the biographies of the participants of the expeditions and their works; field reports published in periodicals of those years or stored in archives. It is noted that these unique large-scale expeditions had a pronounced applied value, aimed at implementing the indigenization policy. Strengthening of the ideological dictate, strained relations with Finland and the emerging departure of the authorities from the policy of indigenization at the turn of the 1920s-1930s. began to prevent an objective assessment of the material and successful independent field research of the peoples of Karelia.

Deterritorialized Nationality: Viktor Tsoi Saves the World

This article uses Alexei Yurchak's account of late socialist performance and the deterritorialization of authoritative discourses to discuss the half-Korean identity of Viktor Tsoi, the most prominent rock start emerging from the perestroika period. It uses representations and perceptions of Tsoi from the 1980s to argue that in this period, it was possible to perform the nationalities listed in each Soviet citizen's passport, as well as official slogans like “the friendship of peoples,” in ways that allowed for flexible understandings of group identity—what the article conceptualizes as “deterritorialized nationality” via overviews of Soviet nationalities policy and the history of Soviet Koreans. The article illustrates deterritorialized nationality through readings of the landmark films Assa (1987), which concludes with a performance by Tsoi, and Needle (1988), which stars and features the music of Tsoi. In both films Tsoi's racial difference is evident in ways not possible in his music alone, but race takes on unanticipated meanings—hearkening to radical internationalisms that help us to think beyond our ever more polarized discussions surrounding identity in the west, as well as the renewed polarization of Russia and the west.

ПРОБЛЕМЫ НАЦИОНАЛЬНОЙ ПОЛИТИКИ И ОБРАЗОВАННОСТИ КОРЕННОГО НАСЕЛЕНИЯ ЮГРЫ В ПАРТИЙНОЙ ДОКУМЕНТАЦИИ 1941–1944 ГГ.

The relevance of the article is due to the following reasons: the increased research interest in regional history under extreme conditions of the Great Patriotic War; the controversy that exists in post-Soviet historiography over assessment of the Soviet national policy during the first decades of the Soviet regime; and the continuing need for studying historical records on the issue. The purpose of the article is to study and consider the historical experience in running national policy and creating a regional system of public education by the political parties of the Khanty-Mansiysk National Okrug in time of war. Based on the analysis of archival documents, the author has concluded that there was critical shortage of national leadership and its share among the leaders of Ugra was low as compared to other national administrative-territorial entities within the USSR. The level of literacy and culture of everyday life among the indigenous population during the studied period was low. However, neither the issues of the national policy nor the low level of literacy prevented the indigenous population of Ugra from participation in the anti-Nazis fight.

“Attending courses is mandatory for everyone...”: the experience of hardware Ukrainization of the 1920s

This article discusses the functionalities of courses on the study of the Ukrainian language in the Ukrainian SSR during the Ukrainization of the 1920s. There are many studies on the history of Soviet national policy in Ukraine. However, the daily practice of Ukrainization has not been studied enough. The purpose of the article is to analyse the peculiarities of the policy of Ukrainization in relation to Russian-speaking employees of state institutions and enterprises of the Republic, to analyse organisational forms and methods of teaching the Ukrainian language, and the format of knowledge in the field of Ukrainian Studies. Primary attention is paid to the characteristics of resolutions, instructions and methodological guidelines that regulated the form and activities of courses on the study of the Ukrainian language and Ukrainian Studies, as well as teaching methods and the procedures for conducting exams. The study shows that the courses were supposed to ensure the knowledge of the Ukrainian language by employees of various organisations. This was necessary for the translation of office work into Ukrainian. Ukrainian was the language “for official relations” in the Republic, since it was the language spoken by the majority of the population of the Ukrainian SSR. At the same time, the courses gave students an idea of the “Ukrainian question”, Ukrainian literature and history. The Republican authorities expected to force officials to switch to the language of the titular nation within a short time. They used harsh administrative pressure: in the resolutions and orders of the Kharkiv leadership, there was a clause on the dismissal of those who did not want to be Ukrainised.

About the Latest Russian Historiography of Soviet Ethno-National Politics: Plots, Problems, Ideas

The main attention is paid to the national historiography. The achievements of Russian historians are distinguished by an integrated approach, interdisciplinarity, professional analysis of unique sources, which makes it possible to reconstruct the process of implementing Soviet national policy in different ethnosocial environments, highlight similarities and differences on the example of individual national regions, provide a solid foundation for the creation of generalizing works and determining research prospects. In this regard, one of the controversial topics of modern historiography related to the interpretation of the concept of the “Soviet people” is also highlighted. The author notes that the early Soviet period is most intensively studied, when intensive nation-building took place and the image of the Soviet Federation took shape. The most important ideas of scientists are highlighted, which analyze the essence, nature and details of federal construction, the organization of the transit of the multicultural, initially complex society of the USSR from tradition to modernity, the development of interethnic relations, state policy in ethnosocial and ethno-cultural fields, the activities of national leaders, personnel policy in national republics, ethno-oriented practices in different periods of Soviet history. The author emphasizes the actual meaning of the Soviet historical experience of the functioning of a multi-component state and interethnic consolidation, including during the Great Patriotic War, in order to solve modern problems of strengthening the civil unity of Russian society. Due to the need for a critical analysis of the “decolonial” discourse of foreign historiography, the author considers the study of socio-economic relations and interaction of national- state and administrative-territorial units of the USSR to be very relevant, both among themselves and in the context of the organizing and coordinating role of all-Union institutions. Some ideas are proposed to expand the subject field and problematize a wide range of debatable issues.

The Sumgait Massacres: Concerning Their Characteristics and Definitions

This paper concerns one of the first displays of ethnic violence in the recent history of the USSR that took place in the city of Sumgait in the Azerbaijanian SSR in February 1988 and was the start of violence of an anti-Armenian nature. It is a study of contemporary perceptions, definitions and terminology. Arising from this object, this paper examines the following questions: ● What were Armenian perceptions and characteristics of the Sumgait massacres and the factors that governed their conditions ● What definitions and perceptions were merited as a result of the Sumgait massacres by the Azerbaijanian side ● How were the Sumgait massacres evaluated by the international public and the USSR leadership ● What were the scientific definitions of the terms given to the Sumgait massacres and their characteristics. Research has been carried out on the basis of specialist literature, archival materials, witness statements, contemporary periodical press etc. Descriptions, analyses, narrative analyses and comparative methods were also utilised in this study. As a result of the research carried out, the conclusion was reached that the February 1988 massacres of the Armenian population of the Azerbaijanian city of Sumgait by the participants, various political circles and structures, conditioned by several factors, merited different appraisals. On the Armenian side, they were immediately linked, in the collective Armenian consciousness, to the Armenian Genocide realised in the 20th century within the Ottoman Empire. The central authorities, arising out of Soviet national policy principles, interpreted the event as “mass unrest.” In its euphemistic definitions, the Azerbaijani side attempted to “neutralise” the ethnically based violence used against a part of the population. The “Armenian intrigue and treachery” theory, as a “legal” explanation of the violence, aims to justify the crimes committed and evade any responsibility for them. The international public saw the Sumgait massacres in an ethnic context, stressing the laudable, necessary measures taken by the central authorities to prevent and stop them.

Nationalities relations in a totalitarian state. The case of East Central Europe under Soviet occupation (1939-1941) – methodological issues and a research agenda

The aim of the article is to present the specific nature of research on the issues of national relations in a totalitarian state based on the example of the lands of Central and Eastern Europe under the Soviet occupation from 1939-1941. In order to achieve this, the literature on the subject (in English and Polish) was reviewed as well as the most important methodological problems encountered by researchers. The research program was also outlined, along with a proposal for their conceptualization in the form of signalling the main aspects of the above-mentioned issues, including the specificity of the Soviet occupation of 1939-1941, social and ethnic relations in this area, and the Soviet nationalities policy. Several research methods and postulates were proposed, as well as perspectives and theoretical approaches that could facilitate the study of this complex and controversial subject, e.g., the interdisciplinary nature of research, methods of bottom-up formation of political attitudes of the population (the so-called “bottom-up” method), application of theories of the totalitarian state, and different theories of ethnicity. As a result, an interdisciplinary program of comparative studies of ethnic relations in Central and Eastern Europe under Soviet rule (1939-1941) was outlined, taking into account the transnational character of historical processes and the need to conduct micro historic analyses and case studies that would allow capturing of the diversity of ethnic relations and verify the effectiveness of the policy of the central Soviet authorities. The article argues that it seems obvious that the specificity of the analysed problematics can be properly grasped only by consideration it in the historical and theoretical context, adopting a comparative and transnational approach, from a micro-historical as well as everyday-life perspective that highlights the most important social factors which facilitated changes in interethnic relations.

Ставропольские шереты в контексте советской национальной политики в 1920–1930-е гг.

Introduction. In the 1920s and 1930s, one of the most important directions of Soviet nationalities policy was the building of Soviet nations on the basis of various ethnic groups. Utmost difficulties were to be faced when it came to identify small dispersed ethnic communities located in ethnocultural ‘borderlands’. In Stavropol Region, one such community were Sherets to have emerged as a result of historical synthesis of Kalmyk and Turkmen cultures and ethnic environments. Goals. The article seeks to analyze government policies towards Sherets and attempts a scientific understanding of their phenomenon in the Soviet era. Materials. The study examines archival documents housed by the State Archive of the Russian Federation, as well as other archival papers and published sources. Results. The work delineates main approaches to the study of Sherets in the prerevolutionary and Soviet periods. It shows that religion was chosen as a key identification factor for the group by Russian ethnographers and officials, which made it logical enough to cluster Stavropol Sherets with Turkmens. However, the Soviet approach rested on the primacy of primordialism and actual ethnic origins, and proclaimed Sherets an integral part of the Kalmyk people. The paper reveals main directions and mechanisms of work among Sherets at municipal, regional, and republican levels aimed at their rehabilitation and relocation to the native village of Kucherli in Turkmensky District. It is proved that Sherets — despite small numbers — sought to retain their identity based on clan system. The 1930s curtailment of the korenization policy resulted in accelerated assimilation of Sherets into the Turkmen population.

Ставропольские шереты в контексте советской национальной политики в 1920–1930-е гг.

Introduction. In the 1920s and 1930s, one of the most important directions of Soviet nationalities policy was the building of Soviet nations on the basis of various ethnic groups. Utmost difficulties were to be faced when it came to identify small dispersed ethnic communities located in ethnocultural ‘borderlands’. In Stavropol Region, one such community were Sherets to have emerged as a result of historical synthesis of Kalmyk and Turkmen cultures and ethnic environments. Goals. The article seeks to analyze government policies towards Sherets and attempts a scientific understanding of their phenomenon in the Soviet era. Materials. The study examines archival documents housed by the State Archive of the Russian Federation, as well as other archival papers and published sources. Results. The work delineates main approaches to the study of Sherets in the prerevolutionary and Soviet periods. It shows that religion was chosen as a key identification factor for the group by Russian ethnographers and officials, which made it logical enough to cluster Stavropol Sherets with Turkmens. However, the Soviet approach rested on the primacy of primordialism and actual ethnic origins, and proclaimed Sherets an integral part of the Kalmyk people. The paper reveals main directions and mechanisms of work among Sherets at municipal, regional, and republican levels aimed at their rehabilitation and relocation to the native village of Kucherli in Turkmensky District. It is proved that Sherets — despite small numbers — sought to retain their identity based on clan system. The 1930s curtailment of the korenization policy resulted in accelerated assimilation of Sherets into the Turkmen population.

Soviet Nationality Policy towards Kurds, 1917-1956

Soviet policy towards its Kurdish minority shifted from supporting their cultural development during the 1920s and early 1930s to a more repressive policy from 1937-1956 and then back again to a more favorable position. Soviet repression of its Kurdish population reached its height in November 1944 with the deportation of a significant number of them from the areas of Georgia bordering Turkey to Central Asia. Here they were placed under special settlement restrictions limiting their movement and suffered from material deprivations resulting in a significant number of deaths. This article focuses on Soviet policy towards its Kurdish minority from the time of the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 until several years after the death of Stalin in 1956 when the Kurds in Central Asia were released from the special settlement restrictions.

Soviet Nationality Policy towards Kurds, 1917-1956

Soviet policy towards its Kurdish minority shifted from supporting their cultural development during the 1920s and early 1930s to a more repressive policy from 1937-1956 and then back again to a more favorable position. Soviet repression of its Kurdish population reached its height in November 1944 with the deportation of a significant number of them from the areas of Georgia bordering Turkey to Central Asia. Here they were placed under special settlement restrictions limiting their movement and suffered from material deprivations resulting in a significant number of deaths. This article focuses on Soviet policy towards its Kurdish minority from the time of the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 until several years after the death of Stalin in 1956 when the Kurds in Central Asia were released from the special settlement restrictions.