HOMO SOVIETICUS: SSCB’DE SOVYET HALKI İNŞASI ÇABALARI

Millet ve milliyetçilik sorunu Sovyet yönetiminin karşı karşıya kaldığı sorunların belki de en keskiniydi ve bu durum günümüz Rusya'sında bile fırtınalı anlaşmazlıkları ve farklı görüşleri kışkırtmaktadır. Asırlar boyunca şekillenmiş ve yeni düzene miras kalmış Rus imparatorluğu ve bunu ardıllayan, bir öncekinin yıkıntıları üzerine kurulmuş, pekişmiş ve bir dünya gücüne dönüşmüş Sovyet İmparatorluğu. Bu imparatorluğun kapladığı geniş alan ve halkların çeşitliliği açısından bir benzeri daha yoktu ve böyle bir imparatorluğun doğal sonucu da, ulus ve ulusçuluk sorununun alışılmadık düzeyde karmaşık olmasıdır. Marksist teori açısından, SSCB'deki ulus inşası geçici bir aşamaydı. Fakat Sovyet devleti, Marksist teoriye hiç uymayan bir ulusal yapı yarattı ve bu durum etnik topluluklarının karışımı gerçeğini yansıtamadı. Sovyet devleti "etnik mühendislik" olarak adlandırılabilecek ve mevcut materyalden yola çıkarak yeni uluslar yaratmayı amaçlayan bir süreç başlattı. Fakat ulus inşasının geçici olmadığı anlaşıldığı zaman, 1930'lardan itibaren yapılan düzenlemeler ulusların kaderini değiştirecek yeni bir nitelik kazandı. Rejim bu yolla Rus olmayan halkları bilinçli bir biçimde milliyetçiliğin hammaddeleri ile donatmış ve onlar için eski imparatorluk alanı içerisinde bir gün ulus devletlerin yaratılabileceği bir çerçeve çizmişti. Dolayısıyla bu çalışmada SSCB'nin Sovyet Halkı inşası çabalarını ve ilk başlarda "yerlileştirme" olarak adlandırılan bu politikaların zamanla adları değiştirilerek Ruslaştırmaya dönüşme süreci incelenecektir. İlk başlardaki çok kısa süreli yerlileştirme politikasının sonuçları daha sonra yoğun bir şekilde uygulanan Sovyetleştirme (Ruslaştırma) politikasıyla ortadan kaldırılamamıştır. Öyle ki, yeni Sovyet insanının ve ortak komünist kültürün oluştuğunun iddia edildiği Sovyetlerin milliyetler politikası sayesinde ulusal bilinci güçlenen halklar arasında SSCB'nin son dönemlerinde şiddetli etnik çatışmalar bile yaşanmış ve bu da SSCB'nin çöküşünü hızlandırmıştır

HOMO SOVIETICUS: CONSTRUCTION EFFORTS OF SOVIET NATION IN USSR

Since the Soviet Union’s each region has its own several characteristics, it is, in general, quite difficult to explain the development of the nations through a single pattern. In terms of Marxist theory, construction of nation in USSR was a temporary phase. On the other hand, the Bolsheviks created a national structure that did not meet any of the Marxist theory and this didn’t reflect the intermixture fact of ethnic communities. After the October Revolution, the Bolsheviks pondered for the creation of more international proletarian unity and behaved with the thought of which all the cultural and ethnic boundaries would be meaningless and linguistic and racial dissimilarities would be died out in such an association. When it was recognised that such an association can not be achieved in a short time, the Bolsheviks were obliged to make a series of instantaneous and practical decisions. In this context, at first, all prospective members of rival ideologies had been either executed or sent into exile. Secondly, the policy of which all the nations were granted with their own lands in the form of "autonomous" republic, "region" or "zone" was put into effect. On the basis of the available requisites, the Soviet state had launched a process which were pursued at constructing of the nations and might be termed as "ethnical engineering". This process contained the subjects of which the ethnographers were send to the related regions for gathering information about languages, religions, traditions, economies, tribal loyalties and other factors and thus asked for giving advices about the subject that how the nations could be constructed on the basis of such row requisites. The policy called as nativization (korenizatsiya) was quickly put into effect and encouraged the local cadres, that had education in Moscow but still could speak on behalf of their people, to the all levels of the administrations of the republic. In this way, the regime consciously outfitted the non-Russian nations with the raw materials of nationalism and formed a frame of which the nation state might be created one day within the former imperial area. However, the positive discrimination oriented to both national minorities and other nations composing USSR didn’t last long. The nativization policy applied and the first positive discrimination policies oriented to the nationalities had strengthened, at the least, the national consciousness and the ethnic cadres and those were regarded as an temporary step on the road to proletarian internationalism. When the nativization policy got out of the control and turned into "bourgeois nationalism", Stalin didn’t hesitate over implementing terrorism towards his delegates. When World War II approached, there were simultaneous two opposing processes in the USSR. While their own lands, languages, cultures and administrative structures were granted to non-Russian nations, central party, state economic planning and rapid social mobility carried out vertically weakened the national discriminations and tended to create a more general Soviet Russian image. Legitimately sovietization of Russians and non-Russians equalized the status of public living around USSR and standardized the forms of political culture. On the other hand, sovietization was perceived as russification in Ukrain as much as in the Baltic countries and Moldova. This russification policy emerged especially after World War II when non-Russians took place less and less in the country management positions. Equalization of status was evaluated as an attack on the distinctive features of national identity. Although commonly referred to as the return from the Stalinism, when considering ethnic policies in this period it is clear that Khrushchev’s period was a follow-up of Stalin's nationalities policy but had several conflicting practices as well. Government's ethnic/nationality policy was in general for creating a new Soviet community/human. The opinions expressed on the rapprochement of nations was aimed at the creation of the Soviet People theoretically but in practice it was more like russification policy. Khrushchev considered that the fusion of cultures had to pursue the rapprochement (sblijenie) of cultures as a whole in Soviet Union. Accordingly, he did not refrain from attacking any kind of localism (mestnichestvo), particularly national regionalism. As one of the principles of rapprochement of nations, it was suggested that these nations should be mutually enriched in terms of cultures and languages. This issue described in detail in the party program, and the providing of the free development of each national language and the USSR’s each citizen’s educating his/her children in the language in which he/she wants to, was specified as the objective of the party. However, the emphasis on the Russian language in the same program made the objectives, identified in ensuring the development of other languages, meaningless. As the second important element of creating the Soviet human, it was suggested that nations (cultures) have to be coalescenced each other thoroughly. New Soviet culture would arise by coalescence of cultures. Reconciliation and unification of the cultures in the theory would result, in the first phase, in language and cultural unity and in the removal of the de facto boundaries between the republics located within the frontiers of the USSR. However, the results of carefully studied and implemented policies was far from expected. When the planned nation-constructing policies, which were launched in the 1920s and partially remained in the following periods, combined with the urbanization policies, they created an effect on nations which would proceed for a long-time. National consciousness gradually strengthened by any means in many regions from the Baltic Countries where it was most powerful to the Central Asia where it was weakest, even in the regions where the Soviet regime tried to suppress or prevent. In 1961 Khrushchev argued that the national languages had gradually weakened by losing their supporters. However in fact, it was clear that almost each nations had more than hugged their national languages. Besides, the further important issue of the Soviet government to be solved about the nationality were the ethnic issue up to conflict. Since the late 1960s, in particular, the tensions in the ArmenianAzerbaijani relations, the problems with the return process of Crimean Tatars, Volga Germans and Ahiska Turks had begun more frequent and sharply to be at the top of the agenda. The government had avoided the solution of these problems, and this attitude had encouraged the awakening of other ethnic groups and the problems among the ethnic communities had grown rapidly day by day. Beyond the problems between ethnic groups, responses against the USSR’s russification began to be seen clearly especially in the Brezhnev’s period. These responses rised from all corners of the Soviet Union. Perhaps the most important one of these was the Ukrainian writer and critic Ivan Dzyuba's "Internationalism or Russification" (İnternatsionalizm ili Rusifikatsiya) published in 1965. Dzyuba argued that internationalism actually mean Russification in the USSR. For his opinion, Ukrainian language, culture and history were consciously pressed so that it was for the benefit of the Soviet Union dominated by Russians under the name of single-culturalism. By the 1970s, official ideology on the one hand provided the commitment to the USSR or being under its auspices, a local nationalism emphasising on ethnic feeling and historical achievement was pumped on the other hand. In such an ambiance, the outs and even human rights activists were able to embed their demands in ethnicity and language issues which were tolerated and even had become in the fashion. Following the Helsinki Agreements, external visits and cultural exchange programs had been strengthened in many areas from scientific studies to film screenings and children's books. Soviet citizens had been slowly becoming more familiar with the West and the world in general. Accordingly, the people were more courageous to revolt against the center and the responses to the Russification continued increasingly. Finally, the effors of the system, which had no any stabilizing counterweight, which was shaped by an ideology that could not be challenged by the memory of the past and which tried to substitute Homo Sovieticus against both the Russian people and all other nations in other words, had yielded indisputable fruits. However, it is clear that during the same period the Homo Sovieticus’ supersession to the ordinary human was irrelevant and this success was relative. Soviet human had first passed the homogenizing molds of schools and youth organizations. He was an Oktyabrist when he was a child. Then he proudly carried the red scarfs of the Pioner and there he had learned to behave as a socialist through socialist ethics which he would further strengthen it in every period of his life. And this citizen, who the power had invested so much on him, had found hisself in his father’s arms when he had come to teenage. Soviet society was not a society that had a single culture and was tightly knit to each other, as Communist leaders, the press or the ethnographers talked about and many nations, including the Russians, had clearly begun to assert their discontents at the end periods of the USSR despite of all the pressures. The seeds which had been scattered in the early periods of Soviets had developed and brought the results as the nationalism and the ethnic conflict.

PDF

___

ARMAOĞLU, Fahir (2010). 20. Yüzyıl Siyasi Tarihi, İstanbul: Alkım Yayınevi.
AYDIN, Mustafa (2005). “Geçiş Sürecinde Kimlikler: Orta Asya'da Milliyetçilik, Din ve Bölgesel Güvenlik”, Küresel Politikada Orta Asya: Avrasya Üçlemesi, (der. Mustafa Aydın), Ankara: Nobel Yayınları, 245-267.
BACIK, Gökhan (1999). “Türk Cumhuriyetleri’nde Kimlik Sorunu”, Geçiş Sürecinde Orta Asya Türk Cumhuriyetleri, (ed. Metin Kemal Öke), İstanbul: Alfa Yayınları, 61-127.
BEISSINGER, Mark R (2002). Nationalist Mobilization an the Collapse of the Soviet State, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
BENNIGSEN, Alexandre ve QUELQUEJAY, Chantal (2005). Sultan Galiyev ve Sovyet Müslümanları, (tr. Nezih Üzel), İstanbul: Elips Kitap.
BLITSTEYN, Piter (2011) “Natsionalnoe stroitelstvo ili rusifikatsiya? Obyazatelnoe izuçenie russkogo yazıka v sovetskih nerusskih şkolah, 1938-1953 gg”, Gosudarstvo natsiy: İmperiya i natsionalnoe stroitelstvo v epohu Lenina i Stalina, (ed. R.G.Suny-T.Martin), Moskva: ROSSPEN, 310-335.
BOBKOV, Filipp (2003). KGB i Vlast, Moskva: Algoritm-Kniga.
BÖLÜKBAŞI, Süha (2004). “Azerbaycan’da Ulusun İnşası: Sovyet Mirası ve Karabağ Sorunu’nun Etkileri”, Orta Asya ve İslam Dünyasında Kimlik Politikaları, (der. Willem van Schendel ve Erik J.Zürcher, tr. Selda Somuncuoğlu), İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 49-88.
BRZEZINSKI, Zbigniew (1997). Büyük Çöküş, (tr. Gül Keskin-Gülsev Pakkan), İstanbul: İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları.
BURMİSTROVA, T. Y ve GUSAKOVA, V. S (1976). Natsionalnıy vopros v programmah i taktike politicheskih parti v Rossii: 1905-1917, Moskva: MYSL.
CARR, Edward Hallett (2002). Bolşevik Devrimi: 1917-1923, C. I, (tr. Orhan Suda), İstanbul: Metis Yayınları.
CHAUVIER, Jean Marie (1990). Sovyetler Birliği: Ekonomik ve Siyasi Gelişmeler 1917/1988, (tr. Temel Keşoğlu), İstanbul: BDS Yayınları.
DAVIS, Horace B (1994). İşçiHareketi, Marksizm ve Ulusal Sorun, (tr. Yavuz Alogan), İstanbul: Belge Yayınları.
DAVIS, Horace B (1991). Sosyalizm ve Ulusallık, (tr. Kudret Emiroğlu), İstanbul: Belge Yayınları.
D’ENCAUSSE, Helene Carrere (1966). Asya’da Marksizm ve Milliyetçilik, (tr. Sevil AvcıoğluAdil Aşçıoğlu), İstanbul: Yön Yayınları.
D’ENCAUSSE, Helene Carrere (2002). Lenin, (tr. Ali Cevat Akkoyunlu), İstanbul: Doğan Kitap.
D’ENCAUSSE, Helene Carrere (1984). Parçalanan İmparatorluk: Sovyetler Birliği’nde Halkların İsyanı, (tr. Nezih Uzel), İstanbul: Sisav Yayınları.
D’ENCAUSSE, Helene Carrere(1992). Sovyetlerde Müslümanlar, İstanbul: Ağaç Yayıncılık.
DEVLETŞİN, Tamurbek (1981). Sovyet Tataristanı, (tr. Mehmet Emircan), Ankara: Kültür Bakanlığı Yayınları.
ERŞAHİN, Seyfettin (2007). Türkistan’da İslam ve Müslümanlar: Sovyetler Dönemi, Ankara: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Yayınları.
FERRO, Marc (1998). “Sovyet Rejiminin Milliyetler Politikası”, Uluslar ve Milliyetçilikler, (ed. Jean Leca, tr. Siren İdemen), İstanbul: Metis Yayınları, 141-143.
FRAGNER, Berg G (2004), “Sovyet Milliyetçiliği: Orta Asya’nın Bağımsız Cumhuriyetlerine Kalan İdeolojik Miras”, Orta Asya ve İslam Dünyasında Kimlik Politikaları, (der. Willem van Schendel ve Erik J.Zürcher, tr. Selda Somuncuoğlu), İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 23- 48.
HAYİT, Baymirza (2006). Ruslara Karşı Basmacılar Hareketi: Türkistan Türklüğü’nün Milli Mücadelesi, (tr. Elif Kıral), İstanbul: Babiali Kültür Yayıncılığı.
HOSKING, Geoffrey (2011). Rusya ve Ruslar: Erken Dönemden 21. Yüzyıla, (tr. Kezban Acar), İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
IGRUNOV, Vyacheslav (2005). Antologiya Samizdata: Nepodsenzurnaya Literatura v SSSR, 1950-1980 godi, Tom.1, Kniga. 2, Moskva: Poligrafist.
KESİCİ, Kayyum (2003). Dün Bugün ve Hedefteki Kazakistan, İstanbul: İQ Kültürsanat Yayıncılık.
KOHN, Hans (1983). Panslavizm ve Rus Milliyetçiliği, (tr. Agâh Oktay Güner), İstanbul: Kervan Yayınları.
Konstitutsiya Soyuza Sovetskih Sotsialistiçeskih Respublik (1937). Moskva: Tsik SSSR.
LENIN, Vladimir İliç (1979). Ulusal Sorun ve Ulusal Kurtuluş Savaşları, (tr. Yurdakul Fincancı), Ankara: Sol Yayınları.
LEONHARD, Wolfgang (1980). Bugünkü Sovyet İdeolojisi, (tr. Cemil Şanbey), İstanbul: Kültür Bakanlığı Yayınları.
LEWIN, Moshe (2009). Sovyet Yüzyılı, (tr. Renan Akman), İstanbul: İletişim Yayınevi.
NOVIKOVA, O. A ve SASIKOV, A. B (1991). “Sotsiokulturnıe Aspektı Dvuyazıchiya”, Mejnatsionalnie Otnosheniya v SSSR: İstoriya i Sovremennost, (ed. V.A. Chalikova), Moskva: INION AN SSSR, 70-89.
MARTIN, Terry (2011). “İmperiya polojitelnoy deyatelnosti: Sovetskiy Soyuz kak vısşaya forma imperializma, Gosudarstvo natsiy: İmperiya i natsionalnoe stroitelstvo v epohu Lenina i Stalina, (ed. R.G. Suny-T.Martin), Moskva: Rosspen, 88-116.
MCHEDLOV, M. P (2007). Vera, Etnos, Natsiya, Moskva: Kulturnaya Revolutsiya.
MENDE, Gerhard von (1966). Komünist Blokta Milliyet ve Mefkure, (tr. Fethi Tevetoğlu-Aziz Alpaut), Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi.
MIHAYLOV, V.A (1997), Natsionalnaya Politika Rossii: İstoriya i Sovremennost, Moskva: Russkiy Mir.
MÜHLEN, Patrik von zur (2006). Gamalıhaç ile Kızılyıldız Arasında; İkinci Dünya Harbi’nde Sovyet Doğu Halkları, İstanbul: Şema Yayınevi.
ÖZCAN, Sevinç Alkan (2005). Bir Sovyet Mirası: Rus Azınlıklar, İstanbul: Küre Yayınları.
Ponomaryev, E. G (2010), Deti Stranı Sovetov: 1917-1941, Stavrapol: SGPİ.
ROUX, Jean-Paul (2001). Orta Asya: Tarih ve Uygarlık, (tr. Lale Arslan), İstanbul: Kabalcı Yayınevi.
ROY, Oliver (2000). Yeni Orta Asya ya da Ulusların İmal Edilişi, (tr. Mehmet Moralı), İstanbul: Metis Yayınları.
STALİN, Josef (1989). Eserler, C. II,(tr. İsmail Yarkın), İstanbul: İnter Yayınları.
STALİN, Josef (1989a). Eserler, C. III, (tr. İsmail Yarkın), İstanbul: İnter Yayınları.
STALİN, Josef (1990). Eserler, C. V, (tr. İsmail Yarkın), İstanbul: İnter Yayınları.
STRONG, Anna Loise (1988). Stalin Dönemi, (tr. Alaattin Bilgi), Ankara: Onur Yayınları.
SLUÇEVSKAYA, İ. V (1991). “Problema Natsionalnogo Soznaniya: Teoroticheskie, Metodologicheskie i Mirovozzrenchesnkie Aspekti”, Mejnatsionalnie Otnosheniya v SSSR: İstoriya i Sovremennost, (ed. V.A. Chalikova), Moskva: INION AN SSSR, 45-69.
SUNY, Ronald Grigor (1990). Bakü Komünü: Rus Devriminde Sınıf ve Ulusallık, (tr. Kudret Emiroğlu), İstanbul: Belge Yayınları.
SUNY, Ronald Grigor (1993). The Revenge of the Past: Nationalism, Revolution an the Collapse of the Soviet Union, California: Stanford University Press.
SWIETOCHOWSKI, Tadeusz (1988). Müslüman Cemaatten Ulusal Kimliğe Rus Azerbaycan’ı: 1905-1920, (tr. Nuray Mert), İstanbul: Bağlam Yayıncılık.
VERNADSKY, George (2009). Rusya Tarihi, (tr. Doğukan Mızrak-Egemen Mızrak), İstanbul: Selenge Yayınları.
UMANSKİY Leonid ve ŞKONDİN Boris (1985). Sovyet Halkları: Rakamlar ve Gerçekler, Moskova: APN Yayınevi.
WEILL, Claudie (1998). “Marksizm ve Ulusal Sorun”, Uluslar ve Milliyetçilikler, (ed. Jean Leca, tr. Siren İdemen), İstanbul: Metis Yayınları.
WODDIS, Jack (1975). Milliyetçilik ve Enternasyonalizm, (tr. Ali Koç), Ankara: Ser Yayınları.
ZENKOVSKY, Serge A (2000). Rusya’da Türkçülük ve İslam, (tr. Ali Nejat Ongun), Ankara: Günce Yayıncılık.
ZEVELEV, A (1978). Ulusal Sorun SSCB’de Nasıl Çözüldü, (tr. V. Arslan), İstanbul: Özgürlük Yolu Yayınları.
ZUBOV, Andrey (2009). İstoriya Rossii XX vek: 1894-1939, Moskova: AST Astrel.
XXII Syezd Kommunistiçeskiy Partii Sovetskogo Soyuza, 17-31 Okryabrya 1961 Goda (1962a). Tom.2, Moskva: Gosudarstvennoe İzdatelstvo Politiçeskoy Literaturı.
XXII Syezd Kommunistiçeskiy Partii Sovetskogo Soyuza, 17-31 Okryabrya 1961 Goda (1962b). Tom.3, Moskva: Gosudarstvennoe İzdatelstvo Politiçeskoy Literaturı.
XXIII Syezd Kommunistiçeskoy Partii Sovetskogo Soyuza, 29 Marta- 8 Aprelya 1966Goda (1966). Tom 1, Moskva: İzdatelstvo Politiçeskoy Literaturı.
XXVI Syezd Kommunistiçeskiy Partii Sovetskogo Soyuza, 23 Fevralya-3 Marta 1981 Goda (1981). Moskva: Gosudarstvennoe İzdatelstvo Politiçeskoy Literaturı.
AKSAKAL, Hakan (2009). “Stalin ve İkinci Dünya Savaşı Bağlamında Milliyetler Politikası”, Karadeniz Araştırmaları, VI (21): 23-30.
ARAKELYAN, M. A (1972). “Nrodı Zakavkazya v Yedinom Semye Bratskih Narodov SSSR”, İstoriko-filologicheskiy jurnal, (4): 48-58.
BIKOVA, E. Yu (2011), “Reformirovanie Sistemı Şkolnogo Obrazovaniya v SSSR v 1917-1930 gg: Organizatsionnie i İdeologiçeskie Aspektı”, VESTNİK TGU: Filosıfiya, Sotsiologiya, Politologiya, 1 (13): 179-189.
BROMLEY, Yulian (1983). “Etnograficheskoe İzuchenie Sovremennih Natsionalnih Protsessov v SSSR”, Sovetskaya Etnografiya, (2): 4-14.
DEVLET, Nadir (1984). “Sovyetler Birliği’ndeki Türkleri Ruslaştırmada Yeni Adımlar”, Türk Dünyası Araştırmaları, (28): 38-47.
DEVLET, Nadir (1982). “Ruslaştırmada Kazan Türkleri Örneği”, Türk Dünyası Araştırmaları, (21): 87-95.
ÇERİBAŞ, Mehmet (2012). “Sovyetler Birliği Döneminde Kırgızistan'da Folklor Çalışmalarında İdeolojik Yaklaşımlar: Er Soltonoy Destanı Örneği”,Turkish Studies- International Periodical For The Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, ISSN: 1308- 2140, (Prof. Dr. Filiz Kılıç Armağanı),Volume 7/1 Winter 2012, www.turkishstudies.net, Doi Number :http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.3007 ,p.753-780 .
ESEN, Aliyeva Minara (2011). “Rus Türkolojisinde Dil Öğretimi ve Eğitimi Meselesi Üzerine (1965-2011)”, Turkish Studies -International Periodical For The Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, ISSN: 1308-2140,(Prof. Dr. Ramazan Korkmaz Armağanı), Volume 6/3, Summer 2011, www.turkishstudies.net, Doi Number: http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.2609 , p. 447-460.
GÜCÜYETER, Bahadır ve YILMAZ İsa (2012). “Kazakistan Sovyet Cumhuriyeti Örneğinde Edebiyat Eğitimi ve İdeoloji”, Turkish Studies -International Periodical For The Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, ISSN: 1308-2140, (Prof. Dr. Mehmet Aydın Armağanı), Volume 7/4, Fall 2012, www.turkishstudies.net, Doi Number: http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.4015 , p. 1825-1834.
GÜRKAN, Ülker (1964). “SSCB Siyasi Rejiminin Ana Hatları”, Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, XXI (1-4): 155-198.
GRADOSELSKİY, V. V (2001). “Natsionalnie voinskie formirovaniya v Krasnoy Armii 1918- 1938”, Voenno-İstoricheskiy Jurnal, (10): 2-6.
KURUBAŞ, Erol (2006). “SSCB Sonrasında Türk Cumhuriyetlerinde Yeni Uluslaşma Süreçleri Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme”, Uluslararası Hukuk ve Politika, II (5): 112-133.
KOZLOV, V. İ (1969). “Sovremennie Etnicheskie Protsessi v SSSR”, Sovetskaya Etnografiya, (2): 60-72.
LOBACHEVA, N. P ve TULTSEVA, L. A (1977). “Traditsii v Sovremennoy Obryadnosti Uzbekov”, Sovetskaya Etnografiya, (6): 32-44.
MALKOVA, B. K (1977). “Primenenie kontent-analiza dlya izucheniya sotrudnchestva sovetskih narodov”, Sovetskaya Etnografiya, (5): 71-80.
MASLIN, Aleksandr (1958). “O nekotorıh voprosah sozdaniya sovetskoy sotsialisticheskoy kulturı i ee osobennostyah”, Voprosı Filosofii, (3).
SÜLEYMANLI, Ebülfez (2005). “Sovyetlerin Milli Kimliği Yok Etme Faaliyetleri: ‘Sovyet Halkı’ Denemesi”, Karadeniz Araştırmaları, (6): 128-134.
TELLAL, Erel (2001). “Mirsaid Sultan Galiyev”, Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 56 (1): 105- 133.