No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 January 2017
In the wake of the rising interest in Soviet nationalities and the problems that the nationality phenomenon produces for the Soviet political and economic system, it is gratifying to read a geographer's discussion of regionalism in this huge Soviet state. The nationality question can be best elucidated by inter-disciplinary studies; logically it follows that the question of regionalism does not belong exclusively to the jurisdiction of geographers and economists. It is obvious, however, from reading Professor Hooson's article that geographers can make a considerable contribution to the understanding of the development and prospects of Soviet nationalities.
The connection between regionalism and nationalities is not artificial. Soviet regionalism, whether considered in geographical, historical, or other terms, is intertwined with the prospects of nationalities, because these groups provide much of the demographic matrix in which development occurs and to which the Kremlin's political decisions apply. The political aspect, furthermore, is especially pronounced in the Soviet case, because the large, compactly settled national groups live in regions adjacent to the borders of the Soviet state; theoretically their republics have the right to secede from the Soviet Union. The Soviet state itself was organized to accommodate these nationalities, and they are supposed to share in decision-making as well as in the benefits that the Soviet system can confer.
1. For an ably stated case that Soviet nationality studies should be interdisciplinary see Allworth, Edward, ed., Soviet Nationality Problems (New York and London, 1971), pp. 10 ff.Google Scholar
2. See the statement by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Pravda, Feb. 22, 1972, pp. 1-2.
3. Hooson, David, The Soviet Union : People and Regions (Belmont, Calif., 1968), pp. 122-23.Google Scholar
4. On regional consciousness and criteria for classification of regions see James, Preston E. and Jones, Clarence F., eds., American Geography : Inventory and Prospect (Syracuse, 1954), pp. 21–68 Google Scholar; quotation, p. 51. Reference courtesy of Professor Gary Thompson.
5. See Harris, Chauncy D., Cities of the Soviet Union (Chicago, 1970), pp. 149-54.Google Scholar
6. See, for example, Lydolph, Paul E., Geography of the U.S.S.R.. (New York, 1964), p. 103 (2nd ed., 1970, p. 125)Google Scholar. Lydolph justifies inclusion of these disparate areas into a single region because “it is a fairly homogeneous area in terms of physical landscape and economic development.”
7. Hooson, Soviet Union, pp. 247, 249.
8. See Hans-Jürgen Wagener, “The RSFSR and the Non-Russian Republics : An Economic Comparison,” Radio Liberty Research CRD 399/68 (1968), pp. 12-15.
9. V. Stanley Vardys, “The Baltic Peoples,” Problems of Communism, September-October 1967, pp. 55 ff.
10. V. Stanley Vardys, “Verschmelzung der National?” Osteuropa, 1968, no. 7, pp. 524 ff.; see also Vardys, V. S., “Altes und Neues in der sowjetischen Nätionalitatenpolitik seit Chruschtschows Sturz,” Osteuropa, 1968, no. 2, pp. 81-95.Google Scholar