1

Topic: Interesting Dzhangirova.

Hello. Briefly: it is a question of century of revolution, about the First World War and about success of English diplomacy - it was possible to etch away continental powers. But I was interested by the moment about Russian in Ukraine (more close to the middle). He told about the grandfather who was engaged in an Ukrainization at Stalin etc. And so, Russian is connected to industrialization, i.e. it was not so much language of dialogue in the union, how many industrialization language.  did not consult, as discoveries of the Ukrainian schools, and discoveries of factories and manufactures were necessary to Stalin not. And it draws parallels, truth not in being given in a detail, about communication present  Ukraine and it . In general extremely I advise 15 minutes to spend for review. (On 1.5 and at all 10 minutes) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vbby0Z7tD-k

2

Re: Interesting Dzhangirova.

Hello, Sharov, you wrote: S> Briefly: it is a question of century of revolution, about the First World War and about success of English diplomacy - it was possible to etch away S> continental powers. But I was interested by the moment about Russian in Ukraine (more close to the middle). He told S> about the grandfather who was engaged in an Ukrainization at Stalin etc. And so, Russian is connected to industrialization, S> i.e. it there was not so much language of dialogue in the union, how many industrialization language. Not so. The Ukrainization, and as a whole "" is the present Lenin national policy, is justified in work - "About national pride " if shortly that frankly and simply is declared the purpose - it is necessary to humiliate Russian and a role of Russian in the countries to reduce. Stalin being the people's commissar on affairs of nationalities at Lenin obediently executed this policy. When itself became the principal of the state certainly from it refused - it was  for the country and was a brake for the further development, caused  to  in much part of the population. And industrialization it only a particular, but certainly language which understand all more necessary for the industry, science and education, for in  to the country it is less important. S> discoveries of the Ukrainian schools, and discoveries of factories and manufactures were necessary to Stalin not. And it draws parallels, truth to Stalin was to spit on Ukrainian, and any other including Russian schools. It could not develop successfully the country divided on languages, in every respect - both in industrial, and in social and certainly to keep control of it. To it to it absolutely to spit there were what languages will learn at schools, but one. Which all formed people all the same will understand should. With the same success it is possible to tell that this language was necessary not only for , and for this purpose that all could read or listen to its speeches in the original, or "the Short course..." To study, or that each capable young man irrespective of a nationality could study in the best HIGH SCHOOLS and then hold any post.... <<RSDN@Home 1.0.0 alpha 5 rev. 0>>

3

Re: Interesting Dzhangirova.

Hello, SvoboduAnzheleDevis, you wrote: the GARDEN> you will soon feed with the theory that  not absolutely high-grade people and are capable on what, except how to dig a kitchen garden of Natsistkimi announcements you almost daily you are scattered. And here explain that in the uniform country there was a general industry and there was a language that all people understood each other without translators. But the binding only to the industry is really decided. And that language was necessary not only for , for a science, for formation, for , for army. And here for agriculture yes, in some smaller level. Happened that some from growing up a swede, a clap or grazing cows each other badly understood, and a vital issue was not. But the state tracked that that their children at due abilities and diligence could reach everything that in the country was possible. And consequently Russian learning at schools was mandatory.... <<RSDN@Home 1.0.0 alpha 5 rev. 0>>

4

Re: Interesting Dzhangirova.

Hello, Sharov, you wrote: S> in general extremely I advise 15 minutes S> to spend for review. (On 1.5 and at all) S> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vbby0Z7tD-k in, on 1.5 it it is already possible to listen to 10 minutes