Talk:Socialist Soviet Republic of Abkhazia

Georgian view
I understand that some Georgian sources question or even deny the existence of the Abkhazian SSR. I welcome any person with more information (read: sources) to add this to the article.sephia karta 22:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Official language
Look here at the extracts from the 1921 constitution of Abkhazia (chapter 2, article 6). For those unfamiliar with Russian I can translate it: 6. The language of the state institutions (государственных учреждений) is Russian. Note. All the peoples that inhabit Abkhazia have the right to freely develop and use their native languages both in their ethnic-cultural (национально-культурных - hard to translate) and in state institutions.

6. Языком государственных учреждений ССР Абхазии признается язык русский. Примечание: Всем населяющим ССР Абхазия национальностям обеспечивается право свободного развития и употребления родного языка как в своих национально-культурных, так и общегосударственных учреждениях.

So, strictly speaking, Russian was the only official language, however other languages have (per Constitution) basically the same rights. Alaexis 07:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, ok. It's probabky best then to readd Abkhaz (and possibly Georgian), possibly with a footnote to explain the matter. sephia karta 15:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. Alaexis 15:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed move to Abkhazian Soviet Socialist Republic
It seems that given that the formal name for this (albeit short-lived) nation was "Abkhazian Soviet Socialist Republic", the soviet prefix abbreviation (-"SSR") shouldn't be in the full article name. Therefore, I propose to move the article to its full form, Abkhazian Soviet Socialist Republic. We wouldn't have an article about North Korea titled "DPRK", would we? --Micahbrwn (talk) 09:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Not part of USSR directly
Abkhazia joined to Georgian SSR in december of 1921. Georgia was part of Transcaucasian SFSR.

USSR was founded in 1922 (Russian SFSR + Ukrainian SSR + Byelorussian SSR + Transcaucasian SFSR).

Read this:

ДОГОВОР ОБ ОБРАЗОВАНИИ СОЮЗА СОВЕТСКИХ СОЦИАЛИСТИЧЕСКИХ РЕСПУБЛИК

Российская Социалистическая     Федеративная      Советская Республика  (РСФСР/Russian SFSR),   Украинская   Социалистическая   Советская Республика  (УССР),   Белорусская   Социалистическая   Советская Республика (БССР/Byelorussian SSR)  и  Закавказская Социалистическая Федеративная Советская  Республика   (ЗСФСР - Transcaucasian SFSR:    Советская    Социалистическая Республика  Азербайджан (Azerbaijan SSR),  Советская  Социалистическая  Республика Грузия (Georgian SSR)   и   Советская   Социалистическая   Республика   Армения (Armenian SSR)) объединяются  в   одно  союзное  государство  —  Союз  Советских Социалистических Республик. --89.31.88.212 (talk) 14:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you argue that Abkhazia had the status of 'SSR' for some time? This justifies its inclusion in the SSR template. Alæxis¿question? 14:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Abkhazia was SSR as a part of Georgian SSR (which was a part of Transcaucasian SFSR) (1921). (before USSR was founded in 1922) --89.31.88.212 (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Saying that Abkhazian SSR was part of Georgian SSR in 1921-1931 is an oversimplification. But it's irrelevant to this issue. As I've already said if Abkhazia had the status of 'SSR' for some time this should be mentioned in the template. Alæxis¿question? 07:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * SSR not means "republic of USSR", that means kommunist power in the country. If you dont believe me, go to library and learn. --89.31.88.212 (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Конституция Грузии от 1927 г. статья 83: "Социалистическая Советская республика Абхазия в силу особого договора входит в Социалистическую Советскую республику Грузия и через нее в ЗСФСР". (my translation) The constitution of Georgia 1927. Article 83: "Socialist Soviet republic Abkhazia is a part of Socialist Soviet republic Georgia and through it is a part of Transcaucasian SFSR".


 * I've modified the template to make the status of Abkhazian SSR more clear. Alæxis¿question? 16:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

3. ССР Абхазия, объединившись на основе особого союзного договора с ССР Грузией, через нее входит в Закавказскую Социалистическую Федеративную Советскую Республику и в составе последней - в Союз Советских Социалистических Республик.

This is the quote from the 1925 Constitution of Abkhazia. It's rather interesting that "объединившись на основе особого союзного договора" (" [Abkhazia and Georgia are] united on the ground of the special treaty") was replaced by "в силу особого договора входит"(" [Abkhazia is] part of Georgia on the ground of the special treaty") in the 1927 Constitution of Georgia. Alæxis¿question? 16:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It is no less interesting to note the 1924 constitution of the USSR (en) (ru) refers to Abkhazia as an autonomous republic. This should be mentioned in the article, no?


 * Btw, why are the Bukhara People's Soviet Republic and the Khorezm SSR (1920-24) omitted in this template? AFAIK, both these republics were associated with the Russian SFSR along the lines of Georgia-Abkhazia. Correct me if I am wrong. --KoberTalk 16:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know... I've read both articles you've given links to but I cannot say whether this situation is identical to Georgia-Abkhazia one or not. Thus I wouldn't oppose the inclusion of these republics but won't do it myself. Alæxis¿question? 17:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Besides, in case of Abkhazia it's written in the Constitution that it is part of USSR. I don't know whether the Central Asian republics you've mentioned considered themselves part of USSR de jure. Alæxis¿question? 17:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Если "не знаешь", не надо редактировать статьи. Тебе пять раз написали ссылки на законы. Абхазия стала частью Грузинской ССР с 1922 года, через неё (тобишь НЕ непосредственно) вошла в Закавказскую СФСР, а позже ЗСФСР подписала закон об образовании СССР (вместе с РСФСР, БССР и УССР). Не надо пересочинять историю и впихивать в шаблон все административные единицы СССР. --89.31.88.212 (talk) 14:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from personal attacks. Alæxis¿question? 15:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no personal attacks (read again).--89.31.88.212 (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

USSR republics template
The question is whether the Abkhazian SSR should be mentioned in this template and whether this template should be present in this article. This version of the template was supposed to make the status of Abkhazian SSR clear. Alæxis¿question? 15:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There's never going to be a good answer to this question. As the article states, the Abkhazian SSR's status was ambiguous, so there's no honest way to present it without going into the nuances. The problem is that nav boxes like Template:Republics_of_the_Soviet_Union are absolutely the wrong place to attempt to convey nuance - they are very much suited for "fast and dirty" information. My suggestion would be to leave it out of the nav box, but make sure that users who click on Georgian SSR or Transcaucasian SFSR have rapid access to high-level reference and links to the Abkhazian article. An alternative would be to turn the nav box into much more of a complete laundry list of SSRs, oblasts, regions, autonomous republics, etc, etc. You lose the narrow focus on full SSRs, but avoid ambiguity like this article raises. As always, this is merely IMHO. Ipoellet (talk) 05:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the problem could be solved by including it at the end, and by giving it an asterisked explanatory footnote.  Th e Tr ans hu man ist   02:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Why you wanna include? It's never been a republic of USSR directly (read the Constitution of USSR). It was a part (autonomus republic) of Georgian USSR and Georgia was a part of Transcaucasian SFSR before including in USSR directly. --Pianist 20:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not quite. It wasn't an autonomous republic (see both Georgian and Abkhazian constitutions of that time) and it wasn't just a part of Georgian SSR although it was part of Transcaucasian SFSR "via" Georgian SSR. Imho giving the list of the components of the TSFSR in parentheses ("Georgian SSR with Abkhazian SSR, Armenian SSR and Azerbaijan SSR") makes the status of these entities clear to the reader. I think that the parts of TSFSR should be mentioned in the template because unlike another short-lived republic it wasn't demoted to ASSR but split into three constituent republics of the USSR. Alæxis¿question? 09:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You have told "It wasn't an autonomous republic". Look at this: From Constitution of USSR 1923 (!) : Автономные республики Аджарии и Абхазии и автономная область Юго-Осетия посылают в Совет Национальностей по одному представителю. The autonomous Republics of Adjaria, and Abkhasia and the autonomous region of Osetia each send a representative to the Soviet of Nationalities --Pianist 18:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There was no constitution of the USSR in 1923! Besides that constitution is not accurate in the sense that it does not actually list the individual constituencies of the republics, like the latter version of the constitution: e.g. the 1936 edition article 25: В Грузинской Советской Социалистической Республике состоят: Абхазская АССР, Аджарская АССР, Юго-Осетинская автономная область. --Kuban Cossack 18:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That is bill of Constitution (that should shows that Abkhazia always was autonomous Republic). "From Constitution of USSR 1924 : The autonomous Republics of Adjaria, and Abkhasia and the autonomous region of Osetia, Nagornyi-Karabakh and Nakhichevanskaia each send a representative to the Soviet of Nationalities."Constitution "is not accurate" - ROFL. Constitution is main law of USSR. --Pianist 16:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

user:Pianist ru
Recently created user:Pianist ru (either an SPA or a sockpuppet) has been going through and deleting only Abkhazia from articles and templates without discussion or rationale. I have reverted all such edits as POV vandalism until a valid rationale is put forth by Pianist ru. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 16:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Read constitution of USSR of 1924 a lot of times, then delete my contributions. --Pianist 23:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Раз неплохо знаешь русский: читай конституцию, додик, а потом уже откатывай. Есть это и в проекте 1923 года и в конечной редакции конституции СССР. --Pianist 23:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That is not a valid rationale-you must post it in your own words, explaining your own reasoning. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 23:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Посмотри наверх, лол. --Pianist 23:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Look at the top of page... --Pianist 04:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletion reqwest of the map "Soviet caucasus1922.png"
Some anonymous user put the map in a several articles in several languges. The map contains Ossetians in Trialeti alongside with SSR Abkhazia and South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast. The last were Republics with official borders. Ossetian in Trialti is only ethnic claim. It is clear misleading. Geagea (talk) 23:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I deleted border of Trialetian Ossetia from the map. Do you have any other objections to the current map version? It would be nice that you try to discuss problems and possible ways to solve these problems instead to delete my good-faith work from the articles and accuse me for "political agenda". PANONIAN  00:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is obvious that you dont have nor the knowledge to make maps and not the sensitivity to deal with dispute issues. Ostiens in Trialeti have nothing with the article about Socialist Soviet Republic of Abkhazia. You can make ethnic map or political map. This is misleading. and the fact that you put the map in alot of articles in alot of languages is harassment. Geagea (talk) 00:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * First, see the source that I used: http://dic.academic.ru/pictures/wiki/files/84/Tsutsiev.jpg Second, what I made is a political map and my source claim that Trialetian Ossetia was an disputed territory, not an "ethnic territory", so I really do not understand what problem you have with this info when it is well sourced? Also, I hope that you noticed that this map show several territories of Soviet Caucasus from that time and it is not focused on Trialetian Ossetia, so the reason why I included this map into articles about Abkhazia and Dagestan is because map show borders of Abkhazia and Dagestan (and if you do not agree only with border of Trialetian Ossetia you have no single valid reason to remove this map from the articles about other subjects). And what "harassment" you speak about? I always put all my maps in all related articles in all Wikipedias, so again: if you have any other objection to this map, please tell me how I can improve it and I will do it. PANONIAN  00:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You only clear my point. You just trying to be "wise guy". Only for what you write her you have to remove first the maps from all the article in all the languages and discuss in tha talk pages. Anyway as I said, It is obvious that you dont have nor the knowledge to make maps and not the sensitivity to deal with dispute issues. Geagea (talk) 00:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I will not remove map from any article - map is useful and sourced and to remove it from the articles only because you say so is unacceptable. As for discussion in talk pages, I am trying to discuss the problem with you on this talk page and I asked you do you have any other objection to this map. I hope that you noticed that I corrected map in accordance with your objection about border of Trialetian Ossetia and I will accept all other constructive objection that you raise. However, attempts to insult me (claiming that I am trying to be "wise guy", that I have no knowledge to make maps, etc) or attempts to remove my work from the articles without explanation are not proper ways which one constructive Wikipedia user should follow. As soon as you start talking what you consider wrong in this map, we can solve possible problem and map can be corrected in accordance with your proposal. PANONIAN  10:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This map is clearly another anti-Georgia hysteria and plus complete violation of NPOV, its OR and biased. I will request its prompt deletion. Iberieli (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is just rhetorical statement, Iberieli. Do you have any explanation why you think that this map is "anti-Georgian" or "violation of NPOV"? As for "original research" accusation, I created this map according to this source: http://dic.academic.ru/pictures/wiki/files/84/Tsutsiev.jpg - You will see that my map reflect data from that source and that it therefore cannot be an original research. PANONIAN  23:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it could be construed to be anti-Georgian, its just shows the historical location of the article's topic. Outback the koala (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's clear from the map that "Trialeti Ossetia" was not a administrative entity (its borders are not marked in the way Georgian, Abkhazian etc are). It's the same situation as with Lori or Zakataly - it was a disputed territory (according to Tsutsiyev, at least). So I don't see any major problems with the map. Alæxis¿question? 23:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Photos
I wanted to let everyone editing this article know that I have 19 photos taken in Abkhazia in 2014 uploaded to the Commons and available here should you have any need. Interlaker (talk) 00:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

May 6 2020
- can you please explain the reasons behind the rollback? As you can easily check from the edit summary the question is not about military units, but to the entire assessment  the The SSR Abkhazia was largely similar to an autonomous Soviet republic, though it retained de facto independence from Georgia, being given certain features only full union republics had, like its own military units. Which source speaks and uses the term [de facto independence]? --Melberg (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I can, but it will have to wait until later when I finish work. Kaiser matias (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I assume that the rollback should have also waited for that :)--Melberg (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll admit I probably shouldn't have read it better, and not done it first thing in the morning. But will be sure to address things properly. It should be in about 7 hours from this time. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So I've taken a look at my sources. First I'll note that Saparov's book is key for detailing this, and unfortunately I don't have the specific chapter (the page range cited is currently blocked on Google Books, and libraries are closed). That said, looking at it I don't know if the specific phrase "de facto independence" is used by anyone, and that may have been my own wording, though I would contend it is an accurate assessment of the SSR Abkhazia. I'll quote Blauvelt from his "Abkhazia: Patronage and Power in the Stalin Era" article: (p. 207). Further I do have a partial quote from Saparov that furthers that assessment, in which he says that SSR Abkhazia having a coat-of-arms, military, constitution, and so on  (p. 57).
 * The overall picture, as I have understood it from my time studying the region, is that SSR Abkhazia was given an unusually large amount of autonomy, especially in the person of Lakoba, but that was stripped away, and finally extinguished once he was killed. I realise it can be a contentious topic for Georgians and Abkhazians (and correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you are Georgian?), and I have no desire to take a side on the topic, but merely to present it in as clear and as informative as possible. That said if you have suggestions on how to modify the wording to improve on that, I'll certainly be interested in doing so, and welcome any efforts to better the article. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * to be honest Blauvelt's wording seems to be more coherent than the wording you use in the article, and I would suggest using nominal equality (since we have a source for it) instead of the de facto independence, which creates a wrong impression, especially considering that entire Caucasus was recently conquered by the Soviet red army. As for the ethnic background, I would not say that it has anything to do with this article, especially since I generally assume good faith from you and appreciate your thoroughness, even though vast usage of Hewitt in this article is regretful. --Melberg (talk) 07:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I would agree that may be a better word choice, and do think it would give a good description of what happened. And I certainly didn't mean anything malicious by suggesting you are Georgian, not in the least; it was more to confirm that you are someone who is more aware of the region and its history and significance, not that you have ulterior motives, so I'm sorry if I sounded accusatory. Lastly, I will agree using Hewitt is regrettable (I'm well-versed in his stance on Abkhazia and Georgia), but its an unfortunate reality that he is one of the few scholars to write on Abkhazia in English. Kaiser matias (talk) 15:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I fully understand that Hewitt is often the only source in English, and it is more a problem of Georgian historians than yours. I trust you to change the wording the way you find it appropriate. Feel free to get in touch if there is anything that I might be helpful with the articles regarding the region.--Melberg (talk) 19:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * All good. I made the change, but if there's anything else you think I'll be glad to discuss. It's nice to have someone else familiar with the subject here for sure. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)