Warning: Illegal string offset 'html' in /home/hsn/public_html/forum/cache/skin_cache/cacheid_1/skin_topic.php on line 909

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/hsn/public_html/forum/cache/skin_cache/cacheid_1/skin_topic.php:909) in /home/hsn/public_html/forum/admin/sources/classes/output/formats/html/htmlOutput.php on line 114

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/hsn/public_html/forum/cache/skin_cache/cacheid_1/skin_topic.php:909) in /home/hsn/public_html/forum/admin/sources/classes/output/formats/html/htmlOutput.php on line 127

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/hsn/public_html/forum/cache/skin_cache/cacheid_1/skin_topic.php:909) in /home/hsn/public_html/forum/admin/sources/classes/output/formats/html/htmlOutput.php on line 136

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/hsn/public_html/forum/cache/skin_cache/cacheid_1/skin_topic.php:909) in /home/hsn/public_html/forum/admin/sources/classes/output/formats/html/htmlOutput.php on line 137

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/hsn/public_html/forum/cache/skin_cache/cacheid_1/skin_topic.php:909) in /home/hsn/public_html/forum/admin/sources/classes/output/formats/html/htmlOutput.php on line 141
Erm... Assistance Please - HSN forum

Jump to content


Erm... Assistance Please


17 replies to this topic

#1 Tracy

    Site Swot

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 111 posts
  • Location:Erm..My House, In Tranent, Near Edinburgh, SCOTLAND!
  • Interests:Being me
  • Gender:Female

Posted 07 December 2005 - 09:21 PM

Eh... i thought that i wiuld create this as there are:

a) loadsa split threads on asking for essay help
b) I need help.... lol

Can someone give me tips on what to change in my discursive essay "Did man really land on the moon in 1969"

Here is the essay.. I think it just might scrape a higher pass:

Thanks peeps, tracie x



“Did man really walk on the Moon in 1969?”

It is a topic that comes up every so often in the news: did man really walk on the Moon or was it the ultimate camera trick? For the rest of the day, the reader is thinking “did he?” or “Didn’t he?” I personally think that man did walk on the Moon and I am going to present evidence and arguments to show that Neil Alden Armstrong did walk on the Moon on July 2 1969.

The story begins back in 1961 with Russia or Soviet Union as it was known at this time, firing the first man - Yuri Gagarin - into space, leaving a panicked America trailing in the Space Race. At an emergency meeting in Congress, President Kennedy proposed the ultimate face saver- to put the first man on the Moon. With a passionate speech he secured an unbelievably massive sum of forty, yes forty, billion American Dollars for the huge mission.

The main evidence used to prove that man did not land on the Moon is the photographs and video footage taken of the landing. One of the famous videos taken on the Moon and brought back to Earth is a picture of when Neil Armstrong is about to make is “giant leap for mankind”. Many claim that Armstrong could not have possibly been the first man on the Moon as the person lying on the surface must have stepped out first. To this argument there is a logical, yet very easy explanation. Did you even consider the fact there was a TV camera attached to a mechanical arm on the Lunar Module so that when the first man was about to step out onto the Moon, another man, in this case Buzz Adrian- could move the arm to film the first step on the Moon?

Another argument about the photographs is that not one matches the video footage, yet NASA claims they were both shot at the same time. This is an entirely untrue claim, despite being made award winning British photographer, David Percy. The photograph referred to is a photograph of the astronaut John Young. There is some really good video evidence in agreement with this still photograph. In the video, the TV camera is positioned to the right , at the back of Young. The video shows John Young leaping, the flag (which is not fluttering!) and Charlie Duke, who took the photograph. This is only one example, and a good one at that.

However. Mr Percy claims that the triangular piece of fabric located on the top of John Young’s backpack, and seen in the still photograph, does not appear in the video. This is not true –the tip of the fabric can be seen in the photo when you look and carefully examine the footage. Percy’s claims fail to take the angle of the cameras into consideration or that Young is leaning forward and the fabric is on the front edge of Young’s backpack. When all the correct facts are taken into consideration, the photos were clearly at the same time, just shot at different angles.

It is frequently claimed that there are no stars in visible the pictures. Many people point out that the black sky should be full of stars yet none are visible in any of the Apollo photographs. This claim is the easiest of all to explain. The answer is yes, there are stars there, but they are not bright enough to be seen. The Apollo photos are all of brightly lit objects on the surface on the moon. TO enable the astronauts to do this the astronauts had to use the fast exposure setting. By using the fast exposure setting, this simply did not allow enough starlight into the camera to record the image of the stars. For the same reason pictures taken from Orbit also lack stars. There are stars there: they just do not appear in the picture. People who accuse the landings of being a fake, known as hoax advocates, try to argue that the stars should be visible. Some of there claims are correct, however they fail to recognise the difference between “seeing “ stars and “photographing stars”. If the astronauts felt the need to take pictures of the stars they could have done so quite easily- by increasing the exposures. Having said that, the purpose of the photos were to record the activities on the surface of the Moon, not to look at stars!

The last of many arguments to prove that Neil Armstrong really did go to the moon is the likelihood of success. The likelihood of success was calculated to be so small that it is beyond belief that the moon landing could have actually taken place. The chance of a successful landing on the moon was said to have the odds of one in six thousand or 0.017 percent. The source of this information is the Internet but no name was given as to where it was found, although there is general speculation that it was more than likely an engineer from the early days of the project. Unfortunately for this engineer, saying something does not always make it right. This was proved back in 1901 when Orville Wright was quoted saying “Man will not fly for fifty years.” Yet two years later he and his brother were to fly the first aeroplane. Surely, if NASA believed that the chance of success was so small they would never have stood by Kennedy and let him propose to put the first man on the moon?

In conclusion, I believe that man did land on the moon and it is time to silence the argument. How would you like it if your boss said to you “That report I asked for is not on my desk!”, yet the report in question is sitting in their “in” tray. This is the same situation, Neil Armstrong did land on the moon, and the proof - the photographs, video footage and accounts of what happened - is sitting in front of you. Before to speak out about your doubt think back to the astronauts, who risked their lives to advance our knowledge about the Universe. Would you be prepared to do that?

#2 bred

    Brendan

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,215 posts
  • Location:Edinburgh
  • Interests:I have just graduated with a 2:1 in Geography [MA (Hons)] from The University of Edinburgh. I like sports: swimming, cycling, snowboarding, running, football, mountain biking and also travelling and photography.
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 December 2005 - 09:24 PM

For sure no man was on the moon in 1964, maybe in 1969.
Please vote for me! (Brendan Howard, 5th from bottom, only 1 vote required): http://answers.polld...m/poll/2330393/

#3 Tracy

    Site Swot

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 111 posts
  • Location:Erm..My House, In Tranent, Near Edinburgh, SCOTLAND!
  • Interests:Being me
  • Gender:Female

Posted 07 December 2005 - 09:28 PM

QUOTE(bred @ Dec 7 2005, 10:24 PM)
For sure no man was on the moon in 1964, maybe in 1969.

View Post



lol i noticed that.. just fixed it


#4 dehny

    Child Prodigy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 727 posts
  • Location:leven
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 December 2005 - 10:55 PM

unfortunately i cannot see this even scraping a higher pass sorry, maybe int 2

you have no balance in your discussion, you outright make it clear you find the other side laughable and stupid. your language is too informal, you seem to be arguing against the reader, as though they believe that the moon landing didnt happen

the last line of your conclusion is clumsy, and again you are challenging the reader when you are trying to persuade them.
My profile

1. Deutschland, Deutschland ber alles,
ber alles in der Welt,
Wenn es stets zu Schutz und Trutze
Brderlich zusammenhlt,
Von der Maas bis an die Memel,
Von der Etsch bis an den Belt -
Deutschland, Deutschland ber alles,
ber alles in der Welt.

#5 Richard_05

    Child Prodigy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 637 posts
  • Interests:I'm not going to sit and type my grades, nor my plans for the future, nor a random fact. :)
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 December 2005 - 11:37 PM

I think a couple of counter arguments put in, without destroying the point of the counter argument, and it would pass at higher. I'm not sure about the asking of questions though, maybe your supposed to, but putting a question in at the end of the conclusion probably isn't the strongest finish in my opinion, but again its just my opinion.

#6 dfx

    Fully Fledged Genius

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,955 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 December 2005 - 01:57 PM

I would wait for the English Mod's feedback. Personally, it's pretty ok. Dehny's being a lil harsh there.

#7 Discogirl17

    HSN Legend

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,034 posts
  • Location:South Lanarkshire
  • Gender:Female

Posted 11 December 2005 - 09:23 PM

QUOTE(dehny @ Dec 7 2005, 10:55 PM)
unfortunately i cannot see this even scraping a higher pass sorry, maybe int 2

you have no balance in your discussion, you outright make it clear you find the other side laughable and stupid. your language is too informal, you seem to be arguing against the reader, as though they believe that the moon landing didnt happen

the last line of your conclusion is clumsy, and again you are challenging the reader when you are trying to persuade them.

View Post



I'm afraid I partly agree with dehny.

QUOTE(Richard_05 @ Dec 7 2005, 11:37 PM)
I think a couple of counter arguments put in, without destroying the point of the counter argument, and it would pass at higher. I'm not sure about the asking of questions though, maybe your supposed to, but putting a question in at the end of the conclusion probably isn't the strongest finish in my opinion, but again its just my opinion.

View Post


Putting a question at the end is ok so I disagree with that. However Richard is right, you do need more counter arguements and why is your essay so short?

QUOTE(dfx @ Dec 8 2005, 01:57 PM)
I would wait for the English Mod's feedback. Personally, it's pretty ok. Dehny's being a lil harsh there.

View Post



You have gone down in my approximation dfx.Tell her the truth.Its not utterly terrible but it is a wee bit bad now isn't it? In my next post I will make some changes to improve your existant essay.
Half ideas,half quality, half a million pound law suit!

#8 YIC

    Fully Fledged Genius

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,976 posts
  • Location:UK
  • Interests:My interests
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 December 2005 - 09:36 PM

whether or not dehny is right is not the whole point. His post showed no encouragement whatsoever. It was filled with totally negative points. Maybe he should have put in some good points about the essay as well. Otherwise, someones motivation and confidence can go wayyyyyyy downhill.

#9 YIC

    Fully Fledged Genius

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,976 posts
  • Location:UK
  • Interests:My interests
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 December 2005 - 09:38 PM

QUOTE(Discogirl17 @ Dec 11 2005, 09:23 PM)
why is your essay so short?

View Post



It is 1038 words which in my opinion is average...

#10 Chnz

    Top of the Class

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 354 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 December 2005 - 09:46 PM

The length is very good. I have seen examiner comments for many essay questions and when they are summing up an essay, as one of their points, they would mention:

· Good length (700+ words)

#11 dehny

    Child Prodigy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 727 posts
  • Location:leven
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 December 2005 - 09:54 PM

QUOTE(YIC @ Dec 11 2005, 09:36 PM)
whether or not dehny is right is not the whole point. His post showed no encouragement whatsoever. It was filled with totally negative points. Maybe he should have put in some good points about the essay as well. Otherwise, someones motivation and confidence can go wayyyyyyy downhill.

View Post




or the determination to improve go way up. just did it the way i like to receive criticism, my way i get motivation to prove the other person wrong.
My profile

1. Deutschland, Deutschland ber alles,
ber alles in der Welt,
Wenn es stets zu Schutz und Trutze
Brderlich zusammenhlt,
Von der Maas bis an die Memel,
Von der Etsch bis an den Belt -
Deutschland, Deutschland ber alles,
ber alles in der Welt.

#12 Discogirl17

    HSN Legend

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,034 posts
  • Location:South Lanarkshire
  • Gender:Female

Posted 11 December 2005 - 09:55 PM

“Did man really walk on the Moon in 1969?”

It is a topic that comes up every so often in the news-did man really walk on the Moon or were we all fooled by the ultimate camera trick? We are all thinking “did he?” or “didn’t he?” I personally think that man did walk on the Moon, and can present evidence to show that Neil Alden Armstrong did walk on the Moon on the 2nd July 1969.

A prime reason that people believe that the arrival of the first man on the moon did not happen in 1969 is due to the "space exploration" story beginning. In 1961 with Russia (or Soviet Union as it was known at this time) firing the first man - Yuri Gagarin - into space. This left a panicked America trailing in the "Space Race". At an emergency meeting in Congress, President Kennedy proposed the ultimate comeback - to put the first man on the Moon. With a passionate speech, he secured an unbelievably massive sum of forty billion american dollars for the colossal mission. This proposal, designed to be a face-saver, was supposedly carried out successful in 1969. How could such a task be achieved in only 8 years? Many who are sceptical simply say that the task wasn't achieved on the date we were all lead to believe.

The main evidence used to prove that man did not land on the Moon comes from the photographs and video footage taken on landing. One of the famous videos taken on the Moon and brought back to Earth shows the moment when Neil Armstrong is about to make his “giant leap for mankind”. Many claim that Armstrong could not have possibly been the first man on the Moon as the person lying on the surface must have stepped out first. To this argument there is a logical, yet very easy, explanation. Did you even consider that there was a TV camera, attached to a mechanical arm, on the Lunar Module. This would mean that when the first man was about to step out onto the Moon, another man, in this case Buzz Adrian- could move the arm to film the first step on the Moon. Of course this would have been sensible for the American's to do to enable the stepping of the first man onto te moon would be marked properly. The question asked by many who are doubtful is "was Buzz Aldrin on the Moon first?"

Another argument concerning the photographs is that not one matches the video footage. This is an entirely untrue claim, despite being made by an award winning photographer called David Percy. NASA claims that both the photographs and videos were shot at the same time, and can prove their claim. One of the photographs often referred to is that of the astronaut John Young, not Neil Armstrong. There is some video evidence which does show links with this still photograph. In the video, the TV camera is positioned to the right , at the back of Young. The video shows John Young leaping, the flag (which is not fluttering- as is to be expected in zero gravity) and Charlie Duke, who took the photograph. This is only one example of a photo argued over, and a controversial one at that.
Mr Percy claims that the triangular piece of fabric located on the top of John Young’s backpack, and seen in the still photograph, does not appear in the video. This is not true –the tip of the fabric can be seen in the video when you carefully examine the footage. Percy’s claims fail to take the angle of the cameras into consideration or that Young is leaning forward and the fabric is on the front edge of Young’s backpack. When all the correct facts are taken into consideration, the photos and videos were clearly taken at the same time, just shot at different angles.

It is frequently claimed that there are no stars in visible the pictures. Many people point out that the black sky should be full of stars yet none are visible in any of the Apollo photographs. This claim is the easiest of all to explain. The answer is yes, there are stars there, but they are not bright enough to be seen. The Apollo photos are all of brightly lit objects on the surface on the moon. TO enable the astronauts to do this the astronauts had to use the fast exposure setting. By using the fast exposure setting, this simply did not allow enough starlight into the camera to record the image of the stars. For the same reason pictures taken from Orbit also lack stars. There are stars there: they just do not appear in the picture. People who accuse the landings of being a fake, known as hoax advocates, try to argue that the stars should be visible. Some of there claims are correct, however they fail to recognise the difference between “seeing “ stars and “photographing stars”. If the astronauts felt the need to take pictures of the stars they could have done so quite easily- by increasing the exposures. It must be remembered that the purpose of the photos was to record the activities on the surface of the Moon, not to look at stars!

The last of many arguments put forward to disprove Neil Armstrong really did go to the moon is the likelihood of success. The likelihood of success was calculated to be so small that it is beyond belief that the moon landing could have actually taken place. The chance of a successful landing on the moon was said to have the odds of one in six thousand or 0.017 percent. It is, however, important to remember that the odds of winning in the lottery is one in 14 million and people still do that! I sourced the moon landing success rate information from the Internet but no name was given as to where it originated, although there is general speculation that it was more than likely an engineer from the early days of the project. Unfortunately for this engineer, saying something does not always make it right. This was proved back in 1901 when Orville Wright was quoted saying “Man will not fly for fifty years.” Two years later he and his brother were to fly the first aeroplane. Surely, if NASA believed that the chance of success was so small they would never have stood by Kennedy and let him propose to put the first man on the moon? This point is widely debated, animals had risked their life for space exploration before, would it have been too hard to find a human crazy enough to do it?

In conclusion, I believe that man did land on the moon and it is time to silence the argument. How would you like it if your boss said to you “That report I asked for is not on my desk!”, yet the report in question is sitting in their “in” tray. This is the same situation, Neil Armstrong did land on the moon, and the proof - the photographs, video footage and accounts of what happened - is sitting in front of you. Before to speak out about your doubt think back to the astronauts, who risked their lives to advance our knowledge about the Universe. Would you be prepared to risk your life?



NOTE THE ABOVE ESSAY IS BY NO MEANS COMPLETE. I WANT YOU TO PUT IN SOME ARGUEMENTS PUT FORWARD BY PEOPLE WHO SAY THAT IT DID HAPPEN AND SHOW THAT THESE CAN BE DEBATABLY BUT STILL END UP TRUE.
Half ideas,half quality, half a million pound law suit!

#13 YIC

    Fully Fledged Genius

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,976 posts
  • Location:UK
  • Interests:My interests
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 December 2005 - 10:01 PM

QUOTE(dehny @ Dec 11 2005, 09:54 PM)
QUOTE(YIC @ Dec 11 2005, 09:36 PM)
whether or not dehny is right is not the whole point. His post showed no encouragement whatsoever. It was filled with totally negative points. Maybe he should have put in some good points about the essay as well. Otherwise, someones motivation and confidence can go wayyyyyyy downhill.

View Post




or the determination to improve go way up. just did it the way i like to receive criticism, my way i get motivation to prove the other person wrong.

View Post



eh?

nobody is asking you to "prove something worng". This is not a debate. Someone is asking for advice. You provided places where the writer went wrong, but you didn't offer much encouragement.

edit: ignore what I just said unsure.gif

#14 Discogirl17

    HSN Legend

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,034 posts
  • Location:South Lanarkshire
  • Gender:Female

Posted 11 December 2005 - 10:03 PM

[quote=YIC,Dec 11 2005, 09:36 PM]
whether or not dehny is right is not the whole point. His post showed no encouragement whatsoever. It was filled with totally negative points. Maybe he should have put in some good points about the essay as well. Otherwise, someones motivation and confidence can go wayyyyyyy downhill.
[right]View Post[/right]
[/quote]

Well ok heres the good points.... it was written in English, at least a tiny... tiny... tiny ammount of research had been done, it had a good into and a good ending. Get off my back. I simply said he had a point and that I agreed with what he had said. I didn't say that I agreed that that was all that should have been said.

[quote=YIC,Dec 11 2005, 09:38 PM]
[quote=Discogirl17,Dec 11 2005, 09:23 PM]why is your essay so short?

[right]View Post[/right]
[/quote]

It is 1038 words which in my opinion is average...
[right]View Post[/right]
[/quote]

Is it an essay to hand in or a prelim? You know what it doesn't really matter. In your opinion it might be an average length. I, however, would say that if you don't have quality you need a wee bit more quantity.


[quote=$D$2,Dec 11 2005, 09:46 PM]
The length is very good. I have seen examiner comments for many essay questions and when they are summing up an essay, as one of their points, they would mention:

· Good length (700+ words)
[right]View Post[/right]
[/quote]

Ok ok. Perfectly true but what if only 100 of those words made any sense? (Note: I AM NOT SAYING THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE)


[right]View Post[/right]

[/quote]
Listen, advice includes two parts criticism and suggestion for improvement on weaknesses identified by criticism. I have done both. Please everyone shut up!

Half ideas,half quality, half a million pound law suit!

#15 dehny

    Child Prodigy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 727 posts
  • Location:leven
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 December 2005 - 10:09 PM

QUOTE(YIC @ Dec 11 2005, 10:01 PM)
QUOTE(dehny @ Dec 11 2005, 09:54 PM)
QUOTE(YIC @ Dec 11 2005, 09:36 PM)
whether or not dehny is right is not the whole point. His post showed no encouragement whatsoever. It was filled with totally negative points. Maybe he should have put in some good points about the essay as well. Otherwise, someones motivation and confidence can go wayyyyyyy downhill.

View Post




or the determination to improve go way up. just did it the way i like to receive criticism, my way i get motivation to prove the other person wrong.

View Post



eh?

nobody is asking you to "prove something worng". This is not a debate. Someone is asking for advice. You provided places where the writer went wrong, but you didn't offer much encouragement.

View Post




obviously you arent understanding my point. i meant that when i receive criticism i use it to motivate myself by trying to prove the persons critcism is wrong, however when i get told i did well at such and such a point i dont bother. i was merely pointing out why i didnt put in any encouragement.
My profile

1. Deutschland, Deutschland ber alles,
ber alles in der Welt,
Wenn es stets zu Schutz und Trutze
Brderlich zusammenhlt,
Von der Maas bis an die Memel,
Von der Etsch bis an den Belt -
Deutschland, Deutschland ber alles,
ber alles in der Welt.

#16 YIC

    Fully Fledged Genius

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,976 posts
  • Location:UK
  • Interests:My interests
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 December 2005 - 10:10 PM

QUOTE(Discogirl17 @ Dec 11 2005, 10:03 PM)

Well ok heres the good points.... it was written in English, at least a tiny... tiny... tiny ammount of research had been done, it had a good into and a good ending. Get off my back. I simply said he had a point and that I agreed with what he had said. I didn't say that I agreed that that was all that should have been said.


View Post



ok sorry, I wasn't specifically aiming that at you, it was just a general thought. When I said "whether he is right ot not" I was not directly referring to you either, since I agreed with many of dehny's points in the first place.

#17 YIC

    Fully Fledged Genius

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,976 posts
  • Location:UK
  • Interests:My interests
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 December 2005 - 10:12 PM

QUOTE(dehny @ Dec 11 2005, 10:09 PM)
QUOTE(YIC @ Dec 11 2005, 10:01 PM)
QUOTE(dehny @ Dec 11 2005, 09:54 PM)
QUOTE(YIC @ Dec 11 2005, 09:36 PM)
whether or not dehny is right is not the whole point. His post showed no encouragement whatsoever. It was filled with totally negative points. Maybe he should have put in some good points about the essay as well. Otherwise, someones motivation and confidence can go wayyyyyyy downhill.

View Post




or the determination to improve go way up. just did it the way i like to receive criticism, my way i get motivation to prove the other person wrong.

View Post



eh?

nobody is asking you to "prove something worng". This is not a debate. Someone is asking for advice. You provided places where the writer went wrong, but you didn't offer much encouragement.

View Post




obviously you arent understanding my point. i meant that when i receive criticism i use it to motivate myself by trying to prove the persons critcism is wrong, however when i get told i did well at such and such a point i dont bother. i was merely pointing out why i didnt put in any encouragement.

View Post



oops sorry I understand now. I take my post back.

IMO, I generally think that most people would like to see a few good things about their essays as well, but I can't speak for everybody...

#18 ermd

    Fully Fledged Genius

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,585 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 13 January 2006 - 06:20 PM

Just a small factual error - Russia notequal.gif Soviet Union. The USSR was comprised of many Republics, namely:

The Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic
The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic
The Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic
The Azerbaidjan Soviet Socialist Republic
The Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic
The Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic
The Turkmen Soviet Socialist Republic
The Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic
The Tadjik Soviet Socialist Republic
The Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic
The Kirghiz Soviet Socialist Republic
The Karelo-Finnish Soviet Socialist Republic
The Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic
The Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic
The Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic
The Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic.

smile.gif

(And of course these changed over time, as the borders and administrative boundaries were moved.)





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users