What if the Latinisation of USSR languages had been completed?

Did the Soviets stop the Latinization because they learned the secrets of Fátima and realized they were unwittingly fulfilling the prophecy regarding Russia?

They stopped it because they were afraid of pan-Turkism. The decision to adopt Latinization was done in part to divide the Turks in Turkey from the Turks in the USSR—that's why it was dropped as soon as the Turkish decided a Latinization of their own.
 
They stopped it because they were afraid of pan-Turkism. The decision to adopt Latinization was done in part to divide the Turks in Turkey from the Turks in the USSR—that's why it was dropped as soon as the Turkish decided a Latinization of their own.

Which makes no sense as the Latin alphabet used for Turkey was very different from what was adopted by the USSR. To provide an example, to the left is the Jañalif as applied to Azeri (the closest language to Standard Turkish, itself based on "Eastern" dialects of Oghuz), and to the right is the alphabet as adopted under Atatürk for Turkish:

A, a = A, a
B, b = B, b
C, c = Ç, ç
Ç, ç = C, c
D, d = D, d
E, e = E, e
Ə, ə = not found in Turkish (the sound it represents is an allophone of /e/ in closed syllables before sonorants)
F, f = F, f
G, g = G, g
Ƣ, ƣ = Ğ, ğ (and in Turkish, the sound that letter represents has largely disappeared)
H, h = H, h
I, i = İ, i
Ь, ь = I, ı (both curious choices, indeed)
J, j = Y, y (in line with Slavic scientific transcription, as well as the alphabets of numerous West and South Slavic languages)
K, k = K, k (though in earlier forms of the Jañalif, <Q/q> was used here)
Q, q = G, g (in terms of sound), K/k (in terms of etymology, from earlier */q/, not found in both Azeri and Standard Turkish, though the sound exists in Turkish dialects as well as outside the Oghuz area; in earlier forms of Jañalif, though, <K/k> - like early versions of the Czech alphabet - was used here)
L, l = L, l
M, m = M, m
N, n = N, n
O, o = O, o
Ɵ, ɵ = Ö, ö
P, p = P, p
R, r = R, r
S, s = S, s
Ş, ş = S, s
T, t = T, t
U, u = U, u
V, v = V, v
X, x = sound does not exist in Turkish (such cases are resolved to either <H/h> in native words or <K/k> in loanwords; the letter itself is usually translated to <KS/ks> since that is what the original loanwords, mostly of European origin, represent 95% of the time)
Y, y = Ü, ü
Z, z = Z, z
Ƶ, ƶ = J, j

As you can see, the alphabets are significantly different in some areas, not just because Azeri has additional sounds not found in the İstanbul dialect which forms the basis of Standard Turkish. Ironically, for a campaign that tried to stamp out Latinization, many of these Jañalif letters remained in use. In the case of Azeri, this is definitely true of <Ə/ə> and <Ɵ/ɵ>; <Y/y> and <H/h> got their shapes modified to <Ү/ү> and <Һ/һ>, respectively, in order to "fit in" with the rest of the Cyrillic script, as the lowercase shape in Jañalif would be confused with <У/у> and <Н/н>.
 
I should add, however, that the big irony in all of it is that if Turkey wanted to around the early stages of independence, it would have been more or less easy to adapt Standard Turkish, on the basis of the İstanbul dialect, to the Cyrillic script as adapted for Russian post-1918. With a few modifications to match Turkish phonology to the equivalent Russian pronunciation, plus some additional letters (three from the OTL Azeri Cyrillic alphabet, one from Serbian/Macedonian, another from an old 19th-century proposal for representing foreign loanwords in Russian, and another two which in this case are specific to Turkish), one could have the following (Cyrillic to the left, OTL Turkish plus additional explanations for context on the right):

А, а = A, a
Б, б = B, b
В, в = V, v
Г, г = G, g or Ğ, ğ
Ғ, ғ = G, g (in foreign borrowings and proper nouns, mainly before back vowels)
Д, д = D, d
Е, е = Ye, ye (word-initial and after vowels); E, e (after consonants)
Ё, ё = Yo, yo (word-initial and after vowels); Ö, ö (after consonants)
Ж, ж = J, j
З, з = Z, z
И, и = İ, i
Й, й = Y, y
К, к = K, k
Ҝ, ҝ = K, k (in foreign borrowings and proper nouns, mainly before back vowels)
Қ, қ = K, k (etymological */q/ from Arabic loanwords)
Л, л = L, l
Љ, љ = L, l (in foreign borrowings and proper nouns, mainly before back vowels)
М, м = M, m
Н, н = N, n
О, о = O, o
П, п = P, p
Р, р = R, r
С, с = S, s
Т, т = T, t
У, у = U, u
Ӱ, ӱ = Ü, ü (word-initial and after vowels)
Ф, ф = F, f
Х, х = H, h
Ц, ц = Ts, ts (confined to Russian loanwords, and most likely pronounced <S/s> anyway when word-initial due to a prohibition of word-initial consonant clusters in Turkish)
Ч, ч = Ç, ç
Ҹ, ҹ = C, c
Ш, ш = Ş, ş
Щ, щ = Şç, şç (mainly in Russian loanwords)
Ы, ы = I, ı
Ь, ь = silent (used to separate /j/ from other readings when a iotated vowel is after a consonant)
Э, э = E, e (word-initial and after vowels)
Ӭ, ӭ = Ö, ö (word-initial and after vowels)
Ю, ю = Yu, yu (word-initial and after vowels); Ü, ü (after consonants)
Я, я = Ya, ya (word-initial and after vowels); Ä, ä (confined to Russian loanwords and pronounced identically to <Е/е> after consonants)
’ = Y, y (mainly in Russian loanwords where <ъ> would be expected; Bulgarian, OCS, and other loanwords with schwa would probably follow the Moldovan Cyrillic alphabet and use <Э/э>, while Russian loanwords with schwa would be spelled as per Russian orthographic principles, though preferring <А/а>)

Most of it is pretty straightforward and wouldn't prove a problem. <Қ, қ> is used here because there are some Arabic loanwords in Turkish which violate vowel harmony due to its origin in */q/. Also, in native Turkic words, <к, г, л> automatically soften when before a front vowel; as the soft sign here is reassigned elsewhere (leading towards what one would probably stereotypically call a "Tatar accent"), the additional letters <ҝ, ғ, љ> highlight those exceptions where soften consonants occur outside of their natural environment, particularly in foreign loanwords. As for <г> - it represents <g> when word-initial or geminate and <ğ> otherwise (since the latter cannot appear at the beginning of a word in Turkish).

So there - if someone decides to go for a Communist Turkey TL, here's a Cyrillic alphabet you can use.
 
No.
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Latin alphabet has A, B, D, E, I, K, M, N, O, T and arguably U in common with Greek (classical) that's 11 (and 'D' is arguable the other way).
You missed H, P, X, Y and Z.

Cyrillic letters vs Greek
Cyrillic Greek
А а same as Alpha (1)
Б б variant of Beta, doesn't count
В в same as Beta (2)
Г г same as Gamma (3)
Д д Delta (4)
Е е Epsilon (5)
Ж ж original
З з original
И и same as Eta (6) in mediæval Greek form
І і same as Iota (7). (not used in MODERN Russian)
К к Kappa (8)
Л л Lambda (9)
М м Mu (10)
Н н Nu (11) in mediæval Greek form
О о Omicron (12)
П п Pi (13)
Р р Rho (14)
С с Sigma (15) in mediæval Greek form
Т т Tau (16)
У у Upsilon (17)
Ф ф Phi (18)
Х х Chi (19)
Ц ц new
Ч ч new
Ш ш new (Hebrew Shin, actually)
Щ щ new
Ь ь new
Ю ю new
Я я new
Д is only a descendant of Δ, not the same symbol. The same is true for С and У. И might look like a variant of eta, but it's not the same letter, so it shouldn't count. І is not used in most Slavic languages.

So standard Cyrillic has 19 of Greek's 24 letters.
Old Orthography Russian also had Fita (pronounced 'f', but identical in form to a 'theta').

So... the only Greek letters missing are 'zeta', 'xi', 'psi' and 'omega'
If the same criteria were applied to the Latin alphabet - counting descent, including from variant forms of Greek letters, we would have to count C (from a form of Gamma), F (descended from the variant Digamma letter), G (likely a descendant of Zeta), L (from Lambda), Q (from the archaic Koppa), R (descended from a variant from of Rho) and S (from a variant of Sigma). Only V and W don't have such an origin and they're arguably derivatives of U, while Cyrillic has nine letters which are original, or from other sources and this is discounting the original letter Ъ. And 18 of the Greek letters have been originators of letters of the Latin alphabet.
 
They stopped it because they were afraid of pan-Turkism. The decision to adopt Latinization was done in part to divide the Turks in Turkey from the Turks in the USSR—that's why it was dropped as soon as the Turkish decided a Latinization of their own.
Your chronology doesn't fit. The Latin alphabet was introduced in Turkey in 1929, while the Latinization campaign didn't end until 1937. In fact, many languages didn't get a Latin alphabet until 1929 or even later.
Also there is a difference between Turks and Turkic language speakers, they are certainly not the same outside of the imaginations of pan-Turkic nationalists.
 
Top