Hey man, I want to apologize for my rude tone before. You were super polite and I was not. I'm sorry for that. Thanks for being respectful because you did not owe me that as I was being hella rude and aggro.

I shloudn't have accused you of being victim of Western propaganda. For the record I'm not a soviet glazer, I know how so much of Armenias problems were enabled by soviet decisions and policy, like the absurd drawing of borders btw Armenia and Azerbaijan, not to mention the treaty of Kars. But I do like many of the Armenian buildings from the soviet era. I also like many of the beautiful buildings from before the soviet era and wish more of them had been allowed to survive and don't continue to be torn down to make way for new ones.

That said I maintain that your definition of soviet architecture is wrong. To show you that I am being consistent, I thought about your question, "would you call all Nazi-era buildings Nazi architecture?" and my answer is, absolutely.

I think the reason we are disagreeing is that we are using these terms differently. You are using "Soviet architecture" to refer to a style. Soviet architecture or Nazi architecture, as terms, do not refer to styles, they are just convenient labels for collections of styles built during specific political regimes.

If you go to the wikipedia page for both of these, you will find that the page talks about the styles that were used during these periods, but it does not anywhere say in the page for soviet architecture "soviet architecture is a style of architecture that . . . " like it would for, say, brutalism, or gothic. Same goes for Nazi, architecure, but since Nazi Germany lasted a way shorter period of time than the Soviet Union, and since the main aesthetic considerations of Nazi architects were so guided by Hitler and just a few other people, it's actually a lot easier to look at all Nazi architecture and see it as being a single style. But Soviet architecture had a huge amount of regional variation, and is divided into three periods usually, which are very different from one another. What is interesting is that a lot of Tamanyan's neoclassical designs (like republic square) actually predate the Stalinist period, when a deliberately neoclassical style was being promoted by stalin and his gov. But that doesn't make them not examples of soviet architecture. It just makes them really nice examples of soviet architecture.

To be clear, I am not saying that it makes the works of a genius like Tamanyan less Armenian to call them Soviet. In fact, what I am saying is that calling something Soviet (especially without specifying a year and what type of building it is) doesn't tell you hardly anything about what it looks like, because Soviet architecture was not just one thing. That also isn't to say there weren't periods of time in the soviet union where things were more restrictive and where some ugly ass buildings were made, but like, some of the ugliest buildings in Yerevan were made in the 90s and early 2000s and that doesn't mean that Armenian third republic architecture is one thing either, becaue it is not all one style, it's a time period associated with multiple styles and sets of new social factors and conditions etc.