> switching the alphabet allows the new governments of these countries to define the majority of the written corpus that their citizens will have ready access t

> switching the alphabet allows the new governments of these countries to define the majority of the written corpus that their citizens will have ready access to. I'm very cautious with this kind of statement. Up to the 40s (cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fraktur&oldid=771368304#Use; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fraktur&oldid=771... also cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antiqua%E2%80%93Fraktur_dispute&oldid=773036928 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antiqua%E2%80%93F...) German was mostly written in Fraktur instead of Antiqua. Nevertheless (being German) I can read Antiqua without problems. Yes, Fraktur and Antiqua are much less different [1] than Antiqua (Latin alphabet) vs. cyrillic alphabet vs. Arabic alphabet from your example, but do you consider the citizens as that stupid that there won't be lots of people that teach themselves all the alphabets that are used in text that they want to understand? [1] they are not equal (i.e. not "just different symbols for the same letters") though. For example in Fraktur there exist two kinds of s (a long one and a round one) with strict rules when to use which. Or there exist ligatures that have to be used: these correspond to specific "combined consonant sequences" with specific sounds (different from the sounds of the individual letters) in German, such as ch, ck, ſt und tz (a subtlety that gets lost if you write German in Antiqua) - cf. for example https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fraktursatz&oldid=164198777#Ligaturen_und_Trennregeln https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fraktursatz&oldid... (in German).