Talk:History of Moldova

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Moldova Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Moldova, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Moldova on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

"Although it is more than 10 years after the independence declaration, the traces of the Soviet regime's propaganda are still very deep and the Romanian Moldovans are still afraid and ashamed of their origin." I find this comment to be a bit inappropriate--certainly a qualifier must be inserted before Romanian Moldovans, perhaps "some" or even "there are a few groups of." Perhaps the "shame" is not of their origins, but rather of their unfortunate economic situation and their communist mayor in Chisinau as well as their somewhat pro-Russian President, Vladimir Voronin.

The president Vladimir Voronin is a puppet of Kremlin, not just 'somewhat pro-russian'. The mayor of Chisinau, Serafim Urechean, is not a communist, he represents the opposition.

Another variant is that was named after a river by a Hungarian noble - what hungarian noble ? -- criztu

Moldova's Latin origins can be traced to the period of Roman occupation of nearby Dacia - shouldn't the sarmatians(iazygians) be mentioned as living in Moldova ?

The Roman cities (formerly Greek colonies) on the Black Sea shore. What's about sarmatians? --Vasile 02:43, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] A Polish fief ?

Was Moldova a Polish fief in 15th century ? --Lysy (talk) 11:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC) ¨ Moldavia recognized Polish sovereignty. --Anittas 11:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zubr/Aurochs

Regarding the Moldova coat of arms is pretty much inconsintency in articles some mentioning Zubr and others Aurochs.CristianChirita

[edit] Bad etymology

The Moldovan plains were inhabited since ancient times by Dacians, and it is thought that the name derives from the Dacian words molta=many and dava=fortress, city.

That is a really bad etymology. :-)

  • Who says there was a Dacian word "molta"? Romanian "mult" (many, much) is from Latin "multum".
  • Also, the etymology is not possible because intervowel "v" disappeared from ancient times to modern Romanian, so we'd have moltada or something like that.
  • BTW, I never saw that etymology anywhere else. Is that original research? bogdan 19:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I thought you were the one who said that the suffix -va could come from Dacian dava, as it might be with Suceava, tho it seems that the name of Suceava might be of Hungarian origin. --Candide, or Optimism 20:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it was me. The suffix "-va" is usually from Slavic, but yes, Suceava is from Hungarians (IIRC, even Dimitrie Cantemir said so). bogdan 21:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Damn it. --Candide, or Optimism 21:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Dimitrie Cantemir probably took the information from Simion Dascalu (the same guy who said Siret comes from hungarian Stretem "i like it") , even if an hungarian suczvar would have eventually evolved to sucioara or something similar. Anyway, it wouldn't be the only error in Descriptio Moldaviae.

[edit] Capitals of Moldova

The capitals of Moldova were: Baia, Siret, Suceava and Iaşi.

[edit] Chisinau/Kishinev

TSO1D: I think the Russian name is justified at that point, since the city (and fom that point, capital) was officially known under that name for a substantial period of time. --Illythr 16:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason I did that was that the name of the city was given in other languags in the main page about the city, and the in other sections of the article. But I guess you are right, during Bessarabia's existance as part of the Russian Empire and the USSR, both names should be given. But what version of Кишинёв should be used? Should the Cyrillic version be used, Kishinev, or Kishinyov? I don't think we should use the strange hybrid Kishinёv that was up there before. I think Kishinev was the English name for the city until independence and that should be included in paranthases. But should it say that that was the name of the city in Russian, I mean Kishinev is the anglicized form of the Russian name, but not the Russian name itself? Maybe the Cyrillic should be provided in one place to explain that that was the real official name. TSO1D 17:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually now that I looked at the paragraph, I think it's too brief to warrant a full explanation of the etymology of the name. I think it's enough to have Kishinev in parantheses whenever the name is encountered. TSO1D 18:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I believe that when existing cities are mentioned in a historical background, their official names of that historical period should be mentioned at least once, for reference. In short - I agree with your edits. --Illythr 22:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The events of June 1940

Hey, DPotop, now that you're here, I have found another option for that annexed/occupied thingy in the Moldova article: The Soviet Union forced Romania to cede Bessarabia in June 1940 in an agreement with Germany... or Romania was forced to cede Bessarabia to the Soviet Union in June 1940 in an agreement with Germany... How about that? I don't think it can get any more accurate... --Illythr 19:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the first version. I'd say "Following the June 1940 Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact with Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union forced Romania to retire its administration from Bessarabia and Northern Bukovine, which were immediately annexed". I mean, Romania indeed retired without fight, but it is clear from the letter of acceptation that the Romanian government did not accept the move as lawful. It was treated like an occupation. Dpotop 21:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
The first version is syntactically incomplete, it should read "The Soviet Union forced Romania to cede Bessarabia to the Soviet Union", creating a nasty repetition. I'll just grab your version instead.
My main issue with "invasion" was that it is usually associated with warfare - guns blazing, bombs falling, strategic positions being overrun, that kind of thing. --Illythr 22:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Principality of Moldavia

And since we're at it, I'm sorry to say, but Moldovenist claims to political continuity with the Principality of Moldavia are quite unfounded and misleading. I mean, people of the Republic of Moldova assuming a "Moldovan" ethnicity is their choice. But this has nothing to do with the Principality, which chose through a democratic process the union inside Romania. The *legal* history of the Republic of Moldova as it exists today begins in 1812, when it was ceded by the Ottomans and then organized as an oblast, then guberniya inside the Russian Empire.

Therefore, the history part of the article should start with something like:

  • Most of today's Republic of Moldova, formerly known as Bessarabia, was part of the Principality of Moldavia starting from the 14th century and until 1812, when it was ceded to the Russian Empire following yet another Russian-Turkish war. This is why the Republic of Moldova revendicates the cultural heritage of the Principality and the name of "Moldovan".
  • Further Moldovenist claims are controversial from a legal point of view and also lead to political imbroglio. In particular, an official document adopted in 2003 by the Moldovan parliament reclaims the Republic of Moldova as the rightful successor to the medieval Principality. It must be seen, however, that the Principality of Moldova did not cease to exist after 1812. Far from it, its institutions steadily evolved and grew stronger, the development of a Romanian national feeling continued, and the population democratically chose, in 1859, union with Wallachia inside the Romanian national state.

This text should go instead of the misleading section "Roots to 1812" to make things a bit clearer. Dpotop 21:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Actully, I think we could steer away from any controversy by simply tracing the history of the territory inside the Principality and Bessarabia (important developments in the area, with the "Main article" and "See also" system). The same kind of move needs to happen for Bessarabia, which (besides containing a lot of questionable and low-quality info) is very, very, redundant. Dahn 06:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


I'm sorry, but this text is not controversial in itself. It merely expresses two points of view, whose understanding is essential.
I do agree that you should present the history of the territory, but it must be clear that it's the territory you talk about, and not some political formation. The current article starts with "Moldavia", thus suggesting the exact form of continuity revendicated by the Moldovenists.
Cultural continuity, maybe. But "the rightful successor of the medieval principality", this is impossible. Dpotop 06:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely. The top part is shaky: I was not arguing in favour of keeping it, I was trying to find a guideline for the new one. After all, we've debated this at length and I believe you know we have the same view about this topic. Dahn 06:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I tried to put an introduction to the article. What do you think about it? Dpotop 10:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I honestly don't think it is required for this article to delve into that. Moldova is not dependent on the theory, and this article should actually refer to the history of the region that came to be a state (in the same way US history refers to Pre-columbians and Czechia's with Bohemia). In other words, we should try to focus this on things with the principality that were relevant to the region, more than repeat info in the Moldavia article (for example: battles which were fought on its territory, etc.); the same could go for its history inside Romania. I do not think this was ever seriously attempted, so it would need some research and patience. Dahn 11:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree the information about the Moldovenist theory is not really needed here, that can be found at Moldovenism. This is mostly a historical article detailing the history of the region that now falls under the admnistration of the RM. As for adding information that specifically happened in Bessarabia before 1812, I suppose that can be done, but I don't think that should be removed from the context of the larger Moldavia article. What I mean is that we need to keep some general information that refers to Moldavia as a whole in this article rather than presenting some incidents by themselves. TSO1D 13:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course. What I was saying is that we needn't be redundant (for the love of me, I can't see why this needs to state stuff about Bogdan and Dragoş, and go into the routine about how Stephen fought the Turks) Dahn 21:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proto-Romanian

As banned user Anittas points out on his user talk page "Vlachian (proto-Romanian) Principality of Moldavia" is nonsense. "Proto-Romanian" is off by about a millennium.

He also questions the name "Dragoş of Maramureş" suggesting that this should be "Dragos [presumably Dragoş] of Cuhea". - Jmabel | Talk 23:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ceded or occupied

Really, when a jackass bullies you calling you an idiot, you are not necessarily one. Similarly, when an evil empire (The Soviets) forces an ultimatum on you, it does not mean the ultimatum is some sort of reference. It's just a text issued by a jackass. Dpotop 16:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The Romanian side never accepted to cede territory. It accepted to withdraw. And given the number of times we discussed this shit, I cannot assume good faith. Dpotop 16:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember us discussing this before. Perhaps you're thinking about Anonimu? The withdrawn of the military equals to cede the territory. We were ruled by a Tatar(escu). --Thus Spake Anittas 16:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, Anittas. Indeed, it was Anonimu, our national Communist propagandist. Dpotop 16:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually i'm an internationalist. Please watch the civility guidelines.Anonimu 16:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

We lost the land because we were idiots. We should have kept Titulescu and the money from the oil should have been invested in infrastracture and the military. When WW1 started, our military had a very poor infrastracture; when WW2 started, things were even worse. Instead, money were spent on rich idiots and snobbish bitches. If we had done better in WW1, we may have gotten more. Perhaps more of Banat. But we were idiots and in WW1, we couldn't decide whether we wanted to attack south, or north. I always laugh when I read about the Bucharestneans living their last moments of joy, knowing that their stupid city would soon be occupied. Their last struggle was to fight for the Austrians to occupy their city so that it wouldn't fall into the hands of the Bulgarians. Luckly, the Moldavians took matters into their own hands and repelled everyone at the Moldavian border. --Thus Spake Anittas 16:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

They got rid of Titulescu because he was supporting the International Brigades. Mothaphukin fascists...Anonimu 16:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
They got rid of Titulescu because he was incompetent. All his work was directed at supporting the post-WWI status quo and the Society of Nations, and concocting useless alliances. This ultimately proved useless. Not only against large countries, such as Germany and the USSR, but also against Hungary and Bulgaria. Not to mention the way he let himself cradled by the promises of the Soviets, while in the end there was no result. So, when WWII started, we were completely out in the cold. Good job, Titulescu! Dpotop 19:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Like you really hate Romania's interwar position...Anonimu 22:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but I do not understand your statement. Dpotop 22:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Secession?

I'm reading the section on Gagauzia and Transnistria and they are both pretty much described in the same breath and with secession in the section title. "Separatist Gagauzia and Transnistria" or "Autonomous.." which they are legally (regardless of the PMR regime) would be far more appropriate; moreover, the discussion of the two needs to be separated. The one is definitely not like the other. PētersV 21:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, at that time (the beginning) they were more or less the same: both asked for autonomy in order to be able to make Russian and Gagauz/Ukrainian official, to be able to legally gain independence in case Moldova joins Romania, etc. Both were (rather rudely) refused and had then declared independence unilaterally. Actually, armed volunteers were sent to Gagauzia as well. --Illythr 22:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
And, one important detail, both were pushed by the soviet authorities to do so. in fact, it was not locals who declared (transnistria) / wanted to declare (in gagauzia) independence, but the soviet apparatchiks. The locals were used in a political game: because moldovan politicians were stupid enough to prevent that. And with all due respect "volonteers were sent" sounds like "I am volonteering you". They were (pertially! and only without munition!) armed. The volonteers were needed for one single thing: psychological effect. The special police units did all the rest, the commanding general of the soviet troops that entered from ukraine into gagauzia and his quaters were arrested, and with that the "republic" ended (september 1990).
But then, after 1991, there is a big difference between the two. Gagauzia followed an exemplary process of negociations, village-by-village prebescite and became the best example of local ethnic authonomy for the entire europe (words of osce at the time). Transnistria followed a different path - war, russian military presence, installation of old soviet apparatchiks to ferm power, end of personal freedoms. That's not the same thing. So, you are both right, only Illythr is right in reference to pre-1991, while Peters is right in reference to post-1991. Both aspects should be reflected in the article, imho. :Dc76\talk 14:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I also have the impression that in Gagauzia there's a functional democracy, there's no such thing in Transnistria. -- AdrianTM 15:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually the situation in Gagauzia isn't ideal and there were some serious problems there not very long ago.
ps. Surely it was evil apparatchiks who did everything - what sane person wouldn't dream of living in the paradise on Earth :)) Alæxis¿question? 16:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Then why Russians from Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky emigrated to that "paradise on Earth" -- AdrianTM 17:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Why, that's simple: Darth Igor had used his powers of foresight to see that the Soviet Union will break apart in four years' time and Transnistria will be the place he can do the most evil. --Illythr 18:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
So it was the Soviet apparatchicks who pushed the Popular Front loving ethnic minorities of Moldova to declare independence after their representatives were kicked out of the Parliament building in Chisinau. Hm, a most interesting... point of view, there. I take it, the referendums in those two regions were so overwhelmingly in favor of staying within the USSR because all the voters were apparatchiks in disguise... --Illythr 18:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gifting version

I'm sorry, but really, the version being inserted multiple times of late by more than one editor making it like all sorts of territory was practically gifted to the Soviet Union by the Nazis and others is highly POV. I would trust the repeated insertion of text portraying the Soviet Union as benign is not being used to entice AdrianTM into a 3RR. The multiple reversions to the inserted version, instead of stopping to discuss after the intial revert to the original version, certainly looks like such a provocation to me. PētersV 20:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It was a clear occupation, even if Romania or Germany "gifted" Soviet Union with that territory nobody asked the people living in those territory what they wanted. And this "gift" was made with the loaded pistol pointed against the back of the head. Portraying any kind of armed robbery as "gifting the wallet" is nothing else than POV-pushing. -- AdrianTM 20:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
That's how Romania got Bessarabia, Bukovina and Transylvania after WWI, but i don't see you calling those acts occupations.Anonimu 21:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Because they weren't, brush up your history knowledge a little bit. -- AdrianTM 21:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
That's just an act signed under the pressure of the romanian occupation troops, voted by a congress that claimed to represent only the vlachophones (50% of bessarabia's population). The same thing happened in Bukovina (just that there were less vlachophones there). Transilvania was also acquired by a fait accompli politics ( occupation first, negotiations later), ignoring the decision of the important hungarian community there. At least the Soviets waited for Romania's formal approval before entering Bessarabia.Anonimu 23:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, it not exactly waited... --Illythr 23:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
The Romanian ambassador in the Soviet Union told the Soviets Romania had accepted their proposal on 27 june. So the Soviets waited about 20 hours before entering Bessarabia.Anonimu 00:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Right, and the Nazis "waited" a few hours (also "offering" Poland a peace deal if she made massive concessions) after the Gleiwitz incident -- so what? That kind of thing didn't fool anyone in 1939/40. You must be the only person on Earth to attach any importance to that 20-hour "wait". Biruitorul 01:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
The same tired, anti-Romanian nonsense. It was our land, OK? Romanian troops can't "occupy" Romanian lands (spaţiul mioritic). And we are Romanians, not "vlachophones" (a term normally confined to the radical right in Hungary). While I respect the rights of minorities (note: minorities), the majority has the inalienable right to choose its own state. And by the way: Romania gave up claims on the western Banat at Versailles, and left Hungary after a few months in 1919 (having crushed the Reds), so you can't accuse Romania (unlike the USSR) of having pursued random imperialism, just acquisition of territories that rightfully belonged to us. God gave us a glorious chance in 1918, and the HEROES of that year - whose memory you so ignominiously spurn - rose up to the occasion. Let us embrace that fulfilment of Mihai's legacy. "Noi suntem români, noi suntem romani, noi suntem aici pe veci stăpâni!" Biruitorul 01:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Nope, just the truth. Anti-romanian would mean also anti-myself, but I'm not a nihilist. It wasn't our land. God didn't gave it to us. We took it from Russians, who took it from Moldavians, who took it from Tatars, who took it from Cumans, who took it from Hungarians, who took it from Bulgarians ... who took it from the the first human inhabitants, who took it from animals... Not "our land". "Spatiul mioritic" is bullshit.. like a nation born out of mountain dwellers (according to the official theory) could be influenced by hills and valleys. The Romanian lands are the lands under the administration of the Romanian state. There are no constant Romanian lands... and Bessarabia wasn't a Romanian land in 1918 (and, de jure, it never was a romanian land). Sorry, the majority of Szekler Land, Western border, Northern Bukovina, Budjak and Southern Dobruja were not Romanian inhabited by a Vlachophone majority, and certainly didn't want to live in the state of the Romanians. Romania has pursued imperialist dreams since its independence... after all it accepted to take Dobruja, even if its vlachophone population was cofined to the Danube coast. Mihai was just a dictator who wanted power. Ceausescu era history transformed that enslaver of the peasantry into a hero. (You see, I am critical of whom I support, unlike you).Anonimu 12:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
The truth is that Romania has a legitimate claim to the land due to its past belonging to Moldavia and Romania, and the takeover by Russia. Romania is the successor of Moldavia and Wallachia and as such, can claim land that it feels was unjustly talken from those two factions. Moreover, the Tatars and the Bulgarians were not indigious to the area, whereas we--whether we came from the south or were there already--had cultural links to the land, since it once belonged to the same faction that we lived in: the Roman Empire. You can be anti-Romanian and not be anti-yourself. --Thus Spake Anittas 16:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I also feel that the World was unjustly taken from me, as a descendent of the first man, so I also have a legitimate claim. According to your logic, Mr. Ahmadinejad has a better claim on Bessarabia, having cultural links with Darius, the ruler of southern Bessarabia 400 years before the Romans. I forgot I was a tatar/gypsy/mongol/russian (© Bonaparte & dacodava)Anonimu 17:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
If the Iranian tribe would've maintained a solid continuity in Bessarabia, then the answer is yes. --Thus Spake Anittas 17:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Cool, we're now at the core of this stupidity, in which you mix half truths with outright lies, and mix notions such as Romanian (ethnic) with Romanian (belinging to Romania). If I am sticking with your Szekler Land, etc. argument, you are considering the ethnic thing. Under this POV:
  1. Bessarabia was Romanian in 1918, and before that. The national conscience that slowly formed there was Romanian, until the post 1940 Soviet Moldovanization.
  2. Southern Dobrudja (and Dobrudja as a whole) was not Romanian when Romania got it. However, both were romanianized. BTW, Dobrudja was taken not as an imperialistic gain, but as a counterpart for Southern Bessarabia, taken by the Russians. For Southern Dobrudja it's different (imperialistic indeed, like any decent country).
  3. The south of Northern Bukovina (as well as the Soviet-stolen Herta region) had a Romanian majority.
As concerns Mihai, I agree with you, but not for the "dictator" part. He never got real power, anyway.
As concerns your first argument (the one about Bulgarians, Hungarians, Cumans, etc...) Is this ethnic, or political? If it's ethnic, you should let the world know you have a crystal globe. :) Dpotop 15:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
What half truths and lies? Yes, I was pretty ambiguous, but i thought contributors are smart enough to sort em out. Vlachophone were under 50% of Bessarabia's population in 1918, so it was not "Romanian". The romanian nation was born in the mind of some boyars and then imposed on the masses in the 19th century. Being under Russian rule, the Bessarabian masses missed that imposition, so the conscience of "Romanianness" was not developed. Southern Dobruja never had a vlachophone majority, and Northern Dobruja needed 30 years to get. Dobruja was taken without asking its population, thus it was anti-human (just like awarding a kid to fags). The northeast of Southern Bukovina also had and has a Ukrainian majority. so what? I've never denied that the soviets occupied hertsa in 1940-1941 and 1944-1947. The presence of Bulgars and Hungarians in Bessarabia is documented both by byzantine sources and archaeological remains.Anonimu 17:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
The Soviet Union was indeed practically given Bessarabia on a silver platter by Germany, who took France out of the picture, signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop protocols and persuaded Romania to back off. I don't see how this (as well as the other contested changes) portrays the Soviet Union as benign, however. Pretty much every ceding of territory in history was not a happy event for the losing side and occurred because there was no other choice. --Illythr 22:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually Germany persuaded Romania just by refusing to support her. Romania was occupied only in October, so Germany's role was not that important.Anonimu 23:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Soviet Union by giving 20 hours for Romania to withdraw troops committed an aggression, no country can withdraw troops and administration in 20 hours from such a large territory. Thousands of Romanian soldiers were killed. Romanian Army losses: dead, wounded, and missing by July 6, 1940: 356 officers, 42.876 soldiers, in history there were entire wars where less soldiers died. I also never heard of the term "vlachophone" till now, that's interesting... do they still speak Vlach there? And how come you counted them to be exactly 50%, weren't they the majority even then (and especially then, before being sent to Siberia or Kazakhstan by "liberators"?) And also remember that the Bessarabian Congress called for Romanian troops, it wasn't "occupation" since it's not occupation when the country asks for help. -- AdrianTM 00:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Romania accepted to do it. It could have fought, but it didn't. Now we use figures given by Goma... great... I can't wait for the article about Jewish massacres against Romanians (hope its a red link). Vlachophone is a generic term for speakers of Eastern Romance languages/dialects/whatever-polticized-word. They were actually less than 50%... i guess i was a bit biased towards Vlachophones ;). No, the leader of the Bessarabian Congress protested against the entry of the Romanian troops. Remember that the "but some of them did call us" excuse was also used by Soviets in Cezchoslovakia in 1968... wasn't that an occupation?Anonimu 12:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Where do you get your less than 50% number? Ok, little bit of history specially for you: "The Russian Empire annexed the territory between Prut and Dnestr in 1812. These lands had no particular name before, they were simply part of the Moldavian Principality. Russia had to find a justification that allowed her not to withdraw her troops from this area. They employed a misleading name, stating that in the Treaty of Bucharest of 1812 it was not required to leave Bessarabia. Bessarabia, however, had only been the southern part of what is today known as Bessarabia, also called the Bugeac, but the Russians extended the name ”Bessarabia” to all the region between Prut and Dnestr, so that they could annex it. In fact, this region was the most fertile part of Moldavia, and even bigger than the rump-Moldavia remaining independent. 90% of the population were Romanians." [1] I see here a percentage of 90% will all the russification and "trips" to Siberia for natives it never fell to under 50%. -- AdrianTM 13:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
See the 1897 All-Russian census. Even if the 90% in 1812 seems a bit exagerated, it's understandable, considering that the southern third of Bessarabia became virtually uninhabited after the expulsion of tatars.Anonimu 13:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
There was a German troop presence in Romania, but the country was never occupied - a sovereign government continued to take independent decisions, all under the aegis of the great man whose 86th birthday we just celebrated. Biruitorul 01:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, you mean that piece of shit that didn't move a finger when his subjects where massacred by his troops?Anonimu 12:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Are you somehow related to the old royal house? Carol I was great. Ferdinand I was okay. That's it. --Thus Spake Anittas 01:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
No, but Mihai is King of the Romanians (and hence my King and liege lord, to whom I owe ultimate fealty). He is the spiritual father of all Romanians. Carol II was modern Romania's first Orthodox monarch (despite being an adulterer) and greatly promoted the Church (for instance elevating her Patriarch to the premiership). Granted, he made some bad political choices, but still, a nice guy. Michael was a beacon of anti-Communism in a steadily-expanding Red Tide, and his eloquent example of an exiled King keeping alive for decades the holy flame of Romanianism before being denied his rightful Orthodox throne by a gang of Red thieves (the FSN) serves as an inspiration to many Romanians. Biruitorul 04:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
He is no longer King of Romania, altough I think he was allowed to keep his title. Nonetheless, we are under no obligation to restore him as king. --Thus Spake Anittas 15:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
And some say i'm the indoctrinated one...Anonimu 12:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure Romanians would have preferred a non-Orthodox monarch in place of Carol II. One that did his job, for instance at creating (at least) a good army, after all the money he defrauded. I have no problem with guys stealing some money if they do something good in return. But this guy's only contribution was the Carol foundation (which, as a side note, was also used for his cult of personality). Dpotop 08:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do not revert the "Establishment of the MSSR and World War II" section to either prior version. I've rewritten it based on Charles King's "The Moldovans" -- a text, by the way, that even PMR-propaganda pushers respected and used for their purposes elsewhere on Wikipedia. (I should mention they had to misquote it to tailor it for their purposes, the text does not take sides.) King's work has been hailed as the first English language reference to present a complete picture of the Moldovans and their land. If anyone doesn't like the words "occupation" and "annexation", they are used in the reference. King is an expert in the field (and not some POV nationalist). Anyone not liking the words used and denouncing them as POV is welcome to buy the book or borrow it at the library and indicate where I've misrepresented the source. Hopefully this will save both sides from being accused of edit warring. PētersV 06:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Dpotop for the edit. Editing is (obviously!) fine. If we stick to what reputable sources say and observe their representations, neither embellishing nor diminishing, the article will make a lot more progress.
   So, for example, where King indicated something Pravda printed, I felt obliged to embellish that as "Soviet propaganda", which after due consideration and following my own advice, I changed to "Official Soviet press." The source did not use "propganda" so neither should I. PētersV 15:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I think these changes are for the better, thanks for contribution and solving this editing war (as it seems) -- AdrianTM 16:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I have plenty of references from dealing with paid propagandists pushing the Transnistrian-Smirnov line. I've just been too tangled up in other stuff to do much here other than to keep tabs on goings on. Glad to assist. PētersV 18:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time for another section

I see some deeply indented conversation going on above. Anonimu is contending that "< 50% of Bessarabia's (that is, the later Bessarabia, not the original Bessarabia) were of Romanian origin in 1918", and, more generally, that it was never really majority Romanian? Source(s)? PētersV 23:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The 1897 Russian Empire Census counted less than 50% "Moldavians and Romanians" in Bessarabia. Since the general trend of the vlacophone population of the region had been to decrese for the past century, the most cautios estimate is that they were less than 50% in 1918 too.Anonimu 23:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it's tricky how they considered Bessarabia, if they included territories that are now part of Ukraine or not. It's also telling that in 1812 there were around 90% (I see in some sources 86%) Romanians in Bessarabia and in 1897 less than 50%, if that's true that's not an argument to support Russian/Soviet claims, on the contrary this comes to show how bestial the Russian regime was during that time, but from what I see just immediately afterwards under Romanian rule Romanians were around 64%... "În anii 1919-1922, în Basarabia sub administraţia românească moldovenii-români alcătuiau 64%" [2] I don't know what to believe, maybe many were too scared to declare themselves Romanians/Moldovans or maybe many returned from the winter "vacation" in Siberia. -- User:AdrianTM 01:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
It included the land between the Pruth, Dniester, Black Sea and Bukovina. You ignore an important fact: in 1812 the southern third of bessarabia was deserted after the tatars living there were expelled. On that uninhabited land, Russia colonized Bulgarians, Ukrainians, Gagauzes, Germans and even Vlachophones and Frenchmen. Excepting the northern part of the region, that already had an important Ukrainian population, all other non-Vlachophone population was concentrated in the towns (mainly Jews and Russians). So, even if the Russian regime was very opressing (of all lower classes, no matter the ethnicity) it was not "bestial". The first Romanian romanian census in 1930 showed only 58% "romanians" after 10 years of colonization (and remember that some ukrainians we're also considered "romanians who forgot their language"), so that source of yours is obviously wrong.Anonimu 01:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Well you can pick your words, this is how I describe killing people and sending them to Siberia, and yes there was Russification and colonization of other people since it's easy to give to somebody else something that doesn't belong to you, again, we start from 86% Romanians, if you claim that it wasn't Russian occupation I don't know what that was... I am not sure were my source comes up with 64% Romanians at that time, but even that is irrelevant, the majority (simple if not absolute) were Romanians -- Ukrainians were around 20 something percent, Russians not even 8%... and as you just admitted many were only recent colonists. -- AdrianTM 02:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Sending people to Siberia was Stalin's thingie. During imperial Russia only yakuts & other asian natives lived north of the transsiberian. As for killing, any source that there was any important killing of Eastern Romance speakers(ERS) in Imperial Russia? That land belonged to tatars, so ERS can't complain. Colonization is a fair way to populate a region. Colonists must have the same rights as previous inhabitants (that are also descendents of other colonists anyway), so they had the right to chose the state they wanted to live in as much as the other inhabitants. "We were there first" is a typical nationalist argument, and can it bring only war and destruction.Anonimu 03:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Interesting, since Magosci's Historical Atlas of East Central Europe shows, for ethnolinguistic distribution ca. 1900, Romanian throughout all of Bessarabia and across to the left bank of the Dniester (current Transnistria). Where Romanians are not shown is roughly in the territory which was incorporated into Ukraine, where there is only a small pocket of Romanians, otherwise inhabited by Ukrainians, Germans, Bulgarians, and Turks. So, Romanian throughout what is current Moldova and including Transnistria (PMR, not WWII Transnistria).
If it also shows pockets of Ukrainians in the region of Balti, that map is good.Anonimu 01:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the map shows a pocket of Ukrainians along the left bank of the Prut in Bălţi. So I think we are good. PētersV 02:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
   BTW, Vlachs are only a portion of Romance language speakers and (ca. 1900, same map) were found primarily in Macedonia and Greece. Vlachophone is a wholy improper term for referring to Romanian speakers.
Southern Romania is called Wallachia (Vlach land) and Moldavia has been refered at times as Moldovlachia. There's nothing wrong with using this generic term for eastern romance speakers. Anyway, it much more neutral than "Romanians", the politicized term that ignores the self identification of people.Anonimu 01:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think Vlachophone means what you think it means... you could use Romanians/Moldovans (if you consider there's a difference between them, or use only one of them, I don't mind if you call them either Moldovans or Romanians) instead of using an improper name (creating a name like that is a bit of original research especially when the term is generally used for other purposes) -- AdrianTM 02:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
   I should mention Magosci's work has been hailed (hate to use that word again) as the first work to comprehensively cover the historical development of east central Europe. PētersV 01:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, alas, calling things what they are rather more not than what they rather more are because no one wants to be associated with alleged Romanian expansionism (quoting politicians, not anyone here). Since there were/are people who are true Vlachs, using Vlach to refer to a territory where Vlachs no longer reside to describe a language spoken by a people who are not Vlachs seems awfully torturous to me. Be that as it may...
   I can't find Bessarabia via the search on the online copy of the census, no help there. Assuming the Russian Wikipedia quotes the census correctly, for the Bessarabia gubernya we have:

  • 47,6 % of inhabitants of Bessarabia were Moldavians
  • 19,6 % Ukrainians
  • 11,8 % Jews
  • 8 % Russians
  • 5,3 % Bulgarians
  • 3,1 % Germans
  • 2,9 % Gagauz

If we subtract the territory of Bessarabia that is now Moldova, then just by Magosci's demographic map overlayed on the old gubernya we pretty much eliminate the bulk the territory that is non-Moldavian/Romanian. PētersV 02:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

There are only 1-2,000 who call themselves "Vlasi", the rest of the ones usually refered as vlachs in modern times call themselves armani or rumari (diacritics not shown). I don't really see the probem. After all, this is a discussion page, not a mainscpace article. The results can be found here (in Russian, but if you know to transliterate cyrillics you'll understand the main idea). I had a project to publish a 1907 vs 1989 ethnic map of bessarabia. But since i wanted it georeferenced, it took me too much time and i abandoned it. The similarity between the two are striking anyway (i have the non georeferenced 1989 map almost ready, with a gagauz canton and some transnistrian communes unfinished , if you want to compare it with magocsi's).Anonimu 03:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. "Vlachophone" appears to be used with regard to Hellenistic references, so I believe it really is meant to refer only to the Vlachs, not Romanians. PētersV 02:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)