Talk:Sfatul Țării

Some suggestions

The list added is quite odd for several reasons:

• the usage of quaint denominators like "Pole" and "Hebrew" - I suggest "Polish" and "Jewish" etc.
• names of Ukrainians etc. are rendered in their Romanian transliteration, and that makes very little sense - I think we should consult Ukrainian and Russian users (perhaps Polish as well) for at least approximate forms in official transliteration(s), and use Romanian ones as alternatives. After all, one does not refer to the Siberian exile as Konstantin Georgiyevich Stere.

I also suggest that, in the future, the list of deputies be turned into a separate list. Here, it kinda messes the format. I would also like a source cited for those names and their votes. Dahn 23:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Btw, what is the likelihood that more than 10% of these people will ever have articles? Dahn 23:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for you obs. I agree with you about:

• "Polish" and "Jewish"
• that the names of non-Romanians should be necessarily in those languages

My answers to your questions:

• Clark is my sourse.
• some ethnically Romanian Bessarabians have names of Ukrainian or Russian origin (the story is long, generally because many priests sent were Russians, and sometimes also because of intermariage). So we should be careful. Using the Latin transliteration a la Russian for a name of an ethnic Romanian would be incorrect. I did only add some diactricts in some very obvious cases: tz-->ţ (not always this one), a,-->ă, s,-->ş, or where the name could not be simply pronouced otherwise. My understanding of the Clark's data is that when he does not write n.d. (I guess means not declared, mostly those elected later) or some ethnicity, then he quite possibly means they were ethnically Romanian. If we assume that, then we are only left with 11 names of unknown ethnicity: Sucevan, Munteanu, Cernof, Hertza, Galitzky, Diaconovici, Moldovan, Ponomareff, Rugina, Sirbu, Tcepciu. With these 11, if I changed something, I might have screwed up (hopefully not, I think I only did Sirbu). Anyway, if the person has used the name after 1918 in a Romanian spelling, then I guess that would be settled, but I can hardly find many names (I am not going to search the arihives just for this article).
• absolutely no objection to ask some Ukrainians, Russians, Poles, except that we first should have a list of names which we ask (i.e. exclude the ethnic Moldavians). I can write the names in Russians if you want.
• separate list: I don't know, I'd rsather not start a new article. But I am flexible on this. Initially I hoped they might fit in 3 columns... Maybe use smaller shrift ? No, it doesn't work. Do you know how to make smaller?
• I was very currious to know who many names would turn out blue, I had no way to verify that otherwise (well, except to do it in a sandbox). I hoped that at least Inculet, Halippa, Erhan, Stere, Balamez - the people everyone knows. To my dissapointment only 2 were there: Constantin Stere and :-) Ion Creanga. If you and others list below 10-20 names for which there could be hope of an article, then I will take the pains to remove the wikifications of the rest. :Dc76 01:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Belligerents: Romania and Moldavian Democratic Republic

The article lists Romania and Moldavian Democratic Republic as being belligerents, but offers no explanation as to the nature of the conflict. Since I can't verify the source that Anonimu added, I ask him or someone else to explain the meaning of Romania and the Moldavian Democratic Republic being belligerents and the role played by Ion Inculeț. Perhaps Anonimu could offer some insight into this question by quoting some key material from the pages that he added as his source. --Cei Trei (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Meurs indicates that "a Moldavian regiment" and "Bolshevik units" disarmed the Transylvanian troops sent in order to occupy Chisinau and, as Romania launched a full-scale invasion, Inculet and Erhan ordered the "Moldavian regiments" to oppose the Romanian advance, which they did, fighting along with "Russian revolutionaries". Meurs also notes the claim that the two were forced to order resistance by the Bolsheviks, but also finds equally possible that they "truly detested the arrival of the Romanian «liberator»", describing them as part of the Moldavian left-wing politicians who believed social reforms had better chances in an independent or autonomous (within a federal Russia) Moldavian Republic.Anonimu (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

And how does your source explain that the Moldavian Democratic Republic asked Romania on more than one occasion to send troops? Don't you think there's a contradiction here? What are the casualties of the Moldavian troops (I see that we're using the term Moldavian instead of Moldovan) inflicting on the advanced Romanian army that they asked to intervene? Since you introduced this source--and since no other source mentions anything about this incident, you are asked to explain this contradiction. This is not a primary source and the book, although published in 1996 in Chisinau, seems to be very rare. We need a secondary source from a credible author. This should be easy, considering the importance of these events that your source mentions. --Cei Trei (talk) 01:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The Moldavian Republic didn't ask for troops from Romania, but from Scherbachev (who by that time didn't have any authority over the troops he used to control). Romanian troops were only demanded by the Nationalist Bloc, which indeed included several government members (grossly over represented considering they got under 5% percent in the only elections that took place in Bessarabia in 1917), but whose demand was never sanctioned by a decision of Sfatul Tarii or the Directors' Council, thus did not represent an official position of the Republic. So there's no contradiction. Meurs (whose books is not that rare; the edition cited is a Romanian translation, but the original is In English Amazon link) goes through the whole modern history of the region, and doesn't stumble in such details since his main objective is the historiography of Bessarabia in Romania and the Soviet Union. Sources are plenty describing the incidents, though I considered you'd object to any Russian or Soviet source. Therefore I've chosen a source that is rather critical of Soviet historiography in order to preemptively dismiss such objections.Anonimu (talk) 07:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

According to this article, the following line claims the following: "On the same day, a secret meeting of Sfatul Țării decided to send another delegation to Iași to ask for help from Romania.[32]" If this is what you mean when you mention this "Nationalistic Bloc", then perhaps that line should be made clearer, because it can be interpreted that it was, in fact, sanctioned by the Sfatul Tarii. Anyway, I finally found the author's website and I'll ask him to clarify the situation. Thanks. --Cei Trei (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

As I've previously said, there were several members of the "Moldavian Bloc" in Sfatul Tarii, and indeed they secretly met and decided to send a delegation. But it's just like the UDMR MPs had a secret meeting and called on a neighbour of Romania to send troops. Would that mean that the invasion was sanctioned by the Romanian Parliament?Anonimu (talk) 18:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I was just bringing to your attention that what you stated here is not specified in the article. The article states that Sfatul Tarii sent the delegation, not a faction belonging to Sfatul Tarii. Going back to the original topic, I'm curious to find out more about this conflict between Romanian and Moldavian troops. Hopefully there weren't many casualties. --Cei Trei (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Quite an interesting book (the professor sent me a PDF in English). It says though that this fellow was forced to send troops against Romania. Perhaps this should be clarified? --Cei Trei (talk) 13:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

The Romanian version I had access to had it equally possible that he was forced to do it and that he truly opposed a Romanian occupation. Is the English version more explicit about the event?Anonimu (talk) 19:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

On page 65 in the original version it states the following: 1) the Sfatul Tarii was dispersed by the Bolshoviks and most of its members went into hiding before the Romanian troops arrived in Chisinau and before there were confrontations; and, 2) that Erhan and Inculet were forced to order Moldavian units to confront the Romanian army. It also says, as you write above, that Inculet may have opposed a Romanian intervention, but that's speculation and besides, the issue that I raised was whether he was a commander of his troops, not what he felt about a Romanian intervention. This gives way to two problems: 1) the Moldavian Democratic Republic is listed under belligerents: my question is, if Sfatul Tarii was dispersed, what faction represented the Moldavian Democratic Republic? My understanding is that only the Bolshoviks were in power and they don't represent the republic. The other problem is, as I mentioned before, that Inculet was forced to order the Moldavian troops to confront the Romanian army and that alone disqualifies him as a commander. Here are the paragraphs in question. <<The Sfatul Tarii was dispersed, and most of the members went into hiding. The Bolsheviks pressed to send a telegram to Iasi, demanding the withdrawal of the Romanian troops. Erhan and Inculet were also forced to order the Moldavian regiments to confront advancing Romanian armies.>> [...] <<Inculet and Erhan may have been forced by the Bolsheviks to try and to stop the Romanian attack. They also, however, may have truly detested the arrival of the Romanian "liberator" as well.>>"

If we focus on this part alone, do you think we should view Inculet as a commander in the right sense of the word? He may have been against a Romanian intervention and indeed, he was even removed from Sfatul Tarii at Brest when he persisted for the incorporation of Bessarabia in a future Russian Federation (also on page 65)--we can add this detail to make the context more whole.

Can you recheck your sources and see if we can make any revisions? I'm sure it can be arranged for the English version to be made available to you, were you to make the request. --Cei Trei (talk) 23:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

The fact that Bolsheviks tried to capture several members of the Sfatul whom they considered counter-revolutionary does not mean that they also dissolved the Republic. Furthermore, there is ample evidence of the minister of war (actually the locum tenens, since the actual minister never took his seat due to illness), Gherman Pantea, organizing the troops. Most notably, a strong resistance was organized by Anatol Popa, the man designated by Sfatul Tarii to organize Moldavian troops in Balti (he would later join the Bolsheviks, but at that point he was just a left-wing revolutionary; once I get some time I'm going to write an article about him). So there are several layers of command: Inculet and Erhan, who protested and ordered resistance, but later claimed they were forced to do so by the Bolsheviks; Gherman Pantea, who took some steps to actually organize the troops, with little results as the Chisinau Moldovan garrison did not listen to him and fought along the Bolsheviks (Pantea later claimed he tried to dissuade them from fighting the Romanias); Anatol Popa, who did actually organize troops and fought the Romanian advance in the Balti area. At the time of the invasion, all of them were loyal to the Republic, so, no matter who we list as commander (the ones issuing the orders or the ones actually leading the troops in combat), troops loyal to the Moldavian republic fought the Romanian advance (it should also be noted that no Moldovan troops fought along the Romanian army, as they were either disarmed or fled with the Bolsheviks).Anonimu (talk) 18:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm strictly pointing out to the book that you used as a source. The book doesn't state that the Bolsheviks tried to capture members of the government or that they dissolved the Republic. The book states that the Bolsheviks dissolved the Sfatul Tarii (the government). The book doesn't state that Inculet was a commander of the troops--that is your personal interpretation. The book also doesn't list the Moldavian Republic confronting Romania. That, also, is your personal interpretation. If you have some neutral source that argue this point of view, you may add it. I hope that we can come to an agreement here without having to seek arbitration. --Cei Trei (talk) 00:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Van Meurs consistently refers to the troops of the Republic as "Moldavian", with other combatants listed as either "Bolshevik", "Russian" or "Romanian". He mentions Moldavian troops fighting Romanian troops in a number of instances, at least once explicitly on orders from Inculet and/or Erhan (whether they issued the orders on they own accord is immaterial; furthermore, if, as they would later claim, the Bolsheviks forced them to issue such an order, that would mean the Bolsheviks recognized some authority in them). I think that is sufficient to list the Moldavian Republic as a part in the conflict. Since I don't remember Meurs talking about Moldavians fighting against the Bolsheviks, they should only be listed in the column opposed to Romania (of course, if more sources are found, we could always have three columns for belligerents).Anonimu (talk) 09:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Consulting other sources, it seems that Sfatul Tarii (albeit with reduced membership, as the socialist deputies resigned and the pro-Romanian ones fled to Iasi) continued to meet in session in Chisinau until the arrival of Romanian troops, and Erhan and Inculet held several meetings with the Chisinau Soviet during early January, with the head of the latter being open for collaboration as long as the 5 ministers it considered to be pro-Romanian were dismissed from the Council of Directors and the Sfatul condemned the Romanian intervention. The Sfatul Tarii had in late December directed the Council of Directors to call in troops to regain control of the region, and, while the socialists motion that a call for troops should explicitly exclude Romanians was defeated, the Council did not mention Romanians in the telegram it sent to Shcherbachev for troops. Furthermore, during early January, and even after the arrival of Romanian troops, Erhan and Inculet denied they had called in Romanian troops, putting the full blame on Shcherbachev, whom they claimed as the legitimate commander of the local Russian troops. Of course, the general had to be defended from its own troops by the Romanians, so it is likely that the Council of Directors expected a Romanian intervention; however public opposition was so high that they went to great lengths to deny any direct involvement. And while they ordered what Moldavian regiments to fight the Romanian intervention, Pantea directed a large part of the Moldavian troops in the Chisinau garrison northward, outside the city, making sure Romanian troops would have the chance to occupy the capital without a major battle with the Moldovans. Nevertheless, Moldavian troops in the countryside did come to confront directly the Romanians, though, due they shaky organisation, they were easily overrun by the 4-division strong Romanian occupation troops.Anonimu (talk) 12:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Your latest reply is a bit confusing. Still, if you have a different, neutral source (non-Russian) that can be added to support the claim that the Republic of Moldavia was confronting Romania, you are welcome to add it and we'll take it from there; but the issue is not whether some Moldavian and Russian troops resisted the Romanian troops, but whether those troops who resisted the Romanian troops represented the wish of their government, i.e. Republic of Moldavia (Sfatul Tarii). Again, I can't speak for your other sources that you mention (that I expect to be neutral), since I haven't seen them. I can only address the source that you added, and my interpretation is that the source that you added doesn't make that interpretation (that Republic of Moldavia was confronting Romania). And then there's the issue about Inculet being counted as a commander. To be certain, I asked Prof. W.P. van Meurs about this and he permitted me to post the following response on Wikipedia:

"[...] I have seen enough to know how limited and fleeting any kind of authority was at that time in Bessarabia. Legal arguments will not get us very far. In political practice, numerous groups, parts of institutions and individuals were acting on their own. The claim of the conflict as one being between the Republic of Moldavia and Romania therefore seems overstated."

Furthermore, Prof. W.P. van Meurs agrees that his source should be removed from the claim in question and he is willing to confirm this, if you were to contact him. He has also agreed to confirm this to any other third-party (an admin/arbitrator), but my hope is that we won't get to that.

I ask that the source is removed and that we work on clarifying the nature of the conflict in the article. I expect that you won't find it difficult to find Prof. van Meurs's website and his e-mail, but let me know if you need help. --Cei Trei (talk) 03:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The whole situation in Bessarabia was rather confusing. The situation remains that Moldovan regiments, formally under Sfatul Tarii command, under the order of the head of Bessarabian government as proclaimed by Sfatul Tarii and organised by the War Minister nominated by the same Sfat, resisted Romanian troops. We could have a pedantic "troops of the Moldavian Democratic Republic" instead of the Republic, but if we have Ferdinand I as leader of Romanian side, we should also have Inculet and Erhan among the leaders of the side ordering resistance to Romanians (Yakir was a much lower level detachment commander, so I'm not really sure he should be there).Anonimu (talk) 08:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the situation was very confusing and Inculet remained in power, but as soon as the Bolsheviks got involved and dissolved the Sfatul Tarii, Inculet on his own did not represent the Moldavian Democratic Republic and the troops resisting the Romanians did not represent their government; and Inculet being forced by the Bolsheviks to order some of the troops to resist the Romanian advance disqualifies him as a commander since he was no longer self-reliant but became a subordinate of the Bolsheviks. If we want to keep Inculet, we will have to clarify that he was being forced by writing in parenthesis: "(forced by the Bolsheviks)". On the other hand, the Bolsheviks should be listed as a belligerents since they orchestrated the entire scheme. I'm well aware that there were Moldavian factions and Moldavian leaders who opposed the Romanian intervention, including to some degree Inculet (although his stand on the issue remains unclear), and as such we could find a compromise and list the Moldavian troops, as you suggested, as being a belligerent; but we can't place them under the Moldavian Democratic Republic since the Sfatul Tarii was dissolved and in that process, it was no longer Democratic under any circumstance and the Moldavian Government was subdued. --Cei Trei (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)