Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Moldova/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Expansion of Project

Noting that this project is tagged as "inactive", I am boldly expanding its scope to include all of Moldova in an attempt to revive it. John Carter (talk) 14:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

---

You should move this from mainspace to WP. Alæxis_¿question? 08:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You mean to add "Wikipedia:" in front? I am not sure I fully understand the WP rules regarding naming, the objection and how to resolve it. Obviously, I'd support 100% adding "Wikipedia:" in front of the name or smth similar.:Dc76 13:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

A question from someone who has no idea (Beware: smells like provocation)

If this page is not dead I have a question: what does an average Moldovan think about independence of Republic of Moldova? I know what did the official referendum showed in 1994, but I couldn't find out clear reasons for the outcome. Can somebody explain/expand? Thanks Nergaal (talk) 14:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I bet you can't speak Romanian only Moldovan.Mulţam'--Cezarika f. (talk) 14:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

That referendum and recent opinion polls show that the majority of Moldovans wish to remain independent. There are many reasons for this. First of all, Bessarabia has been separated from Moldavia since 1812 with a few exceptions, so the region was never influenced by the Romanian unification movement and Romanian nationalism as the Regat. Then Bessarabia has only been part of Romania for a very brief period between the Two World Wars and that did not have a very lasting effect on the region. In fact, some people did not have a very pleasant experience during this period, either because they resented the changes of the period or felt that they were treated as inferior. Finally, the Soviet period, played a huge role in affecting the views of most Moldovans, as all passed through its education system, which also included a healthy dose of propaganda about the Moldovan identity and the "crimes of the Romanians". As a result, after the break-up of the USSR, most Moldovans after having lived in the USSR all (or at least most of) their lives, did not really feel Romanian, and also felt a certain kind of hostility towards the country based on Soviet indoctrination. Furthermore, Romania's economic situation was almost as bad as that of Moldova during that period, and many people felt it would be disadvantageous for them to join Romania. TSO1D (talk) 15:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

and you think the situation didn't changed yet?--Mulţam'--Cezarika f. (talk) 15:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

1)exactly what situation do these recent opinion polls show? 2)In fact, sme people did not have a very pleasant experience during this period, either because they resented the changes of the period or felt that they were treated as inferior. how general was this feeling? there still are 'disfavoured' regions in present Romania (ironically, probably the ones fitting this trait the best are Moldova(within Romania) and Oltenia), but I am pretty sure they are at the opposite spectra of wanting independence. People from these regions have the possibility of financial aid from other regions (even if though this aid is not obvious, it does exist - schooling and infrastructure are some examples). 3) inferior? come on, basically everybody from outside Bucharest feel treated like this by the Bucharesters, even though I believe that most of the present populationt there immigrated from Moldova(within Romania). 4) crimes of the Romanians? do you have some examples? I am not aware of this at all. 5) how do these crimes compare to indigenous people being forced out of Moldavia into Siberia? 5) how do Moldavians explain their present economic situation? 6) about the economic situation in Romania, believe me, nobody in Romania wanted the burden of unification around 1998 (athough sincerely, looking back, I cannot see a slower transition than it allready was). Nergaal (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

now some new questions: 7) why do the present Moldova remain in the borders drawn by the Moldovan SSR? (i.e. there are regions in Ukraine, right by Moldova, that are inhabited by a majoritary group of Romanians/Moldovans; why wasn't the border redrawn?). 8) where did Gagauzia war appear from? what started it? I do not recall any previous conflict with the population there. and I believe that this conflct started before the Transnistrian one. why would they have preferred to be a part of URSS than Romania? 9) also, I am kind of curious what do Moldovans think about the Romanian-visa situation now.Nergaal (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I presume your questions are a joke or a provocation. Dpotop (talk) 12:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

No! I actually want to understand what do Moldavians think on average about these questions. I am looking for objectivity Nergaal (talk) 12:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool! When you meet one "average Moldavian", introduce me to him/her. BTW, how does one "average Moldovan" look like? Dpotop (talk) 12:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Do not twist the idea. I said think on average. (think in general would have meant something much less specific) There is a spectrum of opinions and there is an average view in this spectrum. By think on average, I mean that is the general acceptev view. I assume you live inside Moldova and you are quite aware of these views. And regardless in which part inside Moldova you live, you are still aware of what politicians state/do, and what people ask from them.Nergaal (talk) 12:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw. But knowing what people think (on average or not) is impossible, given the state of neuroscience today. You can learn at most what they say, or vote, or buy. You can learn what they declare as nationality/ethnicity, how these declarations might have been biased or misrepresented, etc. Oh, and if you want to have averages, then you need to either make a sort of census (government-controlled), or poll (again easy to bias). So, the truth is not at our reach. (talk) 13:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe that this is pretty much what I was asking: what do Moldovans say? (pretty much what does media and politicians say is equivalent to the average thought) vote? (directly related to what politicians say) how these declarations might have been biased or misrepresented again, this is the whole point of my set of questions. I want to understand the political/social situation in Moldova - since it is to me at this point, definately not the one presented in school and in media in Romania. And I thought that a good place to find this out is to ask in such a board. In couclusion: where was I wrong in my questions? You seem more-or-less to be stating the questions I am trying to ask. Nergaal (talk) 13:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Which politicians? Those in Chisinau, or those in Tiraspol? The Communist ones, or the other? Ethnic Moldovan, Romanian, Russian, Ukrainian, or Gagauz ones? The government, the parliament, or the Academy of Sciences? There is no coherency between them (take, for instance, the Moldovan language issue). To et answers to your questions, the articles on Moldovan and Transnistrian issues are the only way to get information. There articles are the NPOV (or close to it), because there were both Romanians and Russians working on them (some of those Romanians coming from Moldova). Dpotop (talk) 14:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

which one do you mean? War of Transnistria, Conflict in Transnistria and Gagauzia or 14th Army involvement in Transnistria. the first two seem under-referenced Nergaal (talk) 19:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

provocation to what? 1)I probably could have reedited all this text and waited for someone if I was looking for that 2)this is a talk page not an article 3) This is my $0.02 Nergaal

There are quite a bit of questions here, but I'll do my best to answer what I can in order. 1)I haven't actually seen a poll directly asking about reunification in quite some time, so I can't answer as this question. 2)I don't really know how general that feeling was, besides, it's impossible to quantify such a thing. Talking to my older relatives, they actually had a rather positive view of that period, however I have no way of knowing if they are typical of the general sentiments of the population from that period. 3)I don't disagree with you that others were also treated as inferior. 4)By crimes, which I put in quotation marks, I am mostly referring to Soviet propaganda about the interwar period. According to their "official" history, the very fact that Bessarabia was part of Romania was a crime becuase it was occupied against the will of the Moldovans and the workers, and then were oppressed by the boyars with the help of Romanian police, and bla bla bla. However, some people still believe such non-sense, though I don't really know what percentage of the population. The only truthful aspect of this account would be the persecution of Jews during the war. 5)Well you can imagine that the Soviets didn't really emphasize this aspect :) But actually for whatever reason, there is relatively little discussion of the Soviet crimes even now, even though most Moldovans either suffered directly or have family who did so. I guess this is another effect of forty years of indoctrination and fear. 6)Either way, I don't think economic considerations played a dominant role. All I'm saying is that if Romania had been richer, some people would have seen that as an extra incentive for unification. 7)Well, when the USSR fell apart, the existing borders between the republics were used as the boundaries for the new states with few exceptions. Moldova signed a treaty with Ukraine accepting the existing borders. Besides, now the majority of the population that was transferred to the Ukraine by Stalin is Ukrainian, so an exchange wouldn't make much sense anyway. 8)Most of the population of Gagauzia were and are Turks, but they mostly speak Russian. So, because of this they were opposed to living in Romania. And also as always you had local politicians trying to grab as much power as they could, so that also played a part. 9)What situation specifically? Of course people would much prefer not to be obligated to have a visa to travel to Romania. And many are angry about the delays in receiving visas.

About the politicians, as Dpotop said, all parties have their own thing. The Communists take the old Soviet position, the PPCD take the nationalist line, other parties take other positions that change with the wind, etc. TSO1D (talk) 15:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

1) if there is no recent poll, then at least what is the general 'feeling' in the mass-media(the free-er part of it)? 3)I just gave the example to show that the argument doesn't seem hold at all anywhere else - that the feeling of inferiority hasn't have a significant momentum for an anti-Romanian attitude. 4a) occupied agains the will? didn't Sfatul Ţarii decide with an overwhelming majority to unite? 4b) were the jews actually treted better in USSR than in the territories directly influenced by the 3rd Reich? 5)the lack of discussion about the Soviet crimes shows IMHO how strong of a grip Russia still has on Moldova (for example Estonia, even after joining EU has to suffer tremendously because of the anti-Stalinist attitude it tried to show after 2004). 7a) I might be wrong, but didn't Moldova used to have direct access to Danube through some sword of terminal, which somehow ended up within Ukraine's territory? Again, I might have been brainwashed by media.7b) you might have gotten the impression that I was trying to refer to the entire Bessarabia. NO! Check this image. I do not expect it to be accurate, but there still seems to be an important area of Romanian/Moldovan speakers in Ukraine. Then again, maybe those regions have only minorities. 8) I don't quite understand this closeness. I might be wrong, but didn't Turks (and this probably includes the diaspora-type groups such as Gagauz) and Russian used to have problems? didn't the territory of Moldova got into the Russian Empire after the Ottmans got their ass kicked bu Russian Empire? and then again in several more wars? on the other hand, once Romania got independent from the Ottman Empire, most of the resentfulness of Romanians against Turks dissapeared. if you go in Romania nowadays, you might be shocked to see how many prosperous Turkish businesses are in Bucharest and Dobruja. 9) Sorry, I was thinking about the dual-citizenship issue. About what part of the population would definately have it, and about how many see it as a threat to Moldova's independence. Nergaal (talk) 19:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

1) The general feeling is that the majority wish to have closer relations with Romania but are not in favor of reunification. 4)a Well the Communists claim that the decision to join Romania was made under the pressure of the Romanian army. 5) I don't think it's necessarily proof of Russian influence as much as how the Soviet brainwashing still shapes the mentality of many. 7a) No, Moldova still has direct access to the Danube. 7b) Yes, there are significant Romanian populations in many Ukrainian localities, but they are in the minority (except for Herţa. 8)I don't think they necessarily look at it from a historical perspective, as much as that they all speak Russian and little Romanian. 9) About 100,000 have dual citizenship http://www.bbc.co.uk/romanian/news/story/2007/01/070105_moldova_romania_analiza.shtml, however, more than a million have applied for it. There is of course a sense of frustration that the process is so slow. I don't really think that many see it as a threat to Moldova's independence. Voronin and his party have made such statements, but I don't think anyone really takes it seriously. Considering one third of the people have applied for citizenship, and almost all have relatives who did, it's hard for most to see this as a negative development, much less a threat. TSO1D (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

1) the answer for Transnistria is quite clear. but in case of a hypotetical union, what would Gagauzia probably do? secede or join too? 4a) any statements or references in favor of this outside from URSS sources? 7a) I am kind of curious now. where? Giurgiuleşti. is the terminal actually used? 7b) even only with this example, why did it remain in Ukraine? limit of political power or will from the Moldavian government? 9) the slowness of the process is attribuited to whom/what by Moldavians? Thanks for answering all of this stuff Nergaal (talk) 21:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

1) I honestly have no idea; I mean technically they get the choice to separate from Moldova, but I don't really see how the territory can turn into a viable country. 4a) Well, other Communist organizations displayed the same attitude, however, they were (and some still are) for the most part just repeating the Soviet line. 7a) Sorry, I don't know. 7b) I think a revision of borders would have caused more problems than it was worth. I mean as long as Moldova claims all of Transnistria based on territorial integrity, making changes to this territory could weaken their position. 9) It's usually attributed to Romanian authorities in general. TSO1D (talk) 04:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

9) just in case you might not be aware, the position in Romania is that the authorities here have tried to open more consulary offices but they were refused by the Moldavian one.Nergaal (talk) 06:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

1) Since joining Romania now would mean instant EU citizenship for everyone, I find it very unlikely that Gagauzia will exercise its right to secede in such a case. At least as long as it will be allowed to keep Gagauzian and Russian official. 5) how do Moldavians explain their present economic situation?: The government they elected a few years ago gets the blame. First, the nationalists, then the agrarians, now the communists. I kinda wonder, who's gonna be next. 7a) Yes, the terminal is operational and a cargo port is currently under construction there. I hear the construction of the terminal was obstructed by the Ukrainian side when it unilaterally moved the border demarcation line a hundred meters or so closer to the river. That was not nice.

4a) The way I understand the Soviet position, it was based on the following: a) Romanian forces had entered Bessarabia several days before the official request was sent; b) The Sfatul Tarii made its decision when the Romanian army was already in Kishinev; c) a referendum on the status of Bessarabia was rejected twice, the second time leading Litvinov to announce that the Soviet Union will consider the region Soviet territory under foreign occupation until a referendum is conducted. One other claim that would be interesting to verify is that the RSFSR and Romania with mediation from Entente signed a treaty on 5-9 March 1918, according to which, Romania was to remove its forces from Bessarabia within two months. --Illythr (talk) 02:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

4a.c)Ok, say Romania did occupy Bessarabia; but wasn't it independent for almost a full year when this happened? Why "Soviet territory under foreign occupation" and not only independent territory under foreign occupation, or even territory within the Soviet influence sphere? In short, they did not recognize the independence in the first place? Nergaal (talk) 14:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No, of course not. The Soviet Union's position was that all lands that were part of the Russian Empire should under international law remain under the sovereignty of the Soviet Union, the legal successor of the former state. On the other hand, Romania stated that since the Russian Empire fell apart, it ended as a legal body and furthermore in the spirit of self-determination people had the right to choose where they lived. The Western Powers also did not recognize the legitimacy of the USSR and thus the continuity from the old state, so they accepted the new territorial changes in Poland, the Baltics, and Romania, though they did not take an equally strong stand on all of these cases. TSO1D (talk) 14:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, that's not quite right: The Moldavian Democratic Republic was originally declared (on 2. December 1917) as part of the RSFSR. Independence from Soviet Russia was declared on 24. January 1918, a week after Romanian forces have taken Kishinev. --Illythr (talk) 16:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not quite right either. The Romanian forces have never taken Chisinau. They have been invited by the legal government of the Moldavian Democratic Republic to help quell the situation of chaotically dissolving Russian troops, some of which were practicing marauding. These requests have been going on since the creation of MDR, but the Romanian government answered it has no troops. A week before the intervention of Romanian troops on the side of the legal government, who had insufficient troops to deal alone with the situation, a train of Romanian volunteers (Transylvanian Romanians who served in Austrian army and were taken prisoner, and then open-heartedly agreed to fight the Germans in Romania) was seized by pro-Bolshevik gangs in one night in Chisinau (that low became the security situation). The foreign minister of MDR left for Iasi and used this event to persuade the Romanian government. Basically, he said to Romanians "if you do not intervene, all your links with allies are cut!" Nevertheless, Romanians could afford only one division (13th), all the rest being tightly at the front where Germans were very strong, with superior fire power, and with capable Generals to produce unwanted surprises. The Romanians entered locality by locality very slowly, so that the news could spread ahead. As there was no organization of the gangs, every one of them fled, since they were only interested in pillaging the locals, not in fighting regular troops. There was one single battle in all those months, and that was in Tighina and lasted less than half a day. The intervention of Romanian troops brought immense change: it radically improved the security situation.

About the independence, it was declared not because of Romanians, but because of Ukrainians, because by 24 January Ukraine was independent, and Bessarabia had no longer a territorial link to Russia. Romanian cultural dominance that started in the wake of the arrival of Romanian troops was the reason that freed the Moldavians from fear of persecution for discussing political options. Hence the Moldavians were free to discuss those options, and they chose by a 86-3 majority (with 36 abstained) to join (conditionally upon the autonomous fulfillment of an agrarian reform) Romania on 9 April.

and, BTW, after 2/15 December 1917 it is Chisinau, no longer Kishinev.:Dc76\^talk 16:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Soviet sources actually differentiate between the retreating parts of the Russian army (doing the marauding) and the Bolshevik resistance, hastily patched together to defend Bessarabia (noble defenders of the people :) ). I could find some mention of Communist resistance only in Kishinev and Bendery, though, with the defense of the latter lasting about a week.

Independence - yes the role of Ukraine is also mentioned, but the main arguments is that the Romanian military was present in the capital when the decisions for independence and union were made and that a referendum was refused, effectively denying Moldavians the opportunity to express their opinion on the issue. I also strongly doubt that Romanian cultural dominance had a chance to gain any significant influence in the three months between the declarations. --Illythr (talk) 17:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

As for the Kishinev/Chisinau issue - we're talking about the name in English, and that was "Kishinev" (due to the Kishinev pogrom and the Jassy-Kischinev operation making that version of the name known in the West) until very recently, with the gradual change to "Chisinau" still underway. --Illythr (talk) 17:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Kishinev pogrom is no longer Kishinev+pogrom, it is a term of its own. I don't think that can change. Iasi-Kishinev was also known as Iasi-Chisinau, but most (not all) western sources until recently prefered to take spelling info from Russian sourses. I agree about gradually. But I disagree that Chisinau was introduced in English only with the independence of Moldova. How about 1917-1918 and 1918-1940, and even 1941-1944 for the sake of theory (of cause, 1917-1918 is also mostly for the sake of theory). Not tu mention medieval history. You see, it is not a Russian town that became Moldavian. It was a Moldavian town that for a period of its history was dominated by Russia.

About the cultural prevalence in January-April 1918, with all due respect I believe I am right. Unfortunately, all the sourses I have are offline and in Romanian. But don't miss the opportunity to read more about that period. For example, there was a Popular University that opened in Chisinau, regular courses for teachers, many newspapers, books started appearing. Basically, all Transylvanian intelighentsia that was then in Iasi and partially the Romanian intelighentsia came to Bessarabia. It was literally a cultural invasion.

The presence of a small contingent of Romanian troops in the city had no efect. the union was planned for years (!) by Moldavian Bessarabian intelighentsia, they slowly tried to get to power to make changes. But in 1906 there was a big setback. Nevertheless, they learned from the Russian emperors - don't get discuraged, it is just one battle, not the war, keep the contacts, and next time get smarter. That's why it went so quick, and it was even supported by the local minorities (Poles and Germans openly sopported it, Jews - rather support than oppose, but mostly had no oppinion, Bulgarians, Gagauzes, Ukrainians, and Russians - remained neutral, equally few supported and opposed, mostly had no clue what to say. And their Moldavian conationals (not Romanians) told them they wanted so, "do you want to oppose us?" You see, the Soviet authorities were much more represive than the Tsarist ones, in the sense that the Tsarist ones take you out of your place and your means, but you do not get killed or tortured, and if you are smart, you can recover. The Moldavian Bessarabians did, and they wanted and planned the union. They even had to bring in people like Stere to persuade the Romanian government that this is good for them as well.

Referendum was asked after, not before the union. And by Russia, not by Bessarabians. But there was one thing that was not done, and should have been: one of the conditions of the union was local (provincial) authonomy, i.e. a local diet which it, not the central Romanian government, would control the local municipalities, villages, counties, etc. Such a diet would have been also key in 1940, it would have decided to fight, not to shamefully retreat like dogs. It was its own land, the whole "body", not a "hand" as people from Romania used to call.:Dc76\^talk 18:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Kishinev: For the English name it doesn't matter who owns the city, the only important thing is who or what makes it known in the English speaking world. Nobody in the West knew about the town until early XX century, so there was no English name for it (Charles Upson Clark calls it "Kishineff" in his 1927 book, despite the Romanian map in that same book using "Chisinau"). The two major events that made it known to the western public were the pogrom and the operation, both of which used "Kishinev". So the name stuck.

Culture: Possible, but not in three months.

Romanian military presence was clearly defined as temporary, initially. That the Moldovan government changed its mind after a few months of that presence was enough for the Soviet government to declare it an illegal annexation.

Referendum was, AFAIK, the proper procedure as established by the Bolsheviks in the self-determination of nations law. Without it, the secession was technically illegal according to the RSFSR legislation(not 100% sure about that). The fate of the Sfatul Tarii is also interesting: at first it agreed to join Romania only on conditions of a broad autonomy, but just a few months later it terminated itself along with all conditions it had previously stipulated. I vaguely remember a Soviet history book describing the process as "Romanian irredentists, having succeeded in their subversion, have finally shed their democratic masks and moved on to greater glory that they never could have had in a backwater province such as Bessarabia." --Illythr (talk) 20:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the decision to join Romania was mostly based on culture. Before the fall of the Russian Empire, the Sfat still proclaimed its eternal place in "Muma Rusia" a few months before it was to seek to rejoin "mama România." There was a limited nationalist movement, but it didn't have great popular appeal. Had the Bolshevik crisis not existed, it is highly unlikely that the deputies would have sought independence, much less union with Romania. On the other hand, I see no reason why a referendum for union would not have passed. Most peasants who made up the overwhelming majority (oh how times change ;) probably didn't necessarily feel great enthusiasm for Romania, but they didn't have virtually any loyalty to Russia and the Bolsheviks never had much popularity among them. So, the move by the Soviet Union to request a referendum was done primarily to try to discredit the Romanian government who they knew would never consent to organizing a plebiscite in a territory that was already part of Romania. As for why the Sfat chose to break up, I don't really know. From what I learned it had to do with the fact that their main concern was passing a "land reform act," which they did, and seeing other regions choosing to join Romania unconditionally, they did the same, probably with the hope of participating in politics at the national level (although most of them did not have any success there). TSO1D (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the real reason was people just wanting peace. The place didn't know war for a long time, and then suddenly was in middle of a big one with all sorts of armies marching by in all directions occupying stuff left and right. The disorganized and demoralized retreating Russian army only added to the chaos. Then came the Romanian army and there was peace and quiet again. The Bolsheviks tried to struggle, but the peasants just wanted to be left alone. Who cares who you pay taxes to if they ensure that nobody comes to kill your cattle and burn your crops and leave you alone to tend to it (most of the time :) )? As for the referendum - I remember reading that it was refused twice - once before joining (dunno who proposed it, that's why I think it was stipulated by the law), and the second time by the Soviet Union in 1924. --Illythr (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not see the sense of this question. Moldova and Romania are two completely different countries with everything different, from political system, political parties, state structure to history, geography, ethnicities, languages spoken, international relations policy. Moldavians need visa to go to Romania, whereas even Ukrainians living next to Slovakia and Hungary do not need one. Romania did not even sign the recently proposed peacy and border treaty. One could have asked the same question about why did not Moldova and China (or rather Ukraine, with wich we lived longer than with Romania in a state formation) did not join each other...--Moldopodo (talk) 18:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)