Talk:Moldova

An event mentioned in this article is an August 27 selected anniversary.

Archives
Archive1 Archive2 Archive3 Archive4 – Moldova vs. Republic of

Countries on the Danube?

Just a short question, what do you think, is Moldova a country on the Danube? I tried to examine the map but I couldn't figure out if Danube actually touches Moldova or not. Do they have a port on the Danube? I guess that would be the yardstick for including it in the "countries on the Danube". -- AdrianTM 16:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It appears that the Republic of Moldova has some 1km of fronteer on the Danube [1]. :) I guess it qualifies. Dpotop 17:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I was wondering. No port though? AdrianTM 17:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes it does have a harbour - it's in construction now but its name is Giurgiulesti. What happened was that in the late 90s Moldova gave Ukraine a road that Ukraine wanted and Ukraine gave moldova some 100 extra meters on the Danube, enough for it to build a harbour.

D39 11:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)D39D39 11:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC) To be more exact, Moldova has got 600 m of the Danube touching its land.

Census data

On another note, WTF happened to this page and why are people vandalising it so much??? Constantzeanu 03:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It's all the work of Bonaparte, go ask him. —Khoikhoi 06:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Khoikhoi was blocked for his anti-romanian remarks. Soon will be for good. 64.187.16.227 07:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

While I am a bit intrigued by your moronic fantasy about people getting banned (?), anonymous IP, I cannot help but to focus on a more interesting and alarming topic: the way in which various IPs who claim to stand up for "Romanian rights" (and who mostly trace back to a certian Bonaparte) consistently make fools of themselves and their cause by spelling "Romanian" as "romanian". Jolly good fun. Dahn 07:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Well let's not exagerate this "alarming matter": yes Romanian should be written "Romanian", not "romanian" but I think its far more important to adress the article itself and the problems in it rather then go off on tangents like this. For example, I noticed that for 2 weeks the agreed upon compromise:

• Moldovans(Romanians) 78.2%

Moldovans 76.1%

Romanians 2.1%

stayed untouched. Now, whoever reverted Boni's outragous remarks, also reverted to a POV-Moldovenist and Stalinist version where it says:

• Moldovans 76.1%
• Romanians 2.1%.

It's amazing how some people, under the disguise to revert vandalism by a known troll, actually push their own POVs.Constantzeanu 17:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

and actually try to

Last time I checked, "our POVs" also happen to be those of the offical 2004 Moldovan Census... —Khoikhoi 19:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Where was it actually agreed upon, Constantzeanu? What I notice with Russian etc. contributors is thta they have only and quite reasonably agreed to present the data as is and allow you to comment upon it further below in the page. And, as I have said, I to support this approach: it is not our right to manipulate census data, since we did not take the census. Dahn 19:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree we should leave the data as it is and explain what it means. Personally I think that having a dichotomy Moldovan-Romanian is just as silly as having a Texan-American one (I don't think Americans have a choice to declare themselves Texans when they are asked during the census) However it's not our business to decide that, and the results are official even if they are flawed and there are some good objections to them and how the census was conducted. AdrianTM 00:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Let it be known that by comments I certainly don't mean a carte blanche speculation on what the numbers "really are", nor theories about how hundreds of people are being "beaten up to declare themselves Moldovan", but rather presenting concerns raised by the OSCE etc. As to "what is silly" in this "exact science" that is ethnicity, let me ask you why you do not consider it silly that [White] Americans don't declare themselves "English" - following your argument, it should mean they are destined to forever be English, no matter what choices they make for themselves. And I'm quite sure you may declare yourself whatever you want in the US census (with perhaps the risk of bureaucrats not being able to spell that whatever). Dahn 05:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess (and this is only a guess) that Moldovans considers that Romanians are the people from Romania and Moldovans are the people in Moldova, which is logical to some point -- I doubt there was any beating involved. Your example with Americans is a bad one though: a Chinese guy who immigrated in US recently would be US Citizen and thus American without being Englishman, however during and little bit after American Revolution there were many people from English emigration who considered English themselves, even now Americans speak English not "American" (or at most American English) while the difference between English and American English is considerable bigger than the difference between Romanian standard and Moldovan dialect (so much that Brits would have big problems to understand somebody from Alabama) there's also different spelling for some common words. Needless to say, disregarding the English difference between "Moldovans" and "Moldavians" there is no such difference in Romanian (or Moldovan if you want) and people on either sides of the Prut have been separated only for a short period of history which I doubt has allowed to create a separate "Moldovan" identity different than "Moldavian" identity, they are separate because they are in a different states, that's a legal separation is not a national one (however if they prefer to consider that they are not Romanians it's their free choice, I would do the same if somebody would scare me that that would serve the expansionist interests of the neighboring country). AdrianTM 05:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I had asked you specifficlay about those Americans that are "just American" (WASPs etc.). After all, it was them who made the Revolutionary War happen, them them who fought for independence: this means that the basic stereotype of an American chose not to be considered Englismen. Do you see my point? Of course Moldovan identity is artificial, but it is rather and ultimately using the same unsustainable para-logical theory as any form of "national identity". All of them are mere political options that people may use or discard in favor of another at any moment. There is, simply, no such thing as a "way to be American", "way to be Romanian", "way to be Moldovan". Sure a "Moldovan identity" is an apparent break with the ideological tradition of various popular Volkgeist theories, but I believe all those thories to be just as ridiculous. There are other, mainly aesthetical, concerns I have with "Moldovanism", but I have to be fair and say that it is, bive or take, just as intellectualy bankrupt as any "[insert nation]-ism". Dahn 19:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I get your point, however it's the small differences that make comparison like this incorrect, for example: Moldovans didn't have a rebellion against Romanians, they are not on a different continent, they don't have different economic/ideological interests (at least not that different as in Colonists vs. English case) they didn't have to run from Romania because of religious persecution like an important part of Americans). I'm not very well versed in any volkgeist theories, neither popular nor scientific, but I'd make a comparison with West and East Germany and German national identity. Sure things are more complicated in the case of Moldova especially that Russians/Soviets made special efforts to create a new national identity and especially that Romanians/Moldovans apparently don't have such a strong national sense as Germans and other nationalities. Ultimately I don't care how they call themselves as long as we don't get to idiocies like having translators for Romanian to Moldovan (I think that would be really funny though) or fighting over writers, who wrote in Romanian and who wrote in Moldavian/Moldovan which frankly I wouldn't be able to say. Moldova - Moldavia difference is also funny business, but hey, people invented etymologies in order to occupy countries: see Russians and "Bessarabia" -- "without Arabs" interpretation of the name so they could justify their right to it. AdrianTM 19:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I had originally used the American comparison to fit into the paradigm you provided. In fact, with the German case, my points stand as even more obvious. You concentrate on the GDR vs. the Federal Republic (btw., I have to point out that the GDR never claimed to be "another Germany", but rather "a better Germany"), and do not note the existence of Austria, Switzerland and, hell, even the "Duits" Netherlands - all of them have "failed" to become German (in the case of Austria, one may even argue that people have come to feel Austrian after a post-WWI campaign roughly similar to the Soviet one in Moldova).

But let us stick to the points:

• no matter how much violence as persuation was involved in getting people to become Moldovan, it is now a matter of right to be Moldovan (in other words, if people feel they should declare themselves that, they have the right to be considered that);
• alleged pressures carried out by the Moldovan gvt. on its people do not entitle us to presume that the reality of people subject to it would be that they "are Romanian" by default, but rather that they "consider themselves Romanian" (with the same highly subjective value of any ethnicity affirmation, and of ethnicity itself);
• the work of Soviet Union politicians to create a Moldovan identity on ethnic criteria is ridiculous, IMO, because it has mimicked the traps of ethno-nationalism as opposed to a vaguer identity such as citizenship or culture (to compare: of course it is absurd to claim that the Belgians speak "Belgian", but it would also be void of any importance to define them as "French" and "Dutch" respectively - note that even the distinction made inside Belgium does not fall on how "French" and "Dutch" the communities are, but on how "Walloon" and "Flemish") - in other words, translators of Moldovan could only be present in a world which would debate over translators of Belgian, American, and Austrian, and this is because the common belief in countries like Romania and Romania is that separate country=separate language (a vision fitting in the theses of Volkgeist, but completely alien to most other parts of the World, which only focuses on separate country=separate identity, no matter how "unjust" that identity may seem to supporters of the Volkgeist). Dahn 22:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Dahn, I understand that ethnicity and nationality are difficult cocepts to define and that such categories are necessarily arbitrary and relative. As such, in many cases it is best to rely on how various groups identify themselves, instead of searching for definite support of a particular theory. Nevertheless, in the case of Moldova the situation is different from other cases that you have cited in numerous ways. Unlike other regions, the Principality of Moldavia had been united for several centuries, and its population was relatively homogenous. Bessarabia was forcefully and artificially removed from the main political entity, and as a result some changes did occur within its populace, nevertheless, it would be absurd to claim that an ethnic transition took place. The fact that Romania and the concept of the Romanian ethnos developed while Bessarabia was isolated within the Russian Empire meant that the inhabitants of the latter were never fully integrated in the Pan-Romanian union (the interbellic period was too short for such a great social transformation). The Soviet "historians" emphasized the difference between Moldovans and Romanians, nevertheless, the Moldovans from Romania were always considered to be of the same ethnicity as the ones from the Republic. After the fall of the USSR, the notions of ethnicity in RM have become mixed up to an unprecedented degree and the vast majority of the people are simply confused. Some retain the ideas they were branded with during the Soviet period, others accepted the new nationalistic rhetoric and others simply ignore the subject. Nevertheless, the present situation is ridiculous and absurd in many ways. Many in Moldova have confused the concepts of ethnicity, citizenship, etc., viewing all Romanians as being of the same ethnos, and one that is different from theirs. Thus many assume that they are different from any Romanian (even another farmer South of Iaşi), and that those who claim otherwise are simply nationalistic (which they equate with fascist) agitators. Although I understand the fluidity and perhaps even absurdity of ethnic categories, this particular case is simply insane. The fact that political leaders manipulate the people by distorting these facts gives the problem political overtones as well. There are virtually no Moldovan nationalists in the Republic of Moldova, in fact those that come even close to this are often of other ethnicities who preach with exaggerated ardor the distinctness of Moldovans as a way of stopping a potential union with Romania (which they believe might be real and a severe threat to their well-being). Vox Populi (TSO) 22:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

We agree om several points. However, if the people are confused, then we should be confused with them, and not take over their identity, as "made-up" and "illogical" as that may seem to be - which is what many Romanian contributors have been trying to do on this page. Even if I would find ethnicity objective, I would still be compelled to use nuances, at the very least by the fact that this has an objective issue dragged into it (i.e.: some to many to most people in Moldova who "are not aware that they are Romanian", and who should count more than a Romanian pov in this article). I have also sanctioned the Russian pov and its parallel claim to draw a different "objectivity" out of subjectivity, but two wrongs do not make a right. Minor notes: a lack of nationalists inside an identity does not mean lack of identity (otherwise, Belgium would not exist); if the Voronin gvt. wants to make it seem like Moldova's people are necessarily Moldovan in the way it chooses to define "Moldovan", it is still not implied that those people could be defined as Romanian - they are what they want to be. And this still does not give anyone the right to mess with census data (its presence in this form is objective, if perhaps its data is questionable). Dahn 23:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I am not advocating changing the presentation of the census data, I agreed with Irpen on that point when the problem came up. I just wanted to bring my own views to this dicussion. By the way, another point I wanted to make is that although the general concept of an ethnic group is subjective, this particular case has an important objective aspect. What I mean is that the concept of a Moldovan ethnicity has several inherent and fatal flaws. For example, a key argument of Moldovenists is that Moldovans have always been distinct from Romanians citing the example of Stephen the Great who fought the Romanians on several occasions. This theory is clearly misleading as it equates Romanians to Wallachians thus automatically excluding Moldovans from their ranks. Furthermore, most modern concepts of a nationality envision a group of people who shared certain traits at a particular level for centuries. Thus the concept of Pan-Moldovenism might make more sense as the territorial and cultural integrity of the Principate has existed for centuries, but Bessarabia has only existed as a separate structure for a relatively brief period. As the Moldovenist theory is mainly ethnic and restricted to the political boundaries of the country, this demonstrates its inviability. As for your comments regarding Belgium, you are missing a crucial difference between that country and Moldova. Belgium is not a nation in the traditional/nationalistic sense as it does not have a "Belgian" ethnic group. Of course one could make the argument that the citizens of Moldova form a Moldovan super-nationality similar to the case of the US, however that theory ignores the social reality of the state. Vox Populi (TSO) 00:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Great discussion, you both make very good points. Now were it leaves us regarding the article?

1. Data should be presented as it is.

2. We can present OSCE objections, and make a note that other sources treat Romanians and Moldovans together as Romanians (such as CIA map) and that is not clear how exclusive the terms of Romanian and Moldovan are, both in Romania and Moldova. In Romanian "Moldovan" (disregarding the alternative English spelling) is synonym with Romanian, while in Moldova it might vary widely according to political orientation. (They had "Deşteaptă-te, române!" as national anthem but they also decided to get rid of it, the issue is probably a political one and it might vary according to how they feel towards Romania and the perceived danger of being incorporated in it and the need to create and affirm a separate identity to support the statehood -- what I put here in parenthesis are personal considerations, opinions and should not be included in the article) -- AdrianTM 05:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

---

It was nice (and neutral) how the demography section is presented, but what I and the average reader would like to know is what do the Moldovians themselves think? Do the vast majority think they are saperate from Romania. Chaldean 03:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The vast majority simply do not think. :)

On a more serius note, however I don't think an easy answer to that question can be given. If a poll would be conducted asking people whether they were Romanian or not, the majority of Moldova's autochtonous population would probably answer No. Nevertheless, a crucial confounding variable that would be present is whether people view being Moldovan and Romanian to be mutually exclusive and whether being a citizen of Moldova makes one a Moldovan rather than a Romanian. Vox Populi (TSO) 03:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoever is interested. please take a look at this archive discussion. --Irpen 03:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Guys, it's just simply me that put there Moldovans (Romanians) 78,2%, and I was not logged in, and don't give quickly the fault on Bonaparte, he's gone from longtime now from this bullshit of Wikipedia, 'cause there's no purpose with hypocritic people like you. I modified that, everybody knows that that's Moldovans and Romanians are the same shit, anyhow the census will say it. They speak Romanian, and not Moldovan how they sustain. A Romanian understands perfectly when a Moldovan is speaking it's fuckin' language called Moldovan, and vice versa. Moldovans are doing this because they are a gang of betrayers and retarded that don't have idea what's their ancestry. Let's be reasonable now, even if I think that you people here are too stupid to understand this. They were Romanians until 1940, and suddenly they changed of ethnicity because they are an different country than Romania. Arthur 10 June 2006

Do us all a favor and take in view the point of the debate (especially the by now almost universal agreement that you are not allowed to mess with census data). As to your implications that "we are stupid", I'll let the admins make note of that. Bye. Dahn 01:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Arthur, I am certain that you have much valuable insight that you can share with the rest of the community. However, when you begin with the "Moldovans are retarded betrayers of the Romanian nation and we'll teach them who they are" rhetoric, you are simply discrediting yourself and your views. TSO1D 01:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

On a slightly different issue, I noticed that there is no 1.3% others but 1% others and 0.4% undeclared. The rest of the data I left untouched until we solve it out but I still believe that putting Romanians and Moldovans in sepparate categories we are not giving any valuable info the the reader, rather we enforce a Stalinst view (which obviously some wikipedians also are interested in keeping under the disguise of "official data") Dapiks 21:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Regardless,it is official info, and not speculation. Dahn 21:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but what these guys propose (and I tend to agree) is simply grouping the two together, not messing with census data. It's normal practice. I recall some tables over the results of the inter-war elections where some liberal parties were grouped to clarify the political game. Of course, what Dahn proposes is also justified, but I remind you we are writing an encyclopedia here, not a binding contract ("legalese" needs not be our first language). Dpotop 08:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, come now. Consensus was reached on preserving data and commenting on the meanings and implications just below. I am getting quite tired of repeating why that should be. Dahn 00:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Other sources treat Romanians and Moldovans together as Romanians (such as CIA map). The terms of Romanian and Moldovan are not exclusive (at least not in Romania, I'm not sure about Moldova, and how many citizens of Moldova consider the terms exclusive). Maybe we need to say this instead of grouping together or God forbid "changing" official data. -- AdrianTM 16:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly what I am saing as well. Some people here, either because they do not know/are not knowledged enough or just in bad faith, assume that those who declared themselves Moldovans automatically see that as "not Romanians", when in fact many people consider the two terms to mean the exact same thing. I therefore agree that we should group the two together. Dapiks 00:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

And you have special insight into not just what they could believe, but into what all of them do believe, right? Dahn 00:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

No, but I do have insight into what the international observers have suggested and that is to treat the census data with care( this quote is in the same azi.md article as the one ref. here). I see the CIA World Factbook doing this and sadly enough I do not see Wikipedia doing the same thing. Dapiks 03:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

And what is it in my suggestion that implied not treating with care? Does "treating with care" mean breaking it and putting it back together? This is a matter of principle. Dahn 03:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The terms of Romanian and Moldovan are not exclusive

I think that all the sources (or at least the one who are considered the most imporatant one) treat Romanians and Moldovans together as Romanians. The other are simple speculations on this theme. Indeed as Adrian told above: The terms of Romanian and Moldovan are not exclusive. --Brasoveanul 11:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Get with the program. We have been debating the difference between data and interpretation for months now - including why it is unreasonable to meddel in official results. I suggest you also contribute to the debate on Talk:Moldovans. Dahn 11:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can't contribute too much since I'm not a historian. But I shall look at ongoing debate.--Brasoveanul 11:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

"Get with the program"? That's kinna rude Dahn. You think that if you and 2 others decide on something, any further criticism by any other wikipedian is tabu? New Wikipedians appear all the time and this debate will be held for a very very long time.Dapiks 23:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't asked him not to contradict me or us or whatever, I had asked him to speak to the point and inform himself on what has been said. I welcome criticism, but I wish people would inform themselves on what has been answered already. Dahn 14:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

LOl, that's true it's like the never-ending story. TSO1D 01:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, I want to help but what is so much to debate since like it was said: terms of Romanian and Moldovan are not exclusive. What is so hard to understand? --Brasoveanul 05:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Something's wrong about the table

The map, coat of arms and some text is outside the table, and the page stretches my browser (Opera). Could somebody look at it? I've got no experience when it comes to tables... Jetro 18:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks OK in Opera 9.0 (on Linux) -- AdrianTM 18:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it looks ok when I select "Fit to width". Guess there's no problem then. Jetro 18:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

6 October

In the article, it states:

"[...]opened the new Delegation of the European Commission to Moldova on 6 October, to be headed by Cesare De Montis."

What year is this October? Is the reader supposed to assume the article is still talking about 2004, or? Could someone who knows please put in the year. HJV 22:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Most densely populated former Soviet Republic

I've always wondered. How could this be? Even the Baltic republics were only half as populated. Is this related to the fact that climate of Moldova is warmer? Dpotop 12:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

That might have part of it. The country has 53% arable land with excellent soil and a mild climate. This might have attracted urban as well as rural settlers throughout the history of the region. TSO1D 14:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that the chernozem soil and climate play a large role. I also think that it is/was viewed as a favorable place to move to (or return to in some cases) by those leaving Russia.--vkxmai 04:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The history section

...is currently riddled with factual errors:

• The Soviet Union invaded Bessarabia in June - The SU declared that it *will* do so, unless the Romanian administration leaves by itself immediately. So the Romanian forces, moved out, having no choice. This makes it annexation, not invasion. However, since I can't currently produce any papers that make it legal, a replacement to occupied is in order.
• The southern and northern parts (which had some Slavic and Turkic minorities) - some is mildly put. See here.
• Transnistria (where, at that time, ethnic Romanians outnumbered Slavs) - Ethnic Romanians outnumbered just Russians, not all the Slavs living there.
• [Moldova] started to move towards independence from 1991 onwards - This must be a typo of some sort. Independence was declared in 1991, the movement towards it began in the early '80s. Perhaps even earlier, with Khrushchev's "rise of the nations" in the late sixties.
• In 1992, Moldova was involved in a short-term war against Russian armed forces and... this entire paragraph is temporally out of place, contradicts another part of the article (...Russian and Ukrainian forces intervened on the Transnistrian side...) and is just plain incorrect. See War of Transnistria for a different and more neutral picture.
• Four schools were closed in Transnistria, not six.

Other points that might not be actually incorrect, but rather seen so by me:

• Positive points of Soviet rule - like postwar rebuilding, industrialization of the, by the time, largely rural country, the wine industry... why, even the construction of the famous Cricova wine cellar in 1952 - are absent, making it rather one sided.
• The resolution of the Moldovan schools in Transnistria conflict, as well as official reasons for it are omitted... again.
• Transnistria claimed its independence fearing not just the union with Romania, but rather the wave of nationalism that swept over the rest of the republic at the time - a natural phenomenon common in many newly independent countries - this, too, is omitted in the article.
• Another little interesting tidbit of information, that might be worth mentioning, is that upon achieving independence the time zone of Moldova was switched from GMT+03 to GMT+02.

I'd like to be bold here, but I *know* this will provoke a pointless revert war, so I'll rather wait for comments here, first. --Illythr 23:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I actually think you make very fine points. If you do add into the text, please consider History of Moldova - where you could expand on these issues, whereas this article's section may feature the succint version (since this is common procedure, I urge you to also move some redundant or over-detailed info from here to there). I think you can help articles like these be more balanced, so do be bold. Dahn 00:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Illythr, I generally agree with your points, so I encourage you to entroduce the changes. I also agree with Dahn, the history section of the article is a bit too detailed as more specific articles exist for different time periods of the country's existence. TSO1D 00:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Umm, okay guys, that's not what I expected... Assuming bad faith is bad. Bad me, bad! Erm, it's currently 03:21 here in Chisinau and my Wikiholism hasn't progressed to the point of 24h/7d wikiediting (yet), so I'll postpone any actual edits till tomorrow. Cheers, Illythr 00:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Seem like good points to me, however I want to comment on one point "Positive points of Soviet rule", that's a pet peeve of mine, of course there are positive points in any rule, if we search enough I'm sure we can find positive points about Nazi rule in Germany (good autobahns, birth rate growth, or whatever) so no, I don't think "balancing" things is always a good thing. -- AdrianTM 04:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, come now. The guy was not talking about Stalin and Beria. The state lasted for 80 years, and the possible comparison with Nazi Germany stopped in 1953-54; after that, it was alternated authoritarianism of a more paternal nature with "let's breathe a little". I mean, the ideology was intellectually bankrupt and highly volatile, but it was not necessarily criminal (and Nazism was necessarily criminal). Dahn 06:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I do agree with AdrianTM. His comparison between "industrialization" (of Transnistria, of course) and the building of autobahns by the nazis is meaninful. Stalinism was necessarily criminal, just as Nazism was. And the ensuing regime necessarily inherited some of the problems of Stalinism, such as the Gulag. Dpotop 06:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The point about autobahns would work if somebody would actually be saying that the impact of the Soviet occupation was positive. What was being said here is that there were some positive things to balance the overall negative ones (especially when the other side will tend to gloss over them). Stalinism was necessarily criminal, Dpotop, and so was, on a smaller scale, what had come between November 1917 and cca. 1927. Mais, ca n'empeche: not only did the Soviet Union impose a de-Stalinization on itself and others, but, despite the fact that Stalinism left consequences (and they're not to be just waved around, they are to be detailed and explained in context), de-Stalinization was the rule except for Brezhev's years in office (and Brezhev's years in office find a better comparison in a Ceausescu of the early 1970s). Dahn 07:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think that Communism is necessarily criminal, but that's beyond the point and the scope of article. My point was that "communism built schools" type of argument that I hear from time to time is flawed because schools would have been built anyway in 80 years (most likely more and better schools, or in this case wine cellars). -- AdrianTM 07:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Did that man give you reason to believe that was his point? How would this be connected with a rehabilitation of communism? It's a succession of facts, and it is only fair to stress that they actually did some building (not because they were communists, not because they were Soviets, not because they were Moldovans or whatever - just because it is the history of the place). To briefly address the issue beyond the point and the scope of the article: I did not even claim that communism itself is not criminal, but that not all communism does is criminal (at the very least, because communists as well take breaks to eat lunch); sure, it is the same for Nazis: only, factually, the Soviet Union didn't do much murdering 1954 to 1991. Dahn 07:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Did he give me a reason.... Yes, this sentence: "Positive points of Soviet rule - like postwar rebuilding..." To make it clear, I have nothing against enumerating positive things, I have something against saying that those were "Positive points of Soviet rule", but maybe I'm too picky. Anyway, I give up my argument here since this was more like a side-remark not meant to develop into a politico-philosophical discussion about lunch-breaks implications. -- AdrianTM 07:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

That was not my intention, let me assure you. What I meant was to introduce OTHER facts and events that had occured during Soviet times that were omitted in the article. It just so happens that the bad things are in, while the good things aren't, giving the casual reader the impression there were none at all, thus making him or her draw a simple (flawed) conclusion based on the incomplete picture. I am certainly NOT trying to justify Communism or make it look good - that is POV and beyond the scope of Wikipedia. The whole idea is to present as many relevant facts as possible on the issue. Currently, all the facts are one sided and one can clearly see that Communism = Evil in this article. Now, if that were so obvious, Communists wouldn't win so decisively in the last couple of elections in Moldova, don't you think? (BTW, I voted for the Social Democrats myself, they got about 1% of total votes). But I digress. My point is that readers must be able to draw their own conclusions based on as full a picture as possible. No justification. No condemnation. Just facts.

Note that the thing about autobahns is present in the Nazi Germany article, among other things. Also note that nobody there is trying to justify Nazism because of those things. Those facts are actually given to explain the popular support the Third Reich had enjoyed among its own people. --Illythr 17:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing against of enumeration of facts, I just don't want them put in a "positive points of Soviet rule" category because it's not clear if those are the merit of Soviet rule or the general advancement of life, meaning things that would have gotten built anyway no matter who ruled the country. -- AdrianTM 17:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

On the "positive" effects of Communism in Moldova. As the page Anti-Romanian discrimination#Soviet politicide and ethnic cleansing shows, 2.3 million Romanians were deported, of which 700000 were killed. Out of a population of about 4-5 million, probably. I don't see how the regime who did this can get extenuating circumstances for building all the industry in Transnistria. Moldova itself has not been industrialized, was deprived from its natural outlet to the Black Sea, and then constrained to ruralness. Its people has been forced to give up its culture, and even its writing (yes, in 1940 people used to write in Latin characters!). Then, it was forced upon a Slavic upper class which is the source, today, of all the ethnic strife of the republic. Is this positive?! If Illythr believes so, I only wish his country the same. If it's Russia, I presume not even the much hated Nazi Germans managed to do this. Dpotop 08:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't get any sort of circumstances: we're not placing it on trial. It is relevant for the history of the country to note what has happened after WWII; the stress is not on industrialization being "positive", as much as it was on that it happened. The articles are not opened to criticism because they would give the Soviets bad press, but because they omit to mention info which could only be relevant to the history of the region. The man believed that this was done because it would seem too positive in contrast to what the Romanian POV would be (and he is partly right); in my view, this can only help to present the full picture. Dahn 09:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Yup, that's my thoughts exactly. DPotop, you are greatly oversimplifying the issue. My own beliefs are POV (;)) and are not relevant here, as I'm not trying to inroduce them. The things you mention did happen, although they are viewed differently by the Soviets (of course). These things are terrible, nobody tries to delete or obscure them and they are also *in* the article. I just want to introduce the other ones, perhaps not mentioned in the Romanian history books. As for industrialization: Vibropribor, Moldavgidromash, Zorile, a major part of the wine industry (including Cricova) and so on, were built during those times in Moldova proper and caused a significant rise of employment in their respective regions. The Moldovan Academy of Sciences was founded in 1961. The State University of Moldova was founded in 1946. One could argue that all those things were done "by the oppressors, for the oppressors", but that would be POV - fact is - those things were built and the modern Republic benefits from them now (I successfully graduated from the USM about a week ago myself :D ). Sure, many of those "dinosaurs" are barely alive by now, but the SU is hadly to blame for that... --Illythr 17:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but then when we write about "industrialization", we should mention that 80% of the industry was made in Transnistria (which is not part of Moldova proper), and that most energy transport lines go through there, a.s.o. Virtually every Soviet "improvement" was conceived as a Trojan horse. Dpotop 09:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

About 60% industry and about 90% energy AFAIK. --Illythr 17:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

There's another sensible point. For the Balt republics, their occupation by the Soviets (which was actually legal) was considered illegal by western historians, and presented as such. So the fact that, for instance, Moldova has not been "invaded" is not fully meaningful, because it was an invasion in fact. You cannot say Romanians gave up by their own will. They were just waiting to fight back at a time where they would not have been destroyed. Dpotop 06:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the Romanians did give up. They signed it off and everything. Sure the Romanian officers wanted to get back in there (the kind of stuff that belongs in personal journals), but that has no relevance: Romania was an ally of Britain at that moment, and was looking for a way out. And not even Britain agreed to back our claim to Bessarabia. Plus: The violent blackmail aspect of it is not hidden by the term "annexation" - especially when a history of events could present the facts in succession. . Dahn 07:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the acceptation letter from the Romanian government mentioned explicitly that it's forced to do so, which means it's not "legal". See paragraph 13.4.4 on this page [2]. Dpotop 08:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It's just as legal as when you give your wallet to somebody who puts a gun against your head and asks for it. Sure "you gave it away" but that doesn't tell the whole story, it's not a "donation". (half-truths are worse than lies sometimes). -- AdrianTM 08:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

This actually is a good example of what annexation really is (usually). Except that person would also produce a donation document and kindly ask you to sign it. ;) An invasion, on the other hand, would be someone attacking you, beating you up, senseless, and taking you wallet anyway, along with anything even remotely valuable. --Illythr 23:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It may interest you to know that this was not about the legality of it (since no thing has indefinate legality, and virtually anything signed in that period was denounced by something else); if you want to look into legality, you have the 1947 Treaty of Paris. IMO, the definition as "annexation" describes this better than "occupation" (both are unilateral, but the latter implies much more force than the former). Dahn 09:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

You mix up things. Annexation of a territory means it was prealably occupied, and that it is now inserted in the state itself. What happened there is occupation, followed by annexation. Nevertheless, the occupation is a fact. Dpotop 09:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

"Occupation" is also from the point of view of Moldovans. Even if Soviet Union and Romania made a peaceful and mutual agreement without threats that doesn't mean that people in Moldova would have consider that a normal state of facts, they probably considered themselves under occupation by Soviet Union. The number of people killed and deported, as well as the pursuing the independence from Soviet Union come to justify this view. I think the word "occupation" describes the reality better than others. -- AdrianTM 15:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

My point that it was not an invasion --Illythr 17:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Theoretically not, but if you give 4 days for a country to evacuate its entire administration and forces from such a big territory and you start to harass, disarm, humiliate and kill Romanian military (even before the deadline) and then you start to kill and deport a large segment of the population things become more blurry. -- AdrianTM 17:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course, but occupation is still the most appropriate term. TSO1D 17:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, theoretically yes. The definition of an invasion is the forcible entrance of armed forces of one state on the territory of another. Which is exactly what happened. Dpotop 17:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the force was political in nature, backed up by an overwhelming military superiority. No battles were fought at the time. This is the way most annexations had happened thoughout history - a tributary in land to avoid a hopeless war. An invasion is something more like this, IMO. Hey, I actually found this on the Annexation page... Although "forcibly occupied" is about a centimetre away from "invaded"... (*cackles with glee looking at the diff's details*) Well, DPotop, I assume that by introducing [that edit you agree with me that it was not an invasion, after all? :-)

My position was against you differentiating "invasion" from "forcible occupation". It's basically the same. And the notion of "invasion" does not imply battles between armies. For instance, I would say Austria was invaded by the Nazis. Dpotop 08:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

As a kind of "backlash reference" check out the second paragraph of this section of the History of Moldova. The words "invasion" and "occupation" are nowhere to be seen... The Soviet Union is actually said to reoccupy Transnistria! A lot of work is to be done over there, as well. I'll compile a similar list there as well, as soon as I have time. --Illythr 23:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

History section, part two

Alright, I did some changes over there, now. Here are the more significant ones:

• Soviets -> Soviet government - exactly the kind of generalization I so dislike.
• "capitalist oppressors" - Is this page the place for their name-calling? The Soviet propaganga called them many names, and I'm sure the love was mutual. Perhaps in the history article...
• Romanians - the largest ethnic group - Meh, an exact percentage would be so much better (about 30%?)...
• Removed the whole last paragraph. This is already covered in the text, as well as in a large number of related pages. Although that incident with the schools is worth a sentence. I think I'll add it a bit later. --Illythr 10:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

One minor note: you resent "Romanians - the largest ethnic group", and anyway changed the incorrect "majority ethnic group". Now, I resent the swift presentation of "Northern and Southern Bessarabia with large slavic and turkic ethnic minorities", which tends to justify the disbanding of Bessarabia, as it took place. Can you look onto the percentages there, too? Dpotop 11:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I actually resent the usage of such vague words entirely. It's just that heaps of numbers tend to make an article very uncomfortable to read (hated that part the most in my history manuals). So, ideally, some kind of vague word like "significant" is probably in order, with a reference to the exact numbers provided right next to it. Now, to find those numbers... --Illythr 00:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone doubts that Bukovina and the Bugeac had significant non-Romanian populations. In fact, in Norhtern Bukovina (ceded to the USSR) Ukrainians formed the largest single ethinic group. In the northern region and Hertsa which subsequently were surrendered to the USSR in 1940, Romanians made up only 32.6% of the population, while Ukrainians slightly outnumbered Romanians." (from the Bukovina article). TSO1D 14:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure this is correct (again "well" intended differentiation between Romanians and Moldovans, nice that you fell to this one) please read this:

• "Peste 5 săptămîni după aceasta, cînd Bucovina de Nord a fost deja alipită la Ucraina, noile autorităţi au efectuat un recensămînt al populaţiei din regiune. Conform chiar surselor ucrainene („Date oficiale ale Prezidiului Sovietului Suprem al RSS Ucrainene” din 31 august 1940), 136.184 persoane (28,6% din întreaga populaţie) au insistat că sunt de naţionalitate moldoveni, iar 121.265 (26,48%) – că sunt români. În aşa mod, cei care, potrivit lui M.Greciuha, nu aveau „nimic comun cu originea moldovenilor”, constituiau în realitate cifra de 55,8% din întreaga populaţie a Bucovinei de Nord."
• about Hotin: „Datele statistice ale RSSM” denotă că acest „număr neînsemnat” de moldoveni constituia pe atunci circa 47%, ucrainenii–circa 25%, ( ruşii - 13,6%, evreii - 9,2%, alte naţionalităţi – circa 5%) from http://mdn.md/historical.php?rubr=186 -- AdrianTM 15:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The data you have presented seems very odd and contrary to accepted theories. Throuhout Bukovina, including the Southern part that stayed in Romania the Romanian population was only 45% and most were in the South. The North including Cernăuţi certainly did not have a Romanian majority, although it is possible that they were the largest ethnic group (although official census data rejects this theory). TSO1D 16:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Well... that site says "according to Ukrainians sources" so I guess we need to check those to make sure it says the truth. The point is that it seems that the official (or accepted) theories counted Romanians and Moldovans separately thus making Ukrainians the majority. I think this kind of counting would be misleading (if that source is truthful) -- AdrianTM 16:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

That is something that I would find rather odd. I am sure that the Romanian census did not count them separatly, and that data did not show a Romanian majority in the Northern region (that's the 30' cnesus), and I don't think the situation changed drastically by the Soviet acquisition. TSO1D 16:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's go to the sources, can you post here a link to the Romanian census? How can we find the info about the Ukrainian census, any idea how to look for the official source? -- AdrianTM 17:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to try and explain this issue from my perspective. As I found out, the Romanian census did not count Ukrainians at all, but translated the figures into "Romanians" (cause we was smart). The Moldovan source that Adrian quoted would be problematic only from their perspective: it's obvious that the results were rigged, and that a Moldovan majority was ordered or partly ordered (if the Soviets would have taken over Bucharest, they still would have found a Moldovan majority). Ukrainians were relative majority in Bukovina around 1919, a fact admitted to by even Antonescu (who blamed the Austrians for colonizing etc.); if they endured as a majority until 1940, they may still have been swallowed by over-zealous officials trying to find more Moldovans (probably because Stalin was not yet decided to hand it over to the Ukraine for ever). Dahn 17:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

What is this "the Romanian census did not count Ukrainians at all, but translated the figures into "Romanians" stupidity? For Bukovina the results of the 1930 census (the only one in Great Romania) include 29% of Ukrainians, 45% Romanians, a.s.o. In Northern Bukovina, Ukrainians clearly outnumbered Romanians in this Romanian census. And of course the Austrians had something to do with it. What rigged census are you talking about? Dpotop 18:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

See my discoveries on talk:Romanianization. Interesting stuff there... Dahn 18:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

You don't expect me to read the entire text, do you. Can you be more specific? And I still don't know how you are going to challenge my post. Were the Ukrainians under-counted in Bukovina, Stalin would have taken it entirely, you know. Dpotop 18:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it turns out that Ukrainians were being denied Ukrainian language education on the basis of being "de-Romanianized Romanians". I can't tell you if this coincided with the taking of the census, but that's mainly because Romanian sources are terribly "shy" about this aspect - so no clear reference to when it began and why. Note: we may be talking just about Northern Bukovina and a Ukrainian majority there, or an overall one based on their predominance there (plus, Stalin, although he tended to treat Romania as a Swedish buffet, had to account for what he took and why, since it was done on the basis of an understanding with Germany). Dahn 18:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

You are mixing up things. Here, we talk about censuses, not education. Next, concerning Bukovina, the secret additional protocol of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact says nothing. The Soviets declare their interest in Bessarabia, and the Germans say they are not interested at all. No mention or interest in Bukovina. So, yes, it was a Swedish buffet, but which followed the "rationality" of Stalin. Dpotop 19:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

So, they would have been considered "de-Romanianized Romanians", but recorded as Ukrainians in the census... I have seen stranger things. I believe, however, that the difference between census data and this thing is more likely to have been the fact that they began questioning the Ukrainianness of Ukrainians after they took the census. About the Stalin thing: what I meant was that he carved out as much as he thought would not be too risky; I think that was his main imperative. Dahn 20:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

So, in other words: rigged censuses to show whatever the ones who conducted them wanted... who'd have guessed... I do find strange though _if_ Stalin wanted to inflate the Moldovan number why did they still counted the Romanians, that's a little bit illogical. I'm still curious to find a direct reference to that 40' census. -- AdrianTM 18:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it could be because "Moldovans and Romanians aren't the same thing". This explanation would limp a little, but consider the implications if that is not the case: it means that most people willing to declare themselves Moldovans (which I find kinda had to believe). That is, of course, if the census quoted does in facy exist. Dahn 18:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's find first the direct info about the 40' census before we declare it rigged or whatever, OK? -- AdrianTM 18:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)