Jump to content

Talk:Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Just to put the B-class rating stuff somewhere (it was deleted)

{{WikiProject Former countries}} {{WPMILHIST|class=Start <!-- B-Class checklist --> <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes |Romanian=yes|WWII=yes|Russian=yes}} {{WikiProject Romania}}

Dc76\talk 05:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Section names

First, long and complex section names are best avoided. Now,

  • "Preparation and entrance of Soviet troops" - this is bad, because it looks like it was the Soviet troops who were preparing, whereas the section describes the actions of the Romanian side. I still think "The occupation" is the best name here.
  • "X Bessarabia and Bukovina 19xx-19xx" - too repetitive. I'd suggest "Soviet takeover," "Reaction in Romania," "Barbarossa," and "Soviet era" for the four subsections. --Illythr (talk) 20:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Granted you have a point with long names. Now:
  • This is exactly what this section should describe, 1) how the soviets prepared - a lot of info in the Meltyukov book exists, and 2) how did this happen on the ground. "The occupation" is too indefinite, occupation by whom, of what, when? I am absolutely open to alternative suggstions.
  • Good idea, but I think the presence of years would only help. However, there is one more issue that would be avoidable with repretitive neutral titiles: the words "takeover", "reaction", "barbarossa" have also the meaning of oppinion, they are not neutral, albeit only in theory. "Barbarossa" for example is inappropriate to describe 1941-44, when it only would cover one month in June-July 1941. Let's not forget, that it was not the Nazi Germany, by the Romania that recovered the region. Is Barbarossa a context? Absolutely! Is Barbarossa subordinate subject of the one of this article? No. Dc76\talk 21:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • If you intend to expand the subsection, perhaps it will make sense to split it in two: "Preparations" and "Occupation." As for who and what - the name of the article should give a clue... :-)
  • Yes, with years included. NPOV: The current titles have the same problem - it can be easily disputed whether Bessarabia was really Soviet in 1940 (occupation) or Romanian in 1941-44 (wartime occupation). I don't think "takeover" will strike someone as non-neutral in this context. The Romanian reaction to the takeover is as neutral a description as I can imagine. "Barbarossa" - that is correct so I'm open to suggestions there. --Illythr (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, i will need to think about it when i will develop that section. It's ok by me to change it back as it was
  • In 1941-1944 there was no "millitary occupation" as you call it. It was reestablishement of the pre-1940 structure, to a large degree democratic (it was in a war, and even in the usa the democracy suffered). It is a totally differnet picture from Transnistria (WWII). OK, "Reaction in Romania 1940-1941" and "Soviet era 1944-1991" are totally fine. What are you suggesting for the other two? Dc76\talk 21:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Are the terms "Soviet Union proper" and "Romania proper" fine? I think we used them before. Dc76\talk 22:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Wartime occupation is something a warzone leaves behind on captured enemy territory. There isn't much to argue here. The 1944 Jassy-Kishinev aftermath one was just the same and the 1940 one was only different in that it wasn't an open conflict. Even core Soviet territories where some sort of Axis administration was established before the frontline returned, came under Soviet wartime occupation (for a short while), once reclaimed. It's just that people prefer to use "liberated" instead in such cases. Also, that "largely democratic structure" was democratic only if you exclude the local Jews from the ranks of the demos... even then, probably not. But this is beside the point. On topic, I think "Soviet takeover" is good for the 1940-1941 part. That 1941-1944 one can stay as it is until someone thinks of something better, I guess. --Illythr (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
In theory, yes. But in this particular case, in Bessarabia and northern Bukovina, within days, the civil administration was returned. Unlike other Soviet-held territories as of 1941. Let's not create inexistant facts. Bessarabia was NOT administered miltarily in 1941-44. The military went eastward. Civilians were back in power. I am not talking only about people that fled in June 1940 and returned in 1941 (95% of which were born in Bessarabia). I am talking also about those that stayed under the Soviet occupation for one year. Now, they were in civil administration in what for them was their own country.
As for the other examples you are giving - yes, there i agree with you.
So, now are we going to exclude from "democratic" all instances of countries/years where an antisemitic law was passed? Let's also not forget how and when the persecution of Jews in Bessarabia occured. For once, 1/2 of them fled to the interior of the USSR, and then returned after WWII. The remianing were in the first days of August 1941 put into ghettos and within 2 months moved to Transnistria (mostly during the night, so that it won't spark questions/protests). They were outside the civilian control. There is absolutely no doubt in any decent person's mind that these people were persecuted very gravely. For starters, they were stript of their Romanian citizenship to have a legal cover for deportation (and by the way a number of Jews did remain - our (Romanians') problem is we sadly were not able to retain more people into this category). It is like calling USA non-democratic b/c of Guantanamo Bay at a larger scale. I reapeat, see the example of Japanese-Americans in WWII. / The fate of Jews is not, strickly speaking covered by the Soviet occupation, but I insisted to have it in the article because its absence could create false impretions: a couple pragraphs outside the topic won't hurt. We must ensure facts are not hidden from public view. Dc76\talk 23:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't like "Soviet takeover 1940-1941" b/c they did not take it over from a thrid coutry. They took from (and with) the people, separated the people from what they regarded, and legally was, their own country. They took the power from them, from the people. They did not take it "over", as the people did not take themselves "over" from anybody. They are free people. "Soviet administration in Bessarabia and Bukovina 1940-1941" e.g., would be NPOV, imho.Dc76\talk 23:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand what "takeover" means, in English. It's basically an invasion without the invasion... Check this out... The only real problem with this term is that it's mostly used for the same thing in business, nowadays...
Off-topic - Guatanamo Bay stuff is not a consistent policy of the state. Romanian law of the time explicitly forbade Jews to own land or assume significant positions anywhere. That some of the Jews were seized during the night so as not to spark protests, uh, what have you been reading there? Who'd want to protest against a "friendly" army that's going about happily massacring anyone who looks Jewish? Anyhow, Romania was a dictatorship in 1940-1944, so no democracy there.--Illythr (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
It was slightly more complicated than that. Romania was a dictatorship since 1937 (not 1940), Peronist style, that is with elections etc. with some (not all) parties forbidden, other parties disbanding in protest, something like modern Russia but less bullifingly towards oposition. And antisemitic legislation started in early 1930 with small steps. That was the problem: in 1937, 1/4 of Romanian Jews lost Romanian citizenship, then Antonescu only had to "extend a bit" that law. You should ask Dahn for more details, he knows these things better. Any way my point is: it was not a wartime occupation of territory, whatever status Bessarabia and northern Bukovina had in 1941-44, it was identical to that of the rest of Romania. BTW, mass deporatation of Jews took part from souther Bukovina and from Dorohoi county, as well. The fate of Romanian Jews is a problem between Romanians and Jews, not between Romanians and Soviets. Soviets were not fighting because of Romanian Jews. An indirect proof of that: during the Soviet era, there still was a silencing by propaganda of the fate of Bessarabian Jews (albeit for 2 different reasons: other truths then would have to be also told, and Soviets weren't that happy with many Jews aroud either, especially given the Jews now had a country of their own with which they did not have diplomatic relations, they'd rather see the holocaust dissove in the "mass murder of Soviet citizens by fascists"). The biggest tragedy was that many of the people that persecuted R Jews were not ideological.

I had an idea in the shower: how about "Soviet rule 1940-1941". "Takeover" seems to have more meanings, including obviously the ones you mentioned. It seems to refer more to the process of taking over than with that of administrating something for a year after the takeover. "Takeover" however could be, now I see that, a good candidate for the section "Occupation". Any thoughts? Dc76\talk 01:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Jews: I mentioned the laws on Jews in response to your statement that Romanian administration of Bessarabia was "to a large degree democratic," when its treatment of the Jewish population had most clearly demonstrated that it wasn't. That it ceased to be democratic at some earlier point may be useful in expanding this section, but is beside the point here.
This is offtopic, but on - "less bullifingly towards oposition" - have you noticed any political parties attempting coups and being drowned in blood (accompanied by anti-Jewish pogroms) in the last 10 years in Russia?
On the "inexistant fact" of military administration of Bessarabia, these guys in charge of the 1941-1944 Bessarabia don't look very civilian. Appointed directly by Antonescu. So much for "people ruling their own land."
On "Peronist" Romanian government: Juan Domingo Perón ... was an Argentine colonel and politician, elected three times as President of Argentina. Now, can you pinpoint the elections which had appoined Antonescu Prime Minister and then the Conducator? Here's the section to look in.
Back on topic, yes, the section mainly deals with the process and its direct results, than the actual administration. Oh well, I'll just put administration in...--Illythr (talk) 03:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I just want to mention that I wrote about 2 pages of reply (1+ hour), then when I wanted to save it, I got "edit conflict". I was able to get back, to see the text you added with two new links, but I made a terribel mistake that I tried to follow the first link. Perhaps my computer did not like I already had 2 other IE going on, so eveything stalled. In short, after a long period of waiting, i had to kill the process. Now, I have nothing when i press ctrl+V... :( This is a terrible lesson to learn about running parallel IEs. I would like to really re-write what I wrote, because I was answering in a lot of relevant detail. I hope you can unedrstand me that I am no longer in possibility to do it today. So, i owe you on this. Just one thing: I will cover the issues in my answer, I was making a lot of suggestions, many arguments ... Two sentence overview: I was suggesting to create specific new articles and use this article and MSSR as umbrells articles. There are so many things not covered yet. Dc76\talk 03:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Happened to me several times as well, including once on your talk page... I think this is the Internet's way of telling us to 1) Avoid writing huge walls of text and 2) GO TO SLEEP ALREADY!!! :-)
PS: Suggest upgrading to IE7 or get Maxthon to get the nifty tabbed browsing functionality. Did I mention Firefox? No, I didn't! :-P
PPS: Also suggest to post your response to my talk page once it's done, except for what's directly relevant for this article here. --Illythr (talk) 04:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
You are correct, absolutely. I use tabbed browsing, and that means that sometimes I have as many as 8-10 pages opened at a time! :) Yes I remember when you lost the last time, you told me. I also lost many before, but none so big, and none where I actually say something useful to some article. :) Only a small portion of it (8 lines or smth) was not related to the article, it was a PS. Basically I was developing a whole theory of what is to be in SOoB&BN and what in MSSR, what new articles we need, and similar stuff. Thank you very much for your encouragement. If it were someone else, with less patience than you (which basically means 99%), I would have boiled out after loosing so much. take care. Dc76\talk 04:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

[1] i certainly support this. :) Dc76\talk 03:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Balance

This gap will have to be filled with a short summary describing the rebuilding, economic, scientific and educational growth... --Illythr (talk) 18:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

...or the absense of that. for a faithful reflection we have to also mention more aspects of repression, and such things/aspects as language, immigration, resistance. i trust we shall discuss this first --Dc76\talk
...or the absence of that? How so?
Actually, the repressions, as well as every other negative thing is already covered in meticulous detail (lacking sources, though). The problem with positive things is that they are normally not regarded as part of occupation, having usually happened after the integration. I think this article's scope should be limited to some date at which the integration can be considered to have occured, say, 1947, and moving the rest of the stuff into the Moldavian SSR article, seeing as how most of the things were a result of subsequent Soviet policy, and not the actual occupation. --Illythr (talk) 18:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, I think dividing the history of the region at 1947 would be very artificial. None of the phenomena that happened had a cutting point at 1947. I think we are back here about the discussion, wha tis this article about - a portion of history (i.e. relevant to the people, counries) or a part of diplomatic bickering. There is another thing that is also not present in the article, at all: the systematic dirtruction of infrastructure by the Soviets in June-July 1941 before their retreat. They nicely and smoothly presented all that after the war as wartime deeds by the "fascists", forgeting that Romania had to start massive reconstructing elementary things like bridges, schools, factories, not to say churches (1941-44). As for soursing the article: it does have a lot of them, but true, not enough. That's why I took a long break from this article, to accumulate more sourses. I've got some more now, but not enough yet. I don't think this is a political issue today. Some politicians today indeed use it and their interpretation of it as cover, but facts and views are different things. That would rather be an article about modern politics: Soviet occupation vs Soviet liberation discourse in the politics of Moldova. The positive things that happend in the Soviet era, to re-use the words that a Russian wikipedian used yesterday, were due to the people and were despite the regime. Just compare how much reconstruction was in Germany after WWII and how much was in Moldova. The economic and infrastructure discrepance is witness to that. We should compare with other modern peoples, not with stone age. Dc76\talk 01:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

A curious interpretation. Except that in the planned economy of the USSR such large-scale economic development without direct involvement from the center was impossible. But oh well, all that really does belong into the MSSR article... --Illythr (talk) 01:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
To use the words of Dahn, not necessarily dissagreing with you.
P.S. "Currious interpretaion." To what do you refer? Soviets' interpretation? My interpretation? A third party's? In refernce to what exactly? Dc76\talk 03:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Of that Russian Wikipedian, regarding B & NB. --Illythr (talk) 03:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


About the title (once again)

I was reading the argumentations and contra-argumentations above, and I ask again: why this article is still called “Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina” when the article about the action that happened on the same period has the title Soviet invasion of Poland (1939) and not “Soviet occupation of Eastern Galicia, Volhynia, Podlachia and Vilnius Region”?--BalkanWalker (talk) 04:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Because 1) neither the Romanian state nor its government were dismantled as its result. 2) The Soviet Union demanded only parts Romania and these were ceded without a military engagement. See here for a previous discussion, which highlights some more points. --Illythr (talk) 04:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
1) and 2) that Illythr mentiones imply 3) Scholarly works use exactly that description, which in turn implies our title. To go into more detail, Soviet Union was preparing tow options: military invasion (an invasion can not be peaceful or civilian) and occupation without major use of force. The second is what happend. Romania's and Bessrabia's fate in 1940 was more like that of the Baltics than like that of Poland. Well, to be more precise, Lithuania was midway between Poland on one side, and Estonia, Latvia, and Bessarabia & northern Bukovina one the other (the fates, I mean, don't read into smth else). Dc76\talk 04:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
IMHO, the only potential issue with the title is small "n" in "northern" instead of capital "N". That because northern Bukovina =/= Chernivtsi oblast, which explains why we do not sea a geographic region "NB", but wither Bukovina, or Chernivtsi oblast. I would be happy if that were the only problem. we've got a sesyfian work ahead to cover all sub-topics. Dc76\talk 04:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Re-edits of June 9th

I re-edited several portions of the article, where sometimes in April there were some unfortunate edits. Let me explain in more detail:

  • I re-introduced the sentence This move was a consequence of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, as a consequence of the secret protocol of the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and (according to some sources) the Soviet administration of the area in 1940-1941 and 1944-1991.[1] Because it is directly from a reputably reference and summarizes the generally accepted international view of historians (disagreed upon by Soviet and some Russian ones). Without it, the presentation would be invariably tilted towards the Soviet POV. Dc76\talk 05:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
    Note that the Soviet POV - that Bessarabia etc was peacefully and lawfully returned to its rightful owner - was absent from the lead as well. In fact, I specifically worded it in such a way "These areas remained under Soviet control until [...] 1991" in order to cover this area using facts that nobody would dispute. So, you've done exactly the opposite - introduced Tismaneanu's POV into what was a strictly factual description of events. Seeing as how the case of Bessarabia enjoyed no Western support in form of explicit non-recognition and was mentioned in several key international treaties signed by those same western powers, I will reformulate Tismaneanu's beliefs accordingly. Also note that the occupation is also a consequence of the fall of France. --Illythr (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
    I think you misunderstand something here. Tismaneanu does not present his POV. The report in question is authored by a panel of reputable historians, using internationally accepted sources, and present the view of international historiography (not just Romanian, in fact you can see in the report many Romanian myths dismantled).
    Well, it is easier for me to accept that only one politically motivated commission has chosen to ignore such prominent historical documents as the Peace of Paris, rather than the entire international historiography. Are Budjak and nothern Bucovina still under foreign occupation, I wonder? Anyhow, I think that presenting facts and opinions separately is a much better idea, NPOV-wise. --Illythr (talk) 01:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    First of all, it is not a politically motivated commission. The Romanian presidency was involved only in as much as to start things up, and my understanding is the presidency wants to offer 12 scholarships in that research area. The organization and inner working was left to the scientists (well, in as much as history is a science). The commission having given the 900+ pages report, it declared it a starting point of a more wider research that would be taken by historians from all over the world over the years. A research institute was created, but again the state has nothing to do with what the researches do. Just as the research of people working in institutes of, say, physics or chemistry, is not politically motivated if the state pays them a salary. The scientists are free to consider whatever research ventures they consider feasible from scientific POV. Romania, as a former communist country owes morally it the future generations to do this kind of research. The state is involved only to finance the institute, as any other scientific institute. Its status is no different than of others, and the state can not withhold financing it for (political reasons, for example) unless it withholds money to all research at once. I believe this is a positive thing, similar to Gauck institution in Germany (although I don't know much about that). This is not the only direction. Another direction is holocaust. The was a similar report and as far as I heard similar developments in that direction. The society must be reconciled, therefore it is necessary for scientists to uncover the details of the holocaust and communism, the two tragedies that have hit Romania, and eastern Europe in general in the 20th century. I am sure we can come up with dozens of parallels around the world where nobody considers such things politically motivated. They are morally motivated and the effects will only be on future generations. BTW, this is international, not Romanian.
    Second, I have selectively citied from the report. It is available on paper and online, and anybody can cite. Dahn and Biruitorul have done that extensively, in dozens if not hundreds of articles. The report mentions the communist regime (and holocaust as well) for Bessarbia and Northern Bukovina, and refers to it in only 20 or so pages. There is no space to talk about history of Soviet-Romanian relations. If you look at the bibliography of this article, you will see many other sourses that do. I believe I have very recently used one such book for a citation, found with google books. I am sure the report has not ignored the Paris treaty, which BTW recognized the union of Besarabia with Romania, and perhaps it might even mention it. One would need to re-read those 20 pages to know for sure.
    Mainstream historiography can not be kept out of WP, that is non-sense. But we definitively can separate fact and comment, as you say, even if that comment is by mainstream history.
    I never read anything that Budjak is now under foreign occupation. Have you or anyone else? And since no source says that, it is not. From what I reckon, the people of Moldova and Ukraine were free to determine their fate when the Soviet regime fell. The international community, including Romania has recognized that and signed numerous treaties to that extent. The Soviet troops were removed from the areas as well. Ah, the population did not choose to unite back with Romania. Too bad. C'est la vie. But there is nothing Romania can do now about that. Ah, perhaps Moldova, Ukraine and Romania can negotiate small adjustments of their borders. That is totally up to the countries. But such a thing would have (first pre-request) to have super-wide acceptance in the societies of all 3 countries. So no, IMHO, Ukraine does not occupy that area, because it has never invaded it militarily, because the population was able to elect democratically representatives, and because it has been internationally recognized without a single exception. None of these three are true for the Soviet period. Even the last one, Soviet Union had to fight a war that cost it 28 million lives, and win it, to qualify to be reckoned with. That took 7 and a half years (1940-1947).
    What is the point of your question, do you know sources that say that the state of occupation has ended with the 1947 post-World War treaty? Those would definitively be worth mentioning in the article. If you mean this, then perhaps you are right: this article does not talk enough about the 1947 treaty, or does it? I would definitively not oppose adding more detail. Absolutely. Dc76\talk 05:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    Ok, no problem in mentioning the opinion of the commission as an opinion of a specific commission in the appropriate section. The Paris treaty I mentioned and linked to is the 1947 one, where the "international community" including Romania recognizes Bessarabia et al. as part of the USSR. --Illythr (talk) 18:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • It is not true that the case of Bessarabia enjoyed no support. True, Bessarabia did not have diplomats and government in exile, but Bessarabia was not an independent country before 1940, as the Baltic states were, and once Romania (communist as it was) did not question the border, why would British or Americans do that on own initiative? The did condamn it in 1940, and they raised the question in 1990-91 before the break of the Soviet Union. But Bessarabia can pretend the same status (as former independent country) as the Baltic states. The circumstances were the same, that's so.
    I do not oppose mentioning the fall of France in the lead. I recall I mentioned it clearly in the text. By the "occupation" is not the consequence of fall of France, because Bessarabia was not French territory and Romania was not in state of War with Germany at that time (albeit they were non-friends). The fall of France had as consequence the decision of Romanian government to withdraw instead of fighting. Should France have been successful in rejecting Nazi invasion, chances are Romania would have fought. But the territory would not have reverted to France. Anyway, I guess here were can find the more correct nuances, I am totally open to as many versions as there would come to our minds.Dc76\talk 19:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
    You apparently misunderstand the point of the sentence (or the meaning of "consequence"). It has nothing to do with French territory or Romania being in a state of war with anyone. Rather, it serves to resolve the following discrepancy: The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was signed in August 1939. However, the Soviet Union moved to "resolve the Bessarabian question" only in June 1940. Why wait almost a year? Because it was in June 1940 that Romania's main guarantor was being invaded by Germany and thus unable to act upon its previous commitments. This invasion of France by Germany was the trigger of the events described in this article. --Illythr (talk) 01:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    In the words you just explained, yes, I definitively agree with introducing such kind of explanations. My reading of the previous version was that it was the Fall of France alone, without Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, that caused it. Dc76\talk 05:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Moldavian SSR was created inside USSR. Moldavian SSR never existed as an independent country (and believe the text should avoid suggesting such confusion). It became SSR Moldova with the declaration of sovereignty on June 23, 1990. Dc76\talk 05:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
    Of course. This is kind of trivial, but can be easily reformulated to look less awkward. --Illythr (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
    Ah, it's a question of English! :) No problem, I am open to reformulation. After all, I am not a native speaker of English, and I do know that you speak the language much better than me. I was just thinking that we, having seen this article a lot, assume a lot of context as known, but a new reader might not even know how many republics were they in the USSR, and what that means to be a Soviet republic. Think, that a person not from Europe might not distinguish between Moldavian SSR and Czecho-Slovak Socialist Republic (the reader might think they are on the same par). That is what I had in mind here.Dc76\talk 19:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I re-introduced In 1940-1941 and 1944-1956 a series of campaigns of persecution, including arrests, executions, deportations, labor camps, famine ensued. They resulted in hundreds of thousands of victims. Restrictions of personal freedoms were maintained until the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. which is almost but not all that was before. IMHO, the lead of the article has to summarize most of its content, and the content talks about Stalinist persecutions. There is no fork between this and the article Moldavian SSR, IMHO, since the latter touches only briefly upon Stalinist period (and talks mostly about Khrushchev, Brezhnev and Gorbachev eras), and because a significant part of those referred here took part in Chernivtsi Oblast and Budzak, which were in Ukrainian SSR. The deportations, for example were organized regionally, but not according to the Soviet administrative division, but corresponding to the entire occupied territories. And since the Soviets have not differentiated then, why should we do that now artificially? As one can easily see, this article does not talk about the administration of Moldavian SSR and its (positive and negative) plans in different areas of economy, politics, and society. That is the "sovereign area" of the article Moldavian SSR. Consequently, I see no fork as it is now. (I don't know if there where other arguments of fork, but if there are, please do bring them on.) Dc76\talk 05:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
    The scope presented, 1944-1956, clearly extends beyond the two periods of occupation (1939-1940 and 1944). The Soviet administration certainly did distinguish between the newly created administrative divisions, as can be seen by the document listed here. The Stalinist period, along with terror and deportations is already mentioned in the MSSR article, with a link to the article specifically about the deportations, which, incidentally, is smaller than the corresponding section(s) of this article. However, the deportation of 1941 and "operation "South"" are direct consequences of the occupation, so, it does make sense mentioning them in the lead, perhaps with slightly different wording. --Illythr (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
    I don't understand, what period of occupation do you mean for 1939-1940? And what do you mean period in 1944? I believe I was very careful not to use in the text the word "occupation" when referring to events after 1944, including. We used "re-annexed", "re-conquered", and so on. And I believe I copyeditted other people's work along the same lines. The usages of the word occupation in different sources is explained, and the word is used in the article to describe the events of the first period (a month to a year). But you told me repeatedly that usage of the word "occupation" beyond that carries unwanted meanings, so we were able to easily find alternatives and synonyms without too much inner load.
    You are absolutely right, it is a shame we have not developed yet the article about deportations. But you do agree that article will be expanded? Definitevely, we can clean more this and MSSR article at that point. Unnecessary repetition is not good: it suggest the topic is small, so I totally don't want forks.
    I don't see how the Stalinist period in reference to Chernivtsi oblast and Budzak isreferred in the article Moldavian SSR.
    What is currently in that article about deportations is at the upper limit already: that article does not talk enough about its main theme - communist party rule, soviet economy, soviet society, etc. I believe the proper place to "introduce" the Stalinist persecutions is here, because they started on day one (June 28th) and spread on all territory, they aimed at people that were rejecting the Soviet power, not the particular state formed on August 2nd with particular borders. But only an overview is needed here, detailing the types of persecutions, which will then be dealt in separate articles. Dc76\talk 19:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
    "Stalinist period": I was referring to "IMHO, since the [ MSSR article ] touches only briefly upon Stalinist period". The Romanians of Chernivtsi Oblast article does talk about this in that region. Still, it's probably should be mentioned here as well, albeit the bulk of detail should go to the "Soviet deportations" article. --Illythr (talk) 01:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    That's totally right: Articles such as Soviet deportations from Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, Operation south, Operation North, Moldavian famine (1946-47), Soviet political repressions in the Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, Deportation of Bessarabian and Bukovinian Jews, Vapniarka concentration camp, Fantana Alba masscre, Anti-Soviet resistance in Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, Moldovan language, biographies of different people make up the first layer, where the details go.

The second layer is made up of articles such as Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, Bessarabian Jews, History of Jews in Moldova, Moldavian SSR, Romanians of Chernivtsi Oblast (which by the way is about the present, not the past. But of course one history section is ok), Soviet deportations, Holocaust, articles about cities and regions. This second layer provides a more general view. Sometimes the articles in this layer contain more specific information, that would not be found in other articles. For example this article's details about 26 June-4 July, just to give an example. Other times, the articles in this layer presents things as a whole, leaving details for articles in the first layer. For example there are dozens of articles about Soviet deportations, and one of them is the general overview. This one is in the second layer, the rest are in the first. then there is the third layer: History of Moldova, Jewish history, History of the Soviet Union (or 2-3 articles by period in case the whole history of the Soviet union is presented not in one but in several articles). And of course, History of Europe and History of the World is the forth layer.

  • I re-introduced In its Declaration of Independence, Moldova condemned the events of 1940. since in that documment it is reated that the nullity of Ribbentrop-Molotov agreement is the basis that allows the people of Moldova to declare independence. I believe it has direct relevance to this article and is worth being mentioned. Dc76\talk 05:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
    Problem is, the quoted statement is factually incorrect. The declaration only "acknowledges" and "points out", to use the verbs of the relevant sections. However, since it's a primary source, perhaps a secondary reliable source can be found, that states that this "pointing out" was actually a condemnation. --Illythr (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
    Let's see:
    acknowledging that declarations by many parliaments of many states consider the agreement of August 23, 1939, between the government of the USSR and the government of Germany null and void ab initio and demand that the political and judicial consequences of the above be eliminated, a fact revealed also by the declaration of the international conference "The Molotov- Ribbentrop pact and its consequences for Bessarabia", adopted on 28 June 1991,
    pointing out that, without the prior consultation of the population of Bessarabia, Northern Bucovina and Herta District, occupied by force on June 28, 1940 as well as the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Autonomous Republic (Transnistria) established on Oct. 12, 1924, the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, by infringing its constitutional prerogatives, adopted the "Law of the USSR on the establishment of the Moldavian SSR" on August 2, 1940, and its Presidium issued "The Decree concerning the frontiers between the Ukrainian SSR and the Moldavian SSR", on November 4, 1940, judicial acts whereby, in the absence of any real legal basis, it was attempted to justify the dismantlement of those territories and the incorporation of the new republic into the USSR,
    I believe that amounts to a condemnation, especially since that is the point of the 26-28 June Int'l conference mentioned. But, if you say we should be as diplomatic as necessary, then yes, that's good enough reason to re-think and find a better way to express this. Dc76\talk 20:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
    I have nothing against this phrasing. However, a reputable secondary source that believes as you do is necessary here. You see, this paragraph of the declaration is particularly volatile, as, for instance, Transnisntria interprets it as Moldova explicitly acknowledging that the Soviet joining of Bessarabia and MASSR had no legal basis. A source is needed here to make sure that this particular interpretation is not just a belief of a random Wikipedian. --Illythr (talk) 01:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    I did not oppose presenting Tiraspol's POV in whatever article that is relevant. Just as this is directly attributable to the people of Moldova. They are not God and they can make mistakes. They used this as a pretext to declare independence, and I brought that here only for that reason: because Moldova considered essential in the Declaration of Independence. It seems everybody recognizes the nullity of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and considers/considered necessary to undo its consequences. The things start to complicate when different people have different ideas about the ways to undo those consequences. And the last thing I would want is to present another such way here. I would not oppose mentioning Tiraspol's POV about undoing consequences somewhere in the text of the article. (Not in the lead because, unlike Bessarabia, this article is not about Transnistria.)
    BTW, it makes sense to undo the consequences separately for each piece of territory, as long as each piece has the option: for Bessarabia/Moldova, for Budjak, for Chernivtsi Oblast. But the latter two did within Ukraine, i.e. as a whole with Ukraine.
    To the point: how about using a direct citation from the Declaration of Independence? Dc76\talk 05:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    That Tiraspol thing was just an example of an interpretation. Yours is another example. All that is needed is a source saying that those "acknowledges" and "points out" actually mean "condemns". A direct citation of the entire relevant text is bad, because it would clutter the lead... well, badly (it's almost as big as the lead itself). --Illythr (talk) 18:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You also added Vladimir Lenin had initially supported the right of self-determination for the people included in the former Russian empire, of which Bessarabia had been a part. - this random bit of information is hanging there without context entirely by itself, and seems completely irrelevant. What is the reason for its inclusion? --Illythr (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

In talking about pre-1940, we went as far back as 1919, so inevitably there is a question of what is first: chicken of egg? Because it has been found to be contextually important to show that since 1919 Soviet governments opposed (I mean diplomatically, as governments, not as pillaging gangs as in 1918) the self-determination of Bessarabia, including to form a Union with Romania, it is only fair to note that in late 1917 they supported self-determination of Bessarabia. I agree that we should avoid too much going back into checken-egg first (hopefully it will not come to mention 1812 ... :) ) Yes, we need to move several sentances somewhere, I agree. Dc76\talk 20:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the Soviet government had insisted on Romania to respect this right by allowing a plebiscite meant for the population to "self-determine" where it should belong. After Romania refused, Soviet sources used this to claim that it is the Romanian government that has no respect for the right of self-determination of Bessarabians, whereas the Soviet Union, in demanding for the "will of the people" to be heard, does. --Illythr (talk) 01:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I do not oppose presenting this interpretation of the Soviet government, as long as it is attributed to the Soviets. Dc76\talk 05:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, I guess we can say that the USSR and Romania accused each other of disrespecting the right of self-determination of Bessarabians in 1918, but I don't think this would add any useful information to that section. --Illythr (talk) 18:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Most probably I won't be editting much more today. But see you around in the following days. Cheers, and thank you for your good collaborative spirit. Dc76\talk 20:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Why did you erase: This move was a consequence of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, as a consequence of the secret protocol of the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and (according to some sources) the Soviet administration of the area in 1940-1941 and 1944-1991.' ? Was is not a consequence of M-R Pact. Even the Soviets admitted to that. Erasing this IMHO amounts to us doing original research: if mainstream historians say so, why we erase it? Dc76\talk 20:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Just reread it: "...was a consequence of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, as a consequence of the secret protocol of the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact..." The pact - a consequence of a secret protocol of same pact? Makes no sense, does it? I only removed the second redundant piece, leaving just "...was a consequence of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact..." --Illythr (talk) 01:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Ya, you are write, I saw that. Obviously I got lost in it. :) Dc76\talk 05:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"Positive view of the occupation"

See also Khotin Uprising, Tatarbunary Uprising.

During the 1930s, laws were passed in Romania forbidding Jews to occupy state offices, such as administration, police, and army. Unlike in Germany, Jews were not forbidden to practice medicine or teaching, and no infringements were made on the Jewish cultural life.

A portion of the population of Bessarabia viewed the Soviet annexation as a relief. It has been claimed that it was mostly left-wing oriented.[citation needed] During the retreat that took place from June 28 to July 3, the Romanian Army was attacked both by civilian Communists[citation needed] and by the Soviet Army who entered Bessarabia before the Romanian administration finished retreating. In the process, the Romanian Army suffered several thousand casualties[2] (needs a second source), and throughout Romania the view was spread (partly encouraged by the state) that Jews betrayed Romanians in their darkest hour, leading to a significant rise in the anti-Semitic sentiment.

"In the chaos generated by a hasty and unorganized Romanian retreat many things happened that were not supposed to happen [...] Jew and Ukrainian population, in the enthusiasm generated by the departure of Romanian authorities, which made out of this province the worst administered part of the country, have treated the retreating Romanians in a way that will cost them dearly one year later."[3]

The general sentiment with which the population received the occupation and the arrival of Soviet administration was mixed: while some people welcomed and supported it (most passively, but some actively), the middle class, and particularly intellectuals[citation needed] and those better-to-do economically were not happy about the coming infringements on freedom of speech[citation needed], the introduction of a state ideology, the confiscation of private property, and political deportations. These consequences affected the local population of all ethnic groups; only a small politically-connected minority of the pre-1940 population did not suffer from executions, deportations, famine, diseases, or being turned into cannon fodder.[citation needed] Also, some non-Romanians retreated in June-July 1940.

This section highlights the POV problem of this article by directly implying that it was a negative event. It really needs to be reworded, sourced and then added into relevant places into the appropriate sections. --Illythr (talk) 19:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

On one side, the fact that the event was negative is widely written in mainstream historiography. There can not be doubts about that, IMHO. On the other side, this section does need work, absolutely! Dc76\talk 20:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
It goes against the core rules of Wikipedia to implicitly pass a judgment over anything at all in articles. The readers must be able to decide for themselves. Naturally, notable opinions can be included - as opinions, but the stuff of this section is not it. --Illythr (talk) 01:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Do you suppose Wikipedia's rules prohibit discussing the way Trotsky died because it might cast Stalin in bad light? Maybe, we should use euphemisms such as "Trotsky took a trip to Beyond Rainbow, walking slowly and happily, having been cheerfully if somewhat clumsily invited by Ramón Mercader"? ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 17:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, if it went into meticulous detail describing how this one evil commie was stopped from corrupting the world with his foul presence and then feature a section titled "Negative view of Trotsky's death", I'd object as well. As for your suggestion (in the edit commentary) to troll anyone you strongly disagree with - it doesn't work. --Illythr (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
As you can see I have not re-introduced anything you erased from that subsection, not even an overview. The info as such can go to some other specific articles. But more thorough citation is needed. And more importantly, it looked as a selective, not covering all aspects. With a lot of indulgence the info can go to an article about inter-ethnic relations in Bessarabia/Moldova in mid-20th century. But I have many more other articles to work, and don't want to drag myself into something that is by definition super-controvertial. Not even in distant future. Dc76\talk 05:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
The section has many issues, not only POV - it talks about other things, lacks citations and so on. It does have useful content, but it's probably better just to insert salvageable parts of it into other sections. --Illythr (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

hundreds of thousands of victims

this needs a source or it should be removed from the article

Yes, I will take care of this in a couple day. Thank you for pointing to it. Dc76\talk 08:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
the lead sentence takes a partisan source and expands it into weasel word "some", so this article isn't exactly an example of Verifiability and NPOV. "victim" is extremely ambiguous. Nazi German soldiers who died occupying Bessarabia/resisting Soviet advance are also victims Anonimu (talk) 14:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Tismaneanu report is not a "partisan source". "Some" means that Soviet sources and sources citing soviet historiography do not use the word "occupation" with a meaning beyond 1940. Any proposals to reformulate?
I agree we need something more specific than "victim". I think we can solve this by citing more thoroughly. I will look into the matter in a couple day. Thank you very much for pointing it. But if you have something specific in mind, please don't hesitate to suggest. Dc76\talk 08:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Of course it's partisan: it's been paid for exclusively from Romanian government funds and it represents the official POV of the current Romanian President. It is written by Tismaneanu, the court historian, not Tismaneanu, the independent historian who can have personal interpretations. So it's no less partisan than the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, which was created and funded in the same way. Actually I've seen no Soviet source speaking of any "occupation", so you should bring reliable non-partisan sources to prove the use beyond 1940.Anonimu (talk) 11:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Tismaneanu report is just the name. It is a document by dozens reputable historians. As any historiography it represents a POV, but it is the mainstream historical POV. On the basis of the works started by this commission a whole institute was created and there is ample research now going on about the effects of Communism on Romania. It is an international endavour, as people from all over the world are involved. And it's not a unique thing (Romania just copied foreign experience in setting this institute). Please, don't tell me you are from Romania and you did not hear about this. Especially when you are interested in recent history. Now, I am not trying to persuade you politically. You have once stated you are ideologically a communist (unless you changed your mind in mean time), so it is obvious that you would not receive with warm heart historic research in the effects of communism. I respect your political affiliation (unlike the Romanian Consitution, which does not), but I would respectfully ask you to not let it influence your activities as editor, at least not so radically.
About the other thing, you misunderstood me, which is perhaps my fault because I wasn't clear enough: I meant that western sources citing Soviet works often refer to the Soviet occupation as something that only lasted in 1940. I did not mean to say that Soviet sources used that term. Obviously they did not. It would be like Stalin saying he was wrong in persecuting Trotsky.
Anything content-wise? because I really don't want to turn this into a forum. Dc76\talk 11:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I kindly ask you to refrain from assuming bad faith and commenting on my supposed opinions. Please use a blog for that. As long as Wikipedia remains an encyclopedia, use the talk page to discuss content, not editors. As for the Tismaneanu's report, unlike the Wiesel Commission which was an international study supported, among others, by the Yad Vashem Centre and the US Department of State, it was just a Presidential project, that, again unlike the Wiesel Commission, was criticized for its irregularities and non-factuality by mainstream scholars and politicians. Again, it has the same level of ideological neutrality as the BSE, and the extrapolation of its opinions is trying to bring political discourse into Wikipedia. Anonimu (talk) 12:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
If any of the words I used can be viewed by you as assumption of bad faith from my part, I sincerely apologize for that, but I assure you that I meant nothing of the sort. I am looking only at your edits and your comments.
The last one strikes me as total rejection of mainstream historic research. I don't want to enter a discussion to try to prove obvious things. But I want to mention that trying to create an artificial competition between Tismaneanu Commission and Wiesel Commission is as bad faith as it gets. We desperately needed both. One should not be prevented to study the crimes of fascism/communism because similar/dissimilar crimes of the other were/were not studied. The sole idea to compare the legitimacy of these two commissions is based on the assumption of bad faith. You are not the only one who does that. I have seen in real life communist sympathizers that demeanor the former and fascist sympathizers that demeanor the latter, the world is full of them, but fortunately they are not ruling Europe again as in the times of Stalin and Hitler. Dc76\talk 12:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Comparing the work of two Commissions with a profoundly different reception in the scholarly and public media is not assumption of bad faith. Just look at the our (somewhat apologetic) huge article about Vladimir Tismaneanu to see how many valid arguments (i.e not Vadim, Roncea and the like) have been raised against its conclusions. Tismaneanu's is clearly not unconditionally accepted in the mainstream historical research, which is generally the case with Wiesel's. I request Dahn not to stop at acknowledging the problem, but try to resolve it, considering he may have come over the subject during his research for the Antonescu article (this doesn't mean he should stop his fabulous work of promoting Romanian-language literature, just make this a priority for when he's in the mood of editing controversial/politicised topics)Anonimu (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
While trying to stay on course, urging Dc 76 to accept the fact that two wrongs don't make a right when it comes to properly writing a text and thanking Anonimu for the compliments, I will say this for now: Tismăneanu is unconditionally accepted in mainstream historical research, at least as far as any researcher can be said to be. Meaning that those who contest him in toto are a minority (and arguably, or even admittedly, a bad faithed minority), whereas criticism of either VT or the Commission Report on topical issues is, one would have to say (and for all the exposure this got with a certain section of the press), equivalent to just about any similar products of mainstream research. I myself find some faults in some parts the report, and I'm sure even its authors do, but that says virtually nothing about its value as a whole. For all the equivocation attempt above, the case is rather similar between the two reports. For a paradigm, consider that Shafir criticized part of the Wiesel Report (which he had helped elaborate) and the Tismăneanu Report - but, as far as I can tell, insisted that both reports were overall accurate. While I for one would have no problem with, say, citing the essays in Iluzia anticomunismului as the most often mild criticism of the Report that it is, I do share the opinion that its perspective, not the Report's, is closer to the model of a sophistical, politicized, emotionally-driven and incoherent text. Quite paradoxically (and without taking this point further), it, not the Report, was printed in Moldova, and not by Voronin... In addition to these perspectives, those who denigrate the Tismăneanu report from the demagogic "we're the anticommunists" position not only casually alternate between this politicized position and a scientific-sounding claim ("it's not objective" - as if being more anti-communist, as they otherwise requested, would have been more objective!), but are most often the very ones who criticized the Wiesel Report with the most despicable rationales.
Btw, I must take offense at the article being called apologetic. It is in strict compliance with wikipedia norms, and reflects the quotable opinions as close as possible to the manner in which they were issued. Since reception in the academic environment was overwhelmingly positive, since VT's professional reputation at an internal and international level is actually spotless, and since we abide by wikipedia norms on what constitutes a reliable source, the quotable opinions are themselves almost always positive (though do note that just about any reviewer quoted is also quoted with criticism of VT, when such criticism exists). If it's requested that we write a text measuring by dropping the yardstick to allow entry to the venomous and sickening blogs that self-promote themselves all over the net (with all sort of tactics, and earning their exposure from the gullibility of some Romanians), or by quoting each and every idiot or mole who was ever able to write a letter to the editor of Vocea patriotului naţionale and have it republished by some cuib, we are out of the pail and into the zone of calumny still defined by the Romanian wikipedia. Even if I were to reject the Report myself, I have enough intellectual honesty and responsibility not to allow at least one version of the article to become a tool for manipulation.
But honestly: the soap bubble that were the "controversy" and its related şuşe has long since burst, as far as the academic world is concerned. People with well-rested minds like Mircea Badea may be unable to let go of making it seem like a real phenomenon, but then again they get paid for it. Dahn (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Whatever. This is not the Tismaneanu article, but I should note that article seems to make the Report as VT's personal matter, and much of the material will better fit the article of the Report itself, not the one about its "coordinator". Considering the summary style recommended by MOS, the article should have been "X criticizes VT's work for Y, to which VT replies Z", not half a page (try the PDF tool to have a better perspective) about each real or imagined accusation (and that half page is generally 20% X saying why VT is wrong, and the rest VT deflecting the question, rambling about how X is actually wrong, mixed with some "civil" ad hominems). Also, if, as you assert, most of the sources present some criticism, how come it is "unconditionally" accepted in the scholar world (since you mention Shafir, I remember he expressed some important reserves about it, and I'd say Shafir is quite a notable scholar to destroy this the myth of unconditional acceptance). There may be a lot of truth in the reasoning of the authors of "Iluzia ..." for publishing in Moldova: when it was supposedly put on sale, when going through the bookshops of Constanta asking for it, everybody looked at me as I had come from another planet (compare this to the reaction when searching for Marx: they ask whether you'd like to place an order or recommend an antiquarian nearby). Oh, and let's not start talking about who gets paid for what... it may get nasty, and, ultimately, it goes against WP policies. And next time when I criticize one of your articles, try to keep it simple and directed, and don't accuse me of something you should know I would never press for (i.e. using blogs or self published sites, moreover of far right flavour, as sources). I noticed this kind of reductio ad Hitlerum is the typical defence put in place when somebody criticizes VT, but here we should show some restraint, otherwise some people may get ideas (i don't use rowiki, but I remember they had some strange accusations against you...) Anonimu (talk) 23:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
What I have actually said is that the Report is as accepted as the next thing: once we remove the bullshit criticism that has become notable only because it made it into hostile venues, we are left with criticism that is equivalent to just about any not-especially-controversial precedent. And by any account, the criticism refers to VT personally. You assessment of what the article says (from who is cited saying what) is flawed, like your claim interpretation of summary style and how it applies, so I will just skip them. As for Shafir, read again where I tell about his comments on the Wiesel Report, and you'll have a benchmark.
My comment about Moldova was actually aimed Dc's way: maybe it will serve him right in other discussions about the supposed uniformity of Moldova's public opinion. I have no preconceptions about what it means. Who gets paid for what refers to the fact that people like Badea get paid for what they produce on the tube.
I fail to see where I have accused of you anything. My comment about blogs etc. refers to the fact that, while we may imagine more criticism of the report etc. can be found, and we may theorize about its effects, we always end up with some very thin and pretentious, generally civilized, critical commentary in RSes of which Iluzia itself is borderline, and then immediately with sources such as the ones I mentioned, which either pick up or create unquotable material. I'm sure it would be nice for you if there were more, but nah, not really, nothing beyond your generous equivocation. And, btw: you accusing me of reductio ad Hitlerum is pretty paradoxical.
As for the "strange accusations" on rowiki, they were a diversion produced by a guy who edited on a neonazi venue and attempted to use his own articles as sources (wrong on so many levels...). That guy had every reason, as far as agenda was concerned, to create a diversion, and was supported in this by his many socks and meats. I have no qualms about saying this: I have no connection whatsoever, of any nature, to any of the people I ever wrote about on wikipedia, and I will stand up for admin scrutiny at any point (and I'm sure I was already exposed to such scrutiny by now). But I do find it telling that, once an editor decides to improve an article at least to point where it stops defaming a prominent person (a defamation publicly identified as such by that person), he gets accused of being that person by editors whom Romanian wikipedia should have banned a long time ago. [Not all that surprising: I have recently discovered that, over a year ago, an IP claiming to be Roncea publicly used a certain talk page to defame me as an editor, to encourage editors there to find out more info about me, and to threaten to sue me (without even bothering to specify over what). Instead of a revert and ban on sight, an admin there decided to sign his message for him.]
This other than the simple fact that the accusations that a fascist lobby is involved in defaming VT are easily verifiable by any literate person (follow the trail between blogs and attack pages), that this has been publicly claimed by VT and others (where one, particularly one who researched the article, can pick it up), and that, having simply followed what happens in Romanian politics, I agree with them fully. So what exactly are you accusing me of? Dahn (talk) 00:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but issues such as the use of terms that have little to no relation to the facts described (the most gross misappropriation being "genocide") are really much more problematic that the "not-especially-controversial precedent". And I don't understand how issues like this has anything to do with Tismaneanu. Some of the accusation, from the most disgusting like his origins, to the more down-to-earth ones like his opinions before emigrating and his dubious positions in the 2000's, are indeed about the person VT, but most of the legit criticism is against the Report as a whole (Shafir or most of the guys in Iluzia...). You may be too emotionally connected to that article (as in: you wrote most of it, spent a lot of time researching and naturally you must feel proud about your work) to see its flaws. Try getting some neutral feedback (like randomly choose one of the most active wiki contributors and ask him to review it).
Badea is paid because his show attracts a lot of audience, so the channel gets a lot from sales revenues. VT was also paid for his work in the commission (even if directly, such as free room in a top hotel, free transportation, copyright fees for the Humanitas edition), and probably he's still getting money (there's an optional course is Ro schools based on the report, so he gets royalties from there too... a true Roller of the 21st century). You'll never see Badea attacking Voiculescu or the PC, but neither you'll see VT attacking Basescu or his party.
Your (and VT's defenders' generally) reductio ad Hitlerum is quite self-evident... man, you even used the "f" word, what further proof do you need? You always try to diminish the criticism by boasting the ludicrous far-right criticism and diminishing that from other ideological positions. Once I read a blog post by VT. He virtually put everyone who dared to criticize the report on the same level with CVT... reduction ad Vadimum is just a "Romanian way to reductio ad Hitlerum", and it's pretty weak for an "unconditionally accepted" work.
Now we're discussing Romanian politics? I'm accusing you of nothing, I'm just saying the VT article you mostly wrote may lead the reader to a certain conclusion, which is not actually a neutral one.Anonimu (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Really, I feel I'm wasting time with this conversation. The point I make and will continue to make is that we don't fabricate controversy where none exists, and that the article does cite all sorts of criticism in profusion. In fact, you'll note that my expansions included detailing of such criticism - not just in relation to the Report controversy, but also in relation to his works. I don't answer to claims that I'm leading the users on by presenting scholarly opinions of VT as they stand (not as they can be imagined by Anonimu), and I will also note that, nay, I was not the only one to edit the article in any given section. Also note that I started from a version which quoted at length inflammatory material about VT, even where this had been openly challenged or even proven false. I have nothing against quoting even that sort of criticism at length, as long as it was republished by RSes - if anything, because its quality and level of contention speaks for itself. Other than that, speaking from a through review of quotable sources and not merely speculating, I can say that the text gives coverage to what needs to be covered - nothing more, nothing less.
I am pretty much at the end of my wits on this subject and your interpretation of it, but do feel free to go on without me. Dahn (talk) 01:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Considering that I'm currently in no standing to create a solid review of the article pointing out all its carefully placed POV issues, and I'm a bit to epicurean to engage in such a huge matter (the article is really giant).. yeah, we are both wasting our time. What I'm asking is not to take the report as representing the scholar consensus in its every page (the section about Moldova is indeed one of the problematic ones, and I think VT let that chapter in its final form more as a favour to some of the commission members... ). Overall, in my humble opinion, VT's and the 1946 "of-the-imbricated-quotes" are among the most "non-perfect" you ever wrote on wiki. But hey.. they are just 5% of your work here...Anonimu (talk) 10:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I've seen Roncea is used as a source. Can we really consider him a reliable source per WP policies?Anonimu (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I just don't want to start bothering with him myself - obviously, any of his blogs and contributions to green fanzines, if cited, are removable on sight. The articles he actually managed to get published in some newspapers, as venomous and unprofessional as they usually are, as much controversy as they sparked, could in theory be cited as opinions attributed to him, with words like "according to", "allegedly", "reputedly", etc. And since his claims have generally been disputed by reliable sources, quoting something else to every Roncism should not be as hard as it sounds. Dahn (talk) 01:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that I'm having a bit of trouble finding a neutral source about the events... the Romanian ones are generally published by "green" publishing houses, the more reliable ones still owe a lot to Ceausist propaganda, the Soviet ones are obviously biased, while the Moldovan scholarship is divided along similar lines (even if the Romanian media tries to present it as overall unionistic, this is not quite the case). Any recommendation?Anonimu (talk) 10:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Wait a minute, what do you mean by "green" publishing house. Last time I checked there were dozens of reputable publishing houses in Romania (not singular as your write). You again start calling things and people you don't like "green" (=Romanian fascist)? Dc76\talk 12:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. While Dahn does "owe" Tismaneanu's article (because nobody else is as interested in it as he is), and while the passionate writing style is not the most pleasant reading, there is little to nothing to argue against the informativeness of that BLP. You don't have to agree with the style it is written in order to learn info from that biography. And you do learn a lot of info! How about making Basescu's bio like that? At least close. At least we can try. Dc76\talk 00:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your support, Dc, but I must take offense to the claim that it displays a "passionate writing style". Not only did I cut out material which was clearly libelous, irresponsibly added by a couple of editors whom (I recall) you didn't seem to object to even on "passion" grounds, but I also toned down some material (clearly not as controversial as the former) which seemed to praise Vt outside of quotes. If you're referring to the quotes provided, Dc, they are just that: quotes.
But overall, Thermidor is over. We have both forgotten and understood things, haven't we? Dahn (talk) 01:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps my choice of words was not so good. By "passionate style" I meant the style in which Revista 22 and Dilema are written, a style almost of a literary critic with long citations and hard to follow to the end of the sentence. Often when reading such texts, you need to ponder and re-read to understand who said what. As opposed to a style where a sentence hardly last more than one line, where the reader can learn fact and data, not opinions about opinions about opinions (indeed sometimes you do have 3 levels there! :-) ). I used the name "passionate style" b/c that was how somebody seems to have characterized VT's style, so I extrapolated the meaning. :) Dc76\talk 02:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Just perfect example is your "Thermidor is over". God knows what you mean: you mean the excesses are over, or the reaction to the excesses is over? Then it is not clear which one you deem good and which one bad: the excesses or the reaction? Not to mention that there are many different things you might mean as one and the other. Or is it a reaction to a Thermidor reaction that you mean?... :) The more one ponders the less one understands what you really meant. Sometimes the style in which you write on WP is not much different from this. :) And by the way, not to forget that many editors reading your articles might have never heard of "Jacobins" or "Girondines"... :) Dc76\talk 02:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Attempting to list the real or perceived issues of this article

{{essay-like =June 2009}} {{weasel =June 2009}} {{Repetition|date=June 2009}} I would like to thank Dahn for his constructive criticism. I do agree with him that the article is still in an incomplete state. I believe many would agree it is difficult to write encyclopedically about this issue. My personal taste as an "inclusionist" is partially to blame for several issues this article has. I saw and see the solution to improving this article in creating several sub-articles (resp. expanding them where they exist), such as:

For the last year or more I did not do much work in this direction on WP, but concentrated on finding sources (and doing work on many other areas and articles in WP). I have accumulated several dozens of them. These 7 articles require a lot of work, and I like to do it systematically. BTW, I don't really see anyone landing a helping hand, while the history of this article shows about a dozen interested editors. To do systematically means first to have sources, make a list of them available to everyone (I started one in WikiProject Moldova, but did not populate it yet), then systematically add info. It is very difficult to take each issue and screen through all the sources. It is easier to take source by source, and add info from it into several articles as appropriate, but doing so means the intermediate versions might be seen as slightly biased, because some sources concentrate on some aspects and ignore others. I would very much welcome any help which introduces sourced content into any of these 7 articles.

I moved here 3 of the 5 tags from the article for the following reason: This article is heavily tagged section-wise. Adding section- or even sentence-specific tags on the top of a large article is counterproductive, as it does not point out where is the perceived problem. On the contrary, such tagging of the whole article is a way to say "I don't agree with something" without taking the effort to say what one doesn't agree with. We have already gone through this one or two years ago, and I believe we (the 5-7 editors) agreed to add tags section-wise and sentence-wise, so as to allow those issues to be resolved. Also, I sincerely don't agree with the 3 tags. Maybe I would agree with them if they would refer to something specific, but if they refer to the entire article, then I believe they are incorrect. I believe it would be fair to say that while the article is not stylistically and otherwise too good, it is quite informative. An intelligent reader has something to learn from it and can guide him/herself to find more info on the subject if interested.

P.S. I did not read the article [critisizing VT] Dahn refers to, but 1) I am very well aware that Tismaneanu and the Report received negative criticism from some people believing they are the anti-communist. (The true anti-communists were also true moral people, hence much too modest to talk (or even think) about oneself with "we are the".) 2) I agree very much with Dahn that the Report, as well as the report of the other commission have minor mistakes (I can point to a couple in both), but overall are very respected. 3) I do not like Tismaneanu personally, but I respect him as a scholar. (By the way I don't like many people personally; meaning their personality.) If you live and work in a scholarly environment you learn very quickly how easy it is to work with people you might not like personally once you talk/work with them professionally, not personally. For politicians professionally=personally, but for civilized people it is not, and I hope one day most of those that are not politicians would be civilized. There are scores of scholars that were communist or fascist, yet they remained respected scholars (as scholars, not as personalities). 4) Unfortunately the circumstances in Moldova (large emigration) are such that what gets published is often based on what is liked by people sponsoring the publication. Obviously I am in no obligation to have the same tastes. On the contrary, sometimes knowing the mental limitations of those individuals makes me very reticent. Dc76\talk 17:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Dc, wait up. For one, please don't take the tags personally: the article as was written has serious issues, and these need to be amended somehow. My participation in the debate at this stage concerned another issue, which I don't find as essential here, but which I thought needed some clarification.
Concerning the redlinks: at least a couple of them make very little sense. What I would suggest is that, instead of running around creating more articles with potentially more problems, on topics that are bound to also be covered here and in other articles, to at least consider improving this article. The Holocaust in Romania link can easily be taken from where it leads and turned into the article that is missing, and two of your redlinks can lead back there. The rest of the articles are cross-wired, and the titles give clues as to the fact that they, like this article, are bound to be turned into essays. Let's not and say we did.
Lastly: the issues as I pointed them don't merely refer to sources. They refer to the text's structure and the way it reads. Some of these issues as I recall were pointed out months, even years ago (by me, by Illythr, presumably by others). Others kept piling up precisely because of the uncritical editing. More uncritical editing won't solve the problem, it'll only make it worse.
I have very little time at my disposal these days, so I really can't as I available as this issue probably requires. But the tags are obviously warranted, as anyone familiar with wikipedia policies will note - I'm hard pressed to find a single bit of text, sourced or unsourced, that would not have an editorial voice leading the reader on. Dahn (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Allow me to agree with you on certain things and disagree with you on other things. Naturally I will respond to what I disagree. (I am assuming you read between lines that I agree with the common-sense things you mention if you don't see me objecting to.)
1) Placing the tags on top of the article is very unconstructive. I am sure that if you ponder about it, you will understand that it makes much more sense to add the same tag to all sections it refers to than to add an overall tag: one can improve one section at a time. Otherwise you ask for sesyphic work while yourself do not even list the issues. People did raise questions and issues in the past, but they bothered to indicate them section-wise. Illythr made an unwritten rule of himself pointing to the issues even sentence-wise. Note that the article was once considered for B-class, and that other aspects except references were judged B-class acceptable. This shows that a random editor did not find such bad a state as you do. So you would agree that opinions in this respect do not totally agree. It would be better to openly acqknowleadge that there are different opinions about the state of the article and to concentrate on improving it in order to accommodate all opinions rather than fighting for a tag that states one POV about the state of the article. Please, note, I am not asking of you to actually find sources and edit. I am asking of you to be critical and just point to issues you perceive. Generally, from my experience with you, the issues you say, make sense, not as radically as you depict them, but there is some seed to be thought about. And I am not deaf.
2) I am not asking you to do something today or this week. I am just kindly suggesting you to do that at some point, since you have introduced the tags.
3) I disagree that the red links I just listed bear insufficient content. Perhaps the first one could for some times redirect to here, but the others are legitimate articles to start with. I am not knowledgeable enough about Holocaust in Romania in general. I have read about the one specifically in Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, and I hope I can write a decent article about that. I strongly believe this is notable. Same for 3 of the other 4 (I haven't read much about Romanian prisoners in the Soviet Union, just a little bit to know the basic facts.) I believe that now that I have many more sources than when I started this article, I can write better articles to start from. Correspondingly, section by section of this article would improve. Dc76\talk 19:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
1) and 2). It's actually very constructive, since it invites users to edit a text which even you admit is bad. The sysiphic work here would be listing the issue. Let me quote you at random from the text: "Among these people were mainly teachers, engineers, doctors, lawyers, with their families, virtually anyone who could be qualified as an intellectual, since they were the main targets of Soviet persecutions. After that, it took no less than 25 years for a new local intelligentsia to emerge, mainly from among the farmers' class, which by itself was a remarkable phenomenon of national regeneration." Or: "However, these contacts were not severed, since after 1956 people were slowly allowed to visit or get visits from relatives in Romania, since Romanian press could be freely bought in Moscow (not in Moldova), and since a poor quality Romanian TV and radio could be heard with a makeshift antenna, and even by ordinary transistor-based radios. The programs of the latter, however, were created by the Communist authorities of Romania, which never dared to cross the Soviet authorities, especially in the question of education and press for ethnic Romanians in USSR, which was a political taboo, especially because the Romanian communists did not totally sided with Soviets against the Chinese after 1959, sometimes even trying to play the brokers." These are just two samples, but one could make the same point about basically every bit of the article going into more than sheer data. Do you see the problem with such paragraphs and how it relates to the tags? If the answer is no, you'll perhaps note my difficulty in listing the reasons - other than to point you back to policies which you claim to be familiar with. If the answer is yes, then we're wasting our time with this conversation (and since you yourself admit the article has problems, we are already walking down that path). Incidentally, the paragraphs' many problems can't be fixed by "citations", as you seem to believe - they need to be rephrased or dropped, and since they have been uncited for years now, signs point to the latter option. And, no, I don't find it convincing that this article was once judged half-worthy of a half-good grade in some project that may or may not have transparent criteria, which may or may not be applied consistently.
3) Still, we are better served by the notion that an existing article should be improved upon, instead of forked. But I'm simply too exhausted right now to even consider spending more time on this particular issue. Dahn (talk) 01:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
1) 2) Thank you very much for the two passages you provide. That does help to understand the issues you mean. And yes, I do see the issues with the two passages. And no, by finding appropriate citation I do not mean finding references saying exactly those words. Rephrasing is precisely what I have in mind. However, please do note that the tags you have given are appropriate to some but not all sections. So, in the following weeks, if you don't mind, I would analyze them section by section and put them as appropriate (and remove from the top of the article). I was quite busy in real life (and still am), so I need more time to make a list of the refs I found over the last 1+ year. Only after that you would see serious content improvement.
3) IMHO, there is no content fork. But I can't prove it to you unless I convince you to read several hundred pages, or better, I write those articles. I am afraid you think the subject is narrower than it is in reality, you believe there is nothing much to add to the separate articles. In truth, I was amazed by the amount of info I knew (I mean, how little I knew) compared to what I learnt when I started finding more refs. Dc76\talk 02:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Tag

After carefully examining the article, I am removing the tag too much repetition or redundant language. Those who disagree are welcome to present their opinion here. Tymek (talk) 14:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Occupation in 1944-1991

It's now written that "[the occupation] also extended to refer to the Soviet administration of the area in 1940-1941 and 1944-1991." In case of Baltics Western countries explicitly declared they didn't recognise their incorporation in USSR. Was it the same with Bessarabia? In any case there are no references at all confirming such an extension. I think that we should properly attribute such claims (e. g. describing it as the official position of Moldova and/or Romania (if it is), as a position of certain historians etc). Alæxis¿question? 11:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The last time I tried to repair this article, all the refs I added (coming from reputable US scholars) were quickly deleted, and original opinions were added that went against those sources. If you look above you'll see that a guy is holding this article hostage. Good luck in trying to do anything.Anonimu (talk) 23:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It's written also that "A number of mainstream historians view the entire period of Soviet administration of the area in 1940-1941 and 1944-1991 as an occupation,[39] while the others use the term "occupation" only to describe only the annexation itself." The link is to a 2007 report of the Presidential commission for the analysis of Communist Dictatorship in Romania (if I'm translating Comisia Prezidenţială pentru Analiza Dictaturii Comuniste din România: Raport Final correctly). Does it really contain the passage about mainstream historians? Even if yes we probably shouldn't take it at face value given for obvious reasons. It's an excellent source for the official position of Romanian government though, I suppose. Alæxis¿question? 20:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for my late reply, I am recovering from a flu. I copyedited a little bit. But I believe you are correct to move that portion to a separate sentence: it is more clear this way. About the Commission, it was made up of perhaps all most reputable Romanian and several western historians working in the area. It was an attempt to copy the Gauck commission in Germany. It is not the official opinion of the state, and history is not a business of the state. But, after the report was finished, the Romanian Presidency subsumed it in a special occasion speech to the Parliament. The discourse of the President of Romania (8 pages) appeared in the printed version before the introduction. The historians' work then follows on 860 pages. A similar commission finished its works 2 years yearlier and reported about Romania's involvement in the Holocaust. It was also similarly subsumed by the Romanian Presidency. After the works of the commissions ended, the materials they gathered led to the creation of two research institution that further study the subjects. All in all, Romania had to come to terms with its World War II past: accept the evils of Holocaust and Communism as part of its history, so that it can move forward. Therefore the official subsumtion. The works of the historians however were not politically influenced. Dc76\talk 01:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
About Moldova, it condemned it in June 1991 and then in the Declaration of Independence in August 1991. In the former, the rather vague formulation "occupied starting from 28 June 1940" is used. In the latter, "was occupied on 28 June 1940" is used, but there the period of Soviet administration is not refereed at all. The next thing mentioned is declaring the creation of Moldavian SSR illegal ab initio, then "democratic movement for national liberation" referring to 1989 and 1990.
I believe we should simply point out that some refer to the entire period as occupation, while others to the 28 June 1940 only. Ultimately, we can but to faithfully present this indeterminacy just as it is among historians, and if you want also in official positions. Does it really matter? Dc76\talk 01:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Imho official positions of the involved countries are notable..
The current wording is not too bad, although ultimately having references to actual historians holding this or that position would be necessary. Alæxis¿question? 17:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I understand what you mean. But I don't think it is all right if I just take all the books I have and cite "this historian, and this and this support that wording". I'd rather have some scholarly review written by a historian explain us who uses what terminology. Unfortunately I did not find yet a reputable source addressing this particular thing. I will keep this in mind. Dc76\talk 22:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
This is what I mean: "A number of historians view the entire period as occupation<ref to commission report>" is worse than "A number of historians view the entire period as occupation<ref to such historians' work1><ref to such historians' work2><ref to commission report> while others think differently<ref to an example>" which is in turn worse than having scholarly review of the situation. Since we don't have such a review now links to individual works of well-known and reliable historians would be useful. Alæxis¿question? 17:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
There are several problems in the above presentation of the report:
  1. the report was commanded by the Romanian president, so not just a nice piece of writing which the president thought he should endorse;
  2. most of the members were not even historians. Along with somewhat related members such as sociologists, political scientist and philoshophers the commission included anti-communist people with expertise in completely unrelated topics such as electronics, automotive engineering, film or literature (I'm definitely not kidding). The head of the commission didn't have any degree in history either (he is a Marxist sociologist, if you were wondering);
  3. excepting one US sociologist and an Italian expert on Hungarian history, the Commission had no Western scholar as member.
Thus the wording is bad.Anonimu (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
You obviously know more about this commission than myself and these are valid concerns indeed. So what would you suggest to do with the Historical considerations section? (The intro is more or less fine now, I think) Alæxis¿question? 17:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I largely (not completely) know Anonimu's arguments against the Commission. I don't want to debate them, since I have tried this earlier and 1) I wasn't successful, 2) Dahn was to some extent successful. I want only to point out that such views are very few and generally singular. Dc76\talk 21:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually that's probably only marginally mainstream source using this definition. It doesn't claim other historians say it, just states it itself.Anonimu (talk) 21:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Illythr and Alaexis: Dahn was right, some parts of this article (especially in the second part) are not encyclopedically written. I have some good references, and will try to work on improving them. But please do cut out or move to talk page when you see bad portions. I see at least two subsections that need to be radically re-written. Especially, Dahn was right about the poor style (essay). Dc76\talk 16:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

My latest edits to several subsections are meant to address the "essay" issue. They only touched superficially the "proper references" issues. Please, feel free to add cn tags, but please allow for sufficient time to source statements. Feel free, however, to copyedit anything I edit since I often do not notice my errors or poor choice of words, or poor translation into English. And obviously, if someone can help with the "essay" issue it would be greatly appreciated. Dc76\talk 23:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^ Comisia Prezidenţială pentru Analiza Dictaturii Comuniste din România: Raport Final / ed.: Vladimir, Dorin Dobrincu, Cristian Vasile, Bucureşti: Humanitas, 2007, ISBN 978-973-50-1836-8
  2. ^ Paul Goma (2006). "Săptămâna Roşie". p. 206.
  3. ^ Nicolas M. Nagy-Talavera (1970). "Green Shirts and Others: a History of Fascism in Hungary and Romania". p. 305.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Soviet_occupation_of_Bessarabia_and_Northern_Bukovina/Archive_4&oldid=1151184468"