User talk:Illythr/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Thank you

I guess my correction would be: Unlike the rest of Moldavia, which became a vassal of the Ottoman Empire, these fortresses (Hotin, Akkerman, etc) were annexed by the Turks and came under direct Ottoman authority. But I am very pleased that last edit is fine anyhow.

Thank you very much for your nice wishes. I wish you achieve your goals in 2009, whatever they are. Cheers, Dc76\^talk 00:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Mmh, what's the problem with annexation? You know something I don't? O_o --Illythr (talk) 00:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I never saw a source claiming that they were annexed, using this term. Only claiming that they were rayahs. Dc76\^talk 02:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Eh, they were communities under direct Ottoman governance, and part of its legislative infrastructure (taxes and stuff) for over 250 years, until returned to Bessarabia following the 1806-1812 war. If that's not annexation, I don't know what is. Of course, I may still be missing something... --Illythr (talk) 18:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't go as far as to use the word "legislative" in anything medieval, except in a number of precise cases which one can count on the fingers of one hand (such as Magna Carta, etc). I am copying below a fragment from Ion Nistor's book "Istoria Basarabiei" (pag. 91-93), which describes the life in Bugeac and the rayahs after the settlement of Nogai Tatars in 1568. I see Cantemir and others pointing to the fact that Tighina, Bugeac, Ismail (former Smil), Cetatea Albă (and later Hotin) were part of Moldavia occupied by the Ottomans, i.e. they do not regard these fortresses and surrounding villages as something outside the country. But then, it is also possible that Cantemir was a bloody nationalist :) Well, because that seems to be all I can say, on the same token 1) I think the word "annexed" is an imprecise term here and is normally used for other contexts, 2) I can not give strong arguments against it, as I am not a historian and I only go as far as piecing together sentences from different history books/papers, without being qualified to do any interpretation. So, if you have more information or simply have a stronger gut feeling that "annexed" is the word to use, I would definitively concede. No strings attached. Dc76\^talk 00:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Warning: contains significant amounts of diacritics.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
{{Collapsible boxbox|Populaţia creştină, moldovenească, ce mai rămăsese în Bugeac se bucura de autonomie administrativă. Pe ici colea, răspândite printre tătari, dar mai ales de-a lungul Nistrului şi a hotarelor bugecene dinspre Moldova liberă, se găseau sate şi cătune româneşti care răspundeau noilor lor stăpâni darea şi zăciuiala cuvenită. Dările acestea erau adunate de subaşi, numiţi şi comntrolaţi de către căpetenia superioară a Moldovenilor Bugeceni, care era aşa-numitul Iali-Agasi sau vevodul satelor creştine sau al "satelor mării", locuite de Moldoveni. Voevodul acesta era numit de hanul tătăresc, îşi avea şi el reşedinţa în Căuşani şi plîtea stăpânului său un tribut anual de 15.000 lei. Cu privire la populaţia romînească din aceste regiuni observă Cantemir cu durere "Această parte de ţară astăzi nu mai stă sub domnia Moldovei, cu toate că oraşele şi satele de pe lângă Dunăre până în ziua de astăzi sunt pline de Moldoveni, care se ţin de legea creştină şi rabdă tirania Turcilor şi Tătarilor. Ceilalţi locuitori sunt parte Turci, parte tătari, supuşi ascultători Serascherului". Pavel de Aleppo găseşte viaţa creştinilor în raiale, şi îndeosebbi în raiaua Ismailului, destul de "plăcută şi fiindcă omul se putea bucura de dreptate şi de siguranţă şi fiindcă dările, afară de haraciu, erau neînsemnate". Haraciul era o dajdie pe cap, capitaţie, care trebuia să o plătească fiecare creştin din Imperiul Otoman de la 14 ani în sus. Numai trecerea la legea mahomedană putea scuti pe cineva de plata capitaţiei. În principatele române Domnul plătea haraciul pentru întreaga ţară. Femeile erau scutite de haraciu. Plata se adeverea printro ţidulă oficială care în fiecare an avea altă culoare şi pe care "ghiaurul" trebuia să o poartevaşnic la sine pentru a se legitima că e în regulă cu plata capitaţiei. Şi dincolo de Nistru în aşa numită Ucraină a Hanului se găseau 40 de sate creştine, locuite în mare parte de Moldoveni, mânaţi acolo de diferite nevoi. Pentru administraţia acestor sate hanul numea un hatman, care îşi avea reşedinţa sa la Dubăsari pe malul drept al Nistrului, mai sus de Tighina. Acesta trebuia să fie creştin, ca şi Iali-Agassi, sau voevodul creştinilor de dincoace de Nistru, de la Căuşani, şi să plătească hanului o arendă anuală de 8000 de lei. Pe lângă autonomia administrativă, Românii din raialele turceşti, din Bugeac şi din Ucraina Hanului se mai bucurau şi de o completă autonomie bisericească. Turcii nu îngăduiau ca populaţia creştină din aceste olaturi să continue a fi păstorită de chiriarhii români din Principate, dară nici fără păstorie sufletească nu puteau să-i lese. Şi de aceea ei consimţiră ca pentru aceste raiale să se înfiinţeze o eparhie proprie. Şi aşa a luat fiinţă Episcopia "Proilaviei şi a Ismailului". [Proilavia is Brăila, which also was a raia - Dc76]. Cel mai vechi document în care se pomeneşte această "mitropolie" este un act al patriarhului Ioanichie din 2 Iunie 1641 [Patriarch means of Constantinopole - Dc76] prin care Biserica Sf Nicolae din Ismail se ridica la rangul de stavropirghie. Data înfiinţării acestei eparhii nu se cunoaşte. Având însă în vedere că Brăila a fost prefăcută în raia în 1546, iar Ismailul numai în 1595, trebuie să admitem că noua eparhie s-a înfiinţat numai după 1595. Ştim însă că în acelaşi an a luat fiinţă episcopia Huşilor, care a avut în urmă mai multe conflicte cu episcopie Proilaviei şi a Ismailului cu privire la hotarul dintre ambele eparhii. Este deci probabil ca între înfiinţarea ambelor episcopii să fi existat oarecare legătură. Putem presupune deci, cu multă probabilitate, că episcopia românească a raialelor s-a înfiinţat după 1595, dacă nu chiar în acelaşi an cu eparhia Huşilor.

I didn't intend to add the word to the article, as I think that it would be indeed out of place for something medieval. Rather, I was expressing curiosity as to why you decided to strike that particular word, as, it describes things accurately, if out of time. Anyhow, I'm content with the current wording.

PS: Of course, no patriotic historian will accept the loss of what he considers part of his country. Even more so, if such a loss was temporary, no matter how long. --Illythr (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I think a patriotic historian should also be historian and say what is fact, and what is his desire (in what direction that fact should be remediated). I would suspect Cantemir would not present things (too) different than what they were, for as a very educated person he also knows about the other tool: present things worse than they are to get outsiders motivated, and about many other tools/means. I would expect some modern journaist to just stretch things out of truth. Cantemir must have been able to bolster support without such low tricks.

Obviously, what I just said has nothing to do :) with the word "annexed". If you would introduce it (now or in the future), i would not strike it out. Dc76\^talk 05:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

History of Moldova

In fact, note also the parallelism: Union of Bessarabia with Romania: Greater Romania,

Soviet occupation: Moldavian SSR. So, the format is not actually sugesting a subset relationship. Another place is Antiquity line. Dc76\^talk 13:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll make it a little more consistent with the rest. --Illythr (talk) 13:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope I did not sound too unpolite by editting just minutes away. Dc76\^talk 13:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, we're quite used to that, aren't we? ;-) --Illythr (talk) 13:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

we're quite used to that - That's the one thing I don't like if we get used to.

By "POV fork" I meant in the case that Soviet occupation and Moldavian SSR are kept on different lines.

I'd rather prefer the way it was (because, as I said, mainstream sources say occupation is a period - associated with presence of troops - not an event). But your edit will do (according to Obi-Wan Kenobi :-) ), since I see no point to be gained if I swing you in this template (I'd rather swing you where it matters), and your edit is fairly reasonable.

Another comparison: Soviet occupation to MSSR is like History of Moldavia to Moldavia. Dc76\^talk 13:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

In a way (one is part of the other) but not exactly - the initial military occupation lasted about a month, until a civilian government was installed by the end of August 1940. Then it was occupied by the Axis for three years (all the governors were Antonescu's subordinates), then reoccupied by the USSR in August 1944 - not sure when a civilian govt was installed there, but definitely not later than 1947. Since 1947 (latest), it was just another SSR with all the characteristics of one. --Illythr (talk) 14:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, civilian puppet governments. They, puppet gvmnts, and hence the occupation, lasted till first free elections in 1990. Similarly to Iraq, where Paul Bremer was 100% civilian and yet he was leading the occupation. The difference is only that Americans were not hypocritical and called things as they are. But, do not believe me, believe sources, e.g. Tismaneanu report. Dc76\^talk 14:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the were elections into the local soviets... Besides, it doesn't work this way (unless you really-really want it to), as, with this logic, nearly every single state is an occupation regime, since it took power violently from someone else at some time in the past, installing a "puppet government" as it went. As for the US govt being not hypocritical and calling things as they are - ehhehee, take a look where the link 2003 occupation of Iraq leads (the appropriate White House source is still available in Google cache) ... ;-) Besides, the US have not attempted to make Iraq their 51nd state, letting it hang in a kind of limbo. --Illythr (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I still don't get where the POV fork is. A POV fork is when the same subject has two articles written from opposing points of view. Thus, an article called "Soviet liberation of Bessarabia" would've been a POV fork of the SOoBaNB. But how can a simple timeline fix be a fork - without any actual content to cause the forking? --Illythr (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Right now there is no POV fork. Anyway the two articles present things - so to say - from the same (mainstream) point of view. One of them simply concentrates on the state entity, the other on the process which installed and kept that entity. Look, this case is not singular to Bessarabia/Moldavia. Ditto for other countries: same terms, same meanings. The would be POV fork, which anyway would be minor, would have come from having the two articles in separate lines, suggesting that one follows the other, i.e. there is a date by which the first ends and the second starts (which would be untrue). Now, in our case, we have roughly SOoBaNB concentrating mostly on prior to 1956, and MSSR mostly on after 1956. But mostly, not entirely. And this directly reflects the fact that military and NKVD/MGB were the most active before 1956 and were seldom after that, while civilian organization (even if coersive in many aspects) was dominant after 1956 and rarely was upfront before that. Hence, dissidents and similar aspects would still fall under SOoBaNB, while economy would still fall under MSSR regardless of the years.Dc76\^talk 14:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes and no - it depends on what you consider an occupation. In case of the actual definition, it lasts only as long as a (foreign) military is in charge (in case of Bessarabia it's probably up to 1946 or so). If you pick the politicized nationalist definition (it's occupied unless it's ours), then sure, but in this particular case, Romania happened to agree with the territorial change in the 1947 Peace of Paris, so it doesn't work either. Therefore, SOoBaNB should focus on the event of the occupation, plus its direct results (establishment of the MSSR is one of them), whereas MSSR should deal with the political entity. I think repressions and deportations should be mainly described in the MSSR article as well, they were performed by the NKVD/MGB, not the army. --Illythr (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this has indeed always been the understanding when we worked on the two articles: SOoBaNB should focus on the event of the occupation, plus its direct results (establishment of the MSSR is one of them), whereas MSSR should deal with the political entity. However, NKVD/MGB were the main tool and perpetrator of the occupation (the army itself played more of a decorative role compared to them), so that artilce also includes repressions and deportations (albeit not yet developed). If we focus strictly on NKVD/MGB we are also bound to overlook those acts of repression that were taken by the communist comissars by other means than the NKVD, such as devastation of the churches, organization of the postavka that brought in the famine, etc, which are direct result of the state of occupation. But do not take my word for this, for indeed I might have heard too much of what you call "politicized nationalism" (although I hope I did not buy too much into it), take Tismaneanu commission's word for it (+ western historians).

For more understanding at the definition of the words "Soviet occupation", please also take into consideration:

1) there is Soviet occupation of Romania which runs thorugh 1958, although there was a state Romania on the map all along, and even an independent one. There was even a Romanian Socialist Republic since 1948. And there is no conflict or double covering in two or more articles.

2) There is Soviet occupation of the Baltic states that runs from 1940 till 1991, with the exeption of 1941-44, when it was replaced by a Nazi one.

3) look at other former socialist states in eastern Europe

4) the article reads "occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina", not "occupation of Romanian provinces Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina". They were part of Romanian terrritory before, but they were not bound to become after, as you saw in 1991 (whether that is good or bad is a totally different question)

5) It was not the type of government that Romania had in 1940 (i.e. to a certain extent democratic), i.e. not the one of the type that was when all started in 1940, which signed the 1947 treaty, but a puppet government of the occupying power signing a treaty with the occupying power about territory that power has already hold for years - it rings so many bells! It would be even worse than Iraq signing off Basra to become a US state (worse, because current Iraqi government is as Iraqis wish, i.e. following customary muslim ways, and is in fact elected, while BaNB had no unitary gvnmnt, what was was ideological and non-elected, not to mention Soviets were deeply repressive of the population, at least until 1956)

6) The story of BaNB ends in 1991. There is no direct link to modern politics. Oh, yes, one can ask for appologies, for preservation of memory, for preventive measures for the future, for that sort of things. But not for automatic territorial changes, or that sort of stuff. If you want territorial changes, it got to be a wide agreement and even deep desire of the population and government, no less. It has to be something at least as keen as was in Eastern Europe for joining the EU, if not much more than that. Ditto for Chernivtsi and Budjak - only if Ukraine agrees, which I don't think is a straightforward thing, if at all possible. Moldova adopted a law that everybody who was in Moldova on the day of its declaration of sovereignty automatically gets Moldovan citizenship. That includes even the former chiefs of Gulag camps. (I heard that smth like 8 of them lived in Chisinau in late 1980s). So, the story ends there, 1991. And after that, like Hamlet, "the rest is silence".

7) There are very few things about the status of occupation to mention for 1956-1991. There is, on the other side, a lot to mention in the article of MSSR about that period, and somehow we did not get yet to improve that article. I am afraid that even central asia has overtaken us on that.

8) It is a piece of history, and every Moldovan should feel comfortable to write and talk about that, just as all Americans are comfortable to talk about their founding fathers, which for most of modern americans were not from England at all, and were not in America at the time. Obama can use the phrase "our founding fathers", although his father is not even American, and that is absolutely ok. Why not the same in Moldova? Why should ethnic minorities feel uncomfortable with 1940 other than because of prejudices in our minds (on all sides)? In USA, France, etc, they don't even use "ethnic minorities", they just teach them the language and the history of the country and are very glad when someone brings in more heritage, because that opens more doors for possible business, technological, cultural, if not trivial tourism related opportunities. I believe the theme has been politicised out of the way. But I can understand that people who are now over 45 (i.e. those who were fully educated in the Soviet system) whould always see politics behind, that's just a fact of life, and we have to cope with it, we have to wait until in 30 years they simply die out. But those who are younger should not (ideally) have such prejudices, I think that constitutes the larger pool of readers of Wikipedia, so we just write for them and should in a sense ignore the prejudices of the older generation. I know, I know, again my idialism ... :)

9) ... I knew I had one more issue on my mind, but I seem to have forgotten which was it while writting the details of the others. I owe you one for another time. Dc76\^talk 01:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

1) Eh, that one only shows that the problem is consistent. Ideally, these articles should be about periods of history without a classifier (like Transnistria (World War II) (or even "...1941-1944"), as opposed to "Axis occupation of Transnistria") with the body of the article providing the various historical and contemporary views on that period, whereas the "occupation" articles would deal with the actual occupation events in the original, politically untainted sense. That certainly won't happen in the next several decades, though.

2) Oooh, yees, that one. To avoid commenting on that specific case, I'll only point out the difference - the governments of those three states disagreed with what happened, and they happened to have support from the "probable adversary" of the USSR, granting their cause full legitimacy on their side of the cold war barricades. None of that applies to Bessarabia. (This is, of course, irrelevant to my original argument, but hey)

3) I look. Do I see something relevant? Mmm, no?

4) That's not really relevant, except, after forgetting what a military occupation really is, one might also argue that the 1918-1940 period was a Romanian occupation of Bessarabia (as Soviet sources describe it), seeing as how nobody bothered to ask the locals if they actually want to join Romania...

5) Democratic? Carol's National Renaissance Front, the National Legionary State or the Antonescu dictatorship? Anyhow, there's a huge problem with this "forced us to sign" logic. For example, take a look at the map of Germany before 1919 - they were forced to sign to lose quite a bit of that, too. Also, I'm sure Hungary (well, rather, only certain Hungarians) may have to say the same about Transylvania - which was <nationalistic pathos>fairly awarded to its rightful owner, as agreed by all participants, and then illegally torn away by a vile invader.</nationalistic pathos>

6) Depends on what you mean by that. Further territorial changes are extremely unlikely, except maybe for the Snake Island.

8) This also depends. I would rather strongly object to myself, or any member of my family residing, or resting in peace on the territory of Moldova, being called an occupant. ;-) I understand this is something anyone who wishes to obtain Estonian or Latvian citizenship must do, however. Prejudices don't easily disappear - they are merely replaced with others, often with an opposite "charge".

9) No problem there, hehe. --Illythr (talk) 02:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

1)I think what you mean is "inavasion". If it is invasion, than indeed, it would only cover a month. And, that is true that Axis occupation of Transnistria would be an absolutely legitimate title for the current Transnistria (WWII). I do however understand and perfactly agree with your good intentions when you like to see such words removed. My observation to this would be a comparison: you want neutral position in all events/theories, etc, while I want only neutral presentation (including the tone). It is like evolution theory and creationism: we can not take a neutral position (would go against mainstream scientific interpretation), but can make a neutral presentation.

2) about Baltics, I do not understand how Romania's agreement to Soviet terms was different from Latvia's and Estonia's (it was different from Lithuania). UK gave support to Romania saying it does not recognize the occupation. And US denounced it, too. True they did not give such diplomatic support as to the Baltics. Maybe because they considered it to be only a part of a country, and not the whole country. You see, even here Bessarabians get cheated twice.

4) And Sfatul Tarii I suppose was not the local representative body? The Soviets did their best to "forget" that.

5) National Legionary State and Antonescu's regimes were dictatorships. They were NOT the same type of regime Romania had on 28 June 1940. Yes, Carol was a traitor, and liked to be authoritarian. But the regime was not at all what came after: ther were normal aythorities before September 1940. Corrupt, but that is a totally different problem. 28 June sparked what came after.

6) I mean nothing by that. In fact I have a neutral POV on the question: wouldn't oppose it if everybody wanted it, but would not make propaganda for it either. Would it be better, would it be worse? I don't know.

8) I would rather strongly object to myself, or any member of my family residing, or resting in peace on the territory of Moldova, being called an occupant. (...) Prejudices don't easily disappear - they are merely replaced with others, often with an opposite "charge". That is exactly the problems we, Moldovans have. I see it as an indice of personal and collective sub-education and backwardness, unable to reach out. If you had someone in your family who worked for the NKVD or similar stuff, and did specific repressive tasks (I assume you are too young to have worked for the NKVD, etc. :) ), then yes, that person was an occupant. Generalizing anywhere beyond that is what gets Moldavians sub-educated. Obviously, it is a step that ethnic Moldovans should take first. Namely, to assure the descendants of those that came to Moldova after 1940 that they are not a single athom less Moldovans. So I believe I owe to do my part of it, and appologize in retrospect and in advance if somebody did/would call you so. Rest assured, in my eyes you are no less Moldovan than I am. Soviet occupation hit our country, was an evil for our nation, killed our "brothers". Just like Obama's founding fathers. :) Dc76\^talk 06:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the word occupation is used also in Russian, for example by Eufrosinia Kersnovskaya:[1]:

Что ж удивительного в том, что с первых же дней советской оккупации (принято говорить «освобождения из-под власти бояр и капиталистов», но отчего не назвать все своими именами, ведь только вор не говорит «я украл», а «я позаимствовал») ко мне вереницей приходили из села люди: – Что же это будет, дудука? Что нас ждет? Dc76\^talk 21:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

1) Not just the invasion, but also its immediate consequences. An article about what would be in the "Aftermath" section of an article about the battle, with all the appropriate detail. In that last part you're citing the WP:UNDUE policy and you're correct. Note, however, that it doesn't preclude authors from choosing neutral article names wherever possible. For example, the respective articles you mentioned are not called "The fact of evolution" and "pseudoscientific claims about the fact of evolution".

2) The Baltic governments in exile didn't agree to their respective countries joining the USSR. In this, they were lucky that the 1947 treaty didn't explicitly mention them (unlike Bessarabia etc, see "TREATY OF PEACE WITH ROUMANIA," Part 1 Article 1) as part of the Soviet Union. Then came the cold war, and with it, the Stimson Doctrine was suddenly remembered and applied where needed.

4) Certain wishes of a ruling elite need not always coincide with the wishes of the populace at large. In this case it's not really relevant, but merely amusing, as the Romanian propaganda at the time had presented the union as the will of the people, while at the same time refusing to actually ask the people about their will, knowing quite well that it won't be to their liking.

5) I think the Romanian Jews would disagree with that notion (from 16 May 1937 on, at least) - if they're counted as part of the "ruling demos", that is.

8) ... as well as rebuilt the country from the ashes, created the entire economic, scientific and education branches from scratch, virtually eliminated unemployment, illiteracy and homelessness, and, last but not least, made its citizens proud members of a large and powerful country everyone in the world would reckon with, as well as a nice set of far-fetched but real-looking ideals to strive to. It all depends on who you ask. The current unfortunate state of affairs, however, is that you have to visit the English Wikipedia to see one set of facts, and the Russian Wikipedia to see the other. This sometimes leads to amusing situations (like Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina and ru:Присоединение Бессарабии и Cеверной Буковины к СССР), where strictly one-sided presentation of these facts has resulted in two diametrally different articles about the same subject, with both adhering to the same rules.

On Kersnovskaya - she clearly refers to the actual occupation period aka «освобождение из-под власти бояр и капиталистов».

She also writes some other things:

...В дальнейшем же румыны, стремясь отрезать все пути к отступлению, стали всеми способами (в большинстве случаев – нелепыми) румынизировать насильственным путем Бессарабию и вели себя до того глупо и нетактично, что добились как раз обратного эффекта. Недаром говорили, что генерал-губернатор Бессарабии Чупарка заслужил орден Ленина – до того он сумел своим неумеренным шовинизмом сделать все румынское столь одиозным, что в знак протеста население стало, как говорится, спать и видеть, когда же русские наконец прогонят осточертевших захватчиков.

And that woman is not a friend of the Soviet regime, mind you. --Illythr (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

2) And because of the 1947 treaty Romania could not legally claim Bessarabia after 1991. But the people of Bessarabia could and did.

4) I beg to disagree it about the "will of the people". You can not make assumptions, other than what the population elected to Sfatul Tarii and to subsequent parliaments. Remember, there were 36 abstention votes, and 3 opposes as well, and those people remained politicians. They were never persecuted. The majority of the population wanted union in 1918, and so they would after. Bessarabia had members of the Romanian parliament: 35 senators and 90 members of the chamber at every single time. If the population was so against as the Soviets say, it would be impossible that there was no fraction in the parliament asking for another referendum. A couple hundred MPs and no objection! Then perhaps indeed there was none. The authorities opposed for a different reason: a referendum would have questioned the legitimacy of the 1918 act. If the Soviets would have recognised the union and ask for a referendum on transferring the territory to Russia, it would have been a different talk.

5) Unfortunately anti-Semitic laws happen in democratic regimes as well.

8) If you would allow, I would add my "corrections":

Soviet occupation which started on 28 June 1940 hit our country, was an evil for our nation, killed our "brothers". It transformed a prosperous economy into ruins, and destroyed the infrastructure. It dragged the country into World War II and more destruction. It organized famine, deported and/or and killed a substantial part of the population. However, after 1956, while keeping a undemocratic regime that persecuted human right, also rebuilt the country from the ashes it created, re-created the entire economic, scientific and education branches from scratch, virtually eliminated unemployment, illiteracy and homelessness (homelessness whose sole creator was the Soviet regime), and, last but not least, made a small portion of its citizens proud members of a large and powerful country everyone in the world would reckon with, as well as for the same group of people (Communist party members) a nice set of far-fetched but real-looking ideals to strive to. It all depends on who you ask: that small group of former Soviet apparatus, or the descendants of the people who were killed, starved, deported, abased, imprisoned, stolen from, etc, etc. which is the majority for the population. Historians write about facts, and what killing, famine, deportations were facts. Far-fetched but real-looking ideals are called dialectic materialism: the theory of saying that back is white despite obvious contradictions.

I do not edit Russian WP. I beg to disagree that the article here is one-sided. Incomplete - yes. I did not get to write about deportation, famine, etc We also did not get to develop Moldavian SSR. I also want to wrote an article about the deportation of Jews in 1941-42, when Romanian authorities came back. But one-sided it may be only from the point of view of someone assuming that the Soviet system was legitimate. And I believe that is not you.

As about Kersnovskaya, you might as well read the entire book, and see how her impressions changed in 1940-41. She is honest and describes everything how it was and how she perceived it, even when she was wrong. She even describes her writing on a monument. Do it today in Moldova, and you are guaranteed 5 years of prison. The book is not about Bessarabia as it is about her, how wrong she was to demand Romania to the standard of an ideal society in comparison to assuming that USSR was better. 1940 is not only a tragedy, it is also a lesson: if people knew better, they wouldn't have accepted it. If in 1950 Kersnovkaya would have been given a chance to go back 10 years, you might be surprised to her reaction, she might have wanted to take up arms. From a sympathiser she became a prominent dissident! That kind of radical change is what 28 June 1940 is about. Dc76\^talk 00:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

4) I believe we did have this discussion before. From what I read from non-nationalistic and not pro-Soviet sources, the majority wanted only to be left alone and in peace - and would have preferred to stay in the Empire - simply because it has been their way for a century. The politics of "union of brothers" and "emancipation of the working class" were imposed on them externally.

5) In that case, they're even less liberal and democratic, than the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia.

8) Heh, told ya. But some facts are off:

was an evil for our nation - binary thinking - bad.

transformed a prosperous economy into ruins - There was no industry in pre-MSSR Bessarabia to speak of. Agriculture was reeling from the reorientation shock (but managed to go back up). The primarily Jewish-driven commerce was decimated after 1937. It wasn't totally bad as Soviet sources describe, but it also wasn't prosperous.

dragged the country into World War II - Operation Barbarossa was a joint German-Romanian venture.

organized famine - Caused and aggravated by excessive requisitions - yes. Organized - nope.

ashes it created - it took three to wage a war in that region. No Barbarossa - no scorched earth. Plus, there was this earthquake in 1940...

''re-created - there was no significant industry or major scientific institutions in Bessarabia before 1946, when the Kishinev State University was founded. Education was also marginal (one of the main reasons behind the failure of Romanianization)

a small portion of - hehe, the percentage of people who voted the Communists back in 2001, as well as 2005 and 2009 begs to differ. ;-)

So, one-sided is the one that ignores the facts that don't fit in its pre-created picture, whether that of a socialist paradise (first example) or a dominion of Hell (second example).

Kersnovkaya: Note that she wrote her book in 1964, when her opinion of both the USSR and Romania had been already formed. Yes, I think I'll read the whole book (only about 50% of the first section by now) - it is quite valuable in the that she sympathises with neither side or ideology, but with the people around her. The only downside is that the book is a personal experience and thus not a scientific research, but still, that experience alone is valuable enough.

As for legitimacy - it seems to bother historians more than politicians of the period in question. Motivation of the latter is always the same anyway. --Illythr (talk) 02:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

4) the non-educated "majority". Recall the national emancipation processes in all countries of Europe at the time. Just as later when you speak about 2001 elections you confuse nostalgia with informed political choice.

8) you saying that soviet system might not have been an evil for everyone is like me saying holocaust was not an evil for everyone. Truth is, they were not for everyone. But for the majority they were evil, and their intersection, too. A honest person whose neighbor is persecuted is not a profiteer, but a sympathizer. Evil Empire thinking was also binary, yet it saved the earth from nuclear annihilation.

It is a very cynic fact, but still a fact: the largely Jewish commerce in 1937 was not so decimated, as it became more non-Jewish, i.e. it brought the same revenues, but they were settling in pockets in different proportions now. The Jewish managers remained to govern their businesses until 1940, when they were expropriated by the Soviets. Why don't we ask the thousands of them deported to Siberia in 1940. Unfortunately they are dead in misery, and unfortunately nobody tends to their graves today. If Bessarabians in general were twice deceived, those people were 3 times.

World War II began on September 1, 1939, not on 22 June 1941. And the act that led to the war was the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

Theological and Agricultural faculties of the Iasi University were located in Chisinău. Students of the licee were better educated than those that finished most universities under the Soviets until about 1960. And by the way, the elite was no longer in Chisinau in 1946. Remember the 1940-41, remember the post-war deportations, remember the famine, remember those that fled to Romania and the west? After your cities are half-empty, it is no strange fact you have no science and culture. That is not to diminish what was done good after 1950. But the people who did that should have the credit, not the Soviet power. My parents told me about many-many such people, be sure I am fully aware of the phenomenon, and I am only glad it was possible, for these people needed one extra quality: courage.

As for the Dominion of Hell, I beg to recall John McCain: you find help where you do not expect. He found it in a North Vietnamese prison. Good people come out in bad times. People like Sakharov, Solzhenitsyn, etc. are often nobodies in democratic societies. Unfortunately. In the Dominion of Hell, the Hell needs only to govern. By contrast the governed ones have a chance to improve. While in the Paradise the governed ones have only a chance to spoil and deserve another Hell. :)

I am not trying to get you publicly to accept some facts, I am absolutely satisfied with you only aware of the facts. It is not good if an article persuades the reader. The article should merely give the information. The conclusions are done by everyone in part and do not have to be confessed. Those that deny are vociferous. Just as we have Holocaust deniers, there are very vociferous and invent 1,000 counterarguments. Those that know the truth are silent, b/c the truth is already way to heavy. Writing about it is like living a stone with each sentence. Dc76\^talk 03:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

4) Ehehehee, informed political choice... is this the planet Earth we're talking about? :-D

8) Godwin's law. Not good. If by Evil Empire thinking you mean things like McCarthyism, then it's actually what drove the world closer to the brink of nuclear annihilation. From one side, of course.

On Jewish commerce, science and industry - might need the numbers, but the difference between 1935 and 1955 is visible even without them. Some numbers are available here, though (say, do you know anything about that "приём бессарабской учащейся молодёжи в чехословацкие высшие учебные заведения..." part? Kinda odd...). The Jews were not really deceived - it was a choice between certain death and an uncertain future. The deception was perhaps making the uncertainty look nicer that it was, but pretty much anything would look like a good alternative to a death camp in Transnistria in those times.

Lead to WWII - or perhaps the Munich Agreement, or the remilitarization of the Rhineland (and lack of Western response to it), or the Phony war. By the time of M-R it was pretty clear that war will eventually break out, everyone was just trying to make it "go the other way".

The article should merely give the information. - yes, that is correct, although the choice of facts is crucial. Also it's probably best to avoid Holocaust comparisons in a debate altogether.

There are facts and there are opinions. Facts are something I have no problem picking up (as long as they can be verified), but opinions are something I prefer to form on my own. --Illythr (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

4) :) I merely wanted to restate why there was support for the union: the population was influenced by the emancipation going on, and elected a political elite that favored emancipation: national, economic (land), etc. That political elite made a political choice. And that choice was opposed by a foreign power that dominated the region. In the end that foreign power grew in strength, occupied the territory and crushed the elite (executed or sent it too Gulag) to serve as a lesson for those that would dare again. But after a while that power broke on its own and the territory got independent again, yet without much "elite" this time.

- Personally, I think the evil of McCarthyism has been blown out of proportion. Just like that of the Inquisition. Today, everybody talks about Inquisition like something as bad as hell, even compares such abominable things as Holocaust and Gulag with it, while in fact the Inquisition barely executed 2-3 thousand people along all the centuries. Inquisition is like a toy gun comparing to the Kalashnikov of Holocaust and Gulag. But, no, I did not mean MaCarthyism when I said Evil Empire thinking. I meant Ronald Reagan's strategy, and the popularity of the Star Wars movie.

- I agree with your assessment regarding the Munich Agreement. M-R Pact was only the turning point, when it became a war.

- Приоритеты развития экономики сместились в область пищевой промышленности, доля которой составляла 92,4 %. - This tells why there was no much heavy industry in Bessarabia before 1940. Understand me correctly: I have deep respect for those that created an industry in Moldova during the Soviet period. I merely remark that those were not the NKVD people.

- Jewish deportation (1941-42) came after 1940. It came under a dictatorial regime. In fact I plan to write an article about that one day. If you run across sources, please add some to my talk page. I have got some, but have not taken yes the time to systematize. You know how many communists and sympathizers were among the 147,000 deported? 2,000! The rest were punished for their ethnicity. Some survived, but more then half died. Not to mention that those who fled in July 1941 have lived through a very difficult 3-4 years: the Soviets were not so keen to feed people, or provide them decent shelter.

- By "accepting facts" (not the best choice of words, I admit) I meant such facts as: the majority of the population of Bessarabia during 1919-1940 generally supported the existing situation and had nothing against their native language being official, or against their land being owned and cultivated by themselves, or against the ability to save and invest money, to own property, to educate better the children. It is the Soviet propaganda that created the myth of desperation. The population was not dispersed, but had a normal life, with many problems, but also with ability to settle those problems in time. IMHO, anti-Semitism was one such problem. Perhaps even the biggest, or at least on a par with the eternal problem of Romanians: politician corruption. (I mean not from a modern assessment POV, but from the point of view of the population at that time.) Don't assume people laughed when Jews were deported in 1941. If you laughed, you don't tell your children and grandchildren about that. Dc76\^talk 10:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The "evil" of McCarthyism is that of bigotry - same as with fundamentalist religious fanatics, and, indeed, all ideologies that employ binary thinking by dividing the world into "Us" and "Them".

The Inquisition is a symbol. Whether that specific organisation did indeed persecute hundreds of thousands of innocents or only a few dozen is now irrelevant - its image is now one of religious fundamentalism, torture and burning. Same with Communism, that is also an image of totalitarianism and Gulags (in the West), regardless of what it really is.

The "majority support" is not a fact - since there never was a referendum, we'll never know for sure what the majority wanted. Thus we (and historians) are left to make assumptions based on available facts (and, of course, other opinions) - certain events and various personal accounts. So far, the relatively unbiased research I've read (such as the Soviet dissident Kersnovskaya, Petrescu and a few others I stumbled upon) does not support the notion. Quite the opposite. As for Soviet propaganda - I specifically try pick out sources that are unaffected by it - be it Romanian families who fled the Red Army or Soviet dissidents who harbor no love for the system...

As for who created what in the MSSR - as I already said: USSR was a highly centralized country, so anything major (including distribution of the extensive recovery funding the MSSR had received as well as decisions to relocate some of the evacuated installations (such as the (former) Leningrad hospital) to the MSSR) was always done with approval from top party members and supervised by "товарищи на местах". --Illythr (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Once in a while, among the "товарищи на местах" happened to be good normal people. That however does not change the fact that the average person not sympathizing with communism had no say whatsoever, esp. if of Moldovan ethnicity, esp. if of "socially unhealthy" upbringing. (remember Solzhenitsyn's "sotsial'no blizkie" in reference to criminals?)

Communism was bad also in reality. You know, fascism did not seem as something repulsive to the arverage not very educated german who only cared about his personal good. It is absolutely immoral to let fascism and communism be characterized by those selfish opinions: millions of people where being slaughtered, and the "average" person was complacent. That is the characteristic of totalitarian regimes. Romania, with all its corruption, was by far different.

Referendum is a "song" Soviets sang in the west in 1918-1940, and only recalled by them after Moldova's independence in 1991. I wanted to repeat one single thing: the population of Bessarabia many times elected officials of all sort in 1918-1940, inlcuding over 200 MPs. Why those people did not demand referendum? They did not want it. They wanted positive changes, not return to the past.

I totally agree about all other aspects you just mentioned.Dc76\^talk 23:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Communism as an ideology (and the utopian society it describes) is quite different to what is understood under a communist state in the West. It took several failed attempts to make a lot of people realize that it's infeasible. The ideology described in Mein Kampf, however, (that's not exactly fascism, btw), is quite condemnable while it's still on the pages.

Romania? Hehe, during whose reign? ;-)

"Song" or not, a referendum was the only way to ask the populace what it wants directly (even then, doubtful, but still better than to listen to the "servants of the people" spinning their tall tales). Besides, the fact that the Romanian officials have explicitly refused one, surprising the French and British mediators, while at the same time maintaining that they represent the "will of the people" serves as circumstantial evidence against them, and in favor of the possibility that a small irredentist group had seized an opportunity for coming to power in times of turmoil and passing its fringe ideas as the "will of the people".

And again, the "people" as a whole are an apolitical mass that generally drifts along the currents of history, unless sufficiently stimulated by propaganda (that is, election campaigns, "revolutionary enlightenment", "national emancipation" and other such pretty words). This seems to be especially true for Bessarabia, which has always been kind of a "sleeping province", one of the most loyal subjects of its suzerain (including Ottomans). Displeasure with the authorities would manifest only in some administrative pleas and requests, unless stimulated, whether externally or by local irredentia. --Illythr (talk) 01:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Communism as an ideology (and the utopian society it describes) is quite different to what is understood under a communist state in the West. - outside Russia. In Eastern Europe, in fact, Communism has much worse meaning than in the West, even.

I see Karl Marx on a par with classical fascist ideologues. The kind of fascism of Benito Mussolini. Mein Kampf is definitevely worse. It is comparable only with Vyshinski's treateses about law. Hitler can be compared with Lenin and Stalin, but definitevely not with Karl Marx. Karl Marx is like a mad scientist who makes an atomic bomb instead of a nuclear reactor, Lenin and Stalin are the generals who press the button. And I must admit I do not hold Sakharov accountable for the hidrogen bomb, on the contrary I respect him. So, yes, nazism is comparable with communism only in so far as it concerns NKVD, represive apparatus, single party command system, but definitevely not at the level of pure ideological utopia. Karl Marx called for elimination of entire social classes of people, but he did not organized any repressions himself. So yes, I agree with you.

any referendum would have equated to recognition of union act as void. A referendum could have been organized, though, in order to transfer the territory to the USSR, but only after the USSR recongnized the union. it's a legal issue at stake. It's a red line. Soviets knew this, and they pressed on, knowing that Romania would never accept a referendum as they requested it, hence they made the best timing and circumstances for Romanian refusal to sound as ostensible as possible.

Bessarabia's elite has been decimated for as long we know: after 1812 and during the 19th century - many left for Moldavia, Russification led to illiteracy, Stalin sent everybody to Gulag and/or Siberia, executed, or at best induced them to flee westward. It takes time in freedom to build new elite: it should be people like you and me. I mean we don't get involved politically, but it's not only about politics, we need thousands of people as country's economic/professional/cultural/etc "elite". So it comes back to where it started - you and me. :) also to Biruitorul, Serhio, etc. But that's it. If we (and people like us) don't get united, Moldova will only suffer, and each will eventually seek alliances elsewhere, leading to radicalization. We ought to reach to each other, there is simply no other way if we love our country and don't want it ruled by random. (ruled =/= politics, but general society-wise) Dc76\^talk 02:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I definitively can help you achieve the early archive quota. :-)

you erased your own I oppose both, but for completely different reasons. I actually, too, for different reasons, not for the same reason. Because I see them [communism and fascism] as equal evils, but absolutely different evils. If one removes only one of them, it is very-very bad. There can be absolutely no compromise to fascism. Not only to the Nazi de facto, but also to the philosophical ideology. It is a sick ideology which calls for blood, already at the philosophical level. I am repugnant when people do not see it already at that level. Dc76\^talk 02:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

On referendum - it is a very strange claim, that the conduction of a referendum will invalidate anything. Throughout the 20th century, many governments have conducted such referenda to confirm or abolish previously established laws. Seeing as how all governments present themselves as servants of the people, there's (theoretically) nothing wrong in directly asking the people whether they approve of what their "servants" are doing. It is the result of such a referendum that can void the law, if enough people speak against it, not the referendum itself.

Hmm, interesting - it looks like the RSFSR gave up Western Ukraine and Western Belorussia to Poland in the Peace of Riga, provided that a referendum will be conducted for the locals to determine their affiliation. Need a Russian or Ukrainian text to see if this is true... --Illythr (talk) 01:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I wish that this year the only thing you archive are our talks, and the rest you should achieve. :)

On referendum - Yes, it would have been ok to organize a referendum to validate the union. To do this practically, you'd need at least 1920, when wars were finished. But given the fact that nobody inside the country seriously asked for this, I can understand why they did not do it. Also, any referendum carried when you already control the territory would have been questioned. Now, to be entirely honest, the perfect solution would be for the west to intervene in Russia, to remove Bolshevicks from power, and then organize referendums uniformly in all former parts of the Russian Empire, starting from Finland, Poland, the Baltics, etc. Otherwise why double standard towards Bessarabia? Unfortunately, the powerful of this world act according to the "least action principle". Given that, the only alternative was for USSR to recognize the union and ask for a referendum to join USSR.

However, there is one thing I strongly criticize: why Bessarabia did not have regional autonomy in form of a locally elected mini-parliament. The problem lies with the corrupted Old Kingdom politicianist elite that wanted power and money and was capable of doing politics only in Bizantine, or worse Phanariot, terms. Hence serious problems they had with Transylvanian politicians after the union. Autonomy should have had everybody, not just Bessarabia. Even to this day, Romania still only aims for that, it did not yet achieve. Dc76\^talk 21:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Litvinov had requested a referendum a second time, in 1924 (when the dust settled), as a condition of Soviet recognition of Bessarabia as part of Romania. It was after this second refusal did the USSR conclude that Bessarabia is under foreign occupation and began to look for ways to retrieve it (MASSR).

Ah, but the West did intervene in Russia with exactly that goal in mind. Except for conducting referenda - they had recognized the White movement over the Red one. Didn't turn out very well, that.

As for referenda anywhere else - well, Soviet Russia signed a number of treaties recognising Finland, the Baltics and Poland anyway (even if there was a condition in Riga, it was probably dropped). But the annexation of Bessarabia by Romania was never recognized - hence the demand for a referendum. In fact, they signed a protocol "of liquidation of the Soviet-Romanian conflict" that obliged Romania to remove all of its forces from Bessarabia by May 1918, which Romania had promptly violated as soon as Soviet forced stationed at the Dniester had to withdraw in accordance with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.[2] (the source is Soviet POV, but very detailed about the treaties)

Actually, do you know anything about why was Bessarabia stripped of its autonomy so soon? --Illythr (talk) 02:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Aha! So, it is not about Bessarabia, it is about Soviet demands over Bessarabia. I think this is the core issue of numerous misunderstandings. If we start from analyzing what the Soviets demanded and see that Romania and the west did not made sufficient steps to apease it, we observe insuficient action from the side of Romania (did not organize a referendum), as well as from the west (did not succeed in overthrowing the Reds - to try is not enough). But also we run into Англия, Франция, Италия, Япония и Румыния подписали в Париже т. н. Бессарабский протокол, согласно которому они признали суверенитет Румынии над Бессарабией, и установили, что этот суверенитет "не может быть поставлен на обсуждение", which obviously ties the hands of Romania: whatever you say, it was much more important for Romania to have normal relations with the rest of the world than with Russia.

But I said from early on, that Bessarabia, not Russia is the center of the issue. It is Bessarabians that chose this or that, not Romania or Russia. Russia had intervened only in 1940, without being invited by a local body or by MPs from Bessarabia, without even a mock support from inside Bessarabia. Why should Russia's demand be treated supperior to Bessarabia's choice (good or bad, it was a choice made in full awareness). The (military) treaty you mention was signed in February, i.e. before 27 March 1918 between two neighboring to Bessarabia countries. It can not possibly tie the hands of Bessarabia itself, by then an independent country. Dc76\^talk 20:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Once again, there is no factual basis behind the claim that Bessarabians as a people ever had a say in the change of their statehood. Russia's demand was to determine that this choice was that of the people, and not just a tiny irredentist minority. The fact that the Romanian authorities refused to give the people that choice twice speaks strongly against them.

The statement about Romania's hands being bound is remarkably misleading - it was Romania in the first place who pleaded with many countries to recognize its gains, with only Britain and France initially agreeing in exchange for certain "compensation" for their straining of relations with Russia. --Illythr (talk) 14:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Autonomy

About autonomy, as far as I know, after the 27 November, resp. 1 December 1918 union of Bukovina, resp. Transylvania, a government was set for the entire united Romania, led by a Transylvanian politician (Alexandru Vaida-Voevod). He was too liberal for the phanariot-minded politicians that used to govern in Bucharest before. They tolerated "new Romanians" in government only becuse the circumstances made that necessary. Among other things, Vaida started a large campain of land reform, widely supported also by Bukovinians and Bessarabians, but very feared by the old ruling elite in Bucharest (recall the 1907 peasant uprising, still very fresh in mind). They tollerated Vaida's governments (there were 2 or 3 I think) for ca. 1 year, and in early 1920, a "black coalition" was formed, and General Averescu became prime-minister (similar to the one formed in Romania in early 2006 against Basescu, which lamenably failed within 1 month, but dragged the country more into politicianist discourse until last autumn). Land reform was limited and only went as far as to finish what was started. The new Constitution of 1923 was written by these people, who put the word "unitary" everywhere they could fit it into. Thus the autonomy of all three new provinces was not enshrined in the new Constitution. In return that led to a bitter division of the politics: on one side National-Liberal party of Bucharest old politicians, on the other the Transylvanian-dominated National-Ţărănist party. In 1928-1930, the latter started to gain momentum, and to sealed it they brought in Carol II from forced exile. But Carol II turned to be even worse, so they actually shut themselves into leg, so to say. That led some of them to more nationalistic discurse (for example Vaida himself - Dahn even calls him fascist, which is not true, but I don't want to argue with Dahn), others managed to escape this trap (for example Maniu). You see, you have to take into consideration the entire going ons. Bessarabia was left without regional autonomy because no other province got it, which in turn was because the old phanariot-mineded people carried the day in early 1920s. These people lost the grip on power, but it took time. Even in modern Romania you still have the continuation of the same disputes. On one side you have many politicians asking for setting up regions and more local autonomy (again, surprisingly many Transylvanians among them), on the other side you have the command-system-minded partly-communist-foprmed bureaucracy, who fear regionalization (again, surprizingly many Oltenians and other likes of them among). But unlike the interbelic period, it seem that now the movement is strictly oriented in one direction. Regionalization and greater local autonomy is inevitable, whether you bring the EU-standard pretext or not. So, my second part of the answer is: if it were not for the Soviet occupation, the rise of fascism, and WWII, we would have had autonomy for Bessarabia (with a powerful local legislative body) by 1950s. Communism only created a pause, things continue to roll today. Dc76\^talk 20:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Siege of Leningrad

Several academic encyclopedias, such as Encyclopedia Britannica and the World Book Encyclopedia, Chicago, 2002, vol.12, page 195, explicitly describe the "Siege of Leningrad by German and Finnish armies"

Yet the User:Whiskey insists on "controversy over the Finnish participation" just to validate his/her repetitive acts of vandalism. Such acts of denial and vandalism by User:Whiskey are making it hard to help Wikipedia.130.166.34.165 (talk) 04:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Poltava

It's obvious this user doesn't even read or listen. I don't know what's his reason for this, either just to destroy for serious editors and waste their time or he just haven't got anything better to do. Maybe he just revert in different articles just for the fun of it. He never makes any other serious editing. Can you please make a last try with him? Närking (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I added the stuff from the Russian wiki. The main divergence seems to be in the Zaporizhian Cossacks, which the Soviet source (with attribution to unnamed Swedish sources) says to be at 7000. As the Soveit source itself states that numbers for Swedish strength and lossed should be taken from Swedish sources, please check those that you have and verify whether there's a contradiction.

The number of over 9,000, that is 9,234 comes directly from contemporary reports which give this number as the number of Swedish corpses found around the redoubts of Poltava only. Can the number 6,900 be directly attributed to a similar Swedish report? The preference seems to be for 6,900, therefore it should be cited first. --Illythr (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The number of Mazepa's cossacks and the Zaporizhians are unknown and any figure is speculations. The latest one comes from the Ukrainian historian Moltusov that suggest about 7000 cossacks altogether. Swedish sources has given much lower figures. And after the surrender at Perevolochna there were only 300 cossacks left that were killed by the Russians. Sources suggest that up to 1500 cossacks managed to cross the river with Mazepa. Närking (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Russian sources say that these Cossacks have deserted en masse. But feel free to correct. --Illythr (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

They probably did, but the question is when. I doubt there were many left when the battle started, probably not more than 3,000. Närking (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hm, that Soviet source also states that a number of Cossacks were participating in the siege and some were at the upper Vorskla (although it says that the main force was at the camp). It is also very detailed in describing Swedish forces and criticises other (Soviet) authors for exaggerating numbers of Swedish troops by using Russian accounts. They have probably used some Swedish sources for the info, and it would be nice to find them in Swedish works to see how accurate that one source is. --Illythr (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This modern Russian source "The unknown war of Peter the Great" provides an... alternative view on Peter's actions. Basically, it sympathises with the Swedes, openly criticises Peter's strategies and tends to provide Swedish estimates (including those for Russian losses) without attribution. It gives the 6,900 loss figure for Poltava, for instance. But it also provides the 10,000 figure for Cossacks at Poltava. --Illythr (talk) 23:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The only non-Swedes involved in the battle were the 1000 men strong cavalry of the Polish Vlachkregiment. I guess adding Polish tells more what it was than just Vlach.

The number of injured and sick Swedish soldiers also vary from 2,000 to 4,000. Many of them had bad injuries from the severe cold winter.

If there really were 10,000 cossacks still at Poltava at the time of the battle it does look strange they weren't used at all. But if they were deserting en masse I would guess the Swedish commanders didn't trust the few ones that were left.

At least one new Swedish-Ukrainian book about the battle is planned to be released this year so hopefully some of the questions will be answered there. There have also been archaelogical excavations on the battle field during the latest summers which have found out that the main battle took place not where most old maps show but more where the Russian camp was situated according to the maps. All this should be in the new book. Närking (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Jassy-Kishinev

Well, in few days i'm going to create a new article, according to Glantz, named the First Jassy-Kishinev Offensive (April - May 1944). So my move seems quite logical... --Eurocopter (talk) 23:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually there were two battles of Targu Frumos as well (9-12 April & 2-8 May). The first one is already in my sandbox and will be added to mainspace soon. What you are calling the Battle of Targu Frumos (together with the current article) is actually the First Iasi-Kishinev Offensive (5 April - 8 May 1944). After adding the First Battle of Targu Frumos article to the mainspace, i'm willing to move the current article to "Second Battle of Targu Frumos" and further improve it. --Eurocopter (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, citing Glantz: During the almost 60 years since the end of WWII, Soviet and Russian military historians and theorists have carefully erased from the historical record any mention of the 2nd and 3rd Ukrainian Fronts' first Iasi-Kishinev offensive, during which the Red Army's two fronts attempted to invade Romania in April and May 1944. As is the case with so many other military operations the Red Army conducted during the war, they have done this deliberately, in the process relegating this offensive to a lenghty list of "forgotten battles" of the Soviet-German War. Following the Soviet and Russian example, German historians relegate this offensive to the "dustbin" of history by ignoring it and focusing instead on the heavy fighting that took place in the Ukraine from January through April 1944. The few exceptions to this rule are General von Senger und Etterlin's perceptive book, Der Gegenschlag, and the lecture of General Manteuffel, which, although tactical in focus, correctly concludes that Germans' successful defenses along the Targu Frumos axis actually halted "the Russians' thrust toward the Ploiesti oilfields". Today, however, more careful examination of the archival records of German forces, which were defending Northern Romania during April and May 1944, as well as recently released Soviet archival materials, not only support von Senger's and Manteuffel's contentions but also prove irrefutably that Stalin, his Stavka, and the Red Army 2nd and 3rd Ukrainian Fronts indeed intended to capture the cities of Iasi and Kishinev during the spring of 1944, and, if possible, extend their offensive operations and Soviet political influence into the depths of Romania, if not the Balkan region as a whole. And with this I think i've said enough. In the following two months i'm willing to post according to Glantz and other sources of lesser-importance everything regarding the First Battle of Targu Frumos, First Iasi-Kishinev Offensive, and other battles part of this "forgotten war" (for the sake of those who died in it). Hope you would respect my constructive intentions and won't be trying to prevent/disturb me while promoting them (and why not, you could even help me, as i'm starting this from zero). --Eurocopter (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, just created First Jassy-Kishinev Offensive article, how do we proceed in moving the old article to a "Second Jassy-Kishinev Offensive"? We should do this as quickly as possible, as I want to start adding links and creating the infrastructure for the new series of articles. Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 10:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

How could this operation have an official Soviet name if the Soviet authorities did not even recognize that it existed? Whereas Glantz names the operation as the "First Jassy-Kishinev Offensive", he describes it as a failed "Soviet Invasion of Romania". --Eurocopter (talk) 13:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, just consulted WP:MILMOS#NAME, which clearly says: Multiple battles at the same place in the same year should be called "First", "Second", and so forth (as in First Battle of Zürich and Second Battle of Zürich);. --Eurocopter (talk) 13:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I have consulted Wikipedia:MILMOS#NAME afterwards our conversation - all i've done was applying this guideline (it was just ridiculous to have a "First J-K Offensive" and a "J-K Offensive" in the same time). So if you have anything against it and willing to move it to another name, please use WP:RM. --Eurocopter (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Yet another pointless and absurd redirect, more pretentious "punditry" than practical or logical use. So they were two, but how much can one write on the first that is not an introduction to the second? And. what's more: now that you did it either way, Eurocopter, how about you spend a minute looking over what disambig pages are supposed to look like, and turn your new creations into something palatable instead of "Eurocopter wuz here"? And, for crying out loud, why don't you do one of the following: a) if you know most existing links in the articles which use "Battle of Târgu Frumos/Jassy-Kishinev Offensive" refer to what you deem the "Second" of these operations respectively, why not link the vague term to the second of each, and leave the first as an alternative (i.e.: redirect Battle of Târgu Frumos not to disambig, but to the second battle)? b) if for some reason you don't agree with a), why oh why don't you at least ponder now what you should have considered to begin with, and start hunting down and changing links in the 1,000 separate articles where the link now leads to disambig? Finally, how about the other redirects, such as Battle of Romania - I find it hard to believe that you missed the specific pagemove message whereby we're told not to leave the redirects hanging. But maybe I'm asking for too much, and you imagine these tedious tasks are only up to the other editors. Dahn (talk) 12:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Please do not make any move not being in accordance to WP:MILMOS, they will be automatically reverted. Citing again: Multiple battles at the same place in the same year should be called "First", "Second", and so forth (as in First Battle of Zürich and Second Battle of Zürich); alternately, the month of the battle may be used as a disambiguation (as in Invasion of Tulagi (May 1942)). For me it is quite clear how should they be named. --Eurocopter (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's the gist as far as I'm concerned, Eurocopter: however you may chose to impose your views over consensus, however you may claim singular usage in a source is a guideline, whatever name you assign to the article, fix the existing links to it in at least some of the existing articles, reconfigure the redirects, and create a standard disambiguation page. If you refuse to do these things and continue to ignore the practical problem your edits pose, I'm gonna take a personal interest in bringing this case to the attention of admins. Have a fabulous day, Dahn (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

This will be a rather thankless job, since ALL mentions of J-K Op EVERYWHERE refer to the August operation. It isn't even clear if the failed spring offensive was called "J-K Op" at all. It seems to be an attempt to build on the success of the Uman-Botoshany operation, but I'd rather read the book first. I wager, someone of Glantz' caliber does use documentary evidence such as Stavka directives, where the correct name may be gleaned from. Otherwise, I guess we're stuck with the date disambig thingy. --Illythr (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I agree. My irritation came when I noticed that this editor, who repeatedly claimed understanding of wiki rules, pointed all the links to disambig on what appears to be a whim - whatever happens, this needs to be fixed. As for the larger issue: At best, Eurocopter has a source saying that it was named J-K - though I have to wonder if that source calls it such or Eurocopter decided to call it such. Of course, there's little time to actually reflect on what's happening here, with all the sneakiness, the MILHIST coterie, and the self-feeding evaluation mechanism. Dahn (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh, my source of irritation can still be read on the talk page of that article - it's the third time the same editor does the same thing to the same article. And it took two months to convince the public that the name used in 50+ sources should be preferred to the no sources use, the first time around. Ah, the little joys of Wikipedia. As for Glantz - I have no reason to believe Eurocopter would lie here or something. It's just that the preference for the August operation is overwhelming, whereas there's only one reliable book using this new naming. --Illythr (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I see. Before I forget: How about this one? How does one fix that? About Glantz and the "lie or something" issue, I agre with what you said above: "It isn't even clear if the failed spring offensive was called 'J-K Op' at all." The reasoning in this case most likely was "But won't it be nice if it were?" If this should prove the case, how does one react to an editor using it to create an article (admittedly a questionable one with or without that aspect) that he immediately puts up for DYK and review? Don't we call that disruption? Dahn (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I am inclined to believe that it wasn't Eurocopter who did this (the "won't it be nice?" line), but Glantz himself, similar to this catchy name he invented. As with August Storm, this new naming might actually become established in English literature, eventually, but it clearly isn't, now. So I'd say 'Copter is just rushing things too much, which, in the context of two previous (failed) rename attempts made under similar circumstances, looks rather WP:POINTy to me, but I don't think this really is disruption (mosly because I can't detect any POV-pushing here).

As for Targu Frumos, I must admit, I know of both battles from their wiki pages, and so am not really qualified to tell whether one of them is as overwhelmingly used as is the case with J-K Op (there seem to be like 6-7 sources about the second battle, so a ratio of 10 to 1 wouldn't be as obvious as 100+ to 1, ignoring Russian and Romanian sources). However, seeing as how the "First..." battle relies almost exclusively on the same book by Glantz, I can surmise that those articles have the same problem. I am also pretty sure that the "First..." battle is, in fact, part of the Uman–Botoşani Offensive, because, well, see the date of that one. Konev also mentions some heavy unsuccessful fighting in the region at the time as the reason to end the U-B offensive, dig in and regroup. But hey, you can tell that to Eurocopter, I don't think he can hear me.--Illythr (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

2008 South Ossetia War

There's a vote going on on the title. Some editors want that changed to Russia-Georgia War. Please contribute. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as how I strongly oppose vote shopping, I feel compelled to vote in support of the move. Let's see if any new arguments were proposed... --Illythr (talk) 12:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Dude, he is not "occupied", he just doesn't give a damn about responding. I find myself feeling quite insulted. I am really bitter and disappointed so far from my experience on Wikipedia. I hope that some improvement will be seen at least on the Abkhazia issue.

Circassiankama (talk) 17:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)CircassianKama

Moldova

Please, fell free to continue our usual BRD cycle :) I believe in two places I simply rv - please read this as an invitation (given my notorious laziness :) ) to find a third formulation. Also, don't waste your time commenting on things you change and I agree. I am not infaliable to find the best formulation right away. I am just meticulous to expose evrything I don't like until I get to like it (or at least very close to liking it). PS I'll be away from the computer for a while. Dc76\^talk 14:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I really think it's best to stick to the talk page - this way the comments may be more exact and others may chime in, whereas this does look like a revert war to the outside viewer ;-) --Illythr (talk) 15:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for your work in keeping Moldova-related articles at an acceptable level.Xasha (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Always happy to diligently spread KGB-sponsored lies and disinformation. No rest for the wicked! >:-E --Illythr (talk) 22:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Vladimir vs. Volodimer or even Volodymyr

Привет! Please be notified that some Ukrainian chauvinist is constantly changing "Vladimir" into either "Volodimer" of "Volodymyr" (anything goes, as long as it isn't Russian) in the Old Believers article. I've warned him that, if he is to continue his reverts, an Administrator will be notified. He makes a link to the page you edited, called Vladimir I of Kiev, but is referring to it as Volodymyr or something like that (as long as it isn't Russian, obviously). I left some comment on the Discussion page of Old Believers, I hope it will help. Just be notified, perhaps your assistance will be required. Greetings, Vasilij (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Errrm, I actually noticed this post just now! Huh. Will check. --Illythr (talk) 14:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Finnish casualties in the Winter War

Hi! You asked about the total number of Finns killed in the Winter War, and referred to Helge Seppälä's article in Maailma ja me journal, where he stated that military casualties (KIA) were 23,000 and total fatal casualties, including civilians, were 25,243. Some persons had added these figures to get total of 48,000+. I had a phone conversation with Mr. Seppälä himself and he confirmed that this summarizing operation is not correct: The total fatal casualty number at Finnish side, including all military and civilian fatalities, from all kind of military actions, is 25,243.

Yours, Ville Virrankoski

You could copy-paste the text above and translate it to ru-wiki and other places. I hope it helps to clarify things. --Whiskey (talk) 09:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It took a while to track down his location and phone number, so sorry about the delay.--Whiskey (talk) 09:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a million! However, this leads me to the next problem - both you and I are just some random Wikipedia users, and the kind of people I'm arguing with certainly won't believe a Finnish Nazi collaborator such as myself. I will attempt to contact the publisher of the book by Krivosheev, so that hopefully they can correct this in the next issue of his book. Meanwhile, I'll ask the admins on ruwiki if the copyright waiver process for authors can be adapted to fix this obvious error. I'll also try to seek out the person who has apparently doubled this figure again, to over 90 thousand. --Illythr (talk) 09:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

One other thing - is it possible to obtain a scan of that article by Mr. Seppälä? To me, this seems to be the only way to fix this error without bothering the author to correct a mistake he didn't make. --Illythr (talk) 10:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Truce term

Re your edit here, I understand from the discussion on the Project Russia talkpage here that there are various meanings for this word. The link was added in the hope that someone from the Russian Wiki may help. Please join in the discussion- especially if you have any sources for any Russian truce terms! Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Responded at WikiProject Russia. --Illythr (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Ice Hockey World Championships

Will you be interested to join the discussion on topic of Ice Hockey World Championships and whether medal count for Russia/USSR and Czech Republic/Czechoslovakia should be grouped together. The evidence I've provided from a reliable source in support of this argument is being rejected and there is seems to be a questionNeutral point of view. Please join in. Andreyx109 (talk) 19:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Er, looks like you've resolved this already. You should have posted this message to the WikiProject Russia noticeboard, not to a group of users, as this looks a lot like vote shopping, which is Bad. --Illythr (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Russian casualties in the Winter war

I just wanted to thank you for your sober, enlightened, rational and down-to-earth approach and attitude regarding the fact which we presently disagree about. The way you handled the discussion were in true wiki-spirit.

Perhaps i do not agree with you on everything fact-wise, but I appreciate the way you communicate your disagreement.

Keep it up!

Kind regards. --Nick-bang (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, thanks, but I still think your first move should have been asking or googling around. Perhaps you can understand my exasperation - as a regular Wikipedia user, I, well, regularly, get to confront people who come to Wikipedia bearing The Truth and will stop at nothing to get it written in the article in BIG LETTERS (or in bolded underscores, once they gain some Wikiexperience) for everyone to see. And for every such successfully deflected attempt there's always more to come, providing these disputes with a tinge of hopelessness. For example, on the Russian Wikipedia, I am locked in a futile dispute with two editors who flatly refuse the corresponding article to acknowledge the fact that the Baltic states were annexed as a consequence of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, despite numerous respectable sources saying so. Their argumentation is, "well, the treaty doesn't say so, so there". You seem to be a reasonable person, so I'd ask you to be more careful and do at least a cursory Google search if you find something here that strikes you as highly peculiar. Granted, Wikipedia *can* be full of crap, especially in Plague-infested areas, but it's best to take precautions to avoid hitting the good stuff as well as the good faith editors who added it in the first place. --Illythr (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Response

In response to your comment at talk page of Russian apartment bombings I started making some changes along the lines we talked about. But Offliner reverted my edits in a few minutes. You comments and perhaps edits would be appreciated. Thanks.Biophys (talk) 01:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Your recent revert at Moldovans

you may have missed a very important (and POV) word in the lead in this edit. Anonimu (talk) 19:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Huh. Well, they do talk about the cultural identity and stuff... Oh well, I guess it's better to point to the article for the thing instead. --Illythr (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

"Война-продолжение" or "Советско-финская война"

Your have edited the article Continuation War, and made claims. The first claim is that Continuation War is in Russian Советско-финская война, but the direct translation is Война-продолжение. And now we come to your second claim: Continuation War is a name used only by the Finns. Have you checked Google-hits? Continuation War (88 500) vs. "Soviet-Finnish war" (and this even includes Winter War, 5240). And notice: in Russian Война-продолжение (614 000) vs. Советско-финская война (59 500). These days the Kremlin trues really hard to bring back "the truths" from the Soviet Union. Unfortunatelly the offical history by Kremlin denies for example cases of Winter War, Occupation of the Baltic states, Holodomor and Katyn massacre. Don't believe everything you read (even this). Peltimikko (talk) 16:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, thank you, as I said above, I take sheer pleasure at spreading KGB lies and propaganda (in the English Wikipedia). However, if you do examine the relevant Google searches, you might find that only a tiny fraction of Война-продолжение hits have anything to do with the topic. The majority of those either do refer to it as a Finnish name, as I stated, or contain totally unrelated phrases like "Война - продолжение политики". Note also that my edit concerns only the name of the war in Russian.

As for my second claim ("used only by the Finns"), I didn't make it. I'm not sure why do you think I did. You may want to review my edit again. --Illythr (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the claim, I should first read and then write. I was a little bit frustrated after reading same the article in Russian Wikipedia. Anyway, it would be good idea if you could answer the question of the correct Russian name in the talk page. And it would be interesting to find out, do also the modern Russian historians use the name Советско-финская война or Война-продолжение, or both. And references would be nice surprise. Peltimikko (talk) 20:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to suggest the same. See my response there. --Illythr (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to set a few other facts straight, Russia doesn't deny the Winter war - Yeltsin even denounced it as a war of aggression once. I bet the current government of Russia might want to go back on that statement, but it's definitely not a case of denial. With Holodomor, the thing that is denied is, AFAIK, the claim that the whole event was a carefully crafted Soviet conspiracy to destroy the Ukrainian people. Also, after the remarkably thorough research of a team of Polish and Russian historians and scientists, only diehard Stalinists and conspiracy theorists in Russia still claim that the Katyn massacre was committed by the Germans. As for that other topic, I'd rather not touch it at all, hehe. --Illythr (talk) 23:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice to hear this from someone who actually knows current history debates in Russia. I am aware of Yeltsin and his statements (all credits to him). In Finland there has been lately disturbing news reports Kremlin's new history writings and new school books (Stalin back to glory, and other jolly Soviet-truths). And the Historical Truth Commission. Peltimikko (talk) 09:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Winter War article feedback

Hi Illythr! I am very satisfied that someone finaly do some widescale copyediting to the Winter War article. Thank you for that. There were few issues I would like to specify. First, the Viena expedition and Aunus expedition had quite small amount of troops/volunteers: There were 2,500-2,700 Finns in Aunus, and 1,500 in Viena expeditions. And if you suggest that the Finns and/or the Finnish Army would sent troops, it probably be much, much larger scale, don't you agree? Stalin's Soviet Union enlarged these event to use as propaganda against the Finns later. Secondly, Finnish Democratic Republic made an agreement with the Soviet Union in the first day of the Winter War, and Molotov announced that the Soviet Union is not at war with Finland, since it made agreement with the only "legal" government of Finland. So, the Terijoki goverment was up and running during the December 1939. Peltimikko (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The point is to show that these expeditions contributed to the souring of the relations between the two countries (whoever sent them, the goal was to annex a piece of one country to another, no?).

Terijoki - eh, huh? I only changed the wording there, as it was previously somewhat ambiguous and looked like the Soviet Union had created a new government in place of the legitimate one (in Helsinki and stuff), which was obviously not the case. --Illythr (talk) 18:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually expeditions were a sum of different events: 1) The Finnish Civil War ended 15 May 1918. The Finns White Guards prisoned and executed lot of Red Guard men afterwards, and furthermore Whites were angry of Russian (minor) participation of the civil war. One of the name of the civil war was "liberation war" (=liberty from Russia). 2) The Russian Civil War: The Finns considered an assault to Petrograd in 1919, but it was quickly abandoned as the situation changed in the Russian Civil War. 3) Overall Finland had anti-Russian sentiment, but in several parlamential elections the Finns elected middle-ground parties. The radical Academic Karelia Society was a most active organisation, and it had support among academics and army officers. The Finnish Army supported expeditions by materiel, but officially it did not participated those. SUMMA SUMMARUM: Participants were patriots with no plan, only few men and no wide-range support (political and/or militarial) among the Finns. And these are also reasons why these expeditions had such a high mortality. Peltimikko (talk) 20:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes it was. It was too obvious, and the Terijoki government was the laughing stock of the world. That is why Stalin kept it quiet after its first days of existence. Peltimikko (talk) 20:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

To cut the long story short: A group of men armed by the Finnish army ventures into Russia with the goal of annexing a piece of its territory to Finland. Does this have a negative consequence on Soviet perception of Finland? I'd say yes. Anyhow check it out, I changed that part to reflect your point.

Um, I guess my English isn't all that good either. By in place I meant that the previous wording made it look like the Terijoki government was created in Helsinki and began to rule the country immediately. Which was not the case. --Illythr (talk) 20:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

See also Heimosodat. Of couse, later the Bolshevik Russia was angry with the Finns, but I think the annexiation of whole Eastern Karelia by just 2,000-5,000 men/volunteers would be impossible from the beginning - no matter how weak Russia was in that time. And men did not have tanks or artillery, which would be normal for invasion army. In year 2006, Russian author A.B. Shirokorad wrote a book "Tri Voiny Velikoi Finliandii" were he listed three Finnish-Russian wars: Heimosodat 1918-1922, Winter War and Continuation War (Accoding to secondary source by C-F. Geust and A. Uitto.). What I have red, expeditions were just expeditions without wide support, so "the first war" sounds pretty radical. Anyway, there are some books of Heimosodat, and I will probably update these articles (or not). Peltimikko (talk) 21:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we can agree that these two expeditions definitely did not help improve relations between the two countries, regardless of how much these guys wanted to annex. --Illythr (talk) 23:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Bonny

Partially copied from User_talk:Dc76#Wow for consistency's sake.

You confused Bonny enough to make him apologise - for the first time in many years! You probably deserve a medal just for that. --Illythr (talk) 22:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me. Only now I notice he actually apologized. I replied in the talk page without noticing he split my previous comment. :) Do we actually know as a fact it is Bonny? The user seemed a little novice to me: "organize a committee", "this website". Anyone who has been an editor for a week uses "WP policy", "the community", "the project" type of language. But my personal abilities to spot social behavior as spurious contradicts the basic laws of probability and statistics (I consistently fail in more than 60% of cases). :) If checkuser detects Bonny, we have the possibility to finally ask him the 100-dollars question before he gets banned: "why are you doing all this sockpuppetry? you do know that every single edit you do gets reverted faster than the most obvious vandalism. then why?" If this is not Bonny, at least we can make him go down for the correct reason: being a vandal, not for a false positive on Bonny. A person who has uttered an incivility in the very first month, not to mention the first day, is unlikely to have the patience needed to become a good-standing editor. If an user is here just as an alternative to spending spare time on youtube, then it's a total waste of time to even care about him. But I hope he learns to distinguish right from wrong (not that that has much effect on WP, but at least he knows why he is banned). My favorite is the "oh" the 3-years old girl in the youtube video makes when she is told to say "kick his butt". :) Dc76\^talk 23:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, he sure passes the duck test - an aggressive and rude Romanian nationalist focusing on Romania and Moldova (this kind of thing) who prefers wholesale reverts to talking, and when he does talk, then it's all these silly insults. Note that this is not necessarily the same person (he'd probably have to be totally nuts to do the same thing over and over for 3,5 years) - I noticed at least three distinct personalities in the past with this one probably being his masterpiece (managed to rally a group of sympathetic Romanian users to start an RFC against Dahn before our one-eyed expert (Khoikhoi) got him). The acknowledged Bonny experts are Khoikhoi (by far), Bogdangiusca and Future Perfect at Sunrise. However, they all seem indisposed at the moment. --Illythr (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Huh, how did you gather all that data on the guys? As for ArbComm - the scary thing is that something like this has almost happened on ruwiki a year ago. Well, except for the Jimbo Wales part, hehe. --Illythr (talk) 01:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Which makes it the more interested a game because Khoikhoi is an American Jew with Romanian roots and sympathetic to Romanians, Bogdangiusca is a healthy romantic nationalist Romanian, and Future Perfect at Sunrise is a left of the center German that has been rather moderately pro-Romanian (and nothing anti-Romanian in my memory). My personal impression is that perhaps some of the Bonny sockpuppets are in reality sockpuppets of some other users, themselves at some points banned (correctly), but tagged as sockpuppets of Bonny (incorrectly), and a couple independent vandals. Most probably you are right about the 3 personbalities. Anyway, vandals must be banned.

Perhaps we can have a 1 April piece "After apologizing in September for past deeds, long-time sockpuppet master is elected to Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee. He will also supervise the activity of the checkusers, and is given bureaucrat powers." and a few hours latter "Jimbo Wales reveals he knows Romanian, and likes to spend vacations in Cluj." and "Plans to close Hungarian Wikipedia receive favorable vote of the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation." :) Dc76\^talk 00:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I know information about Khoikhoi (his ethnicity and roots), because he told me (at my or his WP talk page). Bogdangiusca I am guessing from his edits and the fact that at least once he said something in Romanian. About Fut. Perf. it was or is on his talk page that he is German. He is also very formal and rigorous, which sometimes is synonym to German. :) You told me that he is anti-nationalist, so I assumed he is left of the center. His discourse tells me that he is not far from the center, he is moderate, so plain left is excluded. He helped dealing with Moldopodo, so he has been very favorable to Romanians. And I do not remember anything about him anti-Romanian. That's about it. Of course, some of this might turn to be untrue, and only my guessing. I also know about you something: you were born between 1980 and 1982, I know the city you are from, I know your ethnicity (you told me; not that it matters), I know you speak very well German (you translated things for me), you speak much-much better English than me (you used to correct me a lot; in fact you improved my English this way :) thank you!), I know that you grandfather has already died (you told me) and that you respect him a lot (it was obvious). I never got to know what you nick means. The most important thing to know about you is that you will criticize almost everything, but do what is right. This is indeed very helpful to know: your criticism is ultimately about sense, not based on formality. You would correct rather revert until one gets it perfectly right. Your criticism is constructive as opposed to destructive (unlike Dahn's; not that is necessarily negative, it only means that Dahn insists I get it right from the start, he would not correct me, but rather say it's all rubbish.)

What is the story on Russian WP more specifically? I have no idea. Cheers, :) Dc76\^talk 23:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

On Fut. Perf.: I don't think it's a political thing - he is is a Rouge Admin, so he's more rough on POV-pushers, which the Plague-bearers usually are.

On me: say, when did I tell you my ethnicity? I only remember saying that I don't mind being referred to as "Russian" because it is my primary language. My nickname is a mystery I'm going to take into the grave with me

Also, on WPM 05.03.2009-16:19: 1) My edits in the Soviet-Finnish wars article range (the Continuation war) reflect the nature of my presence on this wiki - I wandered there by chance, saw a poorly translated from Finnish article that was under attack by a Finnish nationalist. Hundreds of kilobytes of fun ensued. 2) The Master's Degree I got out of it is in Computer Science, so :-P 3) I'm actually somewhat anti-Soviet and anti-Communist (as can be seen from my activity on ruwiki, for instance). 4) Eh, what's the deal with me being pro-perestroika? I don't remember talking about it at all... :-\ 5) I'm definitely not a Wikignome, no way! Otherwise, I'm flattered.

On ruwiki: it's a long story, but a Bonny-like (but non-ideological) vandal did almost manage to become an bureaucrat (AFAIR; 2 pro votes out of 5, with another Bureaucrat saying later that the guy tried to bribe him), and was later revealed to be living with an admin, thus potentially having admin access while she's "out to shower". You can imaging the drama that followed her desysopping and eventual permaban (even though she didn't actually do anything suspicious). --Illythr (talk) 03:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Transnistria article

You are wrong for the most part. Moldavian (same as Romanian except in Moldavia) can only be legally written using the Cyrillic script in the de facto, mainly unrecognized state of Transnistria. On the Transnistria article it is necessary that Moldavian placenames and other words are written in their Cyrillic counterparts too, to make for better understanding of Transnistria's languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by L'Orgoglio (talk • contribs) 01:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear L'Orgoglio, "Moldavian" is the alternate name for "Romanian" (period). "Moldavian = something in Cyrillic" is a contention of the PMR regime. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  17:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

L'Orgoglio was apparently slightly confused about things. You have slightly misunderstood his slightly confused message here. I am slightly amused. In any case, his minor change was reverted by yours truly, the bonnypuppet was banned, no need to worry, everything's under control (for now). :-) --Illythr (talk) 02:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Vision... going dark. Nerves... throbbing. Bonnie sense... tingling... must... reach... the alarm button...

I know, it's quite frustrating. And I can't help but thinking: what if they got tired of us? 'Nyway, you'll never see me going for adminship: I've got enough Russian and Sovietic fellas already telling me what I should do; otherwise how will we get our propaganda out there in time for dinner? Plus, I'm too conflicted and uncompromising for the position (just last week, I apparently waged a difficult war on the blind). But, hey, I have a vote available, wink-wink...

(You know, I actually remember Bonaparte more literate than that, but methinks one is faking it.) Dahn (talk) 09:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think it's really him either, most likely a wannabe. In any case, problem solved, all hail the Bloody Gebnya! --Illythr (talk) 02:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Finally! Guess we can now resume our job of spreading Sovietic propaganda - Manhattan, then Berlin... But you won't slide your way out of this one just yet: when will you, at long last, run for admin? Note I don't consider this a question of "if", like I don't consider it for Biruitorul - you gentlemen are needed! Dahn (talk) 12:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think it was Bonnie, only a Bonnie faking ignorance - not the first time he's been doing that. It worries me that the little guy may be aware of his own clichés by now. Dahn (talk) 12:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Hm, shouldn't it be Berlin, *then* Manhattan? Or at least, California today, the World - tomorrow?

Please refer to WP:WikiSloth for a slightly excessive rationale for the answer, which is - never! only in a case of dire need, with absolutely no one else available. :-P --Illythr (talk) 13:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's a newer master plan, but we can always stick with the original.

So you would class trying to raise awareness of Bonnie's clones as "hedonistic enjoyment"? Hm. Wait till they start stalking you... Dahn (talk) 14:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah. My ranking officers keep me in the dark about our world-domination plans, unfortunately, so I'm acting on the default "Wikipedia today, world tomorrow - as long as I can be bothered" scheme. On Bonnie's clones - yes: WikiSloths sometimes *do* do Wikignomish stuff, just as long as it's amusing and doesn't look like actual work. I absolutely can't imagine myself doing horrid stuff like closing non-controversial AFD discussions, banning vandals by the hundreds (individually) or whatever is it that admins do every day. I'd also have to keep adminning away from my usual haunts due to potential WP:COI stuff... Meh, not my thing unless all admins suddenly die from tuna poisoning. --Illythr (talk) 02:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I read you loud and clear, but how will we ever get hold of so much tuna? Dahn (talk) 04:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The only way I know of didn't work out very well for the provider. Hmm, I'll have to think about it. In the meantime, we can go about our business as usual, I guess.--Illythr (talk) 13:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Egads. ;) Dahn (talk) 23:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

That UA iwiki

Ooops, apparently a case of not enough coffee again, thanks! VЄСRUМВА  ♪  17:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Could this be not enough... sleep instead? ;-) --Illythr (talk) 01:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Nazi-Soviet military parade in Brześć

On September 17, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nazi-Soviet military parade in Brześć, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 13:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: WPM

Ah. Thank you for letting me know; I imagine I was once interested enough in the issue to comment on it. Not that I recall now, but e-mails are a wonderful memory aid sometimes. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Polish–Muscovite War (1577–1582)

Hi Illythyr. To back up my words with some edits, I would like to offer this article (on what I hope is an uncontroversial piece of Polish-Russian relations) as a potential target for collaboration between Polish and Russian editors. Would you be interested in developing it together? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It's outside of my area of exp... well, honestly, I just don't know anything about it. I can go over it, but don't expect anything grand. --Illythr (talk) 07:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

After looking it over I can only confirm what I said - beside being written somewhat from a Polish perspective, I see no NPOV violations in there, and, since I don't have any knowledge of it, I can't do anything to improve the article. By the way, the Russian article about the Livonian War regards this one as part of it, not a separate conflict. --Illythr (talk) 11:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

This war was a part of a larger war, certainly. It's like looking at the Eastern Front in the view of a larger WWII. Anyway, I was wondering if you could help mediate between me and several other editors in this case? A lot of good faith was lost, and it will take efforts of many editors to restore it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I see no dispute there: The talk page is empty and you're the only editor so far. --Illythr (talk) 19:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't clear. I meant: if you think that my offer is put forward in good faith, and if you think it is a good idea, would you consider supporting this? I'd also appreciate your thought on this proposal. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm mainly staying away from that process as I have nothing to add that I think would help the ArbCom. See this discussion (and the section below) for the rationale. As for participating in that project - I seem to be a "wikiloner": I've watchlisted the page, but am unlikely to commit much time to it, as it runs contrary to my Wikisloth nature. --Illythr (talk) 10:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

If I may make a small comment, please. Sooner or later the ArbCom case will be closed, injunctions for off-wiki communication issued, but the ArbCom would be unable to ensure the verification of quality of articles and solutions of content disputes (doesn't have any mechanisms). You might be able to serve this aim after the ArbCom case is over. You would be an excellent mediator. You would definitively have my full trust. Just think for a moment: you would know how scrutinize mine, Biruitorul's and several others' edit histories, you would know what articles to look for (you know my edit pattern), you know a lot of context about our edits, you can spot things few if anybody else can. How else can trust be re-achieved in these articles if not by mediation by people like yourself? I mean mediation of content contributions, of course. Dc76\^talk 16:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Moldova and the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact

Do you deny that Moldova was a victim of Molotove-Ribbentrop protocol or not? Disraelly (talk) 16:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. What I (or you) believe is not important for the article. Only what reliable sources say. And words like "victim" or "hostage" are inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. As are your sweeping and one-sided characterisations of rather complex issues and developments. --Illythr (talk) 16:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. But again, wasn't this one the reality? It really was the result of it, isn't it? Imagine history without Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Disraelly (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

That would be the realm of alternative history. And "History does not tolerate conjunctives", as they say. That the Soviet annexation was a result of the Pact is already stated in the article in a much more neutral manner (In August 1939, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and its secret additional protocol were signed... which led the latter to actively revive its claim to the region."). --Illythr (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's stated but in other articles like Estonia, Lithuania.. it's even much better said. Go to go now. Bye.Disraelly (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, they're different - those three were not mentioned in the 1947 Paris peace treaty. Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina are mentioned, however, resulting in international recognition of MSSR's and UkrSSR's borders. --Illythr (talk) 17:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope, not MSSR or UkrSSR, but USSR. Dc76\^talk 07:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

There is also a difference between "we recognize you acquired territory X legally" and "we recognize your border". In the case of the Baltic states, none of the two were true. In the case of Bessarabia, the latter was true and the former was true to the exact contrary. Anyway, that only referred to 1947-1991 as long as USSR existed, i.e. Russia, or whatever other monstrosity will emerge in Russia can not claim any territory. Dc76\^talk 07:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The Soviet-Romanian border, yes. "We recognize you acquired territory X legally" is meaningless. The second statement is all that matters. The "you did it illegally" thing is merely a convenient argument to use when non-recognition is desired for geopolitical purposes. It always works, because almost all territories were acquired illegally according to some jurisdiction or other. You only need to ignore this fact for all but the territory in question. --Illythr (talk) 13:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

1) Apply this logic to Czechoslovakia in 1938. Based on recognition of the boundary, Germany could claim that the international community recognized the Sudetenland as part of Germany. But look more carefully at Bessarabia and northern Bukovina: while the territories are occupied since 1940, only in 1947 the allies recognize USSR's borders. The treaty did not even claim itself it apply retroactively. In 1940 the allies explicitly tell Romania that the Soviet imposed border should be considered temporary.

Also, at least on the same par, you should say that the international community recognized Romania's borders before 1940.

2) An important point this misses is also the context of war. During a war (1939-1945) borders change. And also, note that USSR died in 1991, so its borders are defunct unless particular portions of those borders are explicitly stated in other treaties.

3) Looking from the point of view of Russia or Romania things look in terms of border, but looking from the point of view of the territory and the people inhabiting it, things are more clear. This is why we have the right of people to self-determination, and on that the statehood of all European countries is based (at least it is in the case of Moldova).

4) What matters is how you acquire a territory: is that legally or illegally. Temporary recognition of a border is just what it is: a temporary recognition of a border for geopolitical and military ends.

I agree that there are many jurisdictions. But then there is only ONE international law. It exists exactly in order to avoid wars based on interpretions of different jurisdictions.

I believe you understand these things.

5) What I would like to point specifically is this: do not infer too much from legality or illegality of one act at one point in history. We have Moldova's Declaration of Independence, which effectively rectifies the injustice. The Declaration explicitly states it rectifies the illegalities of 1940. Romania, Russia and the entire international community recognized Moldova's declaration of independence. End of story. All we talk about are historic events, the influence they had on people, but there is no politics to it any longer. Modern politicians can ask that the other party recognize the illegality, or pay damages, i.e. historical, cultural or social things, but there is nothing to rectify politically beyond the fact that Moldova is independent and that is recognized. Dc76\^talk 07:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

1) Certainly, the participants of the Munich conference recognized the German claim to Sudetenland and let it have it, despite various mutual assistance pacts they had with CS. Of course, Germany promptly broke the agreement by occupying the rest of CS, but that is another matter. Point is, following the conference, the German claim over Sudeten was no more and no less legal than the Romanian claim over Bessarabia, following the other Treaty of Paris, or any other such treaty for that matter. Another example would be Transylvania, which was was awarded to Hungary through a peaceful process of mediation in 1940, (illegally) taken by force by a certain invading army in 1944 and then given to Romania. That particular "Stalinist crime", or the idea of its "rectification", doesn't seem to be particularly popular among Romanian nationalists for some reason.

Recognition - 1944, actually. Not that it matters.

And yes, Romania's claim over Bessarabia was recognized by the same "international community" (plus Japan) that recognized Germany's claim over Sudetenland. The "community" has also expanded somewhat by 1947 to actually include the ceding entities.

In July 1940 Romania's allies were a bit different than in September 1944. Especially the one that told Romania that the new border should be considered temporary. They must have been planning something... ;-)

2) USSR died in 1991, so its borders are defunct - huh? We're talking 1940s here, no?

3) the right of people to self-determination - except nobody had actually asked the people to excercise this right (no referenda were conducted, remember?)

4) and 5) To summarize once again: almost all territorial acquisitions are done under the threat of arms, as a result of war and so on, rendering the notion of legality meaningless for them. Therefore, only actual recognition matters. Such recognition exists for Soviet control over Bessarabia and northern Bukovina from 1944 (de facto) and 1947 (de jure), moving the notion of "Soviet occupation 19XX-1991" for that region (or "Romanian occupation of Transylvania 1945-2009" for that matter) into the realm of political opinion. --Illythr (talk) 14:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

Yes, Britain. I believe I have said this a number of times. I will find a reference, just have to look this up.

The 1947 Treaty is not the cause of 28 June 1940. Treaties do not apply retroactively. Unlike the Declaration of Independence of the MDR, the Declaration of Union of Bessarabia with Romania, and the Declaration of Independence of the Republic of Moldova, which are causes of respective events, the 1947 is not. It is a totally different category, that of the recognition of something. This Treaty recognized from 1947 on the borders resulted from the occupation/annexation of Bessarabia and northern Bukovina in 1940. Already in the 1947 Treaty, they realized there is a problem. Despite the Soviet might, the Treaty states that the border is a result of "the formal agreement contained in the exchange of notes between the Soviet and Romanian government". They realized in 1947 that the Treaty can only recognize something from 1940 but can not be the cause of some already happened effect.

If Soviet-Romanian border would have stayed the same as it was before 1940 until the 1947 Treaty, it would have been a different story. But the reality is it was not Romania who attacked USSR first (1941), it was the USSR that attacked Romania first (1940).

The oddity of the formulation in the 1947 Treaty is obvious (and you can also guess why the Soviets and the Allies let it stay that odd, but let's not get into that now): there was no agreement in 1940. There was a simple and straightforward military invasion. Regardless the extent to which Romanian military (did not) put up a show of resistance, for the population of Bessarabia it was a military invasion, an occupation without the consent of the legal government of that population. Under the 1923 Romanian Constitution a diplomatic exchange of notes is not a treaty and is not legally binding in the least. A more extensive exchange of notes also existed between the Soviets and the Nazis in the days before. The legal cause is however well-established: the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. It is the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, not the 1947 Treaty that caused the 1940 events. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is written in such a way as if the two parties have legal right to divide the territories of third countries. It is because they had no such right under international law, that historians and legal experts argue about the legal voidness of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

The 1947 Treaty is not the only difference between Bessarabia and the Baltics. In the case of the Baltics ...nia was replaced by ...nian SSR. It is argued that the new governments were illegal. In the case of Bessarabia, although the invasion started on 28 June, only on 2 August MSSR was set. What was this month? In the Baltics there was no stateless month. Legal governments were replaced by puppet ones. But in Bessarabia for one month was plain military occupation.

Also the USSR had no prerogative under its own legislation to create a MSSR. This is mentioned in Moldova's Declaration of Independence. This aspect is similar but not a copycat of the situation of the Baltics: both were set illegally, but some replaced legal governments, the other was set up on empty space.

About your points:

• "Point is, following the conference, the German claim over Sudeten was no more and no less legal than the Romanian claim over Bessarabia, following the other Treaty of Paris, or any other such treaty for that matter" - No, this is where you make a mistake. The Treaty of Paris of 1920 recognized the Union of 1918. The Munich Treaty did not recognize any Union proclaimed by any body in the Sudetenland; no such body legally existed.

• In the case of Northern Transylvania, the pre-World War II borders were restored. In the case of Bessarabia - no. I sincerely can not follow where you see any similarity and moreover where you see nationalism in that. I don't case if some extremist idiots claim x or y; they remain idiots, while x and y is not true ot faulse depending on who claims it. Let's drop the "Romanian nationalist" language.

• The 1944 armistice contains exactly the language from the 1947 treaty which I described above as 1) vacuous (there was no agreement) and 2) non-retroactive. At any rate an Armistice is a temporary line, not a legal recognition of a border as the 1947 Treaty is.

• About "the same community that recognized". Yes, the same community. So, what. They only recognized, they did not set something. The 1947 Treaty does not say "from tomorrow Bessarabia will revert to the USSR".

• No, that's not the one that told Romania that the border should be considered temporarily. That is the one that told Romania to evacuate from a territory and then told it "don't worry, we will try to help you somehow". It's like a guy rapes a girl, and a second guy holds her, then the second guy gives the girl a ride home and tells her she should consider the rape temporary. Of course, you can wash it, of course you are not "continuously being raped", and of course you have to prove in a court of law that it was not consensual sex. But the "nice" words about "temporary" do not absolve any of the perpetrators. No does the fact that the second guy tries to assassinate later the first guy changes something about the first guy being a rapist.

• "USSR died in 1991, so its borders are defunct - huh? We're talking 1940s here, no?" - First, the 1947 Treaty you mention does not tell us about 1940 just as 1991 does not tell us about 1940. Second, I said that the recognition of the USSR border in the 1947 Treaty was valid for as long as USSR existed, i.e. until 1991. Once USSR went defunct, the border was open for reconsideration. That it was not reconsidered was a different story. It was a political choice, and we all respect it.

• "the right of people to self-determination - except nobody had actually asked the people to exercise this right (no referenda were conducted, remember?)" - the people did exercise their right by electing "Sfatul Ţării".

• While it is obviously false that a war renders the notion of legality meaningless (that would be anarchy, or total lack of laws; we just don't live in that kind of world), you would notice that I never used the term "occupation" in the sense you understand it to refer specifically to 1947-1991. I used it in the sense "1940-", I was careful to formulate like that. The only exception is the military aspect, because that does matter, and I mentioned somewhere that the Soviet military has left Bessarabia by January 1993. Dc76\^talk 16:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

---

• [upd] The 1947 Treaty is not the cause of 28 June 1940. - certainly, it only recognized the Soviet rule over these territories as legitimate (by recognizing the border, yes [ "recunosc legitimitatea hotarului sovietic de la 22 iunie 1941"]). Just the same, the 1920 treaty was obviously not the cause of 9 April 1918 - it only recognized the Romanian rule there (I'm not sure I understood your point here).

• There was a simple and straightforward military invasion. - no, there wasn't. One was planned, but following that exchange of notes, in which Romanian forces agreed to retreat beyond the Prut, an actual military invasion was no longer necessary (the opponent yielded). What followed was occupation and annexation.

• for the population of Bessarabia - From what I've read from Kersnovskaya's book (mentioned above), the locals initially treated the coming of the Soviets with relief, due to inept Romanian administration of the region. This relief was proven misplaced later, when the repressions and deportations began, but the initial removal of the oppressive Romanian authorities was viewed positively at large.

• [upd] The secret protocol of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact had no legal value ab initio. It therefore cannot be a legal cause for anything. The Supreme Soviet of the USSR has explicitly declared it such in 1989, once it suddenly "learned" of its existence. The actual "legal claim" was the non-recognition by the USSR of the Romanian annexation of Bessarabia. The agreement with Germany was thus but a means to an end (neutralize a possible rival in the region).

• But in Bessarabia for one month was plain military occupation. - Indeed. For about one month in 1940 and a similar period of time in 1944. Be careful, however, as our Baltic colleagues will disagree with you here: this line of reasoning leads to the conclusion that no occupation took place in the Baltic states at all ("Legal governments were replaced by puppet ones"), which is anathema. ;-)

• Also the USSR had no prerogative under its own legislation to create a MSSR - as Bessarabia was regarded as Soviet territory under foreign occupation, the territories gained were merged with the existing UkrSSR and MASSR. The latter was then promptly declared a full Soviet Republic, citing the "wish of the Moldovans of Bessarabia to unite with the Moldovans of the MASSR," "the principle of free self determination of peoples" and the usual mush.

Further points:

• The Munich agreement recognized Germany's claim over Sudeten. The Paris treaty recognized Romania's claim over Bessarabia. The difference is that in the case of Bessarabia, the treaty was signed facing fait accompli, whereas Germany had simply received a carte blanche in Sudeten. It then could have the local Germans formally declare anything it (and 97.32% of them, it seems) wanted. Recognition from the principal powers was the same in any case.

• In the case of Northern Transylvania, the pre-World War II borders were restored - Romania and Hungary were not at war with each other, nor with the arbiters during the Second Vienna Award. Both sides agreed to mediation and the result turned out to be in Hungary's favor. Then the Red Army took Transylvania from Hungary by force (the real reason for the handover was Romania's timely decision to cease resistance coupled with Hungary's decision to fight until the bitter end). Illegally invaded, occupied and all that.

• Yes, 1944 is de facto (apparently), 1947 is de jure.

• So, what. - so nothing. :-) You just asked me to mention recognition from "international community" in that para. :-P

• No, that's not the one - well, I have presented my sources. Hope you have yours. It seems unlikely that Britain would say anything like that, seeing as how its influence over continental Europe was pretty much nil at the time.

• ... the 1947 Treaty ... does not tell us about 1940... of course - it's meant to tell us about 1947-1991. You've stated several times that the "Soviet occupation 1944-1991" has been noted as such by numerous historians. Back then I was curious how these historians managed to ignore the 1947 treaty. Now it has turned out that they do recognize the treaty and don't actually talk about a 1944-1991 occupation, as the article stated for four months. Meh.

• Once USSR went defunct, the border was open for reconsideration. - No. Nevertheless, I understand, Romania still has no border agreement with Moldova?

• "the people did exercise their right by electing Sfatul Ţării". - when these politicians were being elected, they only talked about autonomy within Russia ( by the way, what does a "bear factory" do? Produce bear cavalry? o_O ). Then about independence. Joining Romania wasn't visible on the agenda of that legislative body until quite a bit later, after the Romanian army had, uh, secured the area.

• While it is obviously false that a war renders the notion of legality meaningless - be careful, I specifically stated this regarding the legality of territorial transfers resulting from wars and such (the for them part). --Illythr (talk) 00:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I just lost the text I wrote for over 1 hour. :( Something really wrong with my web browser. Let me just say that there was a lot written there... Dc76\^talk 08:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I "corrected" the parts that were IMHO incorrect: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AIllythr&action=historysubmit&diff=320186067&oldid=320174914 ("Correcting" was faster than copy-pasting and explaining; I hope you it's ok with you.) Let me know if the reasons for some corrections are not clear.

1) Quoting you, but adding my modifications: "The 1947 Treaty is not the cause of 28 June 1940. - certainly, it only recognized the Soviet rule over border along these territories as legitimate (by recognizing only the border, yes [ "recunosc legitimitatea hotarului sovietic de la 22 iunie 1941"]). Note that it says "legitimitatea [de acum incolo a] hotarului de la 22 iunie 1941", not "legitimitatea la 22 iunie". It does not pass judgement retroactively. My point was the treaties were not the causes of the events, but recognitions of existing states of things.

Well "legitimitatea" is present there, no? So why are you striking it out?

It does not pass judgement at all. It merely recognizes (in the legal sense) the current border, along with its implications.

2) Romanian army indeed was not invaded. Bessarabia and northern Bukovina were.

No more than they were invaded by the Romanian army in 1918.

3) True about her social milieu. Not true in general. Why would 200,000 chose to be refugees in 2-3 days?

Irina Livazeanu interviewed some of them in her book. Excluding those who came from Romania in the first place (they had an obvious reason), they fled not because of their love of the increasingly fascist Romanian regime, but due to their fear of the unknown.

4) Quoting you, but adding my modifications: "The secret protocol of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact had no legal value ab initio. It therefore cannot be a legal cause for anything. The Supreme Soviet of the USSR has explicitly declared it such in 1989, once it suddenly "learned" of its existence. The actual "legal claim" was the non-recognition by the USSR of the Romanian annexation of Bessarabia. The agreement with Germany was thus but a means to an end (neutralize a possible rival in the region)."

You used the phrase "legal cause" yourself, with respect to the pact, I only copied that. The meaning is "legal grounds for the claim".

6) Romanians considered that territory theirs at least as much. The problem lies in the denial by the Soviets of the international law and replacement with its own "proletarian" dictatorship "law". It's a problem of Russia's Soviet past.

International law was served in 1918-1919 as much as it was in 1938 (neither Russia nor Czechoslovakia were invited to the talks concerning their territory). There was no "problem" there - Romania managed to take that territory at an opportune time, and lost it at an inopportune time. Repeat once.

7) Exactly my point: fait accompli =/= carte blanche

Why, yes. My point was that recognition was the same in each case.

8) Quoting you, but adding my modifications: "In the case of Northern Transylvania, the pre-World War II borders were restored - Romania and Hungary were not at war with each other, nor with the arbiters during the Second Vienna Award, but it was after WWII started. Both sides agreed to mediation and the result turned out to be in Hungary's favor. Then the Red Army and the Romanian Army took Transylvania from Hungary by force while Romanians were prevented by the Soviets from returning their pre-war administration (the real reason for the handover was Romania's Communists' timely decision to cease resistance take the power in Bucharest in 1945 coupled with Hungary's decision to fight until the bitter end). Illegally invaded, occupied and all that."

The war didn't start for them. They didn't participate at the time.

Indeed, the Romanian army was the Red army's evil accomplice in that deed, hehe.

Prevented from returning to prewar administration? You mean, resurrecting the Iron Guard, and Carol II with his Caroljugend and let them run the country again? Right. You can as well complain that the western Allies didn't reinstate the (democratically elected) NSDAP in Western Germany in 1945.

Of course, the Baltic states were invaded illegally in 1944 because they were integrated into the USSR, but the invasion of Transylvania was completely legal, because it was awarded to Romania, hehehe.

9) recognition, not setting forth someting, was my point

Of course, I'm not sure why you brought this "setting forth" in the first place. We were talking about recognition.

10) On 28 June 1940 Britain was not neutral. It was Romania's ally. The state of war ensued in December 1941, a whole year after a pro-fascist government came to power in Bucharest. Cause: Soviet occupation of Bessarabia. Effect: Pro-fascist government in Bucharest. Not vice-versa. I will find a source; I simply don't remember one now from the back of my head.

Might be an interesting search to compare British-Romanian and German-Romanian relations in early 1940. AFAIK, Romania lost interest in Britain with the fall of France (British and French guarantees to ro were rendered meaningless at that point). The real cause, btw was the fear of losing territories gained after WW1:Romania's sudden and fortuitous territorial gains have left it surrounded by neighbours, who wished to get those territories back. The only way to keep it all was to get protection from the big guys on the block. With two of these big guys out of the picture, there was only one left to turn to.

11) Obviously, the historians do recognize the existence of the treaty, and the fact that it was in force in 1947-1991. The word occupation still can (I am not using must) be applied after 1947, and some choose to do. There are many meanings of "occupation" in the dictionary. The 1947 treaty did not state that the state of occupation has ended and now (1947) another status is in force. By some interpretations occupation ends when military leaves, which in our case was January 1993. Of course this is just one interpretation. Another is when the territory becomes sovereign and independent (27 August 1991). Compare with modern Iraq. But yes, there is a difference in Soviet-American relations after 1947: before the Allies could have just liberated Bessarabia. After, they would have to first remove themselves from the treaty.

occupation ends when military leaves - Bad interpretation. US occupation forces never left West Germany. They're still there. In any case, individual political interpretations belong in a subsection, not in the lead. As for "Allies could have liberated Bessarabia" , hehe, but they did - USSR was one of them, after all. See also Operation Unthinkable.

12) Logically: Anyone claims a disagreement? No. There is no disagrement. Period. You know very well that is not about territorial disagreements. One issue was a secondary treaty about small border traffic. Voronin was afraid his village would remain without serfs. The other is the need to iterate the condemnation of M-R Pact.

Hey, do you have the proposed Romanian text of this agreement?

13) Quoting you, but adding my modifications: "after the Romanian army had, uh, secured securized the area assisting, not in lieu of the locals.

"Securized"? O_o? Captured, in other words.

14) Yea, and when we vote, our MP candidates tell us everything they are going to do? They have legal right to. Bessarabia was no different than any other part of the Russian and Austria-Hungarian Empires. The democratic standard was at least as high in Bessarabia as anywhere at that time. The Soviets should have first organized a referendum in Moscow, see if the people there wanted them.

If they're going to break down the governmental structure and join us to a foreign state - they'd better (no, they don't have a legal right for such groundbreaking decisions - that's what referenda are for. Besides, the MDR constitution was never adopted, so they acted in a legal vacuum regarding such major changes).

15) I meant that territorial changes during a military conflict are naturally temporary. That's why treaties exist at the end of conflicts. Bessarabia was occupied not before the conflict, but during the conflict. Bessarabia was not independent of WWII. It was mentioned in the very Treaty that started the war: the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Dc76\^talk 10:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Not really. The M-R pact also resulted in Western Belarus and Western Ukraine becoming part of Belarus and Ukraine, for example. I don't remember if the Ukrainian government condemned the pact as well, but I definitely don't see it attempt to right that particular Stalinist crime by returning its part of Kresy to Poland. As for what started the war - we had this conversation before. --Illythr (talk) 12:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Further comments

• "No more than they were invaded by the Romanian army in 1918."
  • You are kidding, right? 1 Romanian division in 1918 versus 40 Soviet in 1940. Romanian Army was invited by the legal government of MDR. Soviet Army wasn't invited by nobody. It is a bad idea to draw parallelism like that. Not every bad thing Soviets did was mirrored by something others did.
    • The Romanian government has explicitly agreed to the entry of Soviet troops by accepting the ultimatum.
      • "Entry of Soviet troops" does not mean a Treaty about change of sovereignty of provinces with almost 4 million population. In a situation of war you sometimes have to retreat your troops.
        • The 1947 treaty disagrees with that. "In a situation of war" - hm, do you have a source stating that the Romanian government considered this to be an act of war? It definitely wasn't at war before that point. AFAIK, Romania declared war on the USSR on 22 June 1941.

• "their love of the increasingly fascist Romanian regime"
  • You are again kidding. Carol II regime (in general, not only until June 1940) was no more fascist than Putin's is. And I really can not follow where you see any difference between "fleeing the Soviets" and "fleeing for fear of the unknown". Those that came to Bessarabia before 1940 were much fewer. Those that fled were the creme of Bessarabian and Bukovinian intellectuals and professionals.
    • No more fascist? Right. As for the refugees - they chose to side with the devil they knew.
      • National Renaissance Front was an etatist ad hoc party, similar to United Russia. Could you, please, explain your second sentence. I don't understand it at all. What do you mean? What "devil"?
        • The "known devil" - the interwar Romanian administration (per Krasnovskaya and Cristina Petrescu; wording is mine).
      • BTW, I am afraid you underestimate what kind of radical change was in politics in Romania in July-November 1940. National Legionary State was a classical fascist establishment. In January 1941, Antonescu only made it centered around its personality and dropped the title, but nothing changed policy-wise. Ion Antonescu and Horia Sima, although political rival, were very similar.
        • ...single monopoly party of government... created by King Carol II - hmm, I don't think I underestimate anything here: 1938 is not 1940. So, are Jews disallowed to join "United Russia" as well? Any "heroic decisions" by major Russian corporations to exclude all Jewish members from its affiliated bodies, calling for the state to withdraw their licenses and reassess their citizenship resulting in mass firing or stripping of citizenship from Jews in Russia in the last 20 years (that's even 1937)?

• "International law was served in 1918-1919 as much as it was in 1938 (neither Russia nor Czechoslovakia were invited to the talks concerning their territory). There was no "problem" there - Romania managed to take that territory at an opportune time, and lost it at an inopportune time. Repeat once."
  • Are we back to square one? What Russia in 1918-1919??? Moldavian Democratic Republic, not Russia!!! Romania did not take Bessarabia, MDR joined Romania.
    • So, which principal powers recognized the MDR in 1918? I wonder what the 1920 treaty actually says.
      • When did Moldova declared independence? August 1991. In 6 months barely a few dozen countries have done that. And that was end of 20th century! MDR only had months, and a lot of security turmoil. MDR, for example, was invited at the Brest-Litovsk negotiations. The question is rather, what was different about MDR than about Finland, Baltics, Poland, Transylvania, Bukovina, Croatia, Slovenia, Czechs, Slovaks? It took a lot of time for those to get full diplomatic relations, too. There was no difference between them and Bessarabia. So why demand special condition for Bessarabia other than that a foreign power's colonial wit?
        • Well, you're giving a lot of weight to things like "international law" or "legal/illegal" yourself. It's true that secession is much better covered in legal stuff now than it was 90 years ago. However, I strongly doubt that secession, passed by a political body without consulting the populace and without any agreement from the "losing" state has ever been legal under international law.
      • About 1920 treaty. You should be able to find it. I don't know in detail, but there were two things. First, recognition by the individual countries. Second, a guarantee that 4 countries (Britain, France, Italy and Japan) were prepared to give Romania that they would defend it in case somebody attacks Bessarabia. European countries recognized Romania's borders, including Bessarabia. About the second part, if I remember correctly, they were very reticent to provide guarantees similar to Article 5 of current NATO treaty. Those guarantees were supposed to come only when all 4 have ratified. Britain, France and Italy did in this order. But Japan didn't because it was a condition for starting diplomatic relations with the USSR, and Romanian diplomats at some point abandoned the idea. So, in the end the treaty only resumed to recognition by the individual countries without guarantees that these countries would fight should Bessarabia be attacked. You should be able to find more on the internet on in the libraries.
        • The text of the treaty recognizes Romanian sovereignty over Bessarabia (Article 1). Articles 2-7 go on to discuss matters like the rights of the minorities, citizenship and border delimitation. Article 8 discusses Romania's takeover of the part of the Russian external debt allotted to Bessarabia (this is interesting, because it demonstrates that the Principal Powers saw Bessarabia as part of Russia, prior to the union). "Moldavian Democratic Republic" is not mentioned at all. There is also nothing on any kind of military aid guarantees. Moreover, Article 9 contains the following text: [...] The signatory powers shall ratify the present treaty. It shall not come into force until after the deposit of these ratifications [...] It is thus evident, that the treaty did not come into force in its entirety (not in part, as you seem to believe), due to its non-ratification by Japan.

• fait accompli =/= carte blanche Why, yes. My point was that recognition was the same in each case.
  • What do you mean "the same"? The same legal meaning? No. If you change the premisses, you should expect that the effect will also change. Absolutely no way one can assume automatically as "the same".
    • The same legal meaning, yes. Whether the claim is recognized post factum or prior to any action is of no consequence.
      • The claim that was recognized in 1947 was the Soviet border from 1947 on. The act (not claim) that was recognized in 1920 was the Declaration of Union of Bessarabia with Romania. There was no such declaration in 1940, nor in 1944, nor in 1947!!!
        • The 1947 treaty refers to the 1940 agreement. The 1920 one refers to the 1918 union. Both treaties recognize a fait accompli. Whether they apply retroactively is hard to tell (probably not). That "carte blanche" referred to the 1938 recognition of the German claim in Sudeten, remember? ;-)

• I'm not sure why you brought this "setting forth" in the first place. We were talking about recognition.
  • In 1920 a legal act of the MDR was recognized by many members of the international community. In 1947, the de facto border at a given point during the war was recognized by many members of the international community as the border of USSR. No similarity! You seem to want to reduce every legal question to question about demarcation of border. No, it is not. Russia can recognize as illegal Soviet actions against the Baltics in 1940 without putting any current borders under question.
    • In 1920, Romanian dominion over Bessarabia was recognized by four important players. In 1947, Soviet dominion over a somewhat larger area was recognized by some 15 countries, most importantly, by Romania. That's all there is to it.
      • No, that's the Soviet misinterpretation of history. In 1918 there was a Declaration of Union of Bessarabia with Romania. In 1940, there was a military invasion by a foreign power. That is all there is to it.
        • Remember, the topic is international recognition - which was granted in both cases, regardless to how the territory in question came in possession of the state being recognized as its ruler.

• The real cause, btw was the fear of losing territories gained after WW1:Romania's sudden and fortuitous territorial gains have left it surrounded by neighbours, who wished to get those territories back. The only way to keep it all was to get protection from the big guys on the block. With two of these big guys out of the picture, there was only one left to turn to.
  • This is exactly how Ion Antonescu reasoned. Many other people, including myself think differently.
    • Antonescu was not in power in 1920 when Romania sought to secure its gains as quickly as possible (France was heartily compensated for its recognition, I recall). But you're right, opinions will always differ. Idealistic versus pragmatic and so on.
      • Why are you repeating such words as "Romanian dominion over Bessarabia", "Romania sought to secure its gains"? It was Bessarabia, not Romania that acted in 1918. Romanian "dominion" of Bessarabia meant also the dominion of Bessarabia by the Bessarabians. Bessarabians sought to secure their own country.
        • Why yes, it was the Baltic states republics that acted in 1939, the Soviet Union merely accepted their appeals to join! Foreign army? What foreign army? It was just gathering flowers and rounding up ruffians! Does that sound like propaganda to you? Eh? Eh?
      • About opinions. It is very easy to take opinions of Ion Antonescu, prove them wrong and say that all Bessarabians did in history was wrong, and possibly fascist. By others, however, I meant people like Maniu and Bratianu, the leaders of the major democratic parties, who vehemently opposed close relations with the Nazi Germany, the continuation of war beyond the Dniester, and so on. Opinions can and will differ, but reason and logic can prevail. Irredentist (Soviet claims) versus democratic (Bessarabia's right to self-determination), and so on.
        • Once again, Antonescu was not there in the 1920s for Romania to fervently seek protection for its gains. Nor was he the ruler in summer 1940, who turned Romania to Italy and Germany for help. And I can't really blame Carol there - lacking the knowledge of the secret agreement between USSR and Germany, the latter seemed like a sure deal in 1940. I also don't understand what "all Bessarabians did in history was wrong" is supposed to refer to, or why do you keep referring to politicians who did not define Romania's foreign policy at the time (comes from being a dictatorship and all). So Andrei Sakharov publicly opposed the war in Afghanistan, so what? That article never mentions him and for a good reason - his opinion didn't matter in the slightest on the grand geopolitical scale.
  • And the usual: you remove people from the picture. You talk about territories as if they are uninhabited, as if the 1918 was a result of war, and not legal acts of Bessarabia, Bukovina and Transylvania.
    • No referendum - no talk about the "will of the people". Legal act passed during a open vote in presence of a foreign army? Pfft!
      • Sure, how about we return to the borders of the Roman empire. How dear those medieval kings to gain territories without referenda. I have repeated several times already: LEGALITY. It was fully respected in 1918. The legal standard of the time was respected. Not in 1940. You judge 1918 with the standards of 2009. No wonder you get contradictions. Soviet historiography was very keen to avoid talk about legality. Consider this better, please.
        • That's the point - if we consider legality of territorial transfers, we can go right back to the political map of the Bronze Age, because the first thing every state in existence had made sure to do is make any attempt at taking its territory illegal. Which is why it'd be interesting to read the list of Sfatul Tarii's powers and see, whether they were really allowed to do what they did. With Romanian armed forces "guarding" the building as they deliberated, hehe.

• occupation ends when military leaves - Bad interpretation. US occupation forces never left West Germany.
  • Yes, under that interpretation Germany is still under occupation. Iraq as well. Did I tried to push such an interpretation in the article? No. I was very careful not to use the word occupation beyond Stalin's period.
    • Wellll...
      • Yes, precisely. "Occupation" is the proper word when we talk about the period in its entirety: 1940-1941 and 1944-1991. It includes the Stalinist period. There is no way around mentioning once or twice the entire period. But I avoided using the word when referring to events in 1960s and latter. For example, I use "1988-91 strive against Soviet rule". I did not stay anything like "the last 20 years of Soviet occupation". I use "the last 20 years of Soviet administration". Even though de jure it was an occupation, de facto Stalinist and the later periods were significantly different. I am not trying now to justify a bit Khrushchev and Brezhnev eras, there were a lot of persecutions then, as well, but they weren't mass ones in character.
        • "I was very careful not to use the word occupation beyond Stalin's period" - ""Occupation" is the proper word when we talk about the period in its entirety: 1940-1941 and 1944-1991" - [3] - a contradiction, there... And de jure according to what? Did I miss something in the text of military occupation or of the 1947 treaty?

• As for "Allies could have liberated Bessarabia" , hehe, but they did - USSR was one of them, after all.
  • Wishful thinking. Soviet Union was not among the Allies. And obvioulsy, the sentence meant "liberate Bessarabia from the Soviet Union". I am sure you understood that meaning.
    • Soviet Union was not among the Allies? Like, never? Are you sure? :-)
      • Not early in the war. I believe it was only after Tehran, that Soviets tried to push to use the word for them as well.
        • Hm, it seems mainstream history disagrees with you there. In 1944 USSR was Allied, Romania (until August 24) and Germany were Axis. So, in 1944, the Allies did liberate Bessarabia from Axis occupation.

• Hey, do you have the proposed Romanian text of this agreement?
  • No, sorry, I don't. Isn't this supposed to be confidential to some extent?
    • No idea. I though that since you know the details it might be publicly available somewhere.
      • It might be. I just don't know. The details I know were vastly discussed in the press.

• If they're going to break down the governmental structure and join us to a foreign state - they'd better (no, they don't have a legal right for such groundbreaking decisions - that's what referenda are for. Besides, the MDR constitution was never adopted, so they acted in a legal vacuum regarding such major changes).
  • No, you can not just say what referenda are for because x or y thinks they are for that or that. There is a legal frame. In 1918, the legal frame, as poor as it was, was respected. Right now, if someone would want hypothetically to join Romania, one would have to change the Constitution. Follow the framework for that.
  • Why does every country need a legislative? To improve the legal frame. But of course, in Soviet and other Communist systems they don't need a legal frame. They adapt laws to the need of the leadership. The name of Vyshinsky rings a bell?
    • I'd have to study whatever legal framework the MDR managed to produce before its untimely demise to make a definite response. In any case, you cannot talk about the will of the people (as opposed to the will of a few politicians) without any data demonstrating the actual will of the people.
      • In what aspect was Bessarabia different from other parts of the former Russian and Ausrtian-Hungarian Empires? Why are you imposing 2009 criteria for 1918? Those politicians were democratically elected by the people. They were not skewed to some side. All ethnicities, political forces, union, etc. were represented. They all came and recognized it. I recommend you to read the stenogram of the first meeting of Sfatul Tarii. Every ad-hoc body in existence came one by one and recognized Sfatul Tarii. The Comissar of the Provisional Government of Russia, the position that in Febraury 1917 replaced that of the Governor, came and deposed its legal powers to Sfatul Tarii. It was a legal transfer of power. Other parts of Russian and Austrian-Hungarian Empire had less than we did. We've done it perfectly legally. We should be proud of this. Why are we arguing? Did you see people from other countries arguing with each other like this? Why we Moldovans have to argue with each other and can not simply be proud of something we did? There weren't so many occasions in history where we were on top of things and events.
        • The relevant document (if any) would be the list of Sfatul Tarii's legislative powers. In any case, there was no talk of secession during the initial election. Sfatul Ţării was a parliament elected to rule an autonomy, not join another country. Until the arrival of the Romanian army, that is.

• The M-R pact also resulted in Western Belarus and Western Ukraine becoming part of Belarus and Ukraine, for example. I don't remember if the Ukrainian government condemned the pact as well, but I definitely don't see it attempt to right that particular Stalinist crime by returning its part of Kresy to Poland.
  • Who occupied Kresy? Soviet Union. What happened with the Soviet Union? It died. What happened to those territories? They became part of Ukraine. Did Poland demand them back? No, Poland recognized those territories as Ukrainians. (resp. Belarussian everywhere) What is not clear? Really, waht? :-)
    • Same thing about Moldova, yet there's plenty of talk about the need to rectify the "Stalinist crime" of 1940 by joining Moldova to Romania. AFAIR, the Romanian government actually said this explicitly back in 1994.
      • Talk by politicians... personal views... 1940 was rectified in 1991. End of story. We want more, sure we can discuss anything. But that has nothing to do with 1940. 1940 has been rectified, at least with respect to Moldova.

• As for what started the war - we had this conversation before.
  • And what was the conclusion? I look there and see the amount of text we generated.... :-) I sincerely hope we won't try to match it. :) Dc76\^talk 13:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Didn't we already? :-)
      • :-) :-)

• Not really.
  • Yes, really. :-) we seem to enjoy this going back to square 1 ... :-)
    • This discussion is doomed to go in circles from the start. Still, useful for English practice, isn't it? :-) It's probably best to agree to disagree and go edit the mainspace. :-) --Illythr (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
      • oh, ye, indeed it helps practice English. But I don't think we go only in circles. We did pinpoint two points: 1) You accept the view that "it's all about border", I accept the view "it's all about legality" 2) You fear somebody is going to "rectify 1940". I say 1940 has been already rectified, and we only need the memory of it. Did we find others points in addition to these two? Dc76\^talk 09:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
        • 1) Not about border, about recognition. 2) Fear? Me? 'Twas but irony on how people wish to "rectify" an unfavorable territorial change as "injustice" and conveniently forget a favorable one, even if done by the same party under same circumstances. 3) It seems you adapt an idealistic view on history: "the will of the people", good guys fighting the bad guys and if the good guys do something bad, it's only because the bad guys forced them to, etc. My view, on the other hand, is pragmatic - there is no good or evil in geopolitics, only national interests. Each party sought to secure their own, at the expense of their neighbors, if need be. At this, there were no good or bad guys, only the successful and the not-so-successful. --Illythr (talk) 14:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

I will reply in more detail later. Let me only point out one thing you just said: Article 8 discusses Romania's takeover of the part of the Russian external debt allotted to Bessarabia (this is interesting, because it demonstrates that the Principal Powers saw Bessarabia as part of Russia, prior to the union). This exactly what I was trying to tell, but perhaps I wasn't telling it well: Bessarabia was a successor state of the Russian Empire, which broke in 1917. Similarly, the 15 countries are successor states of the former Soviet Union, which broke in 1991. Just as Russia can not demand the territory of Moldova, so the USSR, which came into existence only in 1922, could not demand Bessarabia. Russia (the Empire) handed its authority in Bessarabia to Sfatul Ţării, which in April proclaimed Union with Romania and handed most of its prerogatives to the Romanian government. Let's not forget that Bessarabians were part of Romanian Parliament and Government (many ministers) throughout 1918-1940, they were major players during the Versailles conference, and at least one member of the Carol II's crown council in June 1940 was Bessarabian (Ştefan Ciobanu, who by the way was MDR's Minister of Education in 1917-1918).

On a side note: please observe that there were no protests., resistance, persecutions, deportations, or anything in Bessarabia after 1918. Can you compare that with 1940. Romania was a democratic country in 1918, and an authoritarian democracy in 1938-1940 (local elections were still being held, former politicians were almost all being appointed to government positions, only the decision was in Carol's hands since 1938. Very similar to Putin in modern Russia.) Soviet Union was a totalitarian Communist dictatorship in 1940. It can be compared with Nazi Germany, but not with democratic Romania. But this is just a side note. Dc76\^talk 07:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

This is incorrect: Bessarabia was a geographic region and a province of Russia, with the Sfatul Tarii elected as a provincial diet. In 1917 MDR was declared as an autonomy within the new Bolshevik Russian state (its representatives went to Lenin in Petrograd to receive a blessing). This is most likely why MDR was not recognized by the principal powers - they only recognized the White Russian (their allies in the war) authority until 1922 or so, when it became clear that the civil war in Russia was lost. At this point they began ratifying the 1920 treaty one by one. After all, the Bolsheviks refused to pay any of Russia's external debt, whereas Romania has agreed to pay at least some of it in return for the recognition of its sovereignty over Bessarabia.

Modern Russia certainly can't pose a claim to Moldova, because Russia recognized it following the collapse of the USSR. No such recognition was ever made for MDR's secession (as opposed to the proclamation of autonomy) nor its union with Romania.

As for the side note, oh yes, there were many protests (starting with the "letter of 10" Sfatul Tarii members who protested against the November 1918 decision unconditionally dissolving the autonomy (passed by 36 of its 150 members, lacking a quorum); plus many others concerning drastic politics of the Romanian administrative apparatus; the termination of the zemstva coupled with the centralization of control over the province (no more elections, administration was appointed from Bucharest); the "requisition of goods" from private property for the Romanian army etc), resistance (RumCherOd and descendants), persecutions (all Russian-speaking public servants were fired; the Orthodox clergy was likewise replaced) and even three major uprisings during the period Romanian administration.

One other, rather amusing, point: "an authoritarian democracy" is an oxymoron. A country is either ruled by an autocrat or "by the people" (demos+kratos). One important difference is the existence of an elected ruler in the latter case. So, who elected King Carol II to the throne? Antonescu? While it's trued that Romania initially (after WWI) was a constitutional monarchy with a semblance of a democratic state, this started to deteriorate following the 1923 constitution and was completely eliminated in the 1938 one. --Illythr (talk) 15:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You can not source most of these claims; you know very well many are factually incorrect. I really don;t have much time now, and there are too many of them. I'll just try to llist what is false. I guess you will understand without much of my explanation:

• In 1917 MDR was declared as an autonomy within the new Bolshevik Russian state (its representatives went to Lenin in Petrograd to receive a blessing). Sfatul Ţării (NB diacritics) received its authority through transfer of power from the Commissar of the Provisional Government in Petrograd. This is most likely (...) (sorry, but it would be our speculations)
  • I tracked this mysterious "Russian Democratic Federative Republic" down - it was declared on January 6, 1918 as the last action of the Russian Constituent Assembly and indeed wasn't a Soviet state. However, MDR declared itself part of RDFR on December 15, 1917, three weeks earlier. Interesting. They later sought and received recognition from the Bolshevik Petrograd Soviet. In any case, neither the Provisional Government, nor the Bolshevik one recognized MDR as anything more than an autonomous province of Russia.
• whereas Romania has agreed to pay at least some of it in return for the recognition of its sovereignty over Bessarabia. - sorry, but that's just made up
  • Article 8 of the 1920 treaty: Romania shall assume responsibility for the share of the Russian public debt and all other financial obligations of the Russian state allotted to Bessarabia, [...] "Дружба дружбой, а денежки врозь," hehe.
• No such recognition was ever made for MDR's secession (as opposed to the proclamation of autonomy) nor its union with Romania. - MDR did not have to secede, Russia simply broke apart, just like in 1991.
  • In 1991, the USSR was officially dissolved. This was acknowledged by its last government and all subsequent governments of the ex-USSR countries. Nothing like that happened in 1917-1918. If you're referring to the idea that no Russian state existed at the time meaning that it was safe to take anything from it because no one's looking, let me introduce you to Comrade Molotov who used exactly this logic to explain the event of October 17, 1939.
• yes, there were many protests - no, there were very few, a handful of people, extremists mostly
  • The 40 members of the Sfatul Tarii - extremists? Naah. (Sorry, my bad, there were two protests - one by 10 the other by 40 members) Landowners who lost their lands? Nope, not extremists either. Potentially, perhaps... Of course, nobody cared and they were in no position to do anything, but that's not to say nobody protested.
• (starting with the "letter of 10" Sfatul Tarii members who protested against the November 1918 decision unconditionally dissolving the autonomy (passed by 36 of its 150 members, lacking a quorum); - 45, not 36. Also, there wen't 150, since some places that became vacant were not re-elected. As for the protest letter against dropping the conditions, I would sign it myself. That kind of "protest" is typical of a democratic society, when 10 individual protest, but there was no large public protest movement.
  • Dunno, my source says 36. But whatever let it be 45 - no quorum anyway (hard to gather one in the dead of the night, huh). Illegal, in other words. ;-)
• plus many others concerning drastic politics of the Romanian administrative apparatus; - like "please, learn Romanian in 1 year, or no government position"? There good they introduced such "drastic" measures. It's a sign of shear savagery on the part of those who want to rule a country and not know its language. Savagery must be dealt with drastic measures.
  • Seeing as how the region had 100 years of cultural and economic history within the Russian Empire, pretending that this never happened is drastic indeed. When the region became part of the Empire, it was given some 20 years to adapt, before imperial policy began integrating it in earnest. Of course, Romania didn't have the luxury of time at the moment, but calling people, who had lived for generations under one set of rules and were unable to adapt to another in a few months' time, "savage" is well over the top.
    • Not learning the language of the land and still pretending to be the feodal master is below the top? There were several hundred people who had the privilege of ruling without learning the language removed. That's all. And they had 1 year to learn the language, courses were provided, exams were easy. Who didn't like, was free to go to mother Russia, or free to stay, but no government posts, please. It was the nomenklatura defending its privileges. What 20 years to adapt? 20 have passed in Moldova since 1989? Have they adapt? Even today many of the all masters don't know the language. But they want privileges. Mongolian savages. Just as Mongols did not learn any other language, so these ones. Dc76\^talk 21:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Such is the way of a multiethnic empire: assimilate and standardize or fall apart. I'm talking about the 1812 period. The Russian empire became quite adept at assimilating and fell apart due to other causes. By the 20th century, Russian became the lingua franca in the region, and it made as much sense learning the language of the locals as it does for dear Vecrumba to learn Lenape, especially since a switch of sovereignty even as late as 1917 was considered to be just as likely as the emergence of a Native American state in place of the US in 2010, graciously allowing any non-native speaking European savages to go back to mother Europe. --Illythr (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• the termination of the zemstva coupled with the centralization of control over the province (no more elections, administration was appointed from Bucharest); - false, communes were introduced instead of zemstvos, and local elections were held. Local administration was not appointed from Bucharest. Police chiefs were. But that's simply how the Ministry of Interior work.
  • Yup, imposing a new hierarchy in such a short time was one things that served to create and foster discontent with the new administration. There's nothing wrong in establishing the new power by eliminating (not necessarily physically) potentially disloyal subjects, it's just that propaganda likes to avoid these things and pretend that everybody liked the new guys, and if anyone didn't - they were few and evil themselves.
• the "requisition of goods" from private property for the Romanian army etc), - yeap, 2 carriages paid up front. Did you hear about postavka in 1940s ?
  • We're discussing the Romanian propaganda myth that the "people of Bessarabia" loved the union and were happy with their new Romanian administration. The Soviet propaganda myth that the "people of Bessarabia" loved the Soviet administration which came in 1940 is not the topic of this discussion (we both don't believe in the latter, but you do believe in the former).
• resistance (RumCherOd and descendants), - yeap, sure, Al Qaeda.
  • Right, one government's terrorist is another government's freedom fighter. Control question: post WW2 anti-Soviet militant groups in Bessarabia - which one type were they?
• all Russian-speaking public servants that did not learn Romanian in 1 year were fired; However, the vest majority did learn, and were confirmed.
  • No, they was simply not needed (not trusted) and replaced with representatives from Romania. The language issue was merely a pretext to remove them. Perfectly normal for a change of power - Soviet authorities were far less kind when their turn came - but, once again, we don't have to deal with the illusion of a nice and fluffy Soviet regime, only the illusion of a nice and fluffy Romanian one.
• the Orthodox clergy was likewise replaced) - again, only those that did not learn the language
  • They started a new Metropolis there. The old clergy was thus "fired".
• and even three major minor uprisings invasions during the period Romanian administration. - all three Bolshevik intrusions. The population opposed them.
  • They consisted of said population. Two quelled uprisings, one massacre. Sure, inspired by Communists (two) and Ukrainians (one) and quickly drowned in blood, but hey, do you still believe your "no protests., resistance, persecutions, deportations, or anything"?
• One other, rather amusing, point: "an authoritarian democracy" is an oxymoron. A country is either ruled by an autocrat or "by the people" (demos+kratos). One important difference is the existence of an elected ruler in the latter case. So, who elected King Carol II to the throne? - Tell this to Putin. Romania was a Kingdom. Noone elects the Queen in Britain.
  • So, how much legislative or executive power does the Queen of Britain wield? Shall we compare the 1938 Romanian constitution with the British one of the time? There's a reason everyone knows Churchill, but very few know the name of the King of Britain in WW2. As for Putin - why do you even mention him? I haven't seen him being appointed President by divine grace or passing or approving any anti-Jewish laws...
• Antonescu? - sure, the fascists, who else. Not all 20 million Romanians were called Antonescu. Please, do read more about Romanian between the two world wars. If we are going to reduce all discussion to Antonescu, that is not funny any more.
  • The discussion is about your strange claim that the Kingdom of Romania was a democratic state in the (late) 1930s. You even called it a "democratic autocracy" (in 1940) yourself. As for who elected Antonescu - I was being ironic again, but it seems you know about the history of Romania even less than I do. Here.
• this started to deteriorate following the 1923 constitution - nothing deteriorated. source, please. Or rather please do read historians, not Soviet propaganda. There is a ton of books about 1918-1940, why do I have to retell them? Buy one, and read it, please. Or search with google books.
  • My source is Marcel Mitrasca - a Romanian historian writing from a mildly pro-Romanian and definitely anti-Soviet point of view. Funny, no? :-) You can also check out the two articles - they're based on a Romanian source as well.
• and was completely partially eliminated in the 1938 one.
  • Well, the country was finally turned into an authoritarian dictatorship. Partially as in "partially alive".

• One point I wanted to say instead of all this (before I read you last reply), but unfortunately I don't have now time to write it delicately (i am sorry), so here is it very directly and rudely: Soviet and post-Soviet arguments of the type "there is no legal and illegal, there is only interest; there is no right and wrong, everything is relative; for every bad thing that Soviets did, there must be something fascist Romanians did, who better should be considered fascist since 1918" very much resemble Manichaeism. Fortunately we don't live in that world. No matter how many imperfections exist in the modern world, we are based first of all on laws (read Hegel, read Montesquieu). And stop reading Soviet propaganda, please. You are a very intelligent person. You can think for yourself. You need not borrow the arguments from their dialectic anarchism. Dc76\^talk 20:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Ah yes, Hegel or Machiavelli? Here's the book I borrowed my arguments from. Read it and decide for yourself. ;-)
  • As for you being rude - that's no problem: when someone is being misled by propaganda, a barrage of facts said propaganda omits or plays down and the cognitive dissonance associated with this tends to produce a strong, sometimes violent reaction. I absolutely don't mind. If I actually manage to get you to snap out of it - I'd consider my time spent onwiki paid off a hundredfold. --Illythr (talk) 03:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
    • what do you mean? Dc76\^talk 20:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Wishful thinking. :-) --Illythr (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
        • You totally lost me here. :)
        • Now, pls, I don't want to be rude, but I don't have time tonight to read all your latest posts, less so to reply. Hope you don't mind. If there's anything specific that needs my attention now, please post below so I can see.
        • Yes, this is the book about the Bessarabian Treaty I was talking about. I'm glad you find it (I should bookmark it, too).
        • But please, don't Machiavelli me. I meant read what Hegel writes about Germans and Law, Roman Law, what effect it had on Germans. Also do read Montesquieu, or at least about him. You won't regret. It might be worth re-reading about Woodrow Wilson, the Congress and Versailles Treaty. The law provides the frame and procedure. Whether inside that you follow Machiavelli or not, that's about taste. I was talking about the means (the law), not the goal (Machiavelli or not). Also read about Andrey Vyshinsky if Machiavelli inspires you. :) Dc76\^talk 21:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
          • This is not about me (I'm not a leader of a world power yet), but about the motives behind decisions of major historical figures. In geopolitics, law was but a tool, akin (and usually inferior) to the cannon, invented for the purpose of rectifying international boundaries. As numerous historical examples show, the choice between these tools was dictated largely by national interest.
          • Feel free to close the discussion or come back any time. As for what I'd rather have answered, I was actually curious about that question there. --Illythr (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 3

As for who can claim what, this is where it becomes funny (and tragic, when military action is actually taken in line with the sentiment): just as modern Romanian nationalists claim that Bessarabia is their "ancestral land" and whatever peace treaties Romania signed in the 1940s were done either at gunpoint or by an "illegal" Communist government, and thus they "don't count", so can Russian monarchists/nationalists claim that Bessarabia was part of the Russian empire, illegally occupied by a foreign force and whatever peace treaties Russia signed in the 20th century by its "illegal" Communist or "West-dominated" Yeltsin governments "don't count" either. Then Ottoman revivalists can add that most of Southeastern Europe was sovereign Ottoman or Ottoman-dependent territory, before it was illegally taken by Russia and various local separatist movements. Then Hungarian nationalists can remind everyone, at whose behest the Principality was founded (and then so very illegally revolted against) in the first place. For some inexplicable reason, each of the above groups will consider whatever treaties concluded in its favor as absolutely and obviously legal, and all those signed at their favorite country's expense - illegally imposed, forged, or signed by enemy-controlled agents posing as country leaders. --Illythr (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, this is why we have international law, so that we don't have these funny things. Dc76\^talk 07:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

We don't? What's this then?--Illythr (talk) 14:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Bessarabia is not part of these disputes. Also, the "funny things" you first mentioned were theoretical things like Hungary pretending ... (which she does not), while the latter lists you give are current real disputes over some or the other (mostly uninhabited) islands (not to mention that they are compiled by Wikipedians). Imagine the Dniester or the Prut changes course a bit. We will end up with a similar dispute over several square meters. But Moldova in its entirety is not currently disputed by anybody. My key point about Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and northern Bukovina: this is all history, it has no inference on modern politics in the sense of creating a territorial dispute. There can be financial (which I doubt) or cultural (which I see) issues, or issues of national prestige, but there are no territorial disputes. Dc76\^talk 17:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

No need to imagine, these things happen all the time. :-) And, to repeat, there's currently no border agreement between Romania and Moldova, so who knows? ;-) --Illythr (talk) 00:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Your example proves my point about "Imagine the Dniester or the Prut changes course a bit." Non-Existence of a formal agreement does not mean the existence of any border disagreement. Otherwise, please prove you are not a Martian. :-) Dc76\^talk 07:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

And why would Russians said like that since Bessarabia was all the time in history populated with a Romanian majority, even today. Disraelly (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Because the concept of ethnic allegiance is but one of the many arguments in these disputes. --Illythr (talk) 14:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, precisely. Dc76\^talk 17:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

(od) Just as complete asides, Russia first annexed Bessarabia and incorporated it while the war with the Ottomans was still in progress. When the Ottomans ceded Bessarabia, they ceded land over which they had no sovereignty, as it was actually the Principality which was the sovereign entity. But be that as it may, war was a legal means for settling arguments, so if you had the smaller stick to beat others with, you were at the mercy of everyone with a bigger stick. In the end, history before the 20th century is simply about conquest. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  21:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I would extend that time period to 1949 (end of monopoly on nuclear weapons, making conquest by any one major player too costly to consider). As for claims of legality/illegality - check out the handy table below.--Illythr (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. While never a part of Romania or Moldavia prior, the left bank of the Dniester was historically a majority Romanian territory. The PMR has everything to do about privatizing Moldova's industrial infrastructure into the hands of oligarchs, and little to do with the concerns that spawned it, ostensibly, the rights of ethnic Russians; it was more the loss of stature of and control by the nomenklatura. Better a big fish in a small pond. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  21:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Initially it was about gaining power by manipulating misguided fools, just as it was in Moldova. Later - yes, keeping the status quo and making a profit. --Illythr (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

P.P.S. In all fairness, one of the major reasons for the failure of the union movement when it first gathered steam was Moldova felt itself better of as a fish in its own pond and not the minority fish in the Romanian pond. As long as any "union" is couched (by the opposition) in terms of what is "lost", nothing good will come of the attempt. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  21:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the movement was simply discarded when it was no longer needed. --Illythr (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Recognition versus legality

Political entity	Established	Recognized by	Illegal because
Republic of Moldova	27 August 1991	Universally, even by Transnistria, AFAIK (just not within claimed borders ;-) )	The Soviet constitution required any Soviet Republic wishing to leave the Union to conduct a referendum, among other things. Such a referendum was boycotted by the Moldovan government.
Moldovan SSR	2 August 1940	Treaty of peace with Roumania	Acquired under the threat of force
Province of Greater Romania	6 November 1918	See below.	The unconditional union was voted by 44 members of the Sfatul Tarii (out of 125), in absence of everyone else, thus lacking a quorum; also see below
Autonomous province of Greater Romania	9 April 1918	De jure: No one. De facto: United Kingdom, France, Italy (see Treaty of Paris (1920)).	See below.
Moldavian Democratic Republic (sovereign state)	24 January 1918	Romania? (short-lived)	The provincial diet exceeded the powers delegated to it by a representative of the Russian Provisional Government.
Moldavian Democratic Republic (part of the Russian Republic)	16 December 1917	Russian Provisional Government, Council of the People's Commissars (that is, Russia)	This one was actually legal.
Province of the Russian Empire	1812	Treaty of Bucharest, Treaty of Berlin (part)	Acquired via conquest; recognition taken from a defeated state, "at gunpoint" The Ottoman Empire had no right to cede a part of its vassal state.
Vassal of the Ottoman Empire	1538	The notion of diplomatic recognition was irrelevant at this point and earlier	Acquired via conquest
Principality of Moldavia	1359		Established following a coup.
Vassal of the Kingdom of Hungary	1346-1353		Probably legal, due to no known previous claims.

---

Long debate here, sorry it was not the intention to develop such a huge thread. Disraelly (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, tends to happen between certain users around here... --Illythr (talk) 22:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually conquest was legal prior to the 20th century, that is, war was a legal means to settle arguments between states. That's why alliances were so important. They weren't to insure peace, they were to insure that everyone would have to get their stick out, without considering the potentially devastating consequences, viz. the start of WWI. Of course, if the guy holding the stick that you were counting on sold you out, it was pretty much touch luck. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  19:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Alliances - yes, correct, it's nukes and the understanding that attacking your weaker neighbour will get you nuked from elsewhere is what's been keeping the peace, not some "Thou shall not"'s, which were written (or adapted) by victors to secure their gains anyway. --Illythr (talk) 22:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Personal questions

When did your parents went to Moldova? Just my asking..somehow I bet after WWII. Disraelly (talk) 16:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course! Why do you think I'm so arduously pushing Stalinist POV around these parts? I also hate all Romanians. --Illythr (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

And we all hate him back. Dahn (talk) 18:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Illythr is born in Moldova. That's all that matters. Dc76\^talk 07:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

All torn up

Translations are fluid. We were taught to translate "kak po maslo" into "as easy as pie"!

Anyway, "torn up" is an English colloquialism implying bad faith and bad temper, which is pov in this case, even though we both know it was bad faith. The point is the Russians attacked Japan despite their agreement which needs to be mentioned at least in passing. When diplomacy is explored in detail in another article, the bad faith part can be explored as well by WP:RELY sources. But the "torn up" part is still too pov to use. How about not mentioning the treaty at all? It was mentioned earlier. So what if Russia attacks Japan? They had been asked by Truman at one point in time. changed his mind later I suppose.

The phrase must not be used regardless of whether it is a precise translation or not. Or even from an otherwise WP:RELY source. It is biased, pov and non-encyclopedic. Why do you think it must be used? Student7 (talk) 00:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for my error. Thanks for the correction. Student7 (talk) 12:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It's time you knew:

Luke, I am your father. Dahn (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Categories

Check Category:Edwardian era and Category:Georgian era. It does not sound at all pompous. Early Modern Era does not sound pompous, too. it's just a term. Romanian likes more the word "epoque", although accepts "era" as well, but Enlgish prefers "era" ("epoque" is too French). "Moldavian SSR" wouldn't be appropriate because many articles deal with the entire area of Bessarbia and Northern Bukovina, but it can be a subcategory or a related category (think of "History of Moldavia" vs. "Moldavia"). The current name has also the advantage of being neutral, since the word "era" does not convey any opinion. Let's think more about this. Dc76\^talk 01:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I just recalled that we did not finish yet that long-long discussion. :-) Can that discussion wait, please. Sorry, I did not have time to continue it. We went into super-over-time with it and I don't remember where we ended; most likely in square 1 or in some kind of flux. :-) And no-no, please don't point me to read above, :-) it would take an hour or more, the sheer look at its size makes me shiver... Dc76\^talk 01:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, I have a few points to answer on your talk page (*evil cackle*)... --Illythr (talk) 01:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

1) "Soviet era" is an established term, as well. There is no difference in this regard. 2) But, indeed, here there are two, not one main articles: Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina and Moldavian SSR. Ukrainian SSR is definitively not the main article, just as Soviet Union isn't. The issue covered is more specific. But, I'll think more about it. Do you have any other suggestions?

oh, I'd rather have you come with points on my talk page, b/c it would spare me the need to read yours. :-) Dc76\^talk 01:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, for Christ, Dc: the idea in creating the categories is to keep it simple, and, again, not to create a category for every nuance. You also introduced a POV, since again you didn't rely on accessibility, but on how you think the subject are connected - what is the connection between Bukovina and Bessarabia after they became Soviet, other than that they were Soviet? I mean, must we go through this every time? Name the subcategories after the respective entities (though, quite frankly, Bukovina needs no such special subcat), and place the articles that straddle the divide (such as "Soviet occupation of...") into both. Now, do you really see no reason in taking your time before starting something that all others are supposed to be working with? Not even the courtesy in doing that? Dahn (talk) 02:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

And, yes, Illythr is also spot on on the name: it does sound pompous. It also reads: "this is how a wikipedia user thought you should get your info". Dahn (talk) 02:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Now that this has come out (i.e. the chance of being accused of having smth personal with the user is lower) I have to agree that the formulation is rather POVish and tries to convey some higher truth on the reader rather than help him find related info.Anonimu (talk) 09:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure, guys, you did not start a Cabal? :-)

@Illythr: I think I found a nice solution: Category:Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic. Dc76\^talk 10:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't need to be in a cabal with Dahn (see above). Kind of ironic that we left Anonimu out of the discussion that followed, though. --Illythr (talk) 22:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Find consensus about categories we must. :) Dc76\^talk 11:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

To simplify matters (not to rush anything, but to set aside things that were already clarified or those that could wait longer), I would like to modify my proposal to fit better with the minimalistic approach of Dahn. I would appreciate your troubleshooting. Feel free to edit/comment within the proposal itself, e.g. add a cat that you think I missed, or comment after an unnecessary cat. Allow me to request (from everybody) that we allow everyone interested time to think about it. Thank you very much for consideration of my proposal. Dc76\^talk 12:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Winter War + Archive's repository,

Hi! I am currently working with the Winter War FA-review Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Winter War/archive1. There was a question of Archive's repository (question 1c.1. and 2c.4; currently fn8). I picked up from talk page in your comment. Is there any Russian/English book/web site which confirm the source? Peltimikko (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You can replace it with secondary sources - 30 Nov 1939: Meltiukhov's Stalin's Missed Chance - chapter 4 table 10. 1 Jan 1940 and "first days of March" - Krivosheev in fn16. Both provide direct archival entries in their books (fn{418} and [425] respectively). The only problem is that I can't give page numbers due to online source use. --Illythr (talk) 23:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, done it myself. --Illythr (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Cheers Illythr - Requesting your input regarding the most appropriate headline - message to Killing Vector below

Why are you ignoring requests for you to reason your reverts of the 'Soviet attack' from the headline of the related text

Killing Vector: Despite requests, you have refused to give any reasoning for your reverts, whereas I have explained my edits. Do you not agree that the Continuation War started with a major Soviet attack against Finland on June 25, 1941 ?

If you agree, that this is where and when the Continuation War began, why in your opinion this fact - perhaps the most defining moment of the entire war (as it launched the war) - does not deserve to be included in the headline of the block of text which discusses the topic ?

I ask you kindly once again - please explain your reverts - can you not offer any reasoning at all for you doing this ? If you can't, please allow the war-initiating Soviet offensive to stay in the headline where it belongs.

I wait for your answer, before reverting your revert. If you decline to offer any acceptable reasoning for your reverts, or if you continue giving no explanation at all, I believe others agree that your reverts are unjustifiable and your removal of the Soviet attack from this headline should not be withstood.

My suggestions for the headline in question are: Initial stages - Soviet offensive starts war - - or - - Initial stages - Soviet air raid begins war - - or - - Initial stages - Soviet air offensive launches war - - or - - Initial stages - Soviet Union attacks Finland - - or - - Initial stages - Soviet offensive, June 25, 1941 - - or, perhaps the best - - Initial stages - Soviet offensive of 1941 (perhaps this last one fits best your liking, Illythr ?).

The 'Initial stages' was a suggestion from user Illythr, so I left that part in the headline - since this block indeed discusses the initial stages as well, besides the Soviet attack.

Any other suggestions for this headline - leaving the Soviet attack in ? Or, does anyone else wish to state why in their opinion this war-initiating major Soviet offensive should not be in this headline ? Should the Finnish offensive not be in the following headline either ?

In my view, the most appropriate phrasing for that following headline is: Finnish counter-offensive of 1941, as that is what it was - a counter-offensive. Yet, I am also ok with the current headline there, Finnish offensive of 1941, as long as the prior Soviet offensive is stated in the headline before this. Boris Novikov (talk) 06:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Continuation war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

Note: 3RR doesn't care if you are "right" or "wrong". However, I am keeping an eye on the article to make sure the POV edits by the other parties are dealt with. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

In that case, you should file a sock puppet investigation with as many of the recent socks as you can find (even if already blocked). Maybe the underlying IP/IP range can be blocked to prevent further disruption. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll see what I can find & file a SPI in a bit... what other articles does this person like to push his POV on? --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Art Dominique. Feel free to solicit input from anyone else who might have something to add. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Dividing lengthy segment into two shorter ones, for added clarity and easier access

I'm dividing a lengthy segment into two - each with own headline -, for added clarity and easier access (not the same arrangement which was proposed previously). Please take a peak, and let me know what you think. Boris Novikov (talk) 14:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Hi!

Apparently, someone posted a zipped collection of messages from mostly Polish, Romanian and Ukrainian editors (Piotrus, etc.), who discuss how they coordinate their activities to promote their "agenda". It also describes how they coordinate treatment of other editors and administrators. There is a lengthy discussion about you there, so, unless you know about it already, you may want to take a look. --EugeneK (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I already know and read the discussion. I guess I should be flattered. --Illythr (talk) 04:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Language help

Hi. I'm doing language research for the Commons page on Babylon 5. I need more eyes on what I've found, and I thought you may be able to help. I'm especially interested in knowing if there is more to the language story on Mira Furlan and the Croatian language, if you know anything about that. I've made a list of what I've found at the Talk page there. Thanks! —Aladdin Sane (talk) 07:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I don't know much about her, beyond what the wikiarticle about her says. I'm also not sure the ethnic background of any actors of characters is a good argument - for me, the decisive factor would be the popularity of the series in the target language-speaking audience. For example, I know that the series was (and, still is, to a degree) quite popular in Russia, with numerous fan sites still in operation and whatnot. Can you add some detail to the "the multiple language thing"? Where will it be applied? --Illythr (talk) 14:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Request

Hi! As you have always struck me as neutral (i.e. I could never figure out what your POV is) and faithful to the letter and spirit of WP:V, and, as is clear from ruwiki, you possess some invaluable experience in maintaining NPOV, could you please take a look at Soviet reaction to the Polish Crisis of 1980-1981 and make necessary changes if you have time? Some of the less constructive guys have stepped in, and I can barely understand what their grievances are about. I wouldn't mind to make the article more NPOV, but I just don't understand the points if I stay within the limits set by WP:AGF. Your assistance would be helpful. Colchicum (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I haven't been around for the last several days. Not sure if this is still needed, but I can check the article out anyway. Not my area of expertise, though, so I can only judge the tone - you'll have to ask someone else to verify the factual content. --Illythr (talk) 13:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)