Talk:Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic

Soviet Union Mid‑importance

	Soviet Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Former countries C‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

Moldova B‑class High‑importance

	Moldova portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Moldova, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Moldova on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MoldovaWikipedia:WikiProject MoldovaTemplate:WikiProject MoldovaMoldova articles
B	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Move

Unless there are any complaints I'm going to move this article to Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic and then redirect Moldavian ASSR to point to that. - FrancisTyers 03:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. "Moldavian ASSR" is a more often used term than "Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic". The title doesn't have to be the official name, but the most common used name. See Soviet Union vs. "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics". bogdan | ^Talk 09:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok :) Please feel free to join WikiProject Soviet Union, we're talking about stuff like that there. - FrancisTyers 14:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Verst vs. Kilometre

Actually, MASSR had 8100 (more exactly 8134) square versts, not square km. So the area was about 8,677. ;-) bogdan 22:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ceding under ultimatum

Charles King in the Moldovans accurately describes Soviet acts as occupying following the ultimtum. Caving to un ultimtum does not mean territory thus acquired is not occupied. We'll see about appropriate wording. PētersV 03:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeap, but all other sources use "cede" (one "pressured to cede", which i preffered thinking it will better fit the POV of nationalist wikiusers).Anonimu 11:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anonimu, all sources use "cede". Said action was done under and ultimatum from the Soviet Union. "Ceding" territory to the Soviet Union does not mean that the Soviet Union does not occupy the territory so gained, as then contend. Revised per King, also leaving existing sources. I trust this will end the reverts from both sides. PētersV 14:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battlefield Lead

Hey guys, could whoever provided those sources (or whoever just has them) quote the appropriate passages here (about cession/occupation/annexation) so that they could be discussed here and not in the edit summaries of the article. --Illythr 21:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's simple. The 4 sources say, in the order presented in the article:

"On June 27, following Stalin's ultimatum, Romania ceded Bessarabia and northern Bukovina to the Soviet Union; on August 30 germany and Italy ordered the transfer of northern Transylvania to Hungary, and a week later Romania had to return southern Dobrudja to Bulgaria. " etc
"In 1940, Romania ceded Bessarabia and northern Bukovina to the USSR, northern Transylvania to Hungary, and southern Dobrudja to Bulgaria. " etc
"Romania ceded Bessarabia and northern Bukovina to the Soviet Union in 1940, to be followed shortly by the cession of Transylvania to Hungary " etc
"on July 27 having yelded to a ultimatum of the USSR, Romania ceded Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina to the Soviet Union" etc

Anonimu 22:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they all say cede. Does not mean that ceded territory was not subsequently occupied, that is your WP:SYNTH. See comment above re: King and latest edit. And please leave your contentions of "vile"-ness out of your edit summaries. I'm sorry that the RfC has done nothing to encourage you to be more civil. PētersV 14:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YOu don't occupy smth someone has given to you.Anonimu 15:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is your WP:SYNTH contention, reliable sources with regard to this specific instance (e.g., King) say you do occupy territory ceded to you under ultimatum. Please provide additional materials from your sources substantiating non-occupation, not your WP:SYNTH. PētersV 15:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you stop putting quotes from ur imagination and use sources?Anonimu 15:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the word ceded can be used to describe the events that took place in 1940, because the withdrawal of Romanian troops was de facto a cession of the territory. However, Romania never acknowledged the legitimacy of this action, and never signed a treaty to that effect with the SU. Thus, the term occupation is certainly justified, because it describes the process of a foreign army entering another without the consent of the former, which is certainly the case here. The fact that the sources that Anonimul has cited use the word "ceded" does not imply that an occupation did not took place. Numerous sources actually use that term, but providing a source every time the word occupation occurs seems to me a bit superfluous. TSO1D 17:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You forget one thing: the SU had Romania's consent to enter Bessarabia, per Romania's minister to Moscow. Also the Allies considered the cession legal (see the 1947 peace treaty with Romania).Anonimu 18:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Romania never consented to the occupation. They simply acquiesced to the Soviet Ultimatum and did not resist the advance of Soviet troops into Bessarabia militarily, however to claim that they actually agreed to give up claims on the land in favor of the USSR is disingenuous. And what does 1947 have to do with 1940? Of course the allies were not going to go against the Soviet Union after the war, just as they didn't oppose them on the matter of Baltics, but that does not mean that this changed what had happened seven years earlier. Either way, there was only one brief mention of the term occupation here, so if you really oppose the usage of this term or perhaps wish to familiarize yourself with the subject a bit more, I suggest you take a look at Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina. TSO1D 20:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Romania accepted Su's first ultimatum, thus is accepted to cede Bessarabia and N Bukovina. The post-war borders were based on pre-war peacefull settlements, one of them being the Soviet-Romanian agreement. That article is the last stronghold of Romanian ultra-nationalism on wikipedia and is a protected by a strong clique. Nothing contradicting the nationalist view on the events, even if referenced, is allowed there by this clique.Anonimu 20:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Accepting" an ultimatum = "peaceful" settlement = non-occupation is your personal interpretation only. I see no sources having been produced for your contention, while I've produced King, whose work has been hailed as the first in-depth study in English (and not by a "nationalist") on Moldova/the Romanians. PētersV 23:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it's just simple logic: someone peacefully requests something from you (i.e. he isn't in your house with any weapon...actually he isn't in your house at all), you accept his request and then that someone takes that something (only after you have agreed). If you can't understand that, you must have some problems.Anonimu 15:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that the matter was handled improperly on that page, you should bring up the matter again there. However, you can't simply choose articles that are frequented less by the users you disagree with and make those changes there. One goal of Wikipedia is to have consistence, in content and terminology. I reintroduced the word occupied, and provided a link to that article. There the issue is addressed fully. Ultimately the idea is to find the most descriptive term or the term most commonly used in other sources. For instance, the Encarta article has: "After the breakup of the Russian Empire, Bessarabia was united with Romania (1918). During World War II it was occupied by the army of the United Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) in 1940, retaken by Romania the following year, and reoccupied by the USSR in 1944." 23:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC) TSO1D 00:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I treid too many times to do it, but nobody listen, and the clique simply ignored my comments and vandalistically deleted or corrupted my references. And I didn't modify this article because is "less frequented", but because it used a wrong term for a clear event. Actually wikipedia has to take care of NPOV, even if 1,000 sources use a wrong term.Anonimu 15:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Ceded", "annexed", "incorporated" none of these terms dictate non-occupation. This is the old non-occupation saw, if someone capitulates then it's not occupation because the occupation wasn't "belligerent", there was not a declaration of war, etc. etc.--all your personal contentions and more WP:IDONTLIKEIT regarding occupation. PētersV 02:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrlat

Some points:

While the possible conversion of all USSR languages was (was it?) done in order to simplify the export of Communism, it would be wrong to claim that the Union-wide initiative was meant for Romania alone.
Why blame the Soviets that they didn't use the archaic Romanian Cyrillic? A better idea would probably be a more detailed description of the propaganda campaign around it. "Roots" and all.
The modern part (general policy, Transnistria etc) is probably better off in the Moldovan language article. --Illythr (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the mention here is the very first I've ever heard of any planned "Soviet-wide" move away from Cyrillic, the Latin->Cyrillic->Latin->Cyrillic road traveled I have come across only for Moldova.
You are correct on accentuating the politics and propaganda involved driving the swings in policy, the language nuances may be better left elsewhere. That said, being the returning to roots propaganda lives on in corners left unnamed, it's important to at least note that Cyrillic Moldovan is a transliteration, not a return. Фор еxампле, хере ис хоw Енглисх лоокс ас Молдован.
No problem just deleting the Transnistrian sentence, although it does apply to territory once part of the MASSR. PetersV TALK 23:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130521170957/http://www.ziarulring.ro/stiri/8814/radio-moldova-se-revendica-de-la-radio-tiraspol to http://www.ziarulring.ro/stiri/8814/radio-moldova-se-revendica-de-la-radio-tiraspol

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]