Talk:Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Rule

If an information was fished from Goma, presuming it relies on accurate sources, it would need to be referenced to those sources, after those sources have been reviewed by the editor (and not based on the assumption that Goma quotes them properly [...]). It does not matter to anyone how banal that info may be [...] As I have said before, and as wikipedia regulations will back me [...] if it is reliable, it can easily be found elsewhere (cited or in the original).

If one has some preliminary, yet unverified edit that needs to be soursed, write it in the talk page, and only when one gets to the sourse, review the edit according to what I read from the entire section or chapter from where the particular citation is from [...]

[...] intend to use from Goma's book for its list of bibliography [...]

For more details see /Archive 1 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dc76 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Reaction to the Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina

First, good job at merging the two article, Dc76. Now that this is done, what next? Besides the various stuff that needs to cleaned up an improved (there is always room for that!), let me float a different idea. How about a new section, towards the end, on reactions to the ultimatum and to the occupation -- not just within the Romanian government, but from other governments, and the international press? I think it would add texture, and a better international perspective, if something along these lines would be included. For a vague model of what I have in mind, take a look for example at sections 3.3 and 3.4 in Prague Spring (or, to go full hog on a contemporary event that has had quite a bit of coverage, look at section 7 here, or the full article here!) Now, of course, I do not expect that there would have been 1% (or even 0.01%) contemporaneous coverage of the events of June 1940 in Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina (compared to examples given), but there must have been some articles on the subject, and some official reactions (besides those in Romania). Is this worth pursuing? Turgidson 00:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That is a very good idea. But let me understand one thing: do you mean to treat both the reaction in June-July 1940, and the reaction years afterwords? The reaction of UK, Germany, Italy, Bulgaria, Turkey, etc at the time was quite relevant even for the development of the events. 2-3 not very long paragraphs on that can be made into a separate subsection inside section 2 (just one option). The reaction afterwards, incl. after the end of WWII, treatment of the subject in various diplomatic realtions, incl. during the Cold War etc - that would need a separate section. I don't know which way of organizing is better. Perhaps it depends on what sourses can be found. I definitevely think it is worth doing, but I don't even know where to start looking for such sourses. Anyway, I would 100 times do that than continue endless discussion about positive view. :Dc76 01:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Amen to that last statement! OK, let's give it a shot. I was thinking of the immediate reaction (from June-July 1940), but reaction afterwards could also be relevant. Surely The New York Times must have written something about it in June 1940 -- I'll look. Also, the Times of London. The French press would have normally mentioned this, but given the situation in France in June 1940, most surely the reaction was muted or perhaps even non-existent. (On the other hand, the surrender of France on June 22, 1940 emboldened Stalin to make his move, as the article notes; btw, the precise date of the French surrender, with a wikilink, could be mentioned, to make the chronology more exact; I'll do that.) But Google searches do not bring up anything immediately -- I need to experiment some more. The only tentative source I could find is this article (requires subscription, though). All I can read is: "July 7.1. The Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Bukovina has elicited the most outspoken condemnation from the Spanish Press." So maybe that's a start... Turgidson 04:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Good. I will also link/cut-and-paste here whatever I will find. Do you know how to achieve this talk page except for the last section? I sincerely doubt anyone is interested in continuing the above discussion. :Dc76 13:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I've never tried archiving a page -- will try one of these days, but maybe someone more experienced can do it. I agree, after the merger of the two articles, it would be good to start fresh, with a clean slate for the talk page -- maybe use this section as a starting point? Turgidson 13:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Good texts, ready to cut-and-paste, which did not yet found their home articles

In 1942, 24,617 Gypsies from Romania were also deported to Transnistria; only half of those survived and returned to Romania in 1944.[1]

Eh, maybe Romania_during_World_War_II#Romania_and_the_Holocaust? Or were those Gypsies all from Bessarabia? --Illythr 15:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know exactly, but I think there were not from Bessarabia. Actually, what does the Holocaust mean? (I know the Latin menaing on the word) I thought the murder, deportations, extermination of Jews is called Holocaust. Anyway, that was the major group persecuted for its ethnicity. Well, add it where you think it should be, since i don't know. :Dc76 15:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments on copy edits

Hi, Illythr, I hope you understand the logic I am using of "withdrawn from" / "liberated" / "occupied". Also, thank you very much for the other copy edits.:Dc76 15:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably yes. :) I changed "occupied" to "ceded" there, because the census data refers to a point when the territories were "Romanian-side" (1930). --Illythr 16:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Stressed words: That's why we attribute the whole paragraph to Molotov and the ultimatum (it would be nice to put a ref to the actual page of the document there). Putting stresses on those words actually does the opposite - it draws attention to them and implies that either he said something else or that the reality was somehow different. --Illythr 16:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, let me present here the exact difference we are talking about, so other editors can easily see and comment if they find it necessary. I dislike the cede because the Romanian side chose "withdrawl" (which I consider a somewhat stupid invention, but that's just my oppinion) exctly to avoid "cede", while the Soviet side prefered "liberate", or at least "transfer", but also not "cede", the latter indicating rather a temporary might rather than an eternal righteousness. Maybe there are other "synonims"?

I see your point about the stresses, and perhaps you are right and I am wrong, and they shouldn't be stressed (only left in quatations). If there is another editor that thinks the same, consider me convinced. The text of the ultimatum is here, but it's the Romanian translation. I don't know where to look for one in Russian or in English. :Dc76 17:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

PCR day edit

Mr. Dc76, why did you remove the unreferenced tag? You added no refs and moreover you added more disputable material. Also i want to ask again for someone to show me from which part of the sources mentioned in notes 7,8,9 the numbers are taken (put here the line numbers where those figures are mentioned).Anonimu 19:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

For the first question. I have tried to give another edit to this section, and I am hoping you will help edit it. I would appreciate if you could (1) indicate the sentences that in your oppinion need reformulation (don't mention small reformulations, just change those), (2) those that in your oppionion need to be erased, (3) sentences that you think can stay, but need to be sourced. I will put back the unreferenced tag, but because the text might be read now somewhat differently from the previous version, I would appreciate if you could read the section again and put new <wiki>‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› </nowiki>, where you think necessary.

For the second question, it wasn't me who introduced notes 7,8,9. I have tried now to find in them the references that are relevant for this article. Here is what I see:

• [7] lines 71-84 -- 1940-1941 -- deported 150-200-300 (min-est-max in thousands), deported dead 14-26-67, terror dead 1-2-2, with total dead 15-27-67
• [7] lines 129-135 -- 1940-1941 -- deported 200-233-300, deported dead 18-30-65

I think these are estimates of the same number by different sourses. They seem close. What do you think? If these where to be trusted, then we have 200-250 thousands affected, of which 20-30-60 thousands dead for 1940-41.

• [8] lines 159-165 -- 1944-1949 -- German-Romanian deported 130-155-179.

I think this might refer to the deportation of Transylvanian saxons to Donbas, etc. If so, that's irrelevant here, that sould be in a different article, not here.

• [8] line 144 -- 1944-1946 deported (incl POWs) 390,000, of which 100,000 repatriated by the end of 1946.

This number I believe includes many from Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, as they comprized a big portion of Romanian POWs in the last months of the Eastern Front, as witnessed for example by the survivors of the Bălţi concentration camp. Some of them were POWs, some were not but when returning to Bessarabia after August 1944 were picked up on the way by the Soviets, and interned in the same transition camps as the POW, before being deported to Urals and Siberia. If you ask, how many of them were from Bessarabia and N.Bukovina - I don't know. It would be safe to say "at least the proportion of population in August 1944", i.e without northern Transylvania, so I guess somewhere around 1/5-1/4. The number maybe as high as 1/3, since the 1st Army in Transylvania, the army that was not surounded, contained very few from B&NB. Very-very roughly, I deduce from this somewhere around 100,000 B&NBs (plus-munus 50,000).

[9] lines 93-100 -- 1944-1953 Romanians -- 1,148-1,388-1,628, of which dead 103-180-350.

[9] line 97 -- 1944-1949 B&NBs - deported 800-?-?, this is a component of the above line, so if the dead are proportional then x800/1,148 gives dead 72-125-244.

[9] lines 121-134 --1946-1955 Moldavians -- 200-266-400, of which dead 18-35-86.

I don't know how to read this exactly. Of course, we need to include B&NBs picked even in Romania proper after august 1944, because if lucky and survived by 1956, they were not allowed to go to Romania, but were only allowed to go to Moldova, since the Soviets considered them Soviet citizens. But how many in the first line were B&NB? NBs could not be included in the second line, even if picked in USSR, b/c they were not considered Moldavians, but perhaps got counted at Ukrainians. Were NBs included in the first line?

[9] line 135 gives a total dead Molvadians for 1944-1959 at 100-200 thousand.

[9] line 218 gives the number of Romanian POVs in 1950 at 230,000

[9] lines 253-256 Romanian POW camps dead at 230,000.

Dc76 22:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

My conclusion is that for B&NB we should add the numbers in the 3 lines mentioned above that refer to 1940-41, to 1944-49, to 1944-1955, and POWs. Without POWs, that's 1,200 affected (incl. deported to Siberia and killed in B&NB), with dead at 20-30-60 plus 72-125-244 plus 18-35-86 equals 110-190-390, i.e. min estimate 110,000 thosands, max estimate 190,000, normal estimate 190,000, not including POWs.

My estimates for POWs, which is not something sourced, but 1/4 times the number sourse for all Romanians, gives 100,000 POWs, of which 60,000 died. But in fact, it is 50-150 thousand POWs, with 30-90 thousand died.

So, just to have some estimates, to see what king of numbers are realistic and which not: somewhere 1,300,000 B&NB affected by deportations, persecutions, POWs, and equivalented to POWs, of which between 140,000 and 480,000 dead, with normal estimate of 250,000 dead.

My conclusion is we need to replace "According to other sourses, in total throughout USSR, around 2,344,000 Romanians were arrested, persecuted or deported one way or another[not specific enough to verify], of whom 703,000 perished." with "According to other sourses, in total throughout USSR, around 1,300,000 Bessarabians and Northern Bukovinians (not only ethnic Romanians) were arrested, persecuted, deported, or interned in POW camps, of whom arround 250,000 perished. This number does not include the victims of the 1947-48 famine (295,000 dead [all those affected there are the dead ones]), and those perished in 1944-1945 after being recruted into the Red Army (some other 200,000 dead [again only the dead ones count here - simple solders who survived the war, even if injured, obviously should not be counted])." I mean not to include [ ].:Dc76 22:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I do realize this is OR,a nd we need to city specific things. This was just for discussion here.:Dc76 23:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

MSSR and MASSR

Claiming simply that MSSR was created in 1940 is misleading. In fact, the Soviet policies in the area have continuity that can be traced back to 1924, with the Moldavian ASSR. Dpotop 16:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: It seems User:Anonimu claims that there was no continuity from MASSR to MSSR. Cool! So removing "Autonomous" from the name changes everything. :):) Dpotop 21:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

OR! The Supreme Soviet decided to divide Bessarabia and the MASSR between UkSSR and the newly created MSSR.Anonimu 12:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Anonimu on this one. Any point made about the relation between the two, as strong as it may be, does not allow one to remove the statement that these were different entities, which is the pure and simple fact. Dahn 12:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Long live the lack of common sense. Dpotop 18:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there anything in particular preventing one from adding a note about the existence of the MASSR in relation to that, instead of pretending that wikipedia users have become sources on the interpretation of internal Soviet law and international regulations? Dahn 19:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The Supreme Soviet of USSR has created MSSR, dissolved MASSR, included most of Bessarabia and parts of MASSR in MSSR, and the remainder of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina in UkSSR, while the remainder of MASSR remaind in UkSSR, loosing its status as autonomuous republic. I believe this speaks of itslef about the connection between MASSR and MSSR. The reason MSSR was created was because B&NB were occupied, and MASSR which then finished to serve its purposes was then dissolved. What exactly is not clear here? I am sorry, but I fail to understand what are you disputing.

Well, what I seem to sustain against everybody else, including our positive action Dahn, is the following fact:

Stating just that MSSR was created from Bessarabia is misleading, because it gives the impression of a lack of continuity in the Romanian/Moldovan policy of the Soviets. From my POV, there are 2 solutions:

• Not state anything in particular (which is what I tried to do)
• Say exactly what you wrote above, Dc76. But fighting with our Lenin would-be (i.e. Anonimu) to reach a commonly acceptable statement is... Well, I'm getting tired just thinking of it.

Dpotop 17:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Then, Wikipedia's policies requiring such wild goose chase to take place are broken and shall be fixed. Digwuren 17:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You can leave wiki whenever you want, you know...Anonimu 17:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The newest revert shows that a bunch of vandals control this page, that try to justify their POV by imposing their original research. Just look at their edits:

• Lenin "never made any claims to Bukovina", however the next sentence says that the government he formed and commanded gave romania an ultimatum to withdraw from it.
• the vandals go on claiming: "Plans were made to take over the entire Romania and establish a communist state there". However in those day Soviet could barely keep control of their territory and were fighting on multiple fronts: the westerners in the north and in the south, the withes everywhere, the poles in the west, the czechs and japanese in the east, the anarchists in ukraine and where in no position to take over Romania.
• another mean to impose their pov is by calling "communist" every supposed Soviet intervention plan. That's pretty odd.. like there was a capitalist or feudal Soviet Army, besides the communist one and we must say they were communist so that people don't mix em.
• another stupid thing: "no Soviet-Roumanian Agreement was signed before 1944". The situation is very clear. In 1940 Soviets said "get out of Bessarabia and Bukovina" and Romanians said "we agree" or to quote official papers: "The Romanian government (...) is forced to agree to the withdrawal conditions specified in the Soviet reply" That's an agreement.

Sign my post, slave.

• Lenin was dead for quite a while by then. I don't understand the the purpose the sentence is supposed to serve, though. So Lenin didn't. Lenin didn't do a lot of things. Why mention it?
• DPotop is not contributing with a purpose of disrupting Wikipedia (I find Digwuren's call to "fix" Wikipedia rules he dislikes rather puzzling, though). Please refrain from such remarks as they damage your own position. You only need to state that such a bold sentence requires a strong supporting source. I understand that it is currently presented as "Romanian interpretation" anyway...
• I suppose it's for the scarecrow thing. "Ooooh, the commies do this, so it's Eeeeevil!"
• Wasn't it about a border agreement or something?

PS: Anonimu, shouldn't you, as a Communist, seek to help people slay the slave within instead of calling anyone willing to add an "unsigned" tag to your post such? --Illythr 20:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

When in Rome... Anonimu 20:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Dpotop, I still fail to see what you are disagreeing with. As Dc76 has explained above, MASSR was used as a staging ground to reclaim Bessarabia for the USSR, which apparently was the original intention of the creation of the former (I vaguelly remember translating a Soviet propaganda poster of the time for Dahn, something like "Remember Bessarabia! 10 years of fascist Romanian yoke!" etc). Still, the two are different political entities, with MSSR indeed being formed in 1940. --Illythr 20:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Finally, a reasonable voice. For 2 days I thought I was left here alone with Anonimu. Dpotop 20:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

To understand my oppinon you should read my reply to the unsigned post of Dc76 above. In a nutshell, I find the version of Anonimu misleading because it does not talk about the MASSR, and gives the impression that there was no historical context. Given that it's the lead paragraph we are talking of, I supported the inclusion of **no** mention whatsoever to "MSSR created on that day". Now, if a majority of us decides that we shoud say "created on that day", then we must also include some mention of the MASSR, to explain that there was continuity indeed in the Soviet policies towards Romania. Dpotop 20:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

What bothers me most in what Anonimu did is that he did introduce controversial changes without discussing them here. Dpotop 20:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sourcing the article with 5 reliable sources or official documents and eliminating the contradictory unsourced info is very controversial. Probably i should have cited Goma, Usatiuc or a table about ussr without any connection to the article. I'm sure you would have been very happy.Anonimu 20:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me know what you guys think. Dpotop 20:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that the MSSR was created on that day. This is a fact, and an essential one for the article. Any further additions belong in the body of text, unless you really want to mention (briefly) the existence of the MASSR in the lead. Dahn 20:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's okay to leave the lead the way it was/is now, as the situation with MASSR is already explained in the Historical background section, as well as in several related (linked from the lead) articles, most notably, Moldavian_ASSR. --Illythr 21:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

And I tend to agree. Dahn 21:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Bessarabia was not ceded, and there was no agreement

The Romanian part only agreed to the conditions of evacuation. Romania never agreed to cede the territory to the USSR lawfully. And it mentioned the forced character of the measure in the reply to the ultimative note. So, beat off with your "ceded" changes. Dpotop 21:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Eh, didn't those conditions include phrases like "relinquish control... immediately and unconditionally..." etc? --Illythr 21:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The Soviets asked for whatever they asked, but did you read the Romanian reply? There, you will only find that Romania only agreed to evacuate. This is not a lawful territory transfer, but a military decision to retreat in front of superior forces. Dpotop 06:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Now that I've read the ultimatum and replies I can offer some corrections: 1. The Soviet Union did not demand Romania to cede Bessarabia, because the latter was considered Soviet territory under foreign occupation. The demand to cede territory regarded only Northern Bukovina (as compensation, yada yada). According to the texts (correct me if I mistranslated something), the Soviet Union demanded/stated the following: 1.Evacuation of Romanian forces from the territories. 2. Occupation of said territories by Soviet troops. 3. The establishment of a joint commission to oversee the transfer. The Romanian goverment has accepted all of these terms "Guvernul român, [...], se vede silit să accepte condiţiile de evacuare specificate în răspunsul sovietic." Based on this, we can state that the Romanian government was forced to agree to relinquish control over Bessarabia and cede Northern Bucovina to the Soviet Union. Lawfulness is not an issue here, as I doubt that any such ceding of territory was ever lawful according to the legal framework of the ceding country. --Illythr 00:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

"recaptured"

Romanian forces moved in in 1918 capturing Bessarabia from the disorganised Red Army elements. Thus the word "recaptured" for 1941 is fitting, IMHO. --Illythr 22:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Dahn 22:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

re-captured implies some previous capture. Romania never captured Bessarabia. Dpotop 06:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Disorganized red army elements controled (if "controled" is a word that can be used with "disorganized elements") Chisinau and Tighina. Romanian army moved in against them in these cities. However, Moldova is muc bigger that that. Noone coptured Bessarabia in 1918. There was a coup attempt by red army elements, and there was involvement of the Romanian army to restore the legal government. Sometimes, units of the Romanian army were sent for 1-2 days (at the request of the Directory Council of Bessarabia) to certain areas from were signals of presence of criminal anti-population elements which were stealing was coming. Generally, the Romanian army, in its characteristic anti-boldness moved very-very slowly, so those elements had time to flee before the army units even entered villages. After staying in 1 vilage for 1-2 days, they would be sent somewhere else. Romanian army did not change or install any administration of those villages. In short, Romanian army did not captures anything. It stayed in Bessarabia at the invitation of the government of Bessarabia at the time, and was sent where Bessarabian government asked, not according to own plans. In 1940 it was different - Soviet army was not invited, and acted according to its own plans. In 1944 was different again - there was military action that totally disregarded any border.:Dc76 17:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Actualy, my statement that there was no capture goes beyond this level. My argument is that the Romania did not seize power in Bessarabia. Instead, Bessarabia formally and lawfully chose union in 1918. Dpotop 18:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

So the Romanians came at the request of the Directory Council. so this explains why

“ President Inculetz of the Diet, and President Erhan of the Council of Directors General, telegraphed, under date of Jan. 6, 1918: "Jassy, Roumanian Government. We protest against the introduction of Roumanian armies into the territory of the Moldavian Republic. We demand categorically the immediate cessation of shipments of troops, and the prompt recall of those troops already over the border. The introduction of Roumanian troops into Bessarabia threatens us with the horrors of civil war, which has already begun. The Russian troops must be allowed to pass freely without any hindrance." ”

... or maybe notAnonimu 19:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Care to give a source for the citation? Dpotop 20:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It's from the philoroumanian Charles Upson Clark [2]Anonimu 20:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I read it. I don't see how it contradicts my statement that passage of power was done in a formal and lawful way. That some Bolshevist agitators would have liked the things to turn otherwise I can understand. But the process was actually cleaner than I thought. Dpotop 10:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

For the innocent bystander not to get misleaded by your excerpt: Inculetz (the Bolshevist leader of the Bessarabian assembly and official representative of the Soviet of St. Petersburg, appointed by Kerensky, per [3]) asked the Russians (still formally rulers of Bessarabia) to intervene to stop insecurity. The Russians could not do it, so they asked the Romanians (former allies) to intervene. Inculetz didn't like it, but he should have protested to the Russian general, not the Romanian government. Dpotop 10:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Dpotop, but your comment on Inculeţ is mind-boggling. On the other hand: one of the most obvious things is that the "free passage" of troops Inculeţ is talking about is in reference to Russian troops moving out of Bessarabia. Furthermore, in early 1918, there was no Russia but Bolshevist Russia - with whom the Romanians were never allies. And, finally, what the hell does this have to with this article? Dahn 11:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Concerning your last edits in your previous post: as you will note, Inculeţ was no longer emissary of anyone (one sentence after the one you cite), and the Russia in question is not Kerensky's - because, Dpotop, something called the October Revolution had happened. There were no other Russians, and no Russians were called on to help anyone; what Inculeţ was referring to was that Romanian troops were threatening the retreat of remaining troops from Bessarabia. Dahn 12:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Right. And in some other paragraph of the book it's also stated that Bessarabians at that time didn't believe it. Russian elite retreated beyond the Dniestr and waiting for the Russian power to come back. You may be right a posteriori, but at that time few believed that the new power would be something radically different from Imperial Russia. So, beat off with your intolerant remarks. Dpotop 13:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The point, my darling Dpotop, is that your speculations have resulted in all sort of inanities. As you will see from yet another paragraph, Russians present in the region who were not Bolshevik wanted the Romanians to intervene, so that they would not be caught between the Bolsheviks and the Germans. What you have read about the "did not believe it" part, presumably referring to Inculeţ and others, could only help substantiate any argument made in favor of using "recaptured" (though that word was introduced as part of a 1940/1941 comparison, and although it is validated by the fact that, when Romania took Bessarabia back, it captured it). And let me add that Imperial Russia had ceased existing in February... Dahn 13:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

He should also know that Inculetz was also the president of the State Council that "voted" the union with Rumania and was minister in almost all liberal governments between 1918-1940. So, according to Dpotop, Romania had a Bolshevist Interior Minister in 1933-1934 and 1936, a Bolshevist Health Minister in 1927-1928 and a Bolshevist Minister of State in 1918-1921. Man, and I thought Romania was anti-Sovietic in 1919-1944. BTW, if Russian were the formal rulers of Bessarabia, the union with Romania was not legal.Anonimu 11:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I did not know that Christian Rakovsky spoke against Russia seizing Bessarabia in 1812. :):) Dpotop 10:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Too bad for you. And you may want to look into the context: virtually all people on the Left spoke out against Romania entering WWI against the Central Powers, because they didn't want Romania to assist a despotic state (they were wrong about it being despotic post-1905 - but that is another discussion) in fighting the well-oiled German-Austrian war machine against which the Transylvanians had not even come to speak (especially since many Romanians in Austria-Hungary had it better than any of their Romanian counterparts). Dahn 11:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh (*confused*), so, is there any kind of agreement buried in this wall of text above? --Illythr 00:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Dahn seems to think that not knowing all he knows is a delict

Just take a look at the two replies above to my post. Without making this into a personal attack, I would like to point that Dahn has a clear personality problem. For my part, I see Wikipedia as the place where people with different understandings of a problem come and talk until reaching a common understanding (called NPOV). Now, this individual, User:Dahn, seems to think that not having already reached his conclusions is a delict of some sort. I mean, the guy is good, but does this justify trashing regular users? Dpotop 12:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

So, if I tell you that you are entirely wrong about an issue which you claimed to have just informed yourself about (and even announce to others that you are telling them the truth), I "have a personality problem"? On the other hand, you have several times by now conditioned me and others on what you know and don't know (remember that "Greater Romania is not an irredentist word" charade, to name just one?). To top it all, adding "without making this into a personal attack" in front of a personal attack will not make your irresponsible statements look more benign or less personal. What you are doing is pathetic, Dpotop, and sectioning off a page to advertise your embarrassing theories about other users is something you have done in the past. Dahn 12:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

DPotop, discussing Dahn's (or that of any user, for that matter) persona is best avoided completely. If you really wanna do it, try his talk page and address him directly instead of making a show out of it. Start an RFCU if you feel it's necessary. I really don't think that ANY kind of agreement can come out of this, uh, statement(?), at all, worded as it is. --Illythr 00:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

"return", "cede"

Not sure is it's meant this way, but using quotes like this turns them into scare quotes, the "yeah-they-said-return-but-we-all-know-what-those-bastards-really-did" type. It virtually begs the reader to perform the gesture. Me no like. Either quote the sentence fully, or leave the quotes out, as the sentence itself says that the Soviet Union was the issuer of the ultimatum. Perhaps the word "demanding" can be added in there to make it clear who used the words in a less provocative way. --Illythr 22:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, scare quotes on particular words, much like selective highlights in texts, are bringing POV to articles. Dahn 23:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

So, you want to use here the exact wording of a Soviet ultimatum without any warning and then pretend it's NPOV? No way. If it is a citation (i.e. without any interpretation whatsoever), then it's a quotation. And given the actual meaning of those ultimatum, the scare quotes actually bring out the actual meaning. Dpotop 06:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

If Illythr wants to cite in some other way, he is of course free try a new version. Dpotop 06:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Simply use the phrasing from the ultimatum: On 28 June 1940, Romania received an ultimatum note from the Soviet Union demanding the evacuation of the Romanian military and administration from Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, with an implied threat of invasion in the event of non-compliance. The Romanian administration and armed forces complied with the ultimatum and retreated to avoid an open conflict. I think this is as NPOV as it can get.--Illythr 00:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

admin, someone?

Our national Romanian commie (no personal attack, take a look at his page) sends me a 3RR warning. Is there some admin here to teach him what a revert is, and what actual editing is? Dpotop 22:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You want me to request your block for the violation of 3rr? BTW, remove the national part.. some people could get ideasAnonimu 23:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think you have delusions of grandeur. You should revise your way of addressing people, because it's getting increasingly weird. Dpotop 06:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Larger picture

I think it would be worth exploring in more depth the wider context for the Soviet ultimatum and subsequent occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina (and the wider strategic goals of Joseph Stalin at the time) than currently done in the "Historical background" section. As a starting point, take a look if you wish at this article in today's issue of Jurnalul Naţional (I put a link to it under External links for now). Further background can be found in the works of Viktor Suvorov (Icebreaker) and Mikhail Meltyukhov (Stalin's Missed Chance), and, of course, in Stalin's speech on August 19, 1939. There is a quite heated dispute about those books, and even about Stalin's speech itself -- but at the very least, I think it would be worth mentioning these WP articles, and how they relate to the present article. Any thoughts? Turgidson 02:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with this. Unfortunately, I am now very busy and will not be able to contibute to this until the fall. (or contribute only occasionally) :Dc76 17:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The Icebreaker opened some questions but wasn't much academic. Much research has been published later. A Meltyukhov's book has been published in Poland, but it wasn't precise, I don't know if he found any documents later.

If you would be so kind - summarize the Romanian article.Xx236 10:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will try, but perhaps in pieces, it's too much for me to do at once. Here is a (rough) translation of the first two paragraphs:

In July 1940, the Soviet army took Bessarabia, Northern Bukovina, and the Hertsa region. In parallel, Stalin was thinking of a plan to conquer Romania, and also the entire European continent. The city of Galaţi was an important place where the Soviet plans were thwarted.

Before the start of Word War II, Russia was ready (as Germany was, too) to start the attack for conquest of Europe. An important point in Stalin's war agenda was Romania. This was known to Hitler from the moment the nazis arrested Yakov Dzhugashvili Stalin, the son of Stalin, in whose pocket they found a letter making clear allusion to the Soviet occupation of Berlin. To put this plan in motion, the letter mentioned that an important role will be played by territories in Romania and Poland. The letter landed on Hitler's desk.

I'll continue later, but is this enough for now to give an idea what the Jurnalul Naţional article is about? Turgidson 12:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this really relevant to this article?Anonimu 12:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course: the annexation of Bessarabia, Northern Bukovina, and the Hertsa region by the Soviet Union at the start of WWII was not an isolated act out of the blue, or even an action that should be seen purely in terms of USSR vs Romania -- it was just a move (an important one, to be sure) in a wider sequence of moves made by the USSR to expand its territory at the time. What the ultimate goal of these moves were is the subject of much scholarly debate and literature, plus articles such as this one. Some of this is alluded in the WP article already, but more needs to be said in order to present a wider-lens picture of the strategic context in which the Soviet ultimatum and subsequent annexation took place. Turgidson 13:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason for the ultimatum is pretty obvious. Russia never relinquished its rights to bessarabia (it was always presented as part of ussr in soviet maps) and in 1940, when western powers were busy fighting nazis and could not intervene on Romania's side, it saw the perfect occasion to take what she thought was rightfully hers. The rest seems just theories of romanians to justify giving it without fighting Anonimu 13:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This is merely the Stalinist agitprop POV. Any support for it in reputable literature outside old Soviet propaganda books? And it's Bessarabia, USSR, Soviet, and Romanians, if you want to discuss cogently those entities or concepts. Turgidson 13:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, i understand... you can't have a serious discussion on the subject.. whatever don't fits your view is agitprop...Anonimu 13:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Whas it a mystery after the German invasion, that Soviets would loose or take Berlin? Xx236 14:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the first time I hear about that letter -- I cannot vouch for the story, I need to look for other sources before commenting further. But the context of the article makes it clear that Stalin's (putative) letter was intercepted by Hitler's agents before the Soviet annexation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina -- thus, much before the German invasion of the Soviet Union (Operation Barbarossa). Turgidson 14:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Another interesting thing: One would expect to find that letter mentioned on every ww2 book or site. However, until now i could find no mention of it except this article.Anonimu 14:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions

Anonimu, rather than edit warring and vandalizing, please list your suggestions here one by one (not together). You have a sandbox on your userpage that you've been using. Please, insert there the paragraphs or sections that you refer to, then do and undo each of your suggestions one by one. This way you will be abale to show them here as differences. (This way, there are chances that oe some of them you might find a compromize with the other editors. Also, in that way it will be easy for everyone to see and to edit.)

Other editors, after he shows his suggestions as diffs, please say "support" or "oppose" to Anonimu's suggestions (preferably to each separately, not altogether).

Thank you. :Dc76 12:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no suggestion to be made. There's just info supported by WP:RS you continue to remove and unsourced info you continue to add. In a word, sneaky vandalism. Anonimu 12:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Both of you, please don't launch accusations like this, see WP:AGF, I agree with Dc76, list here the issues before you start a edit war. Don't do whole reverts, edit piece by piece and explain the change. -- AdrianTM 13:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Since my impression of Anonimu's edits is already on the record above, I don't need to call v v any more in respect to the edits we are discusssing now and the associated behavior. Therefore, I undertake to refrain from acusing Anonimu of v again in this or related discussion, regardless of what he'll do (edit) and of how he'll call me (vandal, POV pusher, nationalist POV pusher - all these and others have been already, and they do make me uncomfortable to talk with a person using such means to address me in a discussion.) Dear Anonimu, is it possible to address issues now, please? I sincerely want to solve this.:Dc76 14:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

What could i discuss with an user who removes facts referenced with reliable sources just because they don't fit with his nationalist POV?Anonimu

Behaviour of User:Anonimu on this page

• Swearing in comment line of the article. See also, immediately followed by this. "b****" means "f****** b****" in Russian. :Dc76 19:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm gonna be the devil's advocate here, and point out that "bleah" may also be, and very likely was used as, a mild onomatopeia expressing annoyance or disgust. He may have aimed for a double entendre, but one cannot vouch for it. Dahn 19:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

yeah, especially if you consider my vast knowledge of russian (limited to "pashol na turbinca")Anonimu 19:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

huh? (Sign my post, slave!)

very bad of Anonimu--Tones benefit 19:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

meat or sock?

Why not apply usercheck? I'm half-inclined to back your suspicions. Dahn 19:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

i need some strong motivation. (according to WP:RFCU "Other disruption of articles" is not enough).Anonimu 20:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is point E, but we should not mention the rope in the hanged man's house... Dahn 20:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

tomorrow is another day ;)Anonimu 20:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

To Dahn: 1) What do you mean by user check? I don't mind if you request checking me against anyone. 2) I don't mind if you play "devil's advocate" if it helps in the end to stop this. I hope that you are right in respect to b****, but I doubt it, since the usage is perfect as in Russian slang. One doesn't have to know a language to be able to learn a few such words. Remember "holodeni"? Which btw I don't know what it means, b/c I haven't had the occasion to learn it from anyone - it is a slang that civilized speakers even of old Russian never use. Anyway, if he'll use it the second time, then it will be clear he means to swear. If he'll be smart and not use it agian, he'll obviously get away with it.:Dc76 20:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

One detail: let me be clear, I don't care if it is Russian or Chinese, I have no problem with that. I have problem with using f***, etc.:Dc76 20:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

1) Well, I must admit I was/am a bit suspicious of the spontaneity involved in those edits, but I will not point the finger at anyone. 2) What I was saying is that I find the simple use of "bleah" not solid enough to lead to any admin measure - I personally find it most likely that Anonimu either did not know the Russian meaning (and I'm gonna have to trust you saying that there is such a word) or was exploiting the double entendre (if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit).

Lastly: I find little merit for Anonimu's tag, but I do not consider it groundless (that is to say, I find other, milder, tags that would apply until this text is properly referenced and relies on properly-cited facts). Dahn 20:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Tags are being placed in the sections with the problems. We already went through this once some months ago when a similar tag was put, and we identified exactly where the problems are. There are sections which are badly referenced and those do have the correcponding tag. And there is even a NPOV tag for one section. There was an activediscuss tag, but I removed it b/c noone was discussing actively :-), actually noone was discussing that section at all. If out of your curriousity you would suggest a particular tag, I would obviously do my best to understand it and perhaps accept it. But, I hope you will not be doing this b/c of Anonimu's putting one. Obviously, every section can be writen better, but I am not a machine, I cannot do it if others don't support. My profession is not editting WP. Again, I'm repeating myself: I do understand when you want to put a tag when you wish the artcile to improve - that I actually consider a positive edit, a reader will know there is more to the story. But I disagree with taging the whole article. There is a non-zero amount of information that is reliable and properly soursed. There are serious facts and events. And there are no false statements. There are many staments that must be improved and soursing needed.

I agree when you said the other day that the best to do this is with an expansion with many new sourses. But it will take time.:Dc76 21:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, what I have said is that Anonimu can have a go at placing that tag until the article it referenced: if the whole article solicits massive work, then that is just a minor annoyance for now. I don't endorse the tag, and I would not even endorse any other tag in that place (as opposed to the other tags placed in the article); I do find it obtuse (and the milder tags would merely be less obtuse), just as I would become concerned if the article was shown to be edited by socks. As we stand, the article is unreliable not because its content is disputed, but because it is disputable (i.e. anyone can have a go at disputing it, since it is clearly undersourced). Should Anonimu contest it its entirety? Perhaps not. Can he contest it in its entirety? Yes, he can. Dahn 22:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

But there is your "disputable" and his "disputable". If he would mean even 1/2 of what you mean, there would not be a problem in the first place. This is a specific situation: he keeps tagging the article, and refuses to address the issues in the talk page (see the "discussion" just about this one). The question is, what we can do until we improve the article. Because I'm loosing time here restoring the article, which I could spend somewhere else, in the end even improving the article.:Dc76 22:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You could sandbox the article and take it from there (others could join you in working on it there, if you permit them). You could also work under the tag until all obvious problems are solved (and then remove the tag at your convenience). Anonimu does not appear to be removing content, just in tagging an article that does not suit his views; if the only problem were that the article is not compliant with Anonimu's POV, I would personally remove the tag - and I must say, to his credit, that Anonimu has not acted like this on articles that had solid references cited in the proper way (and was instead content to annoy us with comments on the talk page, which he spends a lot of his wikitime on). Dahn 22:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I find some merit in the reminder given by the anon editor (or sock). The blanked expression is "Sign my post, slave!", which is the biggest single antisocial act I see from the part of Anonimu on this page. Dpotop 20:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC) I also find symptomatic the agreement between Dahn and Anonimu, two editors with marked anti-social behavior around here. Dpotop 20:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, despite his character, Dahn has been a good editor and contributed a lot of information to WP. If you know how, you can talk constructively with him. Anonimu, on the other hand uses WP as a blog. It is impossible to talk with him in any way but "tak tochno tovarish stalin". That's the only thing he'd ever accept.:Dc76 21:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, my, the big words again. Dahn 20:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

This may become the most important contact between trotskysts and stalinists since the XVth congress of the PCUS ;)Anonimu 21:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Dahn trotskyst? hahahaha! you are having a lot of feeling of self-grandeur, Anonimu. I am affraid quite the opposite... :Dc76 21:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, you may remember that some user did subject me to a McCarthyist hunt based on "proof" that I "am" a Trotskyist (i.e. me posting that, inside the Communists camp, Trotskyists may not be as idiotic as others). Anonimu's joke is funny in its cruel ways. Dahn 21:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not know that, but I get your point. :Dc76 21:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Gobierno Negrín: ¿dónde está Nin? :P Dahn 21:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

What does this mean? :Dc76 21:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

"En Salamanca o en Berlín". :P I guess you'll find Dahn in Salamanca or in Paris, not in Barcelona or Madrid. (see Andrés Nin for the full story):Dc76 21:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Did I read an implicit criticism of Tailgunner Joe in the above? That "hunt" -- despite what some say -- was based on a very real, very tangible threat to the security of the United States by the NKVD and its successor agencies, during WWII and at the start of the Cold War. Yes, the investigations by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (and, in parallel, by HUAC) led to some very unfortunate excesses, from which a number of innocent people suffered (well, toute proportion gardée -- nothing remotely like the Gulag, or Piteşti, or Sighet, or Gherla, or Aiud, or the Canal), and ultimately cost McCarthy his career and his reputation. But the vast scope of the conspiracy discovered by the Venona project was very much real — not a "witch hunt", I would submit. Just take a quick look at this list, or look at the books by John Earl Haynes, Harvey Klehr, Ronald Radosh, Allen Weinstein, Vasili Mitrokhin and others to get a feel for the sheer scale of what prompted those investigations. Turgidson 23:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

On should never expect a Trotskyist to blame the US for ridding itself of Soviet agents :). But seriously: I do see both the threat and the merit in getting rid of it, but the 1950s HUAC was mostly a tool for irresponsible people to push their agenda against others who had or were believed to have communist beliefs. I cannot find any positive result for it that did not in fact parrot the work of specialized agencies, but I do find the harm and the trail of muck it left behind (from leaving a generation of Hollywood filmmakers to concentrate on the "I Was Married to a Teenage Transsexual Werewolf from Outer Space" genre to bringing the Coulteresque discourse to the forefront). The threat may have been real (with some sort of excuses for those who collaborated with the Soviets during a time when Hitler was in da house), but the HUAC used it as a permit to make a mockery of the very values it claimed to be defending. Dahn 23:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

This would have been all accurate ... if there were no Cold War or Soviet Union. (Just as America First prior, most Americans tend to ignore what is outside until they see direct consequences in side. So obvioulsy, many Liberals saw HUAC only as witch hunt, while forgetting there was a real Soviet danger.) The point is, do you see the glass (those that believed in communism) half empty or half full of Soviet agents.:Dc76 23:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see what merit the HUAC and McCarthy had in combating anything (as opposed to various agencies - and I'm saying this despite my deep aversion towards Hoover and his methods). This is what I have said in my reply to Turgidson. But we're all digressing. Dahn 23:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yet those methods helped America. Americans still had personal safety: they were not tortured and killed for every chriticism against authorities. They targetted spies and people wishing to cause serious damage, not civilians merely having personal oppinion. Yes, we are digressin., I'll stp here.:Dc76 00:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Which methods are we talking about? As far as I can tell, the HUAC didn't help anybody. They didn't even "get" Hiss, they just framed him to have a perjury trial going on (which is not particularly effective). All work and subsequent neutralization seems to have been done by the agencies, which, in many cases, were also involved in destroying the lives of people around the world (be it for a greater cause or not). As for the HUAC, it mostly harassed and destroyed the career of people whom it did not even claim were Soviet spies (and, in the unlikely case that CPUSA members, sympathizers, and various filmmakers, were agents by default, it was utterly absurd to assume that they actually managed to do anything that would significantly assist the Soviet Union). Dahn 00:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

My point was not at all to defend the methods of those House and Senate committees -- but rather, to draw attention to the fact that the espionage threat from the Soviet Union that those committees were responding to (albeit in a very flawed way at times) was very real, as has been established basically without a shadow of a doubt, especially in recent years, when the Venona project has been made public (by the Moynihan Commission on Government Secrecy), and some of the KGB archives have been opened (either officially or unofficially, by people like Mitrokhin). So I urge anyone interested in the historical record to look up some of the references by the historians I mentioned, and not let perhaps preconceived ideas stand in the way. A textbook example how perceptions can change after some serious research is provided by Ronald Radosh: raised as a Red Diaper Baby in New York City, he set out to write a book exculpating Julius and Ethel Rosenberg (who many on the Left think were framed by McCarthy & al). But along the way, he concluded that Julius Rosenberg was indeed guilty of the espionage charges that he was convicted of (see Ronald Radosh and Joyce Milton, "The Rosenberg File", New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993. ISBN 0-300-07205-8). At any rate, I could go on at much more length about this whole subject if anyone is interested to debate it, but perhaps this is not the best forum... Turgidson 01:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me who has difficulty in distinguishing Dahn from TA? I mean, sure: they were seperated at birth, as one was sent to the West and the other one to Siberia, but if we look past that, we can notice that they both hail from the same source. Both are unfriendly and stubborn. Do not mistake their charm for being friendly. That charm is the reaction of them being entertained by the object in which they interact with. Enough of my rant, but mark my words: it's useless to try compare fire with smoke. Let us just thank Cosmos for creating such interesting beings. Lastly, just to make it easier for Dahn: Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, etc. Do people actually read that stuff? --Thus Spake Anittas 23:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing that with the group. Dahn 23:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Who's TA? :Dc76 23:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. TA stands for That Anonymous and is of course Anonimu. We sort of know (of) each other from a forum. You guys whine about his behaviour on Wiki, but this is the Light TA, with no sugar included. :-) --Thus Spake Anittas 00:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Leaving a generation of Hollywood filmmakers to concentrate on the "I Was Married to a Teenage Transsexual Werewolf from Outer Space" genre - Dahn, could you please elaborate? Without going into the wider issues, let me just say I don't know this to be the case. Of course, the blacklist was disruptive to many careers, but as far as I know, people worked around it -- used fronts (Trumbo), left/were made to leave for a time (Chaplin, Dassin), cooperated (Kazan, Dmytryk), or else took time off (Polonsky - many years off). Of course, the Z movie was a real phenomenon, but those working there were either hacks/cranks/exploitationists (Ed Wood, Roger Corman) or talented directors who had trouble finding work elsewhere (Edgar G. Ulmer comes to mind, though he peaked a little before the blacklist). Also, the US film industry suffered a precipitous decline in quality from ca. 1961-67, but that was due to other factors altogether. Anyway, some clarification seems in order. Biruitorul 06:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, my point was that McCarthyism took a toll on the film industry as a whole, notably by (and this is my own theory) provoking filmmakers to concentrate on camp subjects just to avert controversy. I may be wrong about the Zs in sheer chronology (it seems that most movies of that kind were low budget from the very start - I thought that some of the earliest were not), but I do believe that the HUAC did contribute to the industry's decay. But, yeah, there's also On the Waterfront etc., so take my remarks with a grain of salt (I'm sure you already do :)). Dahn 11:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

If we look at the 1960s, after the Red Scare was over, the perilous state of the industry was due mostly to structural factors - a move away from the studio system that had prevailed since the 1920s and was running out of steam. If we look at film from the 1947-56 era (the height of anti-communism), we find lots of great things happening - Film Noir above all, On the Waterfront & A Streetcar Named Desire, the great string of Hitchcock films starting with Strangers on a Train, musicals like On the Town and Singin' in the Rain, Westerns from My Darling Clementine to The Searchers, classic science fiction from The Day the Earth Stood Still to The Incredible Shrinking Man, etc. If you're looking for overt pro-Soviet sympathies, you probably won't find them, but there's a lot beneath the surface. Force of Evil (John Garfield/Polonsky, after all) deals with the corrosive effect of money. High Noon is a probable allegory for McCarthyism (again not surprising, considering the Gary Cooper/Zimmerman/Stanley Kramer team). Invasion of the Body Snatchers can be read as a critical allegory of anti-Communist hysteria, as can other science fiction films. One can argue that it would have been better to have such themes out on the surface and not have filmmakers channel their sentiments into allegory, but I would contend that some great films nevertheless emerged due to this sublimation of creative energies. Ironically, some of the best films (and art in general) have emerged not under conditions of near-total free expression, but under varying degrees of restriction. Compare American films of the McCarthy era with those of today (though I'm sure many other factors are at play). Compare Soviet films of the NEP and immediately after with those of the later 1930s through to, really, 1958 or so (except for Alexander Nevsky and Ivan the Terrible). Look at Iranian and Chinese cinema today -- they're flourishing under the relatively few freedoms Iranians and Chinese have, whereas many Western cinemas are in a slump (Italy, Germany), though so is the North Korean cinema (which never really had a chance to do well, given that country's continuously Stalinist régime). In sum: yes, McCarthysim did have an impact on certain individuals' careers, and it did force the industry as a whole to re-orient its methods (though so had the Production Code some years earlier). But it wasn't fatal, and the Grade Z/camp films in any case were a somewhat separate world - Poverty Row and Universal/MGM/Columbia/RKO/Warners rarely crossed paths. I hope some of this makes sense. Biruitorul 16:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Can I jump in here? I hate to interrupt this interesting discussion of movies and McCarthyism, but about that swearing-in-Russian thing that set off this debate: "bleah" isn't Russian for "f*cking b*tch", "bliad'" is. As far as I know, "bleah" is just English onamatopoeia for sticking out one's tongue and making a disgusted face. Anonimu may have been being rude, but he is innocent of using foul Russian here...K. Lásztocska 18:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

And he's now on a 72-hour vacation. By the way, isn't the template at the top of his talk page a sort of personal attack? Any user whose comments he deletes he is implying is an ultra-nationalist, which is itself an attack under most circumstances. In any case, it's incivil. Biruitorul 18:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not an attack, nor does it count as being offensive. Other users have used similar templates that warned against the same thing, such as Jmabel and the guy who wanted to have the article Anti-Romanian discrimination deleted. Also, in that template, he merely warns that any ultra-nationalistic comments may be deleted, but that doesn't mean that only ultra-nationalistic comments may be deleted; therefore, you cannot say that any comment being deleted on his talkpage were deleted due to their ultra-nationalistic content. And even if it was as you say, I doubt you would have a hard case against him because accusing someone of being ultra-nationalist is rarely seen as being insultive, even if the observation is an errorenous one. It's like accusing someone for being radical on something. And he wasn't blocked for writing "bleah," (Dahn, please notice the comma inside the quote) but for editwarring, so your reply can be a bit misleading. --Thus Spake Anittas 18:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know anyone who thinks calling someone an "ultranationalist" is exactly a compliment, and removing messages from one's talk page based solely on the author's presumed political views strikes me as rude and unhelpful at the very least. K. Lásztocska 18:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it can be rude, but he is allowed to do it. I don't agree with his approach. --Thus Spake Anittas 19:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Definitely, I cringed when I saw it (and not just because he misspelled "ultra-nationalist.") Deleting comments from one's talk page is frowned upon to begin with, even without the assumption of ultranationalism, Trotskyism or whatever. Hey, this is fun--you're the fascist, Dc76 is the ultranationalist, Dahn is the Trotskyist, it's like we're little kids with code names in our secret club. Ooh, ooh, what am I? ;-) K. Lásztocska 18:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it was warnings from moderators that it is "frowned upon," (Dahn, please notice the comma inside the quote) not deleting any other comments. --Thus Spake Anittas 18:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth Zubilin

Aw, forget about TA, it's just a waste of time talking about that. Let me try another tack, and attempt to connect somehow the above discussion to something closer to the actual subject of this article. When I was researching some of the articles related to the Venona project, I stumbled upon one which seemed more interesting than the run-of-the-mill ones: Elizabeth Zubilin. At the time, I posted a query about her here, but got no response (perhaps because it was lost in the middle of a heated discussion about "When did the Romanian Soviet agents change their names?") At any rate, let me ask again the question: does anyone know more about Elizaveta Yulyevna Zarubina? E.g., was she born in Bessarabia (as it seems likely) -- if so, where and when exactly? Also, anyone knows precisely how she was related to Ana Pauker? How about her elder brother (the one who apparently was involved in terrorist operations in Romania just after WWI, and who escaped twice from a military court while being tried, being killed in 1922 in a firefight) -- what was his name, and are there any more details on him? Finally, I'd be interested to know more about how she obtained technical data (and what were those data), through a secretary of Leó Szilárd -- the man who convinced Albert Einstein to write the letter that set in motion the Manhattan Project, which of course was the ultimate target for Soviet espionage in the United States in WWII. Moreover, Elisabeth Zubilin recruited Maria Konnenkova, who apparently dated Einstein in the 1940s(!) in order to gain information on the Manhattan Project (this according to The Moscow Times). Any ideas on where to look for more info on this subject? Thanks. Turgidson 02:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

An update: according to Jerrold L. Schecter and Leone Schecter, "Sacred Secrets: How Soviet Intelligence Operations Changed American History" (Potomac Books, 2002. ISBN 1574883275), Elizabeth Zubilin was born Lisa Rozensweig, in Bukovina, on December 31, 1900. According to Schecter & Schecter, she was "one of the most successful operators in stealing atomic bomb secrets from the United States". Together with Gregory Kheifetz (the Soviet Consul General in San Francisco), she succeeded in setting up a ring of young communist physicists around Robert Oppenheimer at Los Alamos to transmit the atomic bomb plans to Moscow. Hey, maybe Joe McCarthy was up to something, after all! Turgidson 04:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I have never heard of this person before in my life. The story about her brother does remind me of something I read a long time ago about Pauker's relatives, but I'll have to check that (I have, or at least used to have, an issue of Dosarele Istoriei dedicated to Pauker and her family). On the other hand, McCarthy and his theories do not appear to have any merit: it is clear that the Soviets did anything to get the bomb, but McCathyism postulated other, rather absurd and much less relevant things (if I'm not mistaken, it was set in motion after it was known that the Soviets had the bomb, and was based on the speculation that the Soviets had infiltrated American soicety at all levels - which, even if they could've done, they hadn't done). Dahn 11:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

If there were a Dosarele Istorie article detailing the familiy connections, that would be great. Zubilina was about 7-8 years younger than Pauker -- probably her niece (or cousin?) Of course, her activities in the U.S. were exclusively during WWII (she returned to Moscow in December 1944), way before McCarthy appeared on the scene. Much of what McCarthy did was blowing wind -- the real work to expose the atomic bomb spies was done by others, notably by Meredith Gardner, at the time a young linguist, who went to work for the SIS and, in 1946, broke the Soviet codes. But a lot of the spies caught as a result could not be prosecuted, for fear of exposing the method of detection. McCarthy went after some of the actual spies (it wasn't all a wild goose chase and/or a witch hunt), but then he got carried away (for a variety of reasons, some due to his flawed personality). What broke the back of the camel was when he started going after the U.S. Army -- that's when the Establishment stepped in, and put a stop to his investigation (he was censured in the U.S. Senate by a vote of 67 to 22). The defining moment came in at the Army-McCarthy Hearings, on June 9, 1954, when the Army's lead lawyer, Joseph Welch, uttered the famous words, "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?", which basically finished Tailgunner Joe. But, if one wants to understand in depth this story (which is an important story, on many levels), one needs to dig deeper, and look at the whole picture, which basically started with the Soviets stealing the secrets of the Manhattan Project during WWII (at a time when they were ostensibly allied with the United States!) -- arguably the biggest espionage coup of all times. Turgidson 12:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I have never heard of Elizabeth Zubilin before. I have read about Leó Szilárd and Albert Einstein being approached by the Soviets (incl from Soviet sourses which were very proud to annouce that), but I never tried to record the names of any female spies. There was one with whom Einstein was infatuated with and spoke a lot but abstained from having a relationship, and indeed it turned out she was recruted by Moscow to do this, while Eistein believed according to conversation with some friend that she definitevely is not. But I don't remember on the spot any name. I only remember the masterminds: Serov (careful, there are several unrelated with the same family name) and Andrei Andreyevich Andreyev (the man behind all early idiological spies for the USSR -102 of them apparently-, as opposed to the ones throught GRU, which was not comepletely secure from infiltration). I was more interested how the scientists reacted, not who contacted them. So, ... I'll have to dig. But you already have much more information.

Another thing I definitevely remember is a Soviet diplomat in Turkey in late 1920s or early 1930ws, betrayed by his own wife for giving money to Trotsky. I think I did not read this, but heard on a Russian TV station in a history series. Obviously I do not remember the name. Yet, I believe there were more than 1 such cases. Which gives me an idea: none of you speak Russian, so I can look deeper into Russian sourses, which you probably never seen! Ya, but I have to find time...

BTW, about McCarthy methods, I meant profiling.:Dc76 17:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Diverging Nationality Policies

I would like to add in the article something very important, while the ethnic Romanians of Soviet Moldavia were spoken of by the authorites as a different people, namely Moldavians, other national minorities in Soviet Moldavia enjoyed a different treatment. The Gagauzi and Bulgarians were seen as part of their peoples living outside the Soviet Union, as well as the Russians and Ukrainians. This was denied to the "Moldavians”. About 500,000 Romanians were deported between 1944 and the 1960s and from 1944 until 1979 an estimate over 500,000 non-Romanians were settled in Soviet Moldavia. --Tones benefit 19:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Care to give some sources? Dpotop 19:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Russification and Ethnic Consciousness of Romanians in Bessarabia (1812 to 1991), Research Paper for "Ethnicity and Subcultures in East-Central Europe", International Studies Center - Budapest University of Economics (Prof. Ágnes Fülemile), Author: Markus Schönherr, Student of Business Economics , Danziger Str. 15d , D-94036 Passau , Phone + Fax ++49-851-54803 , schoen02@fsrz2.rz.uni-passau.de / scheskou@gmx.net --Tones benefit 20:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

As the idea was born around 1924, I doubt this is particularly relevant to this article. This information is already included into articles about this phenomenon, like Moldovans and Moldovan language. This article, POV named as it is, is supposed to discuss the event and effects of the Soviet occupation after 1940. The deportations and the denationalisation policy is already in, anyway. --Illythr 00:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, c'mon, what's "POV" about the name of the article? The Soviet Union did occupy Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina in late June, 1940, after it issued a 2-day ultimatum to a sovereign country to evacuate a big chunck of its own internationally recognized territory (that, after having signed and ratified the Kellogg-Briand Pact in 1928, renouncing war as an instrument of national policy, and the Litvinov-Titulescu "Protocol of Mutual Assistance" in 1936, which amounted to a non-aggression treaty), or else — or am I missing somethin'? Oh, yeah -- the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact happened in between, and gave carte blanche to the subsequent events, is that it? Fine, but then, why mince words about it? Turgidson 02:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Soviet Union respected both treaties when entering Bessarabia in 1940 (it had a formal agreement with the Romanian government and the dispute was resolved trough diplomatic means), thing that can't be said for Romania in 1941 when it invaded Bessarabia (it did not have an agreement with the Soviet gvt and declared war to the Soviet Union to reoccupy Bessarabia, even if he declared it would never make use of it). Ribbentrop-Molotov had no legal binding for the Soviet-Romanian relation, since Romania didn't sign it. Anonimu 11:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Soviet Union had used the word itself in the ultimatum (although I'd like to see the Russian version). However, I generally dislike the term "occupation" in an article name, as it is just as POV as "liberation", especially since efforts were made to present the whole 1944-1991 period as an occupation. The Soviet Union regarded Bessarabia as its own territory, illegally occupied and annexed by a foreign power (I understand, the US had refused to recognize Bessarabia as part of Romania in 1920 as well). International recognition in such affairs is a somewhat shaky fundament, as it is usually dictated by political interests. For example, one could argue that the partition of Czechoslovakia in 1938 was perfectly legal, because it was "internationally recognized" by major Western powers. That is why I prefer more neutral name like this, or "X presence in Y" wherever possible. But oh well. --Illythr 11:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

To Tones benefit: do you have a web link to the article you metion? From my point of view, any sourse is welcome. If after reading it, we use it or not, or maybe use it somehwere else - that's a different question. Also, it is very shaky to say that only Romanians were deported. How many Ukrainians and Jews were deported to Siberia in the same trains! Not even to mention former White Army officers, which were simply shot. Aren't they victims as well? The national policy of the Soviet Union in Moldavian SSR is better to be dealt with in History of Moldova or in Moldavian SSR.

To Anonimu: Reading you always reminds me why it is dangerous to be complacent. There are still people who won't shy from the dialectic materialism theory that white and black are white and black not a priori (an "idealistic burjois" notion) but to the extent and in the aspects that the party says.

Prove me wrong... if you can... And white and black are not always the same. All philosophers said so, it has nothing to do with a certain ideology Anonimu 19:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

To Illythr: It would be total hipocrisy to call Nazi invasion of Soviet Union "Nazi presence in USSR". Americans did not shy away at all to call Iraq occupation. Allies did not shy away to call Germany and Japan after WWII occupied. Amercian occupation in Germany lasted from 1945 to 1948. I do not imagine a normal German to call Americans "you dirty occupiers". Occupation is not an a priori negative word. Soviet occupation of the territories it gained during WWII varied a lot in time: from persecution to pieceful integration into the empire and even desire to develop; i.e. from dirty physical persecution to a simple legal issue. Also, in the former Soviet camp unfortunately there is still a murky line between the responsibilities of a country and those of individuals. It is not true "state is we all". State is state, and people are people, people are not responsible for all the state does. Germany bears responsibility for Holocaust. Ordinary Germans - no. How can a "white Jew" bear responsibility for the crimes of a few thousand. Ok, one who did nothing- maybe, but one who risked own career, life, or even family to help a few Jews. In fact, the truth is the latter people never shied away from it. Those that cried "we did not know" were those that cried "we can not be responsible too much". IMHO, the same about the Soviets: those that were civilized people and (to the extent that was possible under an economically dead-end rule) helped develop Moldova never shy away from calling it occupation, while the real occupiers would obviously be ultra-voceferous. :Dc76 19:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The May 1942 Soviet-British Treaty

The May 1942 Soviet-British Treaty contained a secret clause, by which Great Britain would recognise the Soviet Union’s “right” over Bessarabia and Northern Bucovina. Also the US agreed with the respective Soviet demands in the summer of the same year.--Tones benefit 19:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

During the May 1942 Molotov’s visit in London, a Soviet-British Treaty was concluded that contained a secret clause, by which Great Britain would recognise the Soviet Union’s “right” over the occupied territories. In the summer of the same year, the Soviet leadership imposed its point of view to US, too. --Tones benefit 19:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Care to give some sources? Dpotop 19:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Petrencu, Anatol, România şi Basarabia în anii celui de-al doilea război mondial, (Chişinău: Epigraf, 1999), p.156. For more information see Dobrinescu, V., Constantin, I., Basarabia în anii celui de-al doilea război mondial, (1939-1947), Iaşi, 1995, p.254. --Tones benefit 19:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

There was indeed a secret clause to that effect, proposed by Vyacheslav Molotov, but there were strong objections to this proposal, coming from U.S. Secretary of State Cordell Hull and U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt. In the end, there was no such secret clause in the Anglo-Soviet Treaty of 1942. As reference, see: George Ciorănescu, "The Problem of Bessarabia and Northern Bucovina During World war II", Radio Free Europe, May 12, 1981. Turgidson 20:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

US accepted also.--Tones benefit 20:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

US accepted what? Turgidson 20:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

US agreed with the respective Soviet demands in the summer of the same year.--Tones benefit 20:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Are we having a moving target here, or what? In the beginning of this section, you asserted that the UK recognized "Soviet Union’s “right” over Bessarabia and Northern Bucovina" in May 1942. According to the reference I gave, the government of the United Kingdom did not sign such a document at the Anglo-Soviet Treaty of May 1942. Are we at least settled on that proposition, or is this still under dispute? Now, about summer 1942: I'm willing to look into that, but where exactly was the UK and/or the US supposed to have "agreed with the respective Soviet demands", and was this supposed to have been an officially signed agreement between the respective goverments, or some kind of "secret clause"? Turgidson 20:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I am also willing to look into that more, it was something like a secret clause.--Tones benefit 20:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, look into that more, please. And give sourses. Also, try not to confuse what Soviets want USA and UK to sign to what they actually signed.:Dc76 19:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is another reference about the US and UK standing steadfast against Stalin's and Molotov's demands throughout 1942: On the other hand, by the time of the Tehran Conference (November 28– Decemember 1, 1943), that resistance had started to falter: "after a long struggle throughout 1942 against recognition of territory the Soviet Union seized by force, Roosevelt would now accede to the Soviet territorial demands. He would do so without being asked, without even seeking a quid pro quo except that of obtaining Stalin's friendship and good will for the future.... Having disposed of Poland, Roosevelt now washed his hands of the Baltic States." This would be formalized in February 1945, at the Yalta Conference. Turgidson 20:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

What they agreed on (informally, not farmally) before Yalta was that Soviets will occupy Eastern Europe and Allies Weastern one, they also assigned percentages for the influence of USSR vs USA-UK in each country (e.g. Romania 90-10, Bulgaria 70-30, Yugoslavia 50-50, Greece 10-90) etc. The only way this was formalized was on a piece of paper that Churchill showed Stalin during his visit to Moscow in 1944, after which he teared and distroyed it. It was never a treaty recognizing borders or historical precedents, etc. Yalta was more elaborate, but in the same style. It gave Soviets free hand to take over both Bessarabia and Romania. What they'd do with them - that was not covered, hence on one side Soviets had free hand to do whatever they want, and allies had free hand to say they never agreed to anything. Politics is the art of the possible.:Dc76 19:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Nazi-Soviet Pact of 23 August 1939

The Nazi-Soviet Pact of 23 August 1939, which divided Europe in spheres of influence, decided the Bessarabia’s fate, too. As paragraph 3 of the Confidential Additional Protocol stipulated: “In respect to Southeast Europe, the Soviet Party performed its interest in Bessarabia. The German Party clearly expressed its total political disinterest in these territories.”

--Tones benefit 19:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course. This is all well-known, and well-documented; see Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Turgidson 20:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It also has its own subsection in this article: Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina#The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact --Illythr 01:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear Tones Benefit, can I please ask you two things:

• could you please list in a section here (in the talk page) what sourses you have /have found (you can increase it when you find something new). it would help us, we also would like to read them. also, if you have weblinks to (some of) them, it would be great
• could you please read the article and the links/references. There are many things which you say, that already are in the article. Remember, ideally it should sound like an encyclopedia article, not like row piece of info. Hence everything, from the tone to soursing, should at least ideally be of quality. I agree, it is still a road to go, but we will, eventually in a couple years, it will be a good article.

Dc76 19:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Deportations

Let's agree to split the article and to make this one come reality: Soviet deportations from Moldova (now it's only a redirect). --Tones benefit 14:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

By all means, let's create as many articles with exactly the same content, and let's keep them as far apart from each other as possible... Tell me, have you seen this article? Dahn 14:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

By all means, let's all use sarcasm and be nasty with each others, there's no reason to give an information in a straight manner when we can present it by slapping the person who raised the issue. -- AdrianTM 15:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. By all means. Dahn 16:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

To be honest I see only now that article. I will redirect the first one to the second one. (maybe it's better to have a huge article with all so that people will not lose time to make clicks on others and to have all in one).--Tones benefit 16:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

irrecoverable article

it's a pity that the development of this article is blocked by a bunch of romanian nationalists who stop to nothing to impose their pov (removing facts supported by WP:RS included)Anonimu 18:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Titles of sections should start with caps. Sentences should start with caps. It's Romanian. It's "stop at nothing". Sentences should end with a period. As for content, is there any in the above diatribe? Nope. Turgidson 19:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring harassment, it was just an observation. the fact that you're trying to hide the flaws doesn't help. people like you make wikipedia an unreliable encyclopedia. presence of articles like this is the reason why most universities don't accept wikipedia as a source.Anonimu 19:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

This discution is over. Should Anonimu wish to discuss specific issues, obviously he'll be welcome. Non-sense discusion about who's nationalist and who's ultra-nationalist and the like does not have a place here.:Dc76 19:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

WP will never be accepted as a sourse by any university. It is an intelligent form of organizing the sourses, of aiding search, etc. An acceptable sourse must be peer-reviewed. Have you heard of this concept?:Dc76 20:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I was blocked unfair by Miika who as Luna Santin said presents a true case of interest conflict.--Tones benefit 16:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

New lines

I added this: In 1940, the Soviet Union, in a pact with Nazi Germany, gained control of the land. During 1941-1944, Romania recaptured the territory, but lost it one more time at the conclusion of World War II, when the Soviet Union incorporated Bessarabia under the name of the Moldovan Soviet Socialist Republic.--Ursul pacalit de vulpe 14:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Tags of Anonimu

Anonimu, please provide explanation of of each tag you placed, otherwise they will be removed. `'Míkka 16:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

i would have to copy all the article here...Anonimu

I find this placing of tags on each paragraph highly disruptive and ridiculous. -- AdrianTM 17:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Dc76 said that he wants tags for every section instead only one in the lead. However, it seems that nationalist users don't want the monstruosity of this fairy tale with soviet dragons and romanian virgins to be known...Anonimu 17:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you be so kind and stop calling names. Thanks. -- AdrianTM 17:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Anonimu, just get a grip. Slapping tags everywhere just to make a point is disruptive and annoying. Try improving the article for once, see how that goes. K. Lásztocska 18:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, exactly my thoughts. Besides I think it's an example of WP:point#Gaming_the_system -- AdrianTM 18:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

When you add sourced facts and they are deleted by a gang of nationalist editors just because they don't fit the interbellum/Ceausescu era official history, the only thing you can do is to try to show the unreliability of an article that would fit better on combat18.org Anonimu 18:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope some admin will tell this user about WP:AGF and that's about time he cease calling people names. -- AdrianTM 18:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

We've all tried--he's mastered the art of not listening. K. Lásztocska 18:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Until now, the cases when i was partially wrong where extremely few. this happens when you use RSs.Anonimu 18:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, you are rarely "partially" wrong, indeed. ;-) K. Lásztocska 18:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

As an internationalist who wants nothing more than equal chances for everyone, I hold the truth. Just that the truth is sometimes suppressed by propaganda. So, while i'm immanently right, according to wiki policies (the ones giving the centres of capitalist propaganda undue weight) i'm "partially wrong".Anonimu 18:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

That (the internationalist part) is certainly a laudable and admirable world-view, but it by no means gives you a monopoly on the truth. To take a ridiculous example, if Mother Teresa said that 2+2=5, she wouldn't be right simply by virtue of being a tremendously good and admirable person. I'm not sure what you mean by "immanently" right--looks like a simple typo, but do you mean "imminently" or "eminently"? And what the hell centers of capitalist propaganda are you talking about? K. Lásztocska 19:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between scientific truths and historical truths. Think again. I thought you read the policies i've recommended.Anonimu 19:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've read them before, thank you very much, and I think that I usually do a pretty good job of respecting them. Historical truths vs. scientific truths--yes, another good point, but my point still applies: that is, just being a good person or having a laudable philosophy of life does not give one a monopoly on any type of truth. My Mother Teresa example was just to point out that even the very best of people can still be wrong. Also, I'm actually curious now--which centers of capitalist propaganda *were* you referring to? K. Lásztocska 22:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The view from the State Department

Check out "Background Note: Romania", United States Department of State, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, October 2007. This is what it says:

In 1940, the authoritarian General Antonescu took control. Romania entered World War II on the side of the Axis Powers in June 1941, invading the Soviet Union to recover Bessarabia and Bukovina, which had been annexed in 1940.

A peace treaty, signed in Paris on February 10, 1947, confirmed the Soviet annexation of Bessarabia and northern Bukovina, but restored the part of northern Transylvania granted to Hungary in 1940 by Hitler. The treaty also required massive war reparations by Romania to the Soviet Union, whose occupying forces left in 1958.

Is there any ambiguity left as to whether this was an annexation, and not a "cession", as Anonimu keeps saying? -- Turgidson (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Then why don't you move the article to a better title?-- Anonimu (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW, this also states that in the view of the US State Department, Soviet armed forces in Romania in 1944-1958 were occupying forces.:Dc76\^talk 20:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

To Anonimu. Technically, annexation occurred/started on 2nd August when Moldavian SSR was "merciously admitted" to the USSR (after so "unfaithfully" "screwing up" the colonial power in 1918). While for the occupation, it is 28th June. Just like Egipt is not British soil, so Bessarabia/Moldova is not Russian one. So, yes, foreign soil you occupy, as in 1940. BTW, the Treaty of London defined what is an "agressor" in direct reference to eastern Europe, and USSR signed it alongside Romania, at the same table. Did I include this in the article already? The problem the eastern neighbor had, was it did not put any value in a legal act with "the capitalist foe", according to their philosophy it was a temporary thing, until they grow in power, they never intended to respect it. With power you can cover the eyes and shut the mouths and ears of people, yet you can not make day night. What is done is done and is called by scholars and governments as it was, not as the Soviet nostalgics or appologetics would have wanted. :Dc76\^talk 20:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

1. There's no X-ian soil. There just soil 2. There was no Russia in 1940. 3. The SU didn't break that treaty, Romania did in 1941. -- Anonimu (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Dc76: I think the expression that best captures what you are saying is, "Might makes right". But let us remember Abraham Lincoln's take on this subject. On February 27, 1860, in his Cooper Union Address, Abe said: "Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it." -- Turgidson (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Romanian POWs

This subsection contains numerous apparent inconsistencies with other Wikipedia articles, so I think that information presented within should be explicitly sourced. In particular,

• I've seen claims that the POWs were deported to Romania, that most of them just returned to their homes, here's one more that they were all killed...
• I wonder what source claims that "3.4 million" Soviet soldiers caused the death of thousands by being "stationed in the region" (Bessarabia, I take it), "from March to August 1944" - a time when the ca 1.3 million strong Soviet army was still stationed on the left bank of the Dniester. --Illythr (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The second obviously need reformulation. The POWs were taken for work in the Soviet Union. Only a tiny minority survived. E.g. Balti concentration camps served as an initial filtering camp. A smaller similar camp was in Chisinau. The few that survived after the return in cca. 1955 (Adenauuer' amnesty, 9 September 1955, published in Izvestya - source of this date: Solzhenitsyn), were re-arrested in Romania, where a stalinist regime continued firther. Proper sourcing is obviously needed, and I'll look into that. But the two issues are totally different, IMHO.

BTH, I'll make some changes completely unrelated to this.:Dc76\^talk 20:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Name change proposal

I suggest to spell "northern Bukovina" with small "n", because we do not have an entity Northern Bukovina, but Bukovina as a whole, and Chernivtsi Oblast, which is greater. This will mean a lot of redirects, since some pages already are not pointing to this directly, I believe, so I better ask this 7 times before doing. :Dc76\^talk 15:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about that. Both are used, it seems. --Illythr (talk) 18:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I mean other then my contributions to WP. :) For example, we don't have and article Northern Bukovina (it is a redirect to Bukovina). Also, it should be Hertza region, since "region" here is not an established legal unit. (Hertza Region redirects to small "r"). I am just asking people to think about this. Obviously, this is not urgent. Maybe before the end of the summer... :Dc76\^talk 19:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the region can be de-capped immediately. --Illythr (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Question: why not to change from the long “Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina” to the more simple “Soviet invasion of Romania”?--BalkanWalker (talk) 06:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't invaded, but Rumania ended its occupation since 1918--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

But independently of Points-of-View regarding issues related to “Russian Bessarabia x Romanian Bessarabia” and “Austrian Bukovina x Romanian Bukovina x Soviet Bukovina” territorial disputes, the fact per se was a tipical military invasion operation, doesn’t it?--BalkanWalker (talk) 07:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to contribute my point of view here, since the areas are often referred to in historical discussions as Bessarabia & N Bukovina, we should retain those names in the opening paragraph and in the redirects, at the very least. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 14:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The invasion was a military operation that ended by the 30th of August (Jassy-Kishinev) or by mid-September 1944 (all of Romania; btw, an article on that latter operation would be nice to have). This particular article focuses on the historical event of the territorial change and its aftermath (4/5 of the article), so it clearly has a much broader scope. --Illythr (talk) 08:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You are confusing the issue; User:BalkanWalker is talking about 1940 (right?) since the 1944 operation was not about recovering territory lost as a result of Operation Barbarossa--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Am I? Because the only "typical military invasion operations" in the region have occurred on 22.06.1941 and 20.08.1944 in that period. Anyhow, my main point is that this article deals too much with non-military aspect and its scope is too wide to rename it. --Illythr (talk) 13:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ. The 1944 operation was not an invasion since it continued to general strategy of destroying Axis forces rather than having the objective of invading Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, or Rumania, given the countries were already at war and Rumanian airspace was penetrated far earlier than the ground forces arrived in its territory. Therefore, the only invasion that can be considered is the Barbarossa--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not like the Invasion of Normandy began with a declaration of war either... --Illythr (talk) 14:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The inconsistency in use of terms to describe military operations is not mine but the Western Allied governments, and their media representatives--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Mmh, this, this and, basically, this looks definite enough to me. --Illythr (talk) 23:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

"Soviet invasion of Romania" would be a poor title for two reasons. First, it was an invasion of a fairly small part of Romania (though an integral part of Romania nonetheless, nonsense about it being "occupied since 1918" notwithstanding), with a limited objective - the government wasn't in any danger of falling, though in the event, the regime did in fact collapse about two months later. Second, "Soviet invasion of Romania" is far more likely to refer to the August-October 1944 event, which did cover all of Romania and did bring about a violent regime change. Biruitorul ^Talk 17:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, you can not call something an invasion that didn't have an invasion of a given area as an objective, or a sole objective of the operation. That's fairly well understood in English--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Eh, a recursive definition is not really well understood in any language. I think the respective articles I cited above do a better job at explaining what a military invasion is. --Illythr (talk) 23:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Issues

• refer to [4]. The sources are above in the text of the article: I haven't invented those numbers. I guess your question is the following: Is there a source saying that the deportees were not released? Are we talking here about Stalin/Beria/NKVD or what? How can you believe someone was released? I'll try to reformulate though.

I, we :) "presume". :Dc76\^talk 18:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The question is, who claims them dead? We are not RS. What we presume is actually OR. --Illythr (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hence my last suggestion: "not among the living deportees". Why do they (NKVD) not account for them, hopefully the reader will understand.:Dc76\^talk 18:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That's precisely the point. Implying unsupported info is even worse that openly stating it. --Illythr (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• northern Transylvania was not "lost"/"found". "Annexed" if you want... :Dc76\^talk 16:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Land that is taken by a foreign entity as a result of some political action is usually "ceded" or simply "lost". I think "lost" is better suited here, because Hungary was "given" Transylvania by the Axis. --Illythr (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

and what is wrong with "annexed". "Lost" is not good, b/c one can lose a military conquest, not own territory. Don't we have more synonims?:Dc76\^talk 18:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not against other words, if you don't like "annexed". As long as it doesn't say "Horthy has freed northern Transylvania from Romanian fascists".:Dc76\^talk 18:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Territory can be lost to an enemy (or a "friend") just like any other asset. I don't like annexed, because, Hungary was "given" this territory by outside powers. In my mind, "annexed" is better suited when the benefiting country takes a more active role in the actual annexation. Although this is really just semantics... --Illythr (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• No, it is from Tismaneanu report.

Add it. --Illythr (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I already did (the references above that sentence). It seems odd to add the same reference after every sentence. I just add it once for the whole paragraph.:Dc76\^talk 18:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

refs 33, 37, 38, 39 (gives pages). :Dc76\^talk 18:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, once for the whole paragraph is sufficient. --Illythr (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No need to move this page to new title

I also disagree with moving this page to other titles, esp. not to 1940 Soviet occupation of Romania for several reasons:

• not the entire 1940 Romania was occupied
• the events are hardly distinguishible by that name even by people well aware of, while the present title is a widespread term
• my main reason is the same as it was for merging the article with the earlier article June 1940 Ultimatum: the events on the whole only in a minor part reflect upon Romania (or all Romania/1940 Romania, if you wish). The main effects were upon the population of Bessarabia and northern Bukovina, hence these terms must be in the title. What inconvinience did the Bucharest politicians felt is nothing comapred to what went upon those that froze in Siberia. Dc76\^talk 03:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, from the August discussion I note that some people still feel the words "occupation", "invasion", "annexation" only bear a negative meaning. That is evidence of what the Romanian Petre Carp called "they think that beyond the imagination of their brains there is nothing in cultural or sociel life, they don't even accept that the things could be so wide, so variated, so much more broad than one person imagins" (approx. citation). I, for one, like many Americnas and Iraqis, support the American occupation of Iraq, it has brought the Iraqis freedom and democracy, a chance to build a better country. Like the majority of today Germans, I look positively upon the Allied invasion of Nazi Germany. Like most of Israelis, I think the annexation of East Jerusalem is a restoration of normality (a city is a community, it should not be divided). I do not claim I hold the heavenly truth, as there are many who look upon each of these events negatively, but I dare to hold an oppinion, to claim that a good part of the people do hold the same as me, and to believe that I might turn to be right in the end (we will see in heaven if these were rights or wrongs). But strictly technically, they are occupations, invasions, annexations.Dc76\^talk 03:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Well said, Dc76. Indeed, might I point out that just three months after the Soviet occupation of Bessarabia, some half a million German troops began pouring into other parts of Romania. Of course these came in under rather different circumstances, being welcomed by the new Romanian government (which was seeking to avenge the June invasion/occupation), but the point is that during the period of Soviet-German collaboration (8/1939 - 6/1941), the two powers didn't occupy or station troops on the same pieces of territory, instead carving up pieces amongst themselves. See Battle of Lwów - the Germans took Lviv first, then peacefully handed it over to the Soviets, pursuant to the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. Biruitorul ^Talk 04:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

OIC. I knew about Pinsk and Brest, did not know about Lviv. BTW, the Russian version of this article contains a lot of informatoin about the order of battle of the Soviets and in general useful information which is complementary to what we have here. It can be used especially to fill our very rudimentary section "The occupation". It is based on a book which is available online http://militera.lib.ru/research/meltyukhov/index.html, but it is in Russian. The book has weird (Soviet) POV on certain aspects, and in the choice of words. However, it is an excellent source of facts. When it is about facts rather than appreciation (and it does not pretend to be scientific appreciation), the book IMHO is really rich. For example, if we meet something like "Zhukov, the most inocent man of earth, has moved that division there and there, so many tanks here, and so many cars there", the only lie is "the most inocent man of earth", which is an appreciation, not a fact. Dc76\^talk 05:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, translating some of that sounds like a good idea, as long as we do filter out the propagandistic content. I've done it myself for Romanian sources: note the bibliography for Ilie Pintilie - but one can't really tell it's mostly from a (rather entertaining) Dej-era work that probably spoke of this fruntaş ai clasei muncitoare struggling against cele mai şovine, cele mai reacţionare elemente ale burgheziei or whatever. Biruitorul ^Talk 06:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

In fact, this book has little of that. It perhaps wouldn't get published if does not retain the traditional words/tweaks from the Soviet era. But it is fairly easy to filter through: everything that is purely fact, technical data, is absolutely ok. what is not acceptable, you can understand from the title: Упущенный шанс Сталина. Советский Союз и борьба за Европу: 1939-1941 The lost chance of Stalin. Soviet Union and the struggle for Europe: 1939-1941. It simply sometimes supports Stalin's agressive policy, actions. It is the appreciation of these actions that is strange, the technical description of the actions is a valuable material, and the author should be prased for it. It is very rich. Dc76\^talk 07:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, Stalin's Missed Chance by Meltyukhov is actually a serious historic work (Unlike a similar book by Rezun), offering a dissenting view on traditional historical interpretation of Stalin's motives. --Illythr (talk) 15:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Ilythr. Since my last edit, I read through it a little bit, and now I even recall myself reading about the book in the press. Now, I can read it myself. I am really excited to learn so much new information. I had no idea it contained so much detail about Moldova. OK, so let me pass on on my previous judgements. But I think you understood what I meant: the facts presented in the book are very rich, and it is reputable sources of facts that are so much needed, not polecmis on the usage of a term or another (which anyway will standardize in 10 years, when there will be 10 times more editors on this articles). So, in the end, that's why I do not worry very much if a name or a term stays "wrong" for a while, but I worry when some topic is not covered with sourses. And Meltyukhov's book really helps cover something we did not have sources for before. Dc76\^talk 18:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

What is the difference between Meltyukhov's and Sovorov's books? The citations below from Meltyukhov's I think show that the authors talk about the same thing. The difference in my oppinion is how they talk. Meltyukhov's book talks more about technicalities and does not go far with conclusions. Suvorov's has far less detailed facts, but states what you and others call a "dissenting view". Now, in my oppinion, as long as we talk about facts, Meltyukhov's book is superior. This does not automatically mean that Suvorov is 100% wrong. He states conclusions beyond what is implied by the facts. In my understanding, Stalin would never attack Germany directly. In fact, until 22 June 1941 he trusted Hitler, and seriously distrusted Anglo-Saxons. But Stalin was not successful politician for nothing: if Germany gets boged in the invasion of Britain, why not use the opportunity to attack Poland and Czechoslovakia, who were eager to rase up against the Nazi yoke. Just like in the 1918 Russia, when the Bolshevicks used the general desire of the population for radical changes to assertain their power.Dc76\^talk 19:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Тем самым советские вооруженные силы получили действующий документ, на основе которого велось более детальное военное планирование. В Генеральный штаб вызывались командующие войсками, члены Военных советов и начальники штабов военных округов для разработки оперативных документов, которые сразу же утверждались наркомом обороны. Кроме этого документа, советскому руководству докладывались планы боевых действий против Финляндии, Румынии и Турции, что, по мнению их разработчиков, придавало всему оперативному плану необходимую полноту и гибкость, давало возможность действовать в зависимости от конкретной военно-политической обстановки{1215}. К сожалению, практически все эти документы остаются секретными, и вряд ли историки в скором времени смогут исследовать их.

Однако разработка военных планов на этом не завершилась. Военное руководство стремилось всесторонне оценить оба варианта действий Красной Армии, заложенных в оперативный план. Для проверки "северного" варианта оперативного плана на 17— 19 ноября 1940г. в Генштабе была запланирована оперативно-стратегическая игра на картах под руководством наркома обороны по теме "Наступательная операция фронта с прорывом УР", в ходе которой, наряду с проработкой основ современной операции, планировалось "изучить Прибалтийский театр военных действий и Восточную Пруссию". Позднее срок игры был увязан с окончанием декабрьского (1940г.) совещания высшего комсостава РККА, и в ходе ее было решено отработать оба варианта плана войны. Для отработки "северного" и "южного" вариантов соответственно 2—6 и 8—11 января 1941 г. в Генштабе проводились две оперативно-стратегические игры, подробности которых раскрыты в работах П.Н. Бобылева. В первой игре разыгрывались наступательные действия Красной Армии на Северо-Западном направлении (Восточная Пруссия), а во второй — на Юго-Западном (Южная Польша, Венгрия и Румыния).

Хотя в заданиях к играм отмечалось, что "западные" напали, "никаких задач, связанных с действиями "восточных" по отражению агрессии не решалось". Стороны были поставлены в известность, что "западные" были отброшены к границе, а на [373] Юго-Западном направлении даже к линии рек Висла и Дунаец на оккупированной немцами территории Польши, и с этих рубежей уже шла игра. Исходя из этого, П.Н. Бобылев критикует мнение М.В. Захарова, что игры проводились для "отработки некоторых вопросов, связанных с действиями войск в начальный период войны". Однако, как отмечает А.М. Василевский, "в январе 1941 г... основные моменты оперативного плана были проверены на стратегической военной игре". Еще более категоричен командовавший 6-й армией генерал И.Н. Музыченко: "План войны мы проигрывали в январе в Генштабе". Как мы увидим далее, никаких оборонительных операций советский Генштаб и не планировал, поэтому разыгрывавшиеся наступательные операции Красной Армии и должны были стать содержанием начального периода войны. В ходе игры наступление "восточных" на территории Восточной Пруссии захлебнулось, а на Юго-Западе они добились значительных успехов, что и привело к отказу от "северного" варианта действий Красной Армии. Тем самым главным направлением советского наступления была определена Южная Польша{1216}.

Переработку документов оперативного плана с учетом опыта январских игр возглавил новый начальник Генштаба генерал армии Г. К. Жуков. Согласно "Плану разработки оперативных планов" требовалось уточнить документы по "южному" варианту к 22 марта, а по "северному" варианту— к 8 марта 1941 г. К сожалению, неясно, была ли выполнена эта задача, ибо подготовленный к 11 марта 1941 г. новый вариант плана окончательно закрепил отказ от "северного" варианта и переориентировал основные усилия войск на Юго-Западное направление{1217}.

And then there is more, where it is clear that they did not plan to attack Germany directly, but to addapt to the situation and boost moral of the troops. What is also clear is that they were 100% sure Nazis would never attack.Dc76\^talk 19:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

--serhio talk 08:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 08:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 22:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)