Talk:Treaty of Paris (1920)

= Took effect or didn't take effect

There has been some discussion on Talk:Moldova regarding the disposition of the treaty and what that disposition implies.
I thought it more appropriate to post my latest response to that discussion here.

Speaking of sources, the treaty passage in question states:

"The present treaty shall be ratified by the signatory powers. It shall not come into force until after the deposit of these ratifications and from the coming into force of the treaty signed by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers and Roumania on the 9th December, 1919."

Unfortunately, this text does leave some ambiguity, as it does not say "ratified by all the signatory powers" or "ratified by each of the signatory powers." It's 99.99% implied that it's "everyone" but there's that 0.01% chance that what's left not absolutely explicit is usually so for a reason.
  At the time, even if ratified, it was not a guarantor of general international acceptance. There is the lack of participation by Russia—largely mitigated by it being a Bessarabian decision to unite with Romania. The U.S., another non-participant, did not recognize the treaty in conformance with its policy at the time of not recognizing any changes in sovereignty along Russia's western frontier. The U.S. regarded the treaty as a res inter alios acta.
  I have not located any English language sources discussing that the terms of the treaty did not go into effect and the ramifications of that. Although Bulei [referenced in Talk:Moldova as source on the treaty not being ratified] is a respected scholar on Romania, I cannot vouch for his expertise in the nuances of international law.
  Regardless, whether the treaty came into effect or not, it represented (reputable sources) de jure recognition of the merger of Bessarabia and Romania by the signatories. Outside of the treaty proper, Romania also made good on compensation demanded by Britain (per Clark's Bessarabia) in order to insure British approval.
  So we can note that the treaty was signed, but not ratified, by all parties. However, in terms of significance of less than 100% ratification, this was not an impediment to de jure recognition of the Bessarabian-Romanian union. Nor does < 100% imply anything about the union not being consumated, about being an annexation instead, or that the union was illegal, etc. —PētersV (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Here is a news report from 1918 on Romania accepting Bessarabia's offer to unite.

I'm not a native speaker of English, but, to me, "these ratification" couldn't mean anything but all ratification. Probably a native English speaker should look at it. I've seen you're one, but there's a chance that the Latvian language, that's also a native language for you, had influenced your thinking. (It happens sometimes to me, although it's Moldovan in my case, not Latvian). I doubt someone could claim that Mr. Bulei is paid by Moldovan communist. He also wrote that in 1997, so no influence from Romanian communist historiography could be suspected. Moreover, as Bulei notes, Romania never used that treaty when it wanted to reannex Bessarabia.

As for your PS: In the proclamation of the MSSR, the Supreme Soviet of USSR also claimed the proclamation was an accomplishment of the will of the Moldovan people. It seems all occupants of Moldova liked to put such phrases in their speeches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xasha (talk • contribs) 22:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

On the omission of the explicit "all" my observation is tainted perhaps, not by language, but reading analyses describing how crafty omissions of words in official proclamations, treaties, etc. intentionally skirt issues or create technicality loopholes should they be required at a future time. I also confess to a good degree of cynicism when it comes to the "great/large/über" powers dealing with smaller states.

   "Reannexation" is a problem, that is a statement that Romania forcibly annexed Bessarabia to begin with. —PētersV (talk) 01:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's better to put Mr. Bulei's analysis, so we're sure we're not puting any personal opinion. Military occupation followed by a proclamation expressing the "will of the Bessarabian population" is what happened both in 1918 and 1940. Just the occupant was different.Xasha (talk) 10:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to express my regret that you take such a shallow view of history.

   Since the Romanians forced themselves upon the Besssarabians according to you, then they must have welcomed Bessarabia's original incorporation into Russia in 1812 as the Ottoman Empire crumbled, first escaping from their Romanian brethren--thus renewing their most ancient of links with Kievan Rus. (Non-Russian sources generally state that Kievan Rus ended its expansion at the Dniester with raids further south. Russian sources generally state that Kievan Rus extended to the Danube.) Not that Romanians necessarily inhabited the territory back then, but it furthers the romantic image. And it therefore must have been a true manifestation of Bessarabian will for it to renew its Russian ties--it couldn't have possibly been Soviet installed apparatchiki who voted to join the Great Family of the U.S.S.R. Nor will we mention that in terms of territory of the old Moldavia--if we consider territorial identity--most of that lay in modern Romania with the much lesser portion of it in Bessarabia. And how the Bessarabians must have envied the most fortunate among them, those that got to experience the Great Family first hand, given free transit to the depths of their reunited Mother Russia to experience the scenic wonder of watching their breath turn to the finest snow in the crisp winter air.

   We'll have to get Bulei's passage on the topic translated and see what reputable scholarship says about Bulei on the topic. I must apologize for my interpretation of your position, perhaps it's not quite correct in the details. I only wish to make the point that if you desire to have your editorial contentions taken seriously, and that you are genuine when you state it's better not to put personal opinion in articles, please avoid simplistic "X was just like Y" comparisons that belie an editorial position borne of your personal POV and not of objective scholarship. :-) —PētersV (talk) 02:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually Moldovans quite welcomed the rule of an Orthodox power, that got them rid of Tatar forays and heavy taxation by Ottoman-imposed rulers. Of course, this was also a tragedy, because their brothers in Moldova east of the Prut remained under a Muslim ruler, and were under heavy denationalization propaganda in the second half of the 19th century.

Christian Rakovski proposed a plebiscite to be held in Bessarabia, but he was refused by the Romanian government. If the Moldovans really wanted to unite, why didn't the Romanians accept to ask them about this matter? If such plesbicite would have been held, nobody could contest that "union" nowadays.

The similitude is striking: about 2 months after the Romanian/Soviet troops occupied the region, unelected "representantives" decided to unite with Romania/USSR, and Romania/USSR immediately accepted the "will of people of Bessarabia".

If you don't trust me, you could ask one of the Romanian speaking administrators to translate the text (until now I've seen only 2: TSO1D and Bogdan). Bulei is a well established Romanian historian, Proffesor at the University of Bucharest, and head of the History departement at that university. So I doubt someone could dispute its scholarship.Xasha (talk) 15:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)