Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dc76 (talk | contribs) at 14:59, 2 April 2009 (→Moldova: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Thank you

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

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

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

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

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

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

Template:Collapsible boxbox

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

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

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

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

History of Moldova

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3) look at other former socialist states in eastern Europe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

She also writes some other things:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Romania? Hehe, during whose reign? ;-)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Siege of Leningrad

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

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

Battle of Poltava

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jassy-Kishinev

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2008 South Ossetia War

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

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

Moldova

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