Talk:Union of Bessarabia with Romania

Haters of the Union
What's the exact quote which supports this phrase "The first years of Romanian administration in Bessarabia however came to be resented even by those who had supported the Union."? 79.117.174.14 (talk) 20:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You mean other than Halippa describing it as a hell and worse than Tsarist regime?Anonimu (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That too, I am requesting the original Romanian quote. But I am asking for the source of the statement "The first years of Romanian administration in Bessarabia however came to be resented even by those who had supported the Union" - all those who had supported the Union started to regret it? I think it is an erroneous generalization. In addition "first years" is not very precise, what does that exactly mean? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years?
 * Also, I'd like to see the reference for the statement that Halippa was "one of the main instigators of the Union" 79.117.174.14 (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The sentence does not imply that all unionist "hated" Romania, just that among the people who disliked the way Romania governed were also guys you wouldn't expect, such as the ones who wanted a Romanian govt in the first place. I would have no problem to say that people resented the way Romanian administered Bessarabia at all times, however, considering the source is from 1924, that would be an abuse. Therefore, "first years" means some time during 1918-1924 (not necessarily the whole period).
 * Is a matter of common knowledge that Halippa was the leader of the Unionist factions in Bessarabia at a time when most Moldavian politicians strongly supported a Moldavian autonomy inside a democratic Russia. If it weren't for Halippa and Stere (and the Romanian Army occupying the province), the developments would have probably been much different.Anonimu (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Moreover, we must check if the neutrality criterion is fulfilled. Halippa is only one of the 150 former members of Sfatul Țării. Why should this particular view be included in the article? It looks like POV pushing to me 79.117.174.70 (talk) 07:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The opinion is dully attributed. The article never says Halippa was representative of all former members of the assembly. If you think that his opinion was not neutral, either find a source saying Halippa was part of some Bolshevik cabal and was being paid to lie in front of the Parliament, or bring another source presenting another perspective on the period, to put along Halippa's.Anonimu (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Which are the the other former unionists, except Halippa, who complained about the deficiencies of the Romanian rule? "Is a matter of common knowledge that Halippa was the leader of the Unionist factions in Bessarabia" - For me it is not a known fact, please provide a source. Also, please offer the referred fragment of the original speech (in Romanian) 82.79.214.227 (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * On page 5 there's a quote in extenso from the same source. I've also changed the text, hopefully addressing your concerns. As I think presenting Halippa's role in 1917-1918 is outside the scope of the article, I've rephrased to a lamer formulation that anybody can confirm through reading our article. Anonimu (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Anatol Petrencu as reliable source
Anatol Petrencu's book cited in the article is characterized in Bringing the Dark Past to Light: The Reception of the Holocaust in Postcommunist Europe (University of Nebraska Press, 2013) as highly nationalistic and sympathetic to the fascist war-time dictator Ion Antonescu. Accordingly, any reference to it requires direct attribution ("According to nationalist historian Anatol Petrencu, ...") per policy.Anonimu (talk) 23:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This proposal is ridiculous. Anatol Petrencu is a historian of the highest level in Moldova. He is not less a university professor than John-Paul Himka and ‎Joanna Beata Michlic. Considering that these American professors represent a higher authority than Petrencu is POV. A neutral text would be "According to the historian Anatol Petrencu, characterized by John-Paul Himka and ‎Joanna Beata Michlic as being nationalistic, ...". But it is not the case to introduce such a formulation here, as long as the referred text does not contain controversial opinions or interpretations, but only some official statistics. I hope you don't assert that he lied about the casualties and presented invented numbers. Is it so difficult to accept that your beloved Russians did this? The same data are presented by the Jewish historian Nicolae Minei Grünberg . I know, you'll say he is a fascist author, because he denied the Romanian Holocaust, but it would be inappropriate to affirm that two apparently independent persons took the "lie" from each other 79.117.173.28 (talk) 07:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree, being certain that Moldova also has historians who abide by the rules of modern, impartial historiography, based on facts rather than ideology. The US professors have no axe to grind (unless you imply they are some part of a Russian conspiracy), thus I have no reason to doubt their judgement. The "fact" Petrencu's nationalist book supported was a tendentious, ideologically-motivated, half-truth, conflating soldiers unaccounted for (mostly deserters native to the region) with soldiers who actually died, even if the latter represented only 1% of the total. Please note that Wikipedia accepts no personal attacks, such as claiming ulterior motives for the work of fellow editors. I see no use on commenting on a pamphlet denying the Holocaust.Anonimu (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality
Haha, why "Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina" but "Union of Bessarabia with Romania"? Need to change both articles to common title - occupation or union. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.25.53.138 (talk) 07:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * hhhh 188.237.249.130 (talk) 08:48, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Because we moldovans are Romanians, so union with Romania were best years in our history. 188.237.249.130 (talk) 08:49, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * In June 1940, the Soviet Union sent an ultimatum to the Romanian government, demanding that it cede Bessarabia and North Bucovina. It was not an act by which the population of those areas wanted to unite with the Soviet Union, but it was just a part of the expansionist policy of the Soviet Union. Finland and the Baltic countries were in the same situation.
 * On the other hand, the Union of Bessarabia with Romania was voted by the parliament of the Bessarabian Republic called the Sfatul Țării, in which the majority of members voted for the union with Romania. 82.76.245.237 (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Union of Bessarabia with Romania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071113170140/http://www.unibuc.ro/eBooks/istorie/istorie1918-1940/13-4.htm to http://www.unibuc.ro/eBooks/istorie/istorie1918-1940/13-4.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)