From: mihai@sep.Stanford.EDU (Alexander Mihai Popovici)
Subject: Re: Moldova 
Organization: Stanford Exploration Project
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 04:21:26 GMT

In article <9209080025.AA03244@feds66.Prime.COM>, dleschin@FEDS66.PRIME.COM (Dmitri Leschiner) writes:
|> >Date:         Mon, 7 Sep 1992 16:45:10 PDT
|> >From: Adrian Moga <moga@GRINGO.USC.EDU>
|> 
[...snip ...snip]
|> >                                          More than that, Moldova
|> >should have been on the winners' side in this treaty, by helping the
|> >Russian army. So, not only international laws were broken, but a deep
|> >injustice was committed as well.
|> 
|> Of course Moldova should have been on the winner's side. Well, if the
|> alternatives were - to go under Russian rule, or to return under Turkish,
|> the latter one certainly does not seem like winner's case. Wasn't the
|> former the best possible at the time, at least for part of Moldovan
|> territory?

The point that you didn't get from Adrian's posting is that even 
though under Turkish suzerainty, Moldova (which included Basarabia),
had internal autonomy.  That meant total freedom in internal 
administration and the interdiction of turkish troops to enter
the Moldovan or Muntenian (a.k.a Tara Romaneasca or Vallachia) territory.
After 1812 Basarabia became part of te Russian Empire and nothing
else.

I`ll highlight some historical moments for that area:

After the 1806-1812 war, the territory between Prut and Nistru
(Dniestr) was anexed to the Russian Empire.  That territory is
generally refered as Basarabia.

After the Russian-Turkish war of 1828-1829 the two Romanian 
Principates (Moldova and Muntenia) remain under Russian occupation 
until 1834. 

In 1856 after Russia is defeated in the Crimean war 
three counties from Basarabia are returned to Moldova:
Cahul, Bolgrad and Ismail.
The three counties are returned to Russia at the end of
the 1877-1878 war (Russia and Romania against Turkey),
when the two Romanian Principates (Moldova
and Muntenia) become independent from Turkey.

In 1918 the territory between Prut and Nistru (Basarabia)
reenters Romania.

In 1940 after the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact Russia gives an
ultimatum to Romania and retakes the teritory between Prut
and Nistru.

|> Of course, it's very grim, that Moldova was divided then. Actually, much
|> more grim is that it was not reunified, when all Moldova was finally
|> liberated from Turks. Of course, you'll blame Russia for it. In a logical
|> way, you are right. Certainly, there is grim irony, which you've noticed
|> above. But, again, what might be an alternative? It is - for Russia, to
|> give Bessarabia away to Moldova. OK, now, say me just honestly: how many
|> states can you name NOW, in 1992, presumably very liberal and civilised
|> time, who will behave in such a way? Certainly, current (East) Moldova
|> is not among them, neither most of its (close or distant) neighbours,
|> known to me...
|> 
|> Well, another alternative: rest of Moldova to join Russia. I'm not sure
|> you would support that variant of reunification.
|> 
|> So, actually it certainly _was_ unjustice, from historical point of view.
|> But, it doesn't seem to me quite justly to blame anybody for it, except
|> history itself...
|> 
|> >                                 There was no other reason for Russian
|> >expansionism than there is one for expansionism in general. And that
|> >is greed.
|> 
|> Still, I thought, Russian expansionism was better for Moldova than Turkish
|> rule. You may disagree, of course.
|> 
|> >Regards,
|> 
|> >Adrian Moga.
|> 
|> 
|> Dmitry

Cheers
Mihai