From: moga@GRINGO.USC.EDU (Adrian Moga)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.soviet
Subject: Re:
Date: 7 Sep 92 23:45:10 GMT
Reply-To: "talk.politics.soviet via ListServ" <TPS-L@indycms.iupui.edu>
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA

In article <9209071928.AA02307@feds66.Prime.COM> you write:
>>Date:         Mon, 7 Sep 1992 17:19:57 GMT
>>From: Algirdas Pakstas <pakstas@IDT.UNIT.NO>
>
>>When war was finished and Turkey was crashed (by Suvorov !!! who also
>>is famous as suppressor of rebellion in Lithuania and Poland !!!)
>>then Russia included in peace treatment between Russia and Turkey ...
>>question of "joining" Besarabia to Russia (i.e. cutting of foreign
>>territory). Turkish Pasha protested for such violation of
>>international law but after long diplomatic "work" he agreed to
>>signature this treatment.
>
>I'm kind of lost here. Which "foreign territory" you are talking about?
>Turkish? If yes, what is the violation of international law? Turkey lost
>the war, and it lost the territory as well. After all, Moldova wasn't
>probably a part Turkish historical lands, was it? If no, why Turkish
>Pasha was bothering of non-Turkish territory so much, and signed treaties
>concerning it?
>

At that time (1812), Moldova, bordered with the Russian Empire on the
Dniestr (i.e. including Bessarabia), had limited autonomy, being under
Turkish suzerainity (i.e. the Turks were "taking care" of Moldovans
foreign affairs, while allowing them domestic sovereignity). Vallachia
had the same status. Both Moldovan and Vallachian leaders were often
breaking this rule, looking for allies against the Turks, their
enemies for about 6 centuries. It wasn't only at the beginning of the
19th century that Moldovans/Vallachians were helping/joining Russian
armies in their fights against Turks. Things started more than a
century before. I think you can understand how ironic it was for
Moldova not to loose teritories after 5 centuries of fighting alone
against the Turks, but after one century after helping the Russians.

So, Bessarabia was always a part of the Moldavian principality until
1812. In 1812, when the peace treaty was signed, Moldova (and
therefore Bessarabia) was not under Turkish administration (read
"Bessarabia was not a Turkish teritory"). 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. There was no other reason for Russian
expansionism than there is one for expansionism in general. And that
is greed.

>>Is such "joining" to Russia any basis for claiming that original
>>script of Romanian language used in Moldova (Besarabia) was cyrillic?
>
>No, the basis is that original script of Romanian language used in Moldova
>(Besarabia) was cyrillic as early as in XV century, long before Suvorov,
>and rebellions in Lithuania and Poland.
>
>D.

Both Moldova and Vallachia were using cyrillic script "as early as XV
century". The most important explanation is that Romanians were/are
Orthodoxs. BUT, they both switched to Latin alphabet as early as 17th
century. Read the work of Moldovan leader and scholar Dimitrie
Cantemir (early 18th century) to convince yourself. Keep in mind that
literacy was very poor at that time and most of the people knowing how
to read/write were part of the clergy. The oldest example of Romanian
writing using Latin alphabet (that I remeber of) is dating from the 16th
century and is a Gospel. I don't remeber exactely when Latin script
became predominant, but if I'll have the time I'll dig it out from
some books. However, it is certain that by the beginning of 19th
century, Bessarabia was using it.

Regards,

Adrian Moga.