Talk:Transnistria War/Archive 2

message: The end of the Communist rule in neighboring Romania in December 1989, and the partial opening of the border between Romania and Moldova on 6 May, 1990, led many in Transnistria to believe that a union between Moldova and Romania was soon possible, ending them inside Romania, where they could no longer demand the return to Russian as the official language.
: Er, what? What about the massive nationalist demonstrations in Chisinau? Popular Front activists presenting the union as an imminent event? A wave firings of Russian(only)-speakers following the establishment of the language law? Besides, Transnistrians would be able to demand the return to Russian as the official language even if Transnistria became part of Romania... --Illythr 15:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, it is a gross simplification to blame only the end of Communist rule. It would be more historically correct that the Popular Front for a while became the largest and most potent political force. It campaigned on a unification platform. When you see the largest political group advocating a union, the "led many in Transnistria to believe" statement is actually an understatement. I would have believed the same at the time. - Mauco 16:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, before the end of Communist rule in Romania I don't believe anybody in Moldova would want to unite with Romania. As a Romanian, in 1989 I followed the Moldovan press and I was delighted with the degree of freedom it enjoys. Freedom in Moldovan SSR in 1989 was bigger than freedom in Romania under Ceauşescu. Don't understand why anybody in Moldovan SSR would want for reunification with Romania as long Ceauşescu was still in power. If I would live in Moldovan SSR at that time, I would be against unification with Ceauşescu's Romania.--MariusM 17:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Adition: At the end of 1989 Ceauşescu's regime imposed restrictions at subscribing at Moldovan press. I was not able to subscribe again at "Literatura şi Arta" for 1990, which I subscribed at end of 1988 for 1989 (when it was still written in cyrillic).--MariusM 17:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Was it? I'm not sure, I will check. I was always under impression that Moldovan SSR didn't have an official language (de facto official was Russian), contrary with Caucasians SSR.--MariusM 17:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, you know, I was sure that every SSR had its own language in addition to Russian, which was the "main" language. I better double check as well. --Illythr 18:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: nah...not only did the MSSR not have an official language (until 1 September 1989), but the USSR didn't even have one. jamason 18:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  I am not Russian/Romanian/Moldovan or anything Eastern European, but just a researcher. But from what I recall, each SSR had what was referrred to as the "titular language" (which in this case would have been called "Moldavian") as well as the "language of inter-ethnic communication" (always, without any exceptions, Russian). - Mauco 18:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Each republic definitely had a titular nationality (with its own language), but I'm not sure that the Soviet governmental organs codified the place of these languages in any sense. (That is not to say that the Communist Party didn't often have policy initiatives addressing various aspects of national live in various spheres--e.g. korennizatsia.) I do know, however, that the role of Russian was not codified in 1989: the VS MSSR established Russian as the "language of inter-ethnic communication" after it passed the language laws as a compromise in the hopes of stopping the strikes at that time. jamason 18:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, it would be nice to find the text of the Constitution of the MSSR, then. Meanwhile, looks like Jamason is correct:This edit suggests it, if indirectly. I will withdraw my statement, then.--Illythr 18:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Your friend Mauco will never be convinced ...only if US will speak russian... that is it ...I know that I should be neutral ...by I am...I am neutral .. but that Mauco is not...he is a russian propaganda puppet  ( don't forget that). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Catarcostica (talk • contribs) 07:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Political background

message: ====Timeline of events before the war====
:: Now, let us work on this. Starting with the headline: this is not good, proper English. - Mauco 05:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should come with proposals for improvements, but don't delete the entire paragraph. You are wellcome to add other events if those are factually correct and you can provide sources.--MariusM 12:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved section 

message: :: Now, let us work on this. Starting with the headline: this is not good, proper English. - Mauco 05:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should come with proposals for improvements, but don't delete the entire paragraph. You are wellcome to add other events if those are factually correct and you can provide sources.--MariusM 12:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Timeline of events before the war