What's next?, next war Romanians could be part of

Yes, Typhon, we could do a lot, but I think the leaders scared themselves, because they gained over their expectations (look at Bassarabia), and thank they could not defeat all we gain. In east, enemies, Russians, who attacked permanently our borders (look at 1924 attack, with Revolution at Tatar Bunar). In west, enemies, we just occupied Budapest. We tried an agreement wits Czechs, because we didn't want another enemy, and we were allies against Bella Kuhn regime. We didn't need Bulgaria as an enemy, because we had a lot of them. With Serbs, the same, we were allies, and even if wanted to attack them (improbable behavior), they were there with French army (including in Banat), under comand of gen Franchet d'Essperey, who replaced gen. Sarrail.
At peace conference, at Paris, Serbs protested against possibility to gave entire Banat to romania, because Romanians guns could be placed at few kilometres from Belgrade, and put their capital under fire (what kind of explanation for an ally). We offered them guaranties, but no way.

That large area of the Hungarian plain up to River Tisza was occupied by Rumanian troops, up to the late 1920, with the intention to keep it as part of the so-called 'Greater Rumania'. However, it was eventually reluctantly vacated, due to firm insistence of the Entente powers, as it was not part of the territories originally offered to Rumania in exchange for entering the war on their side, in a desperate time for the Entente.
As for the 200.000 "magyarised Rumanians" left behind, that's no more than a myth.

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on February 16, 2010 09:14 pm

Romanian leaders don't want to keep this part, between actual border and tisa river, because Hungarian population was in majority, and to mantain this area, it could become a permanent reason for tensions betwenn these two countries. It was kept only the time needed for military operations.
Unfortunatelly, Horthy, who was during that time leader of "White Guard", do not apreciate the service we made to him, see 1940.

But, back to the topic, could we united with Bassarabia in 1991, imediatelly after Moldova gainde his independence?
The USSR disolution begins, Baltic States and others proclaimed their independence, Moscow was under the shock after the putch who tried to overthrone Gorbatchev, Eltsin prepare himself to gain the power.
Was it a good moment? If we had proper leaders, of course.

At least from the point of view of population's spirit from both sides of Prut, there was a very favorable moment for the union. I dont know what was "behind", in the minds of the political leaders of the time, but for sure we missed a great oportunity.

Of course,
Transnistrian separatist movement don't errupt yet, and immadiately after the fall of Moscow putch, Eltsin and other soviet leaders were very upset against the Transnistreans, because they prepared and were ready to send a batallion of "volunteers" to suport the putchists.
If Snegur imposed the law at that moment, with force, Russians were not against. Even 14'th army stood in barracks, waiting orders, and don't know who are the leaders and what they had to do.

Yes I also think that the moment of time -august 1991- may be the one -the only one- that could bring the union that we (I hope we) waiting for nearly 20 years!
But... let's think at the practical aspects... back then in 1991... were our leadership prepared? our army? our secret services? not asking about economy or... remember september 1991 -mineriada... just thinking!

Yes I also think that the moment of time -august 1991- may be the one -the only one- that could bring the union that we (I hope we) waiting for nearly 20 years!
But... let's think at the practical aspects... back then in 1991... were our leadership prepared? our army? our secret services? not asking about economy or... remember september 1991 -mineriada... just thinking!

Of course that for a good life imediately after the presumed union, it would be of great use to have every aspect well prepared and in good shape: administration, army, secret services, economy (not necesarilly in this order), to smooth the transition from 2 separate states into one.

But more important was the population's mood and spirit, which was great and would surpass the dificulties.

Let's remember that in 1918 when Bessarabia united with Romania, the situation in both countries was disastrous: several years of war, famine, epidemics, great number of deaths due to these horrors, Romania practically out war and Bessarabia wandered and looted by bolshevic russian soldiers returnig home from fronts. The same was in late 1918 when Transylvania united with Romania. In Transylvania war afected romanian population double time as in Romania, half a milion transylvanian romanian men sent to war (significant percent KIA or disabled due to wounds or diseases), extended famine due to war, busineses closed or reduced due to the same hardships of war and let's not forget the significant higher quality of economical life and industry in Transylvania in comparison with Romania.

My conclusion is that overall situation would help if it is good, but it is not mandatory if the spirits are high, dificulties can be surpased.

That large area of the Hungarian plain up to River Tisza was occupied by Rumanian troops, up to the late 1920, with the intention to keep it as part of the so-called 'Greater Rumania'. However, it was eventually reluctantly vacated, due to firm insistence of the Entente powers, as it was not part of the territories originally offered to Rumania in exchange for entering the war on their side, in a desperate time for the Entente.
As for the 200.000 "magyarised Rumanians" left behind, that's no more than a myth.

Gen. Dénes

next you will tell me all the romanian vilages in curent ukraine which were found between Nistru and Nipru by the advancing romanian army during WW2 were also a myth
those romanian vilages still apper in some maps, for how long, I dont know, and probably in one century from now there will be other people telling us those too were just a myth.

This post has been edited by TYPHON on February 17, 2010 05:42 am

i'm quite curious how a referendum there would have looked like, given that no component nation had a share higher than 40%.

also it's not like the romanian government would be in the position to decide wheter to give anything to YU or not. the entente decided this.

I don't think our leaders are the problem in this issue, I think theirs are:

Mihai Ghimpu: Moldova will never unite with Romania

http://www.realitatea.net/ghimpu--moldova-...nia_700698.html

"Dragoste cu de-a sila nu se poate." We want to unite but their leaders want to keep playing Mr. President and Mr. Prime Minister. What would they be in a united Romania? MPs at most or prefects/mayors.

Lets face it.The majority of moldavian citisens do not want any union or NATO membership.Most of them are deeply brain washed and others remember 41-44.In the best case only 25-30 %,will vote for an union.,so it will take years of patient work to reverse this situation.Mr. Ghimpu is a ploitician,and as such,he is worried by the decline in opinion pools of his party and the ,probably,incoming elections.So ,lets not rush to conclusions !

It his just a political declaration. It is destined more to east, not west.
About pro-unionist percentage, the young generation is more pro-unionist like the old one. And Romania is now more atractive like it was 20 years ago. And the youths don't like to wait, they act. Lokk at 7 april 2009, when they changed their course of history.

Some of the students,ye,s but this is not the majority.Have you seen,on "Jurnal TV",live,on the day of Mr.Basescu's visit in Chisinau ,how the police had to deal with hundreds of young people protesting our presidents visit ? I did.And yes ,its a political statement,but is not designed for west or east,its for internal consumption,and a wise one if R. Moldova is not to stay comunist for another 20 years.

Contras,go and spent a day or two in Baltzi,and you will return much wiser,and will understand that whishfull thinking is one thing and the reality is an other.

This post has been edited by guina on February 17, 2010 08:46 pm

I also agree that the interim moldovan President should not be condemned by us for his statements. Remember that he is there, with the transnistrean rebels and the new ukrainean (pro-russian) leadership on its coast, and we are here with a promised US missile shild and an american airbase at Mihail Kogalniceanu. Don't you think it matters?