NICHOLAS DIMA 1991
East European Monographs, Boulder Distributed by Columbia University
Press, New York
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
In 1812 Russia managed to annex the eastern half of
the Romanian Principality of Moldavia. From then until the First
World War, the territory known as Bessarabia (Basarabia in Romanian)
changed hands between Romania and Russia several times. After the
First World War, Bessarabia joined Romania, but Moscow never accepted
this union. In June 1940, Moscow delivered to Bucharest an ultimatum
to evacuate, in four days, Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina
(Bucovina). Romania had no choice but to yield. The two ceded
provinces had an area of 51,000 square kilometers, or some 20,000
square miles and 3.9 million inhabitants mostly Romanians. It was
then Romania's turn to reject the settlement and in June 1941 joined
Germany and attacked the Soviet Union. In 1944, however, the USSR
reannexed the area, occupied the entire country of Romania and,
shortly thereafter, imposed a communist government in Bucharest
friendly and obedient toward Moscow. Although in the beginning the
new Romanian regime did not mention Bessarabia and Bukovina, Malborne
Graham wrote that this disputed area of Eastern Europe represented
"the most critical territorial problem bequeathed to the present
generation as a direct legacy of the age-old Eastern Question. " 1
>From 1711 when the tsarist troops reached the boundary of Moldavia for
the first time until 1944, Russia invaded Romania 12 times.2 In 1940
the Soviet regime redrew the boundary of the annexed territory and set
up a new Union Republic under the misleading name of Moldavian Soviet
Socialist Republic (MSSR). The new republic was created primarily on
the territory of former Bessarabia. From a geographical point of
view, Bessarabia represents a continuation of the Romanian land with
the Dnestr (Nistru in Romanian) separating the Ukrainian monotonous
plains from the hilly lands of Bessarabia and the Romanian mountains.
The drainage of Bukovina rivers attaches the area to the rest of
Moldavia and Romania, too. Bukovina's population however is
ethnically mixed and dominantly Ukrainian in certain places.3 The new
Soviet Moldavian Republic was formed on the central two thirds of
Bessarabia. It has an area of 33,700 square kilometers or 13,012
square miles and it is larger than Belgium, for example, or twice as
large as Massachusetts. During the last 35 years of Soviet
domination, the disputed territory has undergone profound political,
social and economic transformations as well as ethno-demographic
changes. Yet, the Romanian character of the region and particularly
of Soviet Moldavia has changed little, remaining a further bone of
contention between Romania and the Soviet Union. In 1970, for
example, 65 percent of Moldavia's inhabitants were Romanians and 98
percent of them declared Moldavian (Romanian) as their native
language. According to the 1979 Census, the situation continues
relatively unchanged. The attitude of the Bucharest government
however has changed radically during the last 20 years with regard to
the disputed area. Thus, in the 1960's Bucharest began to challenge
the legitimacy of the Soviet possession of the territory, and during
the 1970's the dispute became acute. The problem has somehow settled
during the last several years, but the region remains unstable. From
a Romanian point of view the disputed territory and its population is
of great importance. It represents some one-sixth of the Romanian
territory and population and a good part of Romanian history. From a
Soviet standpoint, the territory is also important in several ways.
Strategically, by acquiring the Romanian provinces, the USSR gained
direct and better access to Central Europe (through Bukovina) and to
the Danube (through Southern Bessarabia). Then, although the
territory is generally devoid of any mineral resources, it is one of
the best agricultural lands in the entire Soviet Union. With only 0.2
percent of the Soviet territory, Moldavia alone produces some 2.3
percent of all Soviet agricultural produce. It is first in the Soviet
Union in grape and tobacco production; the third in sunflo,wer and
sugar beet production, and a leading republic in many other
agricultural fields. During the Soviet years, Moldavia has also
become a leading republic in food-processing industries. The Soviet
authorities have made tremendous efforts to isolate "Moldavia" from
any Romanian influence. At the same time, pressure has been
continuously exerted upon Moldavians in an attempt to create a new
national identity, distinct from the Romanian identity. In spite of
these strenuous efforts, Soviet Moldavians have managed to retain
their Romanian language and culture, but they must call them
"Moldavian" instead of Romanian. On the other hand, Bucharest
exercises a steady influence on the Bessarabia and Bukovina Romanians
and promotes, most of the time indirectly, its claim on the two
provinces. Although, it is unlikely that the status of the
Russo-Romanian disputed territory can be changed for the time being, a
Western researcher remarked that the fate of Bessarabia and Northern
Bukovina will depend on the balance of forces between the great powers
in Europe.4 The purpose of this study is to present the succession of
events which led to the last Soviet annexation of the Romanian
territories in 1940 and 1944; to analyze the socioeconomic and ethno-
demographic changes brought about by the Soviet Union in the area and
particularly in Moldavia; to analyze the current cultural and
linguisitic status of the Soviet Romanians; and to describe the
present dispute between Bucharest and Moscow and its perspective.
Implicitly there is also an assessment of the stability or rather the
instability of the Romanian-Soviet boundary. Whereas the Russian
annexation of Bessarabia provides a very good historical example of
tsarist expansion, the 1940 annexation makes a typical case of Soviet
aggression and intracommunist dispute worth studying. Given the
Soviet socioeconomic fragility, the ethno- demographic trends, the
growing maturity of the non-Russian Soviet nationalities, and the
possibility of an international confrontation involving the USSR,
Moscow may be faced in the near future with a profound internal crisis
similar to the one that confronted tsarist Russia in 1917. In such a
situation, attempts of ethnic separation and internal dismemberment
together with international boundary changes may become viable
possibilities. Approaching the problem primarily from a Romanian
point of view, in such a case the Russo-Romanian territorial dispute
might take an acute form requiring an immediate solution. Although
Romania advances her claims especially on historical grounds rather
than ethnic rights, the crux of the matter is the fact that the
Moldavians are actually Romanians and they still form a majority in
their republic. The ethno-demographic changes in Soviet Moldavia and
the true identity and aspirations of its people are being studied
further in detail. The chief sources of data used in this work are
the Soviet population censuses of 1959, 1970 and 1979. Other
important sources of information are: current literature published in
Soviet Moldavia, Soviet Moldavian periodicals and newspapers, Dre
Moldavian Linguistic Atlas (a relatively recent Soviet publication
generally unknown in the West), Romanian periodicals and literature
currently published by Bucharest, and certain selected Russian
writings. In pursuing the study, the author has encountered several
problems, of which the most important are the inconsistency of the
published Soviet data and the transliteration. In attempting to erase
the Romanian past, the new regime does not keep any records which
would make population comparisons possible. Asked by a foreign
journalist about the past, a local leader answered that "it is not
right to ask for statistics or comparisons referring to Bessarabia; we
keep no such records. Only Moldavia exists."5 In addition, the
drastic internal boundary changes and the lack of data prior to the
1959 Census make ethno-demographic comparisons over time very
difficult. Consequently, it has been decided that the socioeconomic
and ethnodemographic chapter should focus on Soviet Moldavia rather
than the entire territory under dispute. Nevertheless, references to
the rest of the territory or the other Romanians living in the USSR
will be made when possible and appropriate. Defining Moldavians
and/or Romanians and referring to them was another problem. The two
are actually the same people and speak the same language. The author
wanted to call them only Romanians, but "Moldavian" had to be used
sometimes for geographic identification and more precision. The two
nationality identification words are thus interchangeably used with
descriptive explanations added when necessary. The language aspect is
rather extensively studied, revealing that the sole difference is the
use of Cyrillic by the so-called Moldavian. As a matter of fact with
a few specific adjustments any language including English can be
written in Cyrillic without any difficulty. However, transliterating
it back into the Latin script would be a problem and the written
English would then become a different version than the one we know.
Likewise, the author has encountered certain difficulties
transliterating the "Moldavian" into the Latin script. If a
researcher inadvertently uses the rules for transliterating Russian
the results will be a mispelled Romanian. Consequently, in this
study, Romanian rules will be followed except for the Slavic or
Russian proper narnes which are transliterated as Russian. Well-known
proper names such as Kishinev (Chisinau in Romanian), Chernowitz
(Cernauti), Beltsi (Balti) and a few others are written as they are
better known in the West with the Romanian spelling in paranthesis at
the first occurrence. The study covers primarily the 1945-1980
period, very much neglected in the Western literature. Although
several good articles on the topic have been published in English in
recent years, there is no comprehensive study in the Western
literature or even in Romania dealing with the Soviet-Romanian
territorial dispute and the current transformations in the contended
area. Prior to the Second World War Bessarabia and Bukovina were well
covered in the Western literature in many articles and several good
books. Those who wish to learn more about the history of the disputed
areas and their status particularly during the interwar years should
read among others: Charles Upson Clark, Bessarabia, New York: Dodd,
Mead & Company, 1927: UnMed Romania, same author and publisher, 1932;
Andrei Popovici, The Political Status f Bessarabia, Washington, D.C.:
Ransdell Inc., 1931; R. W. Seton- Watson, A History of the
Romanians, Archon Books, 1963, (First published by the Cambridge
University Press in 1934); 1. Nistor, Bessarabia and Bukovina
(Bucharest: Rumanian Academy, 1939). The author also recommends
Bessarabia; and Bukovina, two studies printed in London by H. M.
Stationary Office in 1920 and edited by G. W. Prothero, as well as
C. Sonevystsky, "Bukovina in the Diplomatic Negotiations of 1914,"
The Annals of the Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Sciences in the U.S.,
Vol. VII, 1959, No. 1-2. Recent books on the topic are: George F.
Jewsbury, The Annexation of Bessarabia: 1774-1828 (A Study of
Imperial Expansion), East European Quarterly, Monograph XV, New York:
Columbia University Press, 1976; David Spector, Romania at the Peace
ConSerence: A Study of the Diplomacy of loan l.C. Bratianu, New
York: Bookrnan Inc., 1962, which examines Bessarabia and Bukovina in
the context of their union with Romania; Mircea Musat, lon Ardeleanu,
Viata Po/itica in Romania 1918-1921, Bucuresti, Editura Politica,
1976, which presents briefly the current Romanian attitude with regard
to the disputed area; and Walter M. Bacon, Jr., Ed. Behind Closed
Doors: Secret Papers on the Failure of Romanian-Soviet Negotiations,
1931-1932, Stanford, California: Hoover Institution Press, 1979. As
recent Soviet sources, scholars may want to read: Istoria Modavii,
I-V, Kishinev, 1961-1962, and A. M. Lazarev, Moldavskaya Sovetskaya
Gosudarstvenost'i Bessarabskiy Vopros, Kishinev, 1974. For the
general historical background of the topic readers may consult:
Zamfir Arbore, Basarabia in Secolul al XlX-lea, Bucuresti, 1898; L.
Casso, Russia to the Danube, Moscow, 1913; Alexandru Boldur, La
Bessarabie et les Relations Russo-Roumaines: La Question
Bessarabienne et le Droit International, Paris, 1927; Nicolae lorga,
Histoire des Roumaines,l-XI, Bucharest, 1937-1944; and Constantin C.
Giurescu, Istoria Romanilor, Bucuresti, 1944.
Chapler 2
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Romanians are the descendants of the ancient kingdom
of Dacia, conquered by Rome in 101-106 AD and Romanized thereafter.
The Romans left numerous vestiges of their presence in the territory
of modern Romania, from the stone bridge built by the Roman Legions
over the Danube to invade Dacia, to the defensive earthen walls built
by them in Southern Bessarabia. Many of these structures still stand
today. The most important heritage of the Roman period, however, is
the Romance language spoken by the Romanians. After the withdrawal of
the Roman authorities in 270 AD, the Romanized Dacians, actually the
early Romanians, primarily shepherds, peasants and hunters, survived
in the mountainous and heavily forested regions of the country. They
were still under the influence of the vanishing Roman Empire, facing
at the same time the pressures of the eastern invaders. For
centuries, the indigenous proto-Romanians could not organize a state
in the modern meaning of the word. Those centuries were actually the
"dark ages" of Europe, characterized by a "terrible state of
insecurity," eastern invasions and mass movement of peoples.' The
Slavs came and settled into Southeastern Europe during the middle of
the first millenium. The Bulgarians crossed eastern Romania and
settled in the center of the Balkan Peninsula. The Magyars and many
other peoples crossed Romania during the later part of this period.
Some of these peoples settled into the former Daco-Roman province, but
most of them disappeared into the Daco- Roman population giving birth
to what later came to be known as Wallachians, Moldavians and
eventually Romanians. During the long period of Eurasian migration,
the eastern lowlands of Romania and particularly Bessarabia became a
veritable passage-way and stopover point for many peoples. With the
early Romanian population taking refuge in the forested areas whenever
a new wave of eastern migration occurred, Bessarabia in particular
became for a long time a sort of "no man's" land inasmuch as no state
authority was exercised there continuously. Byzantine, Italian and
Greek merchants, however, established their own ports along the Black
Sea coast of southern Bessarabia and on the Danube and continued to
trade with the local people.2 By about 1000 AD, the European peoples
began to attain more stable setllements, and the great migrations and
population movements began to draw to an end.3 When the great
migrations ended, the Romanians, enriched now culturally and
demographically through the assimilation of the cohabiting Slavs and
other migratory peoples, began to descend from the forested piedmonts,
hills and Carpathian mountains and gradually moved toward the lower
southern and eastern lands once inhabited by their ancestors. The
eastward migration to the lowlands took several centuries. It was
slow, mostly spontaneous and unplanned, and nearly imperceptible. The
move was motivated by the attraction of the new uninhabited lands and
the demographic pressure of the overcrowded lands "at home". The
eastward Romanian movement was pre-nationalist and chiefly
non-political and could be considered natural.' In their eastward
drive the Romanians reoccupied the whole region between the eastern
Carpathian range and the surrounding hills to the Dnestr, and crossed
the Dnestr in mass as well as in scattered groups. Crossing the
Dnestr however, the Romanian shepherds encountered other ethnic groups
of different cultures.5 Prior the the founding of the Moldavian State
in the fourteenth century, the Russians and the Ukraniarns called the
Romanians " Volokhi". Some Romanians might have reached deep into the
eastern Ukraine long before the formation of Moldavia. To this day,
for example, the inhabitants of the Bairak village, and other
settlements located in the Donetsk region, are called Volokhi as
distinct from Moldavians of neighboring villages, although they are
the same people.6 The Romanians moving toward the east had reached as
far into the Ukrainian Steppe as the Don river and then into Northern
Caucasus. The eastern boundary of Moldavia as well as the extent of
the Romanian mass settlements remained, however, along the Dnestr
river.
The Principality of Moldavia
Historically, Moldavia was founded by Prince Bogdan
during the midfourteenth century. The legend tells of Prince Dragos
and his horsemen descending from northern Transylvania into northern
Moldavia (Bukovina of today) and founding the new country whose name
came from Molda, a small mountain river crossed by the Transylvanian
Romanians. Wallachia was founded in a very similar way at the
beginning of the century in southern Romania. To this day the
formation of the two Principalities is called Descalecarea, literally
meaning dismounting from the horse. Nevertheless, the Romanians had
returned to the area long before the official founding of the
Principalities. During the fourteenth century, Prince Bogdan and his
successors established their sovereignty over most of the land between
the Carpathian mountains and the Dnestr river already populated by
Romanians. Then, Prince Alexandre the Good (1400- 1432) drove the
Tatars (remnants of the last great Asian invasion into Europe) beyond
the Dnestr and established his boundary along the river. At the
beginning, however, in the course of repopulating the new lands and
extending state authority, the region between the Prut and Dnestr
rivers adjacent to the Danube and the Black Sea, belonged to the
Wallachian dynasty Basarab, after whom the entire province was later
named. Realizing the paramount importance of the Danube, the
Moldavian princes managed to acquire from the Basarab family during
the fifteenth century "Southem Bessarabia", the area along the Danube
and the Black Sea. Thereafter, until their union in 1859, the Siret
river remained the boundary between Moldavia and Wallachia. A
document of 1408 confimms indeed that Cetatea Alba, a town at the
mouth of the Dnestr was a prosperous Moldavian town. During this
period of time, Moldavia had to fight the Hungarians who clairned
sovereignty over the new Principality, the Poles who had one of the
biggest European countries of the time, and particularly the still
menacing Tatars of the eastern steppes. Nonetheless, one of the first
Moldavian crown heads called himself proudly "Sovereign Prince from
the Mountains to the Sea". As a matter of fact, the northern and
eastern boundaries of the Principaiity were fixed by the Prince of
Moldavia and the King of Poland as early as 1433. The boundary
followed the Ceremus river in the north and the Dnestr in the east,
unquestionably including within Moldavia what later came to be known
as Bukovina and Bessarabia.7 Soon after, the Moldavian princes began
to fortify the Dnestr against the Tatars and built several fortresses
which stand to this day. No fortress was ever built along the Prut
River which flowed through the middle of the country. Moldavia
reached her apogee during the late 15th century under the long reign
of Stephen the Great (1457-1504). Stephen the Great further fortified
Moldavia's borders in the north against the Poles and Hungarians who
wanted to partition the country, in the east against the Tatars, and
in the south against the Turks, who were increasingly dangerous.
During this time Moscow was a remote small Duchy, and the Ukrainians
were nowhere in sight. From among the immediate neighbors of
Moldavia, the Turks' overwhelming power posed the most imminent
threat. Stephen the Great fought them heroically and managed to keep
them out. In 1484 however, Baiazid the Second managed to take the
Fortresses of Kilyia (Chilia) and Cetatea Alba.8 This southern
Moldavian territory, later expanded by the Turks, was named Budgeac
and acquired strategic significance by controlling the Danube. During
his reign Stephen the Great also approached the Muscovy Russians in an
attempt to oppose the pagan Turks, but this turned out to be a bitter
disappointment. Surrounded by unfriendly neighbors and having a deep
sense of duty toward his country, Stephen the Great fought to save as
much of Moldavia's independence as possible. He particularly feared
the Turks who were threatening from the south and appeared to be
unstoppable. After the death of Stephen the Great, his son Bogdan
accepted indeed Turkish suzerainty and soon after Wallachia had to do
the same thing. The two Principalities tried nevertheless several
times to get rid of the Ottoman suzerainty but the Turks responded by
toughening their stance. The next centuries witnessed a continuous
struggle among the big European powers of the time-Austria, Turkey and
Russia-over Southeastern Europe. Toward the end of the seventeenth
century the Russians began to expand into the southern Ukrainian
Steppe. While advancing into what is today southern Ukraine, the
Russians callbd these lands "New Russia". The Russian and Ukrainian
movement into "New Russia" was planned for the most part, and
politically stimulated. It was the Russian Government's goal to
colonize the newly acquired lands. At the same time, advancing from
the west beyond Dnestr, the Romanian natural expansion encountered the
Slavic colonization and the two cultures collided.9 In their organized
expansion the Russian armies appeared in Moldavia in 1711, led
personally by Peter the Great. The Emperor was extremely impressed by
the Moldavian Prince Dimitrie Cantemir and his erudition. Peter the
Great and Dimitrie Cantemir concluded the Lutsk alliance treaty
against the Turks with Russia recognizing fully the sovereignty of
Moldavia and her territorial integrity. Those who claim "that
Bessarabia was Turkish and not Moldavian territory need only to study
this treaty in order to realize their inconsistency."10 The Russian
defeat at the hands of the Turks in 1711 proved disastrous for
Moldavia. From then until 1821, the Turks repiaced the Romanian
Princes in both Principalities with Greek administrators from
Istanbul. The end of the eighteenth century was marked by wars,
annexations and partitions. By annexing Galicia, Austria became the
immediate neighbor of Moldavia in the north. At the same time, the
Russians were fighting the Turks over the "New Russia". A war between
the two powers broke out in 1768, and lasted for six years.
Eventually, the peace negotiations were mediated by Austria and
concluded at Kutchuk Kainardji in 1774. As a price for mediating the
peace, Austria extracted northern Moldavia, claiming it as a "cordon
sanitaire" and a more direct link with Initially, Austria had demanded
a strip of land with 3 or 4 market towns and 11 villages along the
Khotin (Hotin)-Chernowitz line. When the Austrian troops entered
northern Moldavia they annexed a much larger region which included the
most historical sites of the Principality among which the first two
capitals, and many monasteries including Putna with the tomb of
Stephen the Great. " Bukovina, as the region came to be known later,
has remained a bone of contention between Romania, Austria, then
Russia and now the Ukraine. When Austria occupied upper Moldavia, the
region did not have a name of itself. Vienna toyed with the idea of
calling it the Suchava (Suceava) Komitat or Austrian Moldavia, but in
the end it settled on Bukovina, a name found in the old Slavonic
language of the church meaning beech-tree covered area.12 At the time
of its annexation, Bukovina had only 70,000 inhabitants and the
greatest majority were Romanians. In 1778, four years after the
annexation, Vienna asked for an oath of loyalty and the villagers took
the oath in their native Romanian language. 13 Ever since the
Russians began to expand toward the south, their colonial policy aimed
at gathering all the territory of the "Old Rus". At the same time,
the Kainardji Treaty had given Russia a vague right to interfere in
the Ottoman Empire and protect or defend the Christian population. In
1788, Russia attacked Turkey again, and in her race toward the Black
Sea, Catherine the Great occupied the lands betwen the Bug and Dnestr
rivers. Four years later, the two powers signed the so called
"eternal peace" treaty at lassy (Iasi), the capital of Moldavia. For
the first time in history, Russia established its boundary along the
Dnestr in the immediate vicinity of Moldavia. At that time, Moldavia
had been in existence for almost five hundred years and her eastern
boundary had been the Dnestr for all this time.'4 Moderate Russians
themselves considered that Russia had reached its "natural" frontiers
at the Dnestr and should not waste men and resources for expansion
beyond it. '' Expanding big powers, however, never know when to stop.
The Russians penetrated into the Romanian territory and by taking a
relatively small piece of land, Moscow triggered Romanian mistrust and
hatred for hundreds of years.
The First Russian Annexation
The "eternal peace" treaty signed by Russia and Turkey
lasted 8 years until Russia started a new war which ended in 1812. At
the beginning of the nineteenth century, however, France had begun to
realize the threat of the unrelenting Russian expansion and the
importance of the strategic location of the Danube and the two
Romanian Principalities. In 1805, for example, Talleyrand suggested
to Napoleon "to offer" the two Principalities to Austria to create a
powerful buffer empire along the Danube. By the secret Erfurt Treaty
of 1808, however, Napoleon offered to Russia Finland and the Romanian
Principalities.'6 By starting new hostilities against Turkey, the
Russians thought that they could conquer the Romanian Principalities
without resistance, but they had to limit their greed. Meanwhile, the
Franco-Russian relations had deteriorated and a war between the two
appeared imminent. Consequently, in 1812, Russia hurriedly concluded
the Bucharest Treaty with Turkey managing to annex the eastern half of
the Principality of Moldavia. At the time of its annexation by
Russia, the eastern half of Moldavia between Prut and Dnestr did not
have a name. In many ways its central part had become the core of
Moldavia. The Russians gave the name Bessarabia to the entire region.
It was actually a shrewd diplomatic move to circumvent the Tilsit
Treaty which committed Russia to evacuate both Wallachia and Moldavia.
Since the Treaty did not mention "Bessarabia" the Russian troops could
remain there. In 1812, the Russians argued that Bessarabia was still
different from Moldavia and it was in their interest to extend that
name to the whole territory between the Prut and the Dnestr rivers.
The Turks who signed the Treaty were not aware how far the region
extended either.17 Later, the Russian Minister of Education wrote:
The annexation of Bessarabia was a great advantage to us. It brought
us closer to the Balkans, gave us the power to consolidate a foothold
on the Danube and to prepare ourselves for a later advance at the
expense of the Turkish Empire, thus carrying out the policy of
Catherine II.18
The same author continued:
For the first time in history, Russia had succeeded in annexing
Christian subjects from the territory under the Turks in Europe. The
Crimea and the plain of Ocheakov previously obtained were either
entirely desolate regions or peopled by Mohammedans.19
At the time of annexation the Russsian government did
not know much about either Bessarabia or the Romanian people. Three
years later St. Petersburg asked its foreign minister to ascertain
the religion to which the people of Bessarabia belonged. For
Moldavia, however, it was the most beautiful part of the country and
the richest as well. Two-thirds of the Moldavian tribute paid to
Turkey in 1812 in grain, for one example, came from Bessarabia.20 The
annexed province had an area of 46,000 square kilometers and
approximately 480,000 people, of whom 90 percent were Romanians. In
the beginning, Bessarabia was an autonomous province, but in 1829, her
autonomy was ended becoming a simple Russian Gubernia.21 Life began to
deteriorate immediately and thousands of Romanians, nobles and
peasants alike, crossed the Prut into what remained of Moldavia,
preferring to live under Turkish suzerainty.22 Current Soviet writers
claim nevertheless that "by joining Russia, the eastern part of
Moldavia found itself in more favorable conditions of social and
economic development."23 Curiously, Karl Marx, the founder of the
communist ideology and the alleged idol of Soviet Russia, was a
staunch anti-Russian and a constant supporter of the Romanians. He
was also among those few writers who realized the special position of
the Romanian Principalities who came freely to terms with Turkey
without ever being actually conquered. The two Danubian
Principalities, wrote Marx, "are two sovereign states under Turkish
suzerainty, to which they pay tribute in return for defense from
outside enemies. At the same time, the Turks in no way had the right
to interfere in internal afairs."24 Marx also wrote that "Turkey gave
Bessarabia to Russia, but Turkey could not give anything away since
she was only the protecting power of the Romanian countries."25 As a
matter of fact, Turkey was at the sunset of its power and could not
oppose Russia. Moldavia was small and could not withstand Russia by
herself either, so she had to accept the loss of her eastern half.
The Russian expansion around the shores of the Black Sea and the
occupation of the mouth of the Danube alarmed the western powers,
eventually causing the Crimean War. After the war, following the
Vienna and Paris negotiations and the Paris Treaty of 1856, the
Russians were forced to withdraw from southern Bessarabia, adjacent to
the Danube, and the region was restored to Moldavia. The great
European powers also guaranteed independent and national
administration of the Romanian Principalities and unimpeded navigation
on the Danube. All the signatories, Russia included, recognized the
autonomy and integrity of the Principalities. The Paris Treaty,
however, did not at all please Russia who waited for the right moment
to denounce it. Indeed, after the Germans defeated Napoleon 111 in
1870, Russia began to circumvent the Treaty's provisions.26
Union, Independence and Reunification
In 1859, in spite of foreign opposition, Moldavia and
Wallachia united and fo med the core of modern Romania. The new name
was adopted because most people inhabiting the lands called themselves
Romanians. The new country thus became the only legal successor of
the former two Principalities. The country was not immediately of
ficially recognized, but its existence changed the balance in Eastern
Europe. Romania exercised a great deal of influence over the
Romanians left outside, and confronted Russia with a new situation.
It can be said that the formation of modern Romania was instrumental
in stopping Russia in her drive toward the Balkans. Early modern
Romania was not fully independent, however, having an ambiguous
situation and still being somehow under Turkish suzerainty. Following
her policy of expansion, in 1877, Russia declared another war on
Turkey allegedly "to free the oppressed Christians of the Ottoman
Empire." The tsarist troops once more had to cross Romania, but this
time Russia asked the Romanian government for permission. The Rus
sian demand was actually a form of ultimatum. Romania was caught
again between two big powers and was threatened with two invasions.
The Romanian government began to negotiate with Russia and reached a
convention which was signed in Bucharest on April 16, 1877. According
to this agreement Romania assured the free passage of the Russian
troops over her territory, and in exchange Russia promised "to respect
the political rights of the Romanian state resulting from previous
laws and existing treaties, as well as to maintain and protect the
present integrity of Romania."27 At the same time, Romania asked
Turkey to recognize immediately her full independence, but Turkey
refused it. The Russo-Romanian convention was to go into effect on
April 29, after being ratified by the Romanian parliament. The
Russian troops began to cross Romania, however, five days before that.
The internationally known Romanian historian, N. Iorga, wrote that
the Russians acted in this treacherous way to avoid being faced with a
legal obligation toward Romania, treating her as a sort of privileged
province of the Ottoman Empire rather than an independent country.
Russia could therefore de mand from. . .Turkey whatever part of
Romania she wanted.28 On May 10, 1877, Romania declared her full
independence and offered Russia military help against the Turks.
Russia, however, rejected arrogantly the Romanian offer. With the
first victories, Russia made it clear that she intended to reannex
southern Bessarabia, claiming that the territorial guarantees given to
Romania were only against a "possible Turkish aggression." Russia
also argued deviously that southern Bessarabia did not belong to
Romania any way because Romania had just been created in 1859.29 The
war nevertheless turned into a disaster for the Russians who were
almost pushed into the Danube. Desperate and frightened, Grand Duke
Nicholac telegraphed the following to Pnnce Carol of Romania:
Come to our aid. Cross the Danube wherever you will, however you will
under any conditions suitable to you, but come as quickly as you can
to our aid. The Turks are ruining us, Christianity is lost.30
Romania entered the war on September 8, 1877, with the
Russian Pleven armies placed under the command of Prince Carol. As
recognized by the foreign press and by the Turks as well, the Romanian
intervention changed the military balance and caused the final defeat
of Turkey.31 Nonetheless, Russia excluded Romania from the San Stefano
Armistice and Peace Treaty. As a matter of fact, Romania learned
about them indirectly from the Russian press. According to the Peace
Treaty signed at San Stefano on March 3, 1878, Russia reannexed
southern Bessarabia. Romania protested strongly, but to no avail.
The San Stefano negotiations and Treaty were followed by the Berlin
Congres of 1878, where Bessarabia was used as a bargaining tool.
Bismark, the dominant statesman of the time, favored Russia as a
possible ally against England, and did not want to displease St.
Petersburg. The British protests did not help. The peace to come,
observed a British statesman, should not be achieved "by the
alienation of Bessarabia". At the same time Lord Lorby remarked in
the British Parliament that "Russia had turned a devoted and
submissive ally into an enemy."32 The Berlin Congress accepted Romania
only with consultative rights. The reannexation of entire Bessarabia
to Russsia was set forth by the Congress in exchange for the
recognition of Romania's independence by the great powers. The
situation was extremely tense. Turkey expected a war betwen Romania
and Russia. Austria was in favor of such a war, but did not offer to
help Romania. Romania had no means to wage it and eventually had to
submit. Once more the Romanians were cheated and hurt by their
"eastern orthodox Christian brethren."33 The Russian management of
Bessarabia was a disaster. The land remained underdeveloped and the
people, the native Romanians in particular, remained overwhelmingly
illiterate. Bessarabia had the highest mortality rate in Europe, 50
percent higher than the Russian average. The Romanian language was
gradually eliminated from schools, administration and even churches.34
The Romanians could not integrate into the new Russian administration
and remained aloof. The famous General A. N. Kuropatkin, former
Minister of War and a renowned military writer, wrote in his
voluminous work published in 1910 that the Romanian population of
Bessarabia still lived in isolation and aloof from Russians. He added
that in the future, be it by peaceful means or following another war,
the unification of the Romanian people would be inevitable.35 The
Russian general was right. The time of unification came only a few
years later and it was hastened by the First World War. Tsarism fell
in 1917 Dartly because of the participation in revolution of the
non-Russian nationalities. The Kerensky government and later the
Bolsheviks took a mild approach toward nationalities in the beginning,
recognizing their right to self-determination. The Romanian soldiers,
workers, and peasants organized Sfatul Tardi (the State Council)-on
December 2, 1917-and declared Bessarabia an autonomous republic.
Then, on January 24, 1918, which is also the national holiday of
Romania, the Council declared Bessarabia an independent republic. In
the beginning, the Ukraine manifested her intentions of annexing
Bessarabia, but after a while acknowledged her independence.
Nevertheless, fearing the Ukraine, several Bessarabian districts
declared unilaterally their immediate union with Romania. Given the
fear of the new Russian government and the great confusion at the
time, Bessarabia did not unite immediately with Romania, but the
intention was clear from the start. The chaos prevailing in Russia,
however, reached Bessarabia too, and the local authorities could no
longer safeguard the law and order. This compelled Sfatul Tardi to
call in the Romanian troops. Soon after, on March 27, 1918, the
Bessarabian council voted to reunite the country with Romania.36
During the same year the National Congress of Bukovina met in
Chernowitz and proclaimed the union with the free Kingdom of
Romania.37 The Ukrainian Land Committee of Bukovina, however, proposed
to divide the province with Romania placing its capital Chernowitz
under a common administration, but Romania objected . 38 At the Paris
Peace Conference on March 9, 1920, the three great western powers
consented to the reunion of Bessarabia with Romania reestablishing the
new boundary along the Dnestr as it had been prior to the annexation
of 1812. A letter sent to Romania from Paris by the Peace Conference
Council reads:
After taking into full consideration the general aspirations of the
population of Bessarabia and the Moldavian character of the region
from the geographical and ethnographical points of view, as well as
the historic and economic arguments, the Principal Allied Powers
pronounce themselves, therefore, in favor of the reunion of Bessarabia
with Romania which has now been formally declared by the Bessarabian
representatives, and are desirous to conclude a treaty in recognition
of this as soon as the conditions stated have been carried out.39
With regard to Bukovina, the new boundary was chiefly
drawn so as to leave the railway entirely in Ruthenia (Carf atho
Ukraine of today) and then to adhere as much as possible to the ethnic
limits.40 According to Article 59 of the St. Germain Treaty, Austria
renounced all rights and title of the former Duchy in favor of
Romania. The new boundary was confirmed by the Treaty of Sevres on
August 10, 1920. The USSR did not and could not have any claim on
Bukovina which had never belonged to Russia or the Ukraine.41 In the
same year, after the Peace Conference, the Romanian parliament
ratified the Unions. From a Romanian point of view, the reunion of
Bessarabia and Bukovina with the mother country was the final act in
the struggle for reunification of the Romanian land and people. It
reflected the historic right of the Romanians to self-determination
and the aspiration of the Romanian majority to live under one
nation-state. It also provided a new opportunity to forget the past
and begin a new period of friendship between Romanians, Russians and
Ukrainians. Unfortunately, the Russians turned down the opportunity.
Chapter 3
THE ROMANIAN NATION-STATE AND THE USSR
It is very difficult to define a nationality and
almost impossible to measure the intangibles that make it.
Nationalities come into existence only when certain objective and
subjective bonds and traits define a given social group. Most usual
among these bonds are common descent, language, territory, political
entity, customs, history, traditions and religion, but very few
nationalities have all of them.1 There are many other definitions as
to what a nationality is and not all authors agree. One of the
simplest definitions, for example, incomplete but true, is that a
nation is a people in a state of their own, having a common heritage
and some common goals. Karl Deutsch's definition is more complex:
Membership in a people essentially consists in a wide complimentarity
of social communication. It consists in the ability to communicate
more effectively and over a wide range of subjects, with members of
one large group rather than outsiders.2
Still, according to another definition, nationality is
a feeling of belonging together, loyalty to a particular land, country
or state and people, expressed as common traditions, history, friends,
enemies, ideals, etc., which bind the people together.3 The Soviets
themselves have defined nationality as a historically evolved, stable
community characterized by unity of territory, economic life, historic
fate, a common language and a mental mold or psychological make-up
manifested in its culture.4 Not all nationalities or ethnic groups
feel the same way for the same reason, and not all of them place the
same significance on a particular trait. Most Eastern European
nationalities, however, are rather well defined by their language,
culture, history and territory. Many authors and researchers have
actually come to the conclusion that language alone is the basis for
national unity and a good measurement of nationality preservation or
ethnic assimilation. Romanians, regardless of whether they live in
Soviet Moldavia or in Romania share a tremendous number of traits and
bonds; among them are history, culture, and a contiguous territory.
In addition, the language is impressively uniform in all of
DacoRomania, and there is not a single trait to separate Moldavians
from the rest of the people. At the end of the First World War,
language was considered the best criterion for drawing the new
boundaries of the emerging and reemerging East European states and
nation-states. The shift of emphasis from physical criteria to
cultural characteristics reflected the new swing toward
selfdetermination still valid today.5 The principle was proclaimed by
President Woodrow Wilson and then adopted by the Paris Peace
Conference. It reads:
All well-defined national aspirations shall be accorded the utmost
satisfaction that can be accorded them without introducing new or
perpetuating old elements of discord and antagonism that would be
ukely in time to break the peace of Europe and consequently of the
world.6
Later, the Atlantic Charter provided again in a
similar way that all peoples should be able to choose freely the form
of government underwhich they want to live.7 In 1917, President Wilson
and Colonel House set up a team of 150 scientists known as "The
Inquiry", centered at the American Geographical Society in New York,
who worked skillfully for the Peace Conference. The Inquiry prepared
competent maps for boundary proposals, physical and geological maps,
population, ethnic composition, language, agriculture, industry,
mineral resources maps and studies which were used in Paris to draw
the new European boundaries.8 Final decisions might have followed
non-ethnic criteria in certain cases, but the paramount principles for
boundary drawing were. . ."to include in each state the maximum
number of its own nationals and the minimum number of other
nationalities...to respect local conditions and sentiments as far as
possible."9 The treaties negotiated at the Paris Peace Conference
aimed thus at establishing ethnic boundaries and nation-states. At
the same time, they provided for the respect of the rights of other
ethnic groups which could not possibly be satisfied politically. It
was thought that ideally the new states should be populated by
homogeneous nationalities, because a nation-state still appears to be
"the chief political instrument for getting things done." In
addition, "a modern state is likely to show the greatest stability and
permanence when it corresponds closely with a nation." The state
becomes, in such a case, "the political expression of the nation, the
mechanism through which the welfare of the nation is safeguarded and
its identity preserved . "10 No boundary is or can be perfect,
however, "in the sense of being free of criticism, because it must
include irreconcilable elements that have evolved side by side in
geographical space."11 Nonetheless, judging all aspects of the
problem, the Paris Peace Conference decided to restore Bessarabia and
Bukovina to Romania based upon historic right and their still
majoritarian Romanian population. The boundary is a legal line
defined by laws and agreements, and if it is inner oriented marking
the limits of a state and its sovereignty, the Dnestr became the
eastern boundary of the Romanian nation-state. If a frontier is a
historic phenomenon, a zone of transition outward oriented, "whose
main attention is directed toward the outlying areas which are both a
source of danger and a coveted prize," 12 then, from a Russo-Soviet
point of view, Bessarabia and Bukovina became frontier areas. They
have been used as frontier regions by Moscow for further expansion
toward Eastern Europe, Constantinople and the Straits. Actually, it
appears that at pre sent the entire area of Eastern Europe is a huge
Russian "gray zone" in Moscow's drive toward the Atlantic. Had Moscow
recognized the new Romanian boundary drawn at the Paris Conference,
this could have been a reconsideration of its expansionist policy.
The new Bolshevik govern ment did not ratify the boundary, however,
showing that communist Moscow had no intentions of abandoning the
former Russian imperial policy.
Interwar Soviet-Romanian Relations
The newly created Soviet Union did not accept the
union of Bessarabia with Romania. In spite of his previous
condemnation of the tsarist im perial and colonial annexations, in
1918, in retaliation for losing Bessarabia, Lenin broke diplomatic
relations with Romania and arrested the Romanian ambassador to the
Soviet Union. In addition, the Soviet regime confiscated the Romanian
gold brought to Russia for safekeeping during the war. 13
Nevertheless, between 1918 and 1939, the Soviet of ficial attitude
changed several times reflecting the tactical positions undertaken by
Moscow during the interwar period. When Bolshevik Russia was
isolated, she tried to bargain with Romania, offering to recognize the
union in exchange for certain advantages. During the Civil War, the
in secure communist government showed again interest in negotiating
with Romania, but following advice from Paris and London, Bucharest ab
stained from dealing directly with Moscow.14 When the Paris Supreme
Council of the Peace Conference recommended the ratification of the
union, the USSR protested and resorted to threats and blackmail.
Moscow warned the French government against the ratification and
threatened Italy and Japan. It warned, for example, of reprisals
against Italy by negotiating with Greece and Turkey to possibly
recognize their rights to the Dodecanese Islands held then by Italy.
Moscow asked Rome and Tokyo directly to refuse to ratify the union of
Bessarabia with Romania.l5 Interestingly, it did not protest
officially against the union or Bukovina with Romania. According to
an early Soviet propaganda brochure: "Romania had about as much right
to Bessarabia as, let us say, Russia had to Ireland, or to some
provinces belonging to France, Italy, or Japan."16 Sixty years ago,
Moscow claimed as it does today that Bessarabia had belonged to Turkey
in 1812 and Romania itself did not exist at the time of the Russian
annexation.17 If we follow the same line of argument did the USSR
exist in 1812 to claim it? Despite the Soviet strong opposition, the
Peace Treaty was ratified by Great Britain in 1921, by France in 1924,
and by Italy in 1928. The United States recognized de facto the union
of Bessarabia with Romania in 1938. During this time, Moscow's
attitude changed again. In 1922, it indicated anew her intention to
negotiate the recognition, but that time she asked Romania to abandon
all her monetary claims including the Romanian treasure sent to Moscow
during the war.19 As Russia became stronger internally, her attitude
toward Bessarabia and Romania stiffened. For example, the
representatives of the two countries met in Vienna in 1924 under the
chairmanship of the Austrian foreign minister. The discussions broke
off when Moscow asked Romania to organize a plebiscite in Bessarabia.
Moscow was no. actually looking for a plebiscite, but for more
international propaganda. Soon after the closing of the Vienna
conference the Soviet Union began to publish Plugarul Rosu (The Red
Plowman), a newspaper in Romanian used from the beginning for
communist propaganda. One of its September 1924 issues published a
letter of a group of Dubossari Romanian peasants who "asked
permission" to form an autonomous republic.20 A sudden wave of
propaganda in favor of the Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist
Republic (MASSR) was then organized all over the USSR. Izvestia, for
example, published an interview with the chairman of the Moldavian
Revolutionary Committee, which had just been formed. He said that
Kishinev should be chosen as the permanent capital of the republic,
though it was in Romania at the time, "because the larger part of the
Moldavian republic lies on the other side of the Dnestr."2' The name
Moldavia was chosen by the Kremlin to mislead and deceive public
opinion once more. Once the term was chosen, Moscow began to speak of
Moldavians as if they were another nation. In the beginning it was
inconsistent and confusing. The first newspapers and books, for
example, were printed in Romanian using the Latin script and the 1926
Soviet Census still listed Moldavians as Romanians. It is worth
mentioning that according to early Russian, Romanian and Soviet data,
in the 1920's there were some 500,000 to 700,000 Romanians in the
Ukraine with many ol them residing across the Dnestr in the vicinity
of Romania. The new Moldavian autonomous republic was formed in
southwest Ukraine along the Dnestr and bordering Romania. Its surface
area was 8,300 square kilometers and its population over 500,000
people, but only some 30 percent of them were Romanians (Table 1).
Its first capital was Balta (which means pond in Romanian) until it
was moved to Tiraspol in 1929.22 Apparently, the Moldavian ASSR had
been created along the boundary of Romania to induce Moldavians in
eastern Romania to agitate for incorporation into the Soviet Union.23
The same technique was used by Moscow in many other cases, notably the
now disbanded Karelo-Finnish republic in the north and the Tadzhik
republic in Central Asia. The main Soviet aim was to work through
propaganda toward incorporating Bessarabia into the USSR.24 Referring
to the Soviet intentions of the time an American diplomat wrote in
1924 that:
It is apparently not the intention of the Bolsheviks to try to recover
Bessarabia by force of arms, but rather to keep Romania in a nervous
state, compelling her to maintain as many troops as possible under
arms, thereby weakening her economically and fostering discontent
among the laboring masses.25
Revealing openly Moscow's true goal, the president of
the new republic, who was a Russian, declared at the first session of
the Central Committee of the just founded Moldavian Communist Party
held in November 1924 that they would not forget their brethren across
the Dnestr. Eventually, he offered a final toast to the "Moldavian
ASSR, cradle of Soviet Romania." 26 Soviet Russia was not a normal
European country in the 1920's. Ac customed to expansion for
centuries, Moscow regarded her new western boundaries only as
temporary demarcation lines without much significance. Consequently,
it resorted to provocations against all her western neighbors. As a
matter of fact, full tranquility was not restored in the 1920's in the
entire region from Finland to Romania. "Areas bordering on Soviet
Russia were like a wild west frontier with communist bands making
incursions over the border and Red Guards pursuing the escaping
refugees." 27 During this period of time, the local communists,
almost all of them non-Romanians, organized many terrorist activities
and tried to foment a revolution in Bessarabia. Interestingly, until
1922 the local communist party belonged to the Russian Communist
Party. Only in 1922 did it join the Romanian Communist Party becoming
one of its strongest and most numerous segments.28 All the communist
actions turned into complete failures although many times they were
directly assisted by Soviet military incursions from across the
Dnestr. The best known of those terrorist activities was
TABLE 1 POPULATION OF MOLDAVIAN ASSR
BY NATIONALITY: 1926
NATIONALITY TOTAL PERCENT RURAL PERCENT URBAN PERCENT
ROMANIANS 172,419* 30.3 166,296 96.5 6,260 3.5
UKRAINIANS 277,515 48.8 248,060 89.4 29,455 10.6
RUSSIANS 48,868 8.6 29,649 60.7 19,219 39.3
JEWS 48,564 8.5 23,459 48.3 25,105 51.7
GERMANS 10,739 1.9 10,556 98.3 183 1.7
BULGARIANS 6,026 1.1 5,921 98.3 105 1.7
POLES 4,853 0.8 3,556 73.3 1,297 26.7
TOTAL 568,984 100.0 487,497 85.7 81,627 14.3
* 168,527 gave Romanian as their native language (of whom only 7,261 were literate in
the Romanian language). Sources: Vsesoyuznaya Perepis Naseleniya
1926 Coda (Moscow: Izdaniye TsSU Soyuza SSR, 1929), Vol. 13
(Ukraine).
the Tatar-Bunar episode of 1924. The Soviet-infiltrated agents and
the local communists failed to gain any popular support against the
Romanian authorities in their attempt to foment an uprising.
Officially, the Soviet authorities disclaimed any involvement and
tried to keep a semblance of peaceful relations with Romania.29
Despite all the obstacles of the 1920's, Romania and all the western
neighbors of the Soviet Union made serious attempts to establish
normal relations with Moscow. Since the Soviet attempt to export the
revolution failed, Moscow accepted "peaceful" coexistence with her
immediate neighbors "before it could annihilate them."30 Between 1928
and 1934 the USSR thus abandoned its earlier intransigence on the
Bessarabian Question and by a series of bilateral and international
conventions acknowledged Romania's de jure possession of the province.
On February 1929, for example, Romania, the USSR, Poland, Estonia and
Latvia signed in Moscow the Briand- Kellogg Treaty. The Treaty
provided for monitoring the peace and "renunciation of war as an
instrument of national policy."31 Then, on July 1933, Romania, the
USSR and other countries concluded the London Agreement concerning the
definition of aggression and territory. According to this agreement,
invading the territory of another state was considered an act of
aggression. The London Convention stipulated clearly that "by
territory is here meant territory over which a state actually
exercises authority."32 By signing this convention, the USSR
recognized not only ipso facto the union of Bessarabia with Romania,
but its de jure union as well. If signatures had meant anything to
Moscow, this would have been enough to prevent the USSR from attacking
Romania since the two countries were among the signatories. Moreover,
in 1934 Romania and the USSR agreed to exchange ambassadors and signed
the Dnestr agreement. Establishing diplomatic relations, Soviet
foreign minister Litvinov wrote in June to the Romanian minister
Titulescu: The goverrtments of our countries mutually guarantee each
other the full respect of the sovereignty of each of our states and
the abstention from an in terference, direct or indirect, in the
domestic affairs and developments of the other, and especially from
any agitation, propaganda or any kind of interven tion on behalf of or
in support of. . . "33 During the same year of 1934, Moscow asked
to be admitted as a member of the League of Nations and Romania who
occupied a prestigious position in the League voted in favor of it.
Becoming a member of the international organization, the USSR bound
herself further according to article 10 of the League: " Members of
the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external
aggression the territorial integrity and existing political
independence of all Members of the League. " 34 During the interwar
period, Romania's title to Bessarabia and Bukovina rested on (1)
historical grounds; (2) the Romanian ethnic majority; (3) the
recognition of the union granted by the western powers; and (4) the de
facto and indirectly de jure recognition of the union by the USSR
itself. After 1936 the Russian attitude toward Romania and other
western neighbors began to fluctuate with indications of growing
hostility. In 1939 the ostensible Soviet line of "peace and
democracy" was dramatically changed to one of territorial expansion.
The signing of the GermanSoviet "non-aggression" pact of August 23,
1939 marked a crucial point in Europe and in Soviet- Romanian
relations.35 The GermanSoviet pact appeared relatively innocuous, but
it was accompanied by a secret protocol. Under this arrangement the
Soviet sphere of influence was to include Finland, the Baltic states
of Estonia and Latvia, and roughly the eastern half of Poland, as well
as the Romanian province of Bessarabia. Everything to the west of
this line was to be Germany's.36 Germany attacked Poland a week later,
marking the start of the Second World War. In spite of earlier
guarantees and "non-aggression" pacts, the USSR attacked and annexed
eastern Poland and forced Estonia and Latvia to accept Soviet troops
on their territories. Romania declared that it would not permit the
Soviet troops to enter or cross her territory. Later, Moscow claimed
that "through this reactionary declaration" Romania contributed to the
precipitation of the Second World War.37 In spite of the Anglo-French
boundary guarantees,38 given to Romania on April 13, 1931, the
Bucharest government realized that Romania's turn could come now at
anytime and there was not much she could do nor was there anywhere to
turn for help. Consequently, trying to help herself, on September 4,
1939, Romania declared her neutrality.39
The Turning Point: 1939/1940
In 1940 Romania was in a special category. The Little
Entente no longer existed and the Anglo-French boundary guarantee had
become a mere scrap of paper. At the same time, unlike Bulgaria or
Yugoslavia:
She could not turn to Russia for help, since the Soviets presented the
greatest danger to her territorial integrity. Finding little support
among her neighbors, Bucharest was forced hy the iron logic of events
into the arms of Germany.40
In June 1940 Germany attacked the Low Countries and
France, while the Soviet Union abolished the independence of the
Baltic republics and annexed them. On June 14, 1940, Germany occupied
Paris and on June 22 the Petain government surrendered.41 Romania
could no longer have any illusions. Meanwhile, Berlin managed to
force out the pro-western Romanian foreign minister G. Gafencu. He
was replaced by I. Gigurtu who tried for a while to maneuver between
the AngloFrench bloc and Germany. After the fall of France, Gigurtu
no longer had any choice and became openly pro-German. He was then
named prime minister. Since the German troops could arrive now in
Romania at any time, Moscow realized that it had probably only a few
days to settle in her favor the "Question of Bessarabia."42 The new
Soviet foreign affairs minister V. Molotov informed Germany of the
Soviet intention to "solve" the question of Bessarabia. He also
mentioned Bukovina "which had not been mentioned at all in the
original German-Soviet agreement."43 An in-depth study of interwar
European boundary problems published before the outbreak of the Second
World War lists Bessarabia as a problem. It does not mention at all
however, Bukovina as a possible source of international friction.44 As
a matter of fact, at the beginning of the First World War, Russia had
of fered most of Bukovina to Romania in exchange for her neutrality,
while Vienna offered to return the entire province to Romania in
exchange for attacking Russia.45 In 1940 however, Soviet Russia wanted
to annex everything. Germany replied that the new Soviet move would
adversely affect Berlin, but Moscow insisted that it was of great
urgency for her to occupy the two provinces. Concomitantly, Russia
concentrated her forces at the Romanian border while Hungary
threatened and Bulgaria waited.46 In June 1940 the German ambassador
to Moscow tried to convince Molotov to renounce the annexation of
Bukovina which according to him, too, "had never before belonged to
Russia." Molotov insisted that "Bukovina is the last missing part of
a 'unifled Ukraine' and that for this reason the Soviet government
must attach importance to solving this question simultaneously with
the Bessarabian question."47 Later, Moscow conceded to reduce its
demand only to Northern Bukovina where the Ukrainian population was
slightly in a majority. Prior to the war however, the Soviet
territorial demand was not ethnic, but primarily ideological, to save
the peasants and workers from the "Romanian capitalist
exploitation."48 In time, the justification changed according to
Moscow's best interests. In June 1940, Germany on her part appeared
to have rather well defined goals. Accordingly, Berlin advised
Romania to yield to Moscow's demands for it would settle the matter
later.49 Though theoretically Berlin had manifested its "complete
political disinterectedness" in the area, Germany was badly hurt by
this move because of its profound interests in Romania for its
resources and strategic location. Then on June 26, 1940, Moscow sent
a note to Bucharest with the following content:
In 1918, profiting from Russia's military weakness, Romania took from
the Soviet Union (Russia) a part of her territory, thus striking a
blow at the secular unity of Bessarabia, principally inhabited by
Ukrainians, with the Soviet Republic of the Ukraine.50
To answer this "non-Marxist" argument it is worth
stating here that the population of Bessarabia was about 60 percent
Romanian and only a mere 12 percent Ukrainian (Table 2). Nonetheless,
in order to gain time, Romania informed Moscow that it would send
plenipotentiaries to Moscow for discussions. V. Molotov, however,
summoned Davidescu, the Romanian ambassador to Moscow, and declared
that the USSR:
Considers that the question of the restoration of Bessarabia is
organically bound with the question of transfer to the Soviet Union of
that part of Bukovina of which the population in its overwhelming
majority is bound to the Soviet Ukraine...The transfer of Northern
Bukovina to the Soviet Union could constitute in only an insignificant
degree, it is true, a means of compensation for the tremendous damage
inflicted on the Soviet Union and the population of Bessarabia by 22
years of Romanian domination in Bessarabia.51
The Romanian evasiveness precipitated a new Soviet
ultimatum note with specific demands. Moscow also concluded that it
understood from the verbal discussions with the Romanian minister that
Bucharest had agreed and requested that the Romanian authorities
withdraw within four days starting June 28, 2 p.m. Moscow also asked
that by June 28 the principal cities be completely free of Romanian
troops and no damages should be done to railroads, parks, airports,
telegraph installations, and so forth.52 Though the second Soviet
"note" of June 27 asked Romania to evacuate Bessarabia and Northern
Bukovina in four days starting June 28, 2 p.m., the Red Army invaded
the provinces 2 hours before the Romanian troops were to begin
withdrawal. The Soviet invasion:
was executed with unusual speed and by unusual methods, considering
that these territories had been ceded by agreement and not as a result
of war. Airplanes dropped parachutists and small tanks over the
territory ceded as a symbol of Soviet occupation, and these were soon
followed by infantry paced by large tanks. Within two days the Soviet
forces had reached the western boundaries of Bessarabia and Bukovina
and the occupation was a fait accompli . 53
TABLE 2
BESSARABIA: POPULATION EVOLUTION BY NATIONALITY 1817-1930
1817 1862 1897 1930
ABS. % ABS. % ABS. % ABS. %
TOTAL 482,630 100.0 914,679 100.0 1,935,412 100.0 2,864,402 100.0
Romanians 419,130 86.7 600,000 66.4 920,919 47.6 1,610,402 56.2
Russians 6,000 1.3 20,000 2.1 155,774 8.2 351,912 12.3
Ukrainians/
Ruthenians 30,000 6.3 126,000 13.6 379,198 19.6 314,211 11.0
Jews 19,130 4.0 78,750 8.6 288,168 11.8 204,858 7.2
Bulgarians - - 48,218* 5.2 103,492 5.3 163,726 5.7
Gagauzi - - - - 57,054 2.9 98,172 3.4
Germans - - 24,160 2.6 60,206 3.2 81,089 2.8
Others 8,260 1.5 17,753 1.5 30,659 1.6 50,010 1.6
*Bulgarians together with Gagauzi
Sources:
Stefan Ciobanu, La Bessarabie,
(Bucharest: Academie Roumaine, 1941), pp. 39-40
(After the reports of the Russian Captain A. Zaschuk):
Pervaya Vseobshaya Perepis Naseleniya Rosiscoy Imperyi 1897,
Bessarabskaya Gubernia (Petersburg, 1905); Recensamantul
Ceneral al Populatiei Romaniei (Bucuresti: Editura
Institutului de Statistica, 1938).
Justifying the invasion, Moscow now claims that in
June 1940 the Bessarabian problem needed a quick solution. It was
urgent to annex Bessarabia to enlarge the Soviet front from the Baltic
Sea to the Black Sea. Later, the same source continues, when the war
started, Bessarabia played an important role; the German and Romanian
troops were delayed almost one month fighting with the Red Army over
this territory.54
The New Boundaries and the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic
The Romanian authorities agreed reluctantly to
withdraw, but did not accept this loss of territory. Romania only
yielded to the Soviet might. In spite of previous bilateral and
international agreements outlawing the 1se of force against the
territorial integrity of another state, force has always been used by
more powerful countries, such as Russia, to settle to their advantage
territorial disputes. Yet, in 1946 the Paris Peace Treaty fixed the
new Soviet-Romanian boundary in accordance with the Soviet-Romanian
"agreement" of June 1940. "The agreement" was in effect an ultimatum
which places it on an extremely weak legal ground from an
international point of view.55 On June 28, 1940, in a matter of hours,
the Soviet Army occupied and annexed again Bessarabia and for the
first time Northern Bukovina and the Hertza region. The occupied area
totalled 50,726 square kilometers and was inhabited by some 3.9
million people, most of them Romanians.56 The Hertza region located
near the other two provinces in the north-eastern corner of remaining
Moldavia, had never been alienated before and neither had it been
mentioned by the Soviet notes or ultimatums. The Romanian protests
were to no avail. The Russians answered that the dividing line drawn
by Molotov passed through this area and the region must be included in
the occupied section. As a matter of fact, when Molotov presented to
the Romanian ambassador to Moscow a map with the scale of 1:1,800,000,
the separating line he drew with a red marking pen, was impossible to
follow.57 By ignorance, theft or mistake, another Romanian region with
the market town Hertza and many villages passed under Soviet
occupation and is now part of the Ukraine. With regard to the new
occupation, the Soviet press announced "triumphantly" that her forces
were greeted with warm ovations. The Romanian press reported that
"the local population was in mortal fear of Soviet terrorism and of
the new economic changes" which the new authorities would soon
institute.58 Only the almost exclusively non Romanian Communist Party
greeted the "liberation" of the working class of the two provinces by
the forces of socialism.59 As a matter of fact, most Romanians were
overwhelmingly pro-western and would not join any pro-Russian or
procommunist movement. Consequently, the Party fell into the hands of
non-Romanian elements and for a long time was a blind tool of Moscow
and the Communist International. According to current sources
published in Bucharest, the third congress of the "Romanian" Communist
Party was held in Vienna and K. Elek (a Hungarian) was elected
General Secretary. The fourth congress was held in 1928 in Kharkov,
the Ukraine, and V. Holostenko, member of the Ukrainian Communist
Party was designated General Secretary. The fifth congress was held
in 1931 near Moscow and A. Stefanski-Gorn, member of the Polish
Communist Party was nominated General Secretary. Eventually in 1948
in Bucharest, after the proclamation of the People's Romanian
Republic, an ethnic Romanian became First Secretary.60 All along, the
Romanian Communist Party was extremely weak. In 1931, for example,
during the Great Depression, the Party, disguised as the
"Workers-Peasants Bloc" obtained only 74,000 votes. The "Bessarabian"
core numbered 321 members forming more than one third of the entire
membership. By current Soviet Moldavian sources 35 percent of them
were Russians and Ukrainians and 25 percent Jews, while the Romanians
were a small minority. In 1944, when the Red Army occupied Romania,
the Romanian Communist Party had less than 1,000 members.61 The Party
has changed its attitude recently, but the fatal damage done to
Romania forty years ago cannot possibly be compensated. During the
night of June 28, 1940, according to current Soviet Moldavian
writings, a provisional revolutionary committee was set up in Kishinev
led by C. D. Burlachenko and other nonRomanian elements. The local
party asked the population to come out and welcome the Soviet troops.
A special meeting and a parade were then organized in Kishinev. The
first to speak was Marshal D. K. Timoshenko, himself from
Bessarabia, followed by the chief of the political directorate of the
Red Army, A. Z. Mehley. Unexpectedly, the military parade was led
by General G. K. Jukov, commander of the Group South of the Soviet
Army.62 Most of those who welcomed the Soviet Army were non-
Romanians. Among them were close relatives of several Soviet heroes.
They lived in peace under the Romanian administration. The Romanian
authorities, now continuously called "inhumane", "barbarian", and even
"cannibalistic", never bothered them. The current Soviet press
acknowledged, for example, that Sofia Kotovskaya Grarskaya, sister of
the famous Russian Bessarabian revolutionary hero G. 1. Kotovskiy,
lived in Hincesti village (now renamed Kotovskiy) until 1940 when she
came to welcome the Soviet Army in Kishinev. Then, on June 30, C. K.
Timoshenko, the commissar of the Soviet Army, visited his native
village in Southern Bessarabia where he met his brother and relatives.
In the first weeks after the invasion, the Soviet authorities
continued to speak of the "liberation of Bessarabia and Bukovina."
The new name of Moldavia had not been adopted officially yet.63 During
those tense days of confusion, on July 1, 1940, the Romanian
government officially denounced the Anglo-French guarantees of her
borders which were of no help anyway, and on July 4, "Romanian
announced bluntly that her foreign policy will be guided by the
policies of the Axis."64 Immediately after the invasion, the Soviet
authorities replaced the Romanian language in official dealings and
introduced new administrative units. By Soviet accounts, the
population of Bessarabia and Bukovina presented their desire to the
Supreme Soviet to create a Socialist Republic of their own.
Accordingly, in July 1940 a delegation of the working people of
"Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina" arrived in Moscow. Among the
delegates there were Sofia GorskayaKotovskaya and Zenaida Craciunescu,
a Romanian teacher from Orhei, but in all probability russified. On
August 1, 1940, the seventh session of the Supreme Soviet took up the
problem of creating the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic (MSSR).
The Soviet law of August 2, 1940 enacted the formation of the new
republic and asked the Supreme Soviet of the Ukraine and of Moldavia
to delineate the boundary between them according to instructions. The
event was given the utmost importance in the Soviet press. Z.
Craciunescu was photographed on a front page of Moldova Socialista
delivering the speech in the Supreme Soviet flanked by Stalin himself
to the right and Molotov to the left. Later, the Bessarabian
delegation was received by Stalin.65 According to the early Soviet
writings this ended the dismemberment of the Moldavian people and
brought all Moldavians in a unified socialist national state. In
accordance with the Kremlin's instructions, however, Northern Bukovina
as well as the Bessarabian districts of Hotin, Ackerman (former
Cetatea Alba now renamed Belgorod Dnestrovskiy) and Ismail, were given
to the Ukraine.66 What about the "Moldavians" living there? The
Soviet justification is changing continuously. Forgetting that the
"unification of all Moldavians," was accomplished in 1940 now Moscow
even alludes to the Moldavians living in Romania. The Moldavian SSR
was created on the central two-thirds of former Bessarabia
overwhelmingly inhabited by Romanians. To it, was added a small strip
of land on the left bank of the Dnestr, also chiefly inhabited by
Romanians and which previously belonged to the Moldavian autonomous
republic. Most of the territory of this "ghost" autonomous republic,
however, was returned to the Ukraine revealing further that it had not
been created as a "cradle" for future Soviet Moldavia, but as a bait
for it. Of the 51,000 square kilometers annexed by the USSR from
Romania in 1940, Bessarabia itself accounted for only 45,630 square
kilometers. Of this territory, 28,800 square kilometers with 2.1
million people (previousIy belonging to Bessarabia), together with
3,400 square kilometers and 310,000 people of the former Moldavian
autonomous republic, formed the new Moldavian Soviet Socialist
Republic. Thus, in 1940 the new Soviet republic had only 33,700
square kilometers and approximately 2.4 million inhabitants. Northern
Bukovina, made up of 6,000 square kilometers with half a million
people, as well as northern Bessarabia, the Hertza region and Southern
Bessarabia adjacent to the Danube and the Black Sea, having about
15,000 square kilometers and over 1 million inhabitants, were given to
the Ukraine.67 A good part of these territories had an ethnically
mixed population. Bukovina is a special case because the Ukrainians
are now in a majority in its northern half annexed by the USSR. When
it was first annexed by Vienna, Bukovina had an almost exclusive
Romanian population. Austria, however, pursued a policy of
colonization allowing Germans and Ukrainians (Ruthenians) to settle in
the new province and discriminating against the Romanian majority.
Nevertheless, Austria introduced an advanced system of public
education which on the one hand prompted assimilation, but on the
other hand, helped the Romanian and Ukrainian national revival.
During the Austrian occupation, the ethnic structure of Bukovina
changed dramatically, with the Romanian share declining continuously.
Current Ukrainian sources acknowledge, for example, that the Greek
Catholic Ukrainians came to Bukovina from Galicia during the Austrian
times. After the Union of the two Romanian Principalities in 1859,
fearing the new Romanian polarization, Vienna began to treat the
Bukovina Ukrainians with obvious favoritism. Among other things,
Vienna gave them more schools. Actually, Austria continuously
supported the Ukrainian aspirations against the Romanian national
aspirations. As a result, the Ukrainians acquired more education and
contributed significantly to the general revival of the Ukrainian
national consciousness.68 This explains probably the contemporary
Ukrainian deep attachment and claim to Northern Bukovina.
Nonetheless, all along the Austrian occupation, the Romanians managed
to dominate the everyday life of Bukovina until they were able to
reunite it N h Romania in 1918. At the beginning of the First World
War, Bukovina had some 800,000 people of which 300,000 were Ukrainians
and a little less than 300,000 Romanians. According to a British
source, however, the Ukrainian figure must have been inflated.
Hutzulians, for example, were counted as Ruthenians although their
language was different and they appeared to be of old Scythian origin.
In 1930, according to the Romanian official census, Bukovina had
853,000 inhabitants of which 380,000 were Romanians (44.5 percent),
236,000 Ukrainians/Ruthenians (27.7 percent), 92,000 Jews, 76,000
Germans and others.69 Given the Ukrainian majority in the northern
part of the province, on June 1, 1940, before the imminent Soviet
invasion, a Romanian dignitary said that Romania was ready to defend
Bessarabia, but was willing to make a concession in Northern Bukovina
where many inhabitants were Ukrainians.70 In 1940 however, Soviet
Russia was in no mood to compromise. The northern part of Bukovina
annexed by the USSR in June 1940 included 71 percent of all Ukrainians
in the province, whereas the southern part remaining in Romania
included only 64 percent of all Bukovina Romanians.71 Molotov called
Northern Bukovina a "missing" part of the Ukraine and gave it to the
Ukrainian SSR. Some Ukrainian sources concede, however, that the
present Ukrainian territory was shaped and rounded up by the Red Army
for the first time after the Second World War.72 A Western author
observed, however, that at least in this case "the unification of the
Ukrainian inhabited lands was markedly advanced at Romania's
expense."73 Southern Bessarabia, on the other hand, was first occupied
by the Ottoman Empire which brought along some Turkish and Tatar
settlers, and the region acquired the name of Budgeac. After the
Russian annexation of Bessarabia in 1812, numerous Gagauzi and
Bulgarians took refuge from under the Turks and settled here. Russia
on the other hand pursued a policy of colonization and brought
thousands of Russians, Ukrainians and Germans. Consequently, the
region became extremely mixed from an ethnic point of view.
Nevertheless, according to the 1930 Romanian census, the Romanians
still comprised a relative majority in the two districts of Ismail and
Cetatea Alba bordering the Danube and the Black Sea. Accordingly,
there were 135,000 Romanians in 1930 in the two districts as compared
to 125,000 Russians and only 80,000 Ukrainians.'4 Yet, the entire area
was annexed to the Ukraine in 1940. The internal boundary change is
again misleading and dangerous because it legitimizes changes
following ethnic modifications. Since the Soviet authorities
continuously operate population transfers, Moscow appears entitled to
change historical boundaries any time she wants. Moreover, since most
people are likely to aceept boundaries and administrative units which
strike them for long, and since it appears that "there is some kind of
sanctity about state boundaries,"75 some people may be misled into
taking for granted Stalin's arbitrariness. Speculating about the new
Soviet internal boundaries in the formerly Romanian territory, it
appears that Moscow designed them in such a way as if ever forced to
return Bessarabia, it would still try to retain the strategic northern
and southern regions. Retaining Southern Bessarabia through the
Ukraine, Russia has direct access to the Danube, and exercises a great
deal of control and influence over its navigation and the two Romanian
maritime ports of Braila and Galati. At the same time it is somehow
closer to the "external Turkish Straits."76 Northern Bessarabia and
Northern Bukovina on the other hand have a predominantly ethnically
mixed population. Soviet interest to annex Northern Bukovina, mostly
Ukrainian in certain areas, was both ethnic and strategic. It fits
well with the Soviet annexation of the Carpatho-Ukraine, allowing the
Soviet Union an easier and safer access to Central Europe. The
Carpatho-Ukraine is strategically and geo-politically very important
to Russia for it is an easy passage-way between the Galician plateau
and the Russian plains in the east and the Hungarian plains and
Central Europe in the west. The passage-way has been used many times
during history by migrating peoples and invading armies." Romania
could in no way accept the mutilation of her land and the events
precipitated rapidly. In October 1940, the German troops entered
Romania and several months later, on June 22, 1941, Romania joined
Germany and marched into the USSR.78 It was the first time in history
that Romanian troops attacked Russia and the paramount motive was
Bessarabia and Bukovina. Within a month, the two provinces were
freed. Then, when Romania informed Washington that she had regained
the lost territory, Secretary of State Cordell Hull reacted with
sympathy and understanding and told the Romanian envoy that "the
United States did not forget the communist danger."79 The Romanian
envoy, Brutus Coste, gave the Secretary of State a note which
surprisingly is missing from the official files.80 (See Appendix)
Later, however, the United States entered the war against the Axis and
the two countries found themselves at war. Nevertheless, the Romanian
leader, General lon Antonescu, stated publicly "that not a single
Romanian shot will be fired at American or British troops, should they
appear in Romania."81 During the war Romania took over the
administration of Odessa and Transnistria, the region between the
Dnestr and Bug, but Romania had no interest in annexing it.82 The
anti-Soviet war, however, turned into a disaster for Germany and her
allies, and Rornania was in a particularly bad pocition being once
more the gateway to Europe. During the second part of the war Romania
tried to get in touch with England and the United States for advice
and negotiations, but the two countries directed her to Russia.
Romania conducted indeed several secret talks with the representatives
of Moscow. The Soviet Union demanded all along the restoration of the
late 1940 boundary, promising in exchange not to interfere in internal
Romanian affairs. The Romanian representatives asked the Russians to
leave the boundary problem to be settled at the end of the war by the
peace conference. The Russians were evasive, but the truth is that
since June 1944 the western powers had already decided to give the
Russians a free hand in Eastern Europe, but at that time they were not
prepared to admit it. The Russians acted as if they could not believe
it themselves, and consequently they continued the "secret talks,"
with the Romanian representatives.83 According to official Romanian
statistics from June 1941 until August 24, 1944, the USSR took 180,000
Romanian war prisoners. On August 23, 1944, the Romaniam opposition
overthrew General Antonescu and his government and sent a delegation
to Moscow for negotiations. The Romanian Army stopped fighting
immediately. Moscow, however, forced the Romanian delegation to wait
until September 12, 1944 when it eventually signed the armistice.
Within this short period of time, from August 24 to September 12 after
the Romanian cessation of hostilities and "in contradiction with the
principles and customs of international law, the Soviet Army took
130,000 Romanian prisoners."84 Meanwhile, on August 25, 1944, Molotov
declared on Radio Moscow that except for Bessarabia and Northern
Bukovina, the USSR has "no intention of acquiring any part of Romanian
territory or changing its social structure, or infringing by any means
on the independence of Romania.''85 Although the Russians had the
western nations blessing to come and stay in Romania, they acted as if
they had to do everything in a few days and their conduct exceeded the
gloomiest expectations. In spite of previous assurances, in a few
years the Soviet troops and advisers transformed Romania into a
communist satellite. By the time the Peace Treaty was signed, the
USSR had already installed a submissive government in Bucharest which
automatically signed the Treaty ready-made in Moscow. For the Soviet
Union, the territorial change was a simple matter of reverting to the
Soviet-Romanian "peaceful agreement" of June 1940. The secession of
Bessarabia, Northern Bukovina and Hertza was imposed again upon
Romania, however, without any regard to the right of self-
determination proclaimed by the United Nations and the Atlantic
Charter.86 Since 1944 the new Soviet-Romanian boundary again cuts the
former Principality of Moldavia inlo lwo halves separating some 3.5
million Soviet Romanians (Moldavians) from the more than 4 million
Moldavians living in Romania and the rest of the Romanian people. The
boundary divides Bukovina in two and then follows the Prut thalweg and
the northern arm of the Danube river, allegedly, according to the
Berlin Treaty of 1878. Supposedly the new boundary was eventually
demarcated by a mixed Romanian-Soviet Commission in 1948 and 1949.
Russians on the Danube
According to the testament of Peter the Great, the
architect of modern Russia, and Catherine the Great, some of the most
persistent Russian dreams and drives were to control the Danube and to
reach Constantinople and the Straits. Unexpectedly, some of the
Russian aims were later fully attained and Peter the Great's dreams
became everybody else's nightmare. The Russians have established
themselves on the Danube, have approached the Turkish Straits and have
begun to encroach on the southern "warm waters" of the world. By
occupying Bessarabia in 1812, Russia also reached the lower Danube and
began a long struggle to control the great European river. In the
beginning, Russia fixed her new border on the northern arm of Kiliya.
In 1826, however, following the Ackerman Treaty, Russia annexed the
northern arm and about one third of the Delta. Then, following the
1829 Treaty of Adrianople, Russia annexed the entire Danubian Delta
and the small Serpents' Island. Russia, however, neglected the
neccessary maintenance work of the lower Danube and soon began to
obstruct the fluvial/maritime navigation. After the Crimean victory
and the Paris Peace Treaty of 1856, the western powers forced Russia
to withdraw her boundary some 20 kilometers north of the Danube.
Consequently, for some 20 years Russia was no longer a "Danubian"
country, but apparently she never forgot her dreams.88 Recognizing its
strategic and commercial significance, the Paris Treaty also set up
the first Danube Commission. The main objectives were to protect and
promote international navigation and trade and create better
navigational conditions. Non-riverain Western European powers were
entitled to become members of the Commission. Romania became a full
member after her independence in 1878 and undertook all measures to
maintain proper navigability, to mark the distances and insure the
best traffic conditions. After the 1877-78 Russo-Romanian-Turkish
War, Russia became again a Danubian country and the lnew intcrnalional
statluc or the river was established at the 1878 Berlin Congress.
Although, according to the Treaty the new boundary was supposed to
follow the thalweg of the northern arm of Kiliya, leaving the Delta in
Romania, from the beginning the Russians were able to cheat and
"interpret" the thalweg to their ad vantage. The truth is that the
Danube Delta changes quite quickly with new land forms and arms
appearing and disappearing continuously. In 1878 the Russians claimed
that the thalweg leaves Kiliya at a certain point and follows the Old
Stanbul arm, and consequently annexed a small por tion of the Delta.
Thereafter, the Russians continuously claimed that the main river
course had moved southward intruding further into Romanian territory.
When in 1940 Russia again invaded Bessarabia, it also occup pied
several new islands among which was Musura. Then, by claiming that
the thalweg had changed again-always to the detriment of Romania-the
Soviets pushed the boundary further south and instead of following the
Old Stanbul arm, they followed the Musura arm ap proaching Sulina.89
Acknowledging the great importance of the river, Molotov declared in
the Supreme Soviet on August I, 1940, that the western Soviet border
was moved westward to the Danube which together with the Volga are the
largest European rivers and are the best commercial routes for many
European nations.90 A Romanian-Soviet commission, entrusted with the
tracing of the demarcation of the lower Danube according to the 1878
Treaty failed to reach an agreement. Romania then proposed that a
mixed commission should administer the common portion of the Danube,
but Moscow re jected that proposal aiming at exclusive control over
the northern Danube. In September 1940, Molotov demanded that the
Danubian Commission be disbanded. At the same time, Germany and the
USSR began to apply pressures to change the international status of
the river. They wanted to discard the old commission, to exclude
non-riverain countries, and create a new organism with the sole
participation of the bordering countries and controlled by them.
Gradually, during late 1940 and early 1941, the Soviet military forces
took possession of several other Romanian islets in the Delta,
indulged in border provocations and killed several Romanian border
guards. To avoid a confrontation, Romania further withdrew her border
military patrols and did not publicize anything in the press.91 During
the Second World War the Russians were again excluded from the Danube,
but in 1944 the Soviet Army occupied Romania and pushed the border
farther into the Delta. Most western maps and even the State
Department Soviet-Romanian boundary study,92 do not show-that the
"new" thalweg follows Kiliya and the Musura arm and comes within only
severatl kilometers of the main Danubian chanllel. Sulina and the
Danubian-maritime port of Sulina which controls the navigation into
the river. In 1948, at the Belgrade Conference, the USSR arbitrarily
and unilaterally disbanded the almost one century old European
commission of the Danube. Then, the USSR built important port
facilities on the river and began to exercise a discretionary power
particularly on the maritime section. The recent renewed interest
over the entire Danube, however, poses new problems. Soviet Russia
apparently is no longer capable of imposing her discretionary will on
its fate. The Danube will be soon connected to the Rhine and Main
through the Europa Canal and later with the Rhone through a French
Rhone-Rhine Canal, thus becoming more international and acquiring even
more importance. The Romanian-Yugoslav hydro electric and navigation
system "Iron Gates I" has already improved con siderably the
navigation at the Iron Gates. The new "Iron Gates II" and the
Romanian-Bulgarian hydro-electric system will further add to the
importance of the Old Istros. Last, but not least, the completion of
the con troversial Danube-Black Sea Canal, entirely on Romanian land,
may greatly change the international navigation on the lower Danube
and reduce the impact of the Russian presence on the greatest European
river.93 The Serpents' Island (Insula Serpilor or in Russian Ostrov
Zmeyny) represents another case of Soviet expansionism little known in
the West. The miniscule Black Sea island is actually a rock known
since antiquity, but it only acquired importance in the nineteenth
century. It is located at about 45 degrees Northern Latitude and 30
degrees Eastern Longitude, at some 45 kilometers east of the Danube
Delta. It is a small barren plateau of some 600 by 400 yards with no
water resources, little vegetation and few inferior animals among
which many snakes. In antiquity, the island was used by Greek
sailors, and most of the time was an unclaimed piece of land. Then,
when the Black Sea was dominated by the Ottoman Empire, the island was
claimed by the Turks. The opening of the navigation on the Danube,
the Black Sea and the Straits, gave some new importance to the little
island. Later, the Serpents' Island was the meeting point of the
Western fleets during the Crimean War against Russia. The Paris Peace
Treaty of 1856 restored the island together with the Danube Delta to
Moldavia, and the Berlin Peace Treaty of 1878 confirmed their
restoration to independent Romania. Romania rebuilt the old beacon
and stationed a small garrison on the island. The Serpents' Island
was in no way a problem of territorial dispute either during the First
or during the Second World War. The Soviet Union neither claimed nor
occupied it in June 1940 or in 1944. For almost one hundred years,
international atlases and encyclopedias showed the island as part of
Romania. Interestingly, recent Romanian encyclopedias and atlases no
longer mention the island at all. All Soviet sources and most recent
Western atlases show, however, that the island belongs to the USSR.
Confusingly, some of the Western encyclopedias indicated as late as
the 1960's that the island was Romanian, while others indicated that
it was Russian. For ex ample, whereas a French encyclopedia of 1964
still presented it as Romanian, a Soviet atlas showed as early as 1950
that it was a Russian territory.94 The public, whether in Romania or
in the West, does not know the story behind this change. However, C.
Alexandroaie, a former Romanian UN press attache, was once told by a
high Romanian official, that the question of the Serpents' Island was
another dark spot in Romanian diplomacy. . . Sometime in 1950,
Moscow asked the then submissive Bucharest government to cede the
island to the USSR. . . for it was of no value to Romania anyway.
Apparently, Bucharest accepted the Soviet request and the two
countries signed an agreement to this effect. The agreement was
concluded by low-level representatives and unexpectedly was never
ratified. Consequently, from a legal, international point of view,
the accord is void.95 The Soviet Union, nevertheless, sent a small
military unit on the island built some new facilities and installed
special electronic surveillance equipment to monitor the navigation
onto the Danube and in the northwestern part of the Black Sea. In
spite of the long imposed silence which has prevailed for almost three
decades now regarding the Serpents' Island, the problem may not be
over at all. The new law of the sea, for example, and the resulting
claims to territorial waters and possible mineral resources Iying in
the continental shelf may cause additional aggravation in the future
to the already frail Soviet- Romanian territorial dispute.