Rezumat: Problema Moldovei nord-vestice (numită de ocupanţii
austrieci Bucovina) a apărut în
spaţiul geopolitic european în 1775, când teritoriul respectiv a fost anexat de Imperiul Habsburgic. Totuşi, până atunci
partea nordică a viitoarei Bucovina (Ţara Şipeniţului)
a fost disputată de Polonia şi Moldova. Cu toate acestea, hotarul
polonomoldovenesc fusese clar
stabilit, incluzând partea nordică a Bucovinei (dorită de Polonia) în Principatul Moldovei. Împăratul şi
administraţia austriacă au folosit câteva motive pentru anexarea Moldovei nord-vestice: 1. impunerea unui cordon „sanitar”
împotriva ciumei („care se stinsese
de mult în Moldova”); 2. „necesitatea” anexării unei „fâşii” (în realitate, au fost anexate două mari ţinuturi) din
teritoriul Moldovei pentru construcţia unui drum care să lege Galiţia de Transilvania; 3. drepturile istorice ale
Pocuţiei (respectiv, Galiţiei), ajunse în
posesia Austriei, asupra nordului Moldovei (Ţinutului Şipeniţului). Printre
cauzele anexării menţionăm: 1.
„nepotolita poftă de noi achiziţii teritoriale”: pofta de expansiune a
imperiului şi de acaparare a noi
teritorii aducătoare de profit; 2. compensarea pierderii Olteniei cu un alt teritoriu – în speţă, cu cel al
Moldovei nord-vestice; 3. dorinţa de a avea o zonă strategică din care să fie desfăşurată o expansiune ulterioară
în Principatele Moldova şi Valahia, respectiv
în regiunea Dunării de Jos şi în Balcanii de Est. O soluţie a problemei
comunităţii româneşti din nordul
Bucovinei este posibilă prin trecerea localităţilor româneşti din regiunea Cernăuţi în cadrul Republicii
Moldova, în schimbul trecerii localităţilor locuite de ucraineni şi de rusofoni din Transnistria moldovenească în cadrul
Ucrainei.
Résumé: Le problème de la Moldavie de nord-ouest (nommé, aussi, par les
occupants autrichiens, la Bucovine ) est apparu dans
l’espace géopolitique européen en 1775, lorsque le territoire respectif a été annexé par l’Empire Habsbourgeois.
Jusqu’à cette époque-là, la partie
nordique de la future Bucovine (le Pays du Sipeniţ) a été disputée par la Pologne et la Moldavie. Pourtant , la frontière polonaise
moldave avait été clairement établie, incluant aussi la partie nordique de la Bucovine (voulue par la Pologne ) dans la Principauté de la Moldavie. Lla Moldavie de nord-ouest: 1.l’imposition d’un
cordon “sanitaire” contre la peste (“qui était disparue depuis longtemps en Moldavie)”; 2. “la nécessité”
d’annexer une “bordure” (en réalité,
on avait annexé deux contrées) du territoire de la Moldavie pour la
construction d’un chemin qui lie la Galice de la Transylvanie ; 3. les
droits historiques de Pocuţia (respectivement
de la Galice ),
entrées dans la possession de l’Autriche, sur le nord de la Moldavie
(la Contrée
de Sipeniţ). Parmi les causes de l’annexion, on mentionne: 1. “l’insatiable désir de nouvelles annexions
territoriales”: le besoin d’expansion de l’empire et d’accaparer de nouveaux territoire apportant de profit; 2. la
compensation de la perte de l’Olténie
avec un autre territoire – c’est à dire, celui du nord-ouest de la Moldavie ; 3. le désir d’avoir une zone stratégique, d’où on
puisse dévelloper une expansion ultérieure dans les Principautés de la
Moldavie et de la
Valachie , respectivement dans la région du Bas Danube et dans les Balkans d’Est. Une solution du
problème de la communauté roumaine du nord de la Bucovine
est possible par le passage des localités roumaines de la région Tchernovtsy à la République
de la Moldavie ,
à l’échange du passage des localités habitées par des Ukrainiens et des Russophones de la Transnistrie moldave
dans le cadre de l’Ukraine.
Abstract: The problem of the North-Western Moldavia (named
later on, by the Austrian occupants,
Bukovina) emerged within the European geopolitical space in 1775, when the territory has been annexed by the Habsburg
Empire. However, before that moment, the Northern
part of the future Bukovina (Şipeniţ district) was disputed by Poland and
Moldavia Yet, the Polish-Moldavian
border was clearly established, including the Northern part of Bucovina (wanted by Poland) within the
Moldavian Principality. The Austrian emperor and administration used a few motivations for the annexation of the
North-Western Moldavia: 1. the
imposition of a cordon against the plague ("which burned down long time
before in Moldavia"); 2.
"the need" to annex "a strip" (in reality, two big
districts were annexed) from the
territory of Moldavia for the construction of a road linking Transylvania with
Galicia; 3. the historical rights of
the Pocuţia (i.e., Galiţia), which have come in possession of Austria, on the North of Moldavia (Şipeniţ County).
Some of the real reasons of occupation were: 1. "insatiable hunger for new territorial acquisitions; lust for
the expansion of the Empire and seizing
new territories bringing profit; 2. to compensate for the loss of another
territory – Oltenia – in this case,
with the North-Western Moldavia; 3. a desire to have a strategic area to be pursued in a subsequent expansion in
Moldavia and Wallachia, respectively in the Danube
region and in the Eastern Balkans. As in June 1940, the Soviet authorities have
linked the issue of Bessarabia with
the issue of Bukovina, I believe that the problem of Transnistria (Moldavia) should be viewed in connection
with the issue of ethnic Romanian Community territory
of Northern Bukovina (now in Cernăuţi region). A solution for the problem of
the Romanian community in Northern
Bukovina is possible by the passage of municipalities inhabited by Romanians from Northern Bukovina to Republic of
Moldavia, in return for passing
several areas with villages and towns populated by Ukrainians or Russian
speakers from Moldovian Transnistria
to Ukraine.
Keywords: Bukovina, Moldavia, Geopolitics, Poland, Austria, Russia,
Romania, USSR.
Introduction
The annexation of the North-Western part of the Principality of Moldavia (named Bukovina by the Austrian occupants)
in 1775 was preceded by periods of occupation
of certain areas of the concerned region, and of the fortress of Hotin, by the neighboring Poland. The annexation of
Bessarabia by Russia in 1812 was preceded
by Turkish annexations of the counties of Chilia (July 14, 1484) and Cetatea Albă (August 5, 1484), the county of
Tighina and Budjak steppe – where they established
the Nogai Tatars (1538) and Hotin County [1].
Pre-Moldavian period
Before submitting data on the Polish-Moldavian territorial dispute, we
have to report on events in 1359 in
regards to Şipeniţ County. Dimitrie Onciul refers to the Volokh Princes (1359), recorded by the Polish chronicler Dlugosz,
who "still, are not known in
Moldavian Chronicles; their names are not in the diptych which contains the oldest authentic list of rulers
princes from Bogdan hither"
[2]. After the
death of one ruler, Ştefan, “his
sons, Ştefan and Petru started the quarrel for the paternal inheritance. The youngest son, Petru, with
the help of the Hungarians, occupied the throne
and banished his elder brother; Ştefan asked for help from King Casimir of Poland, and provided obedience of
Moldavia to the Polish suzerainty. In 1359, at the St. Peter and Paul festal occasion, Casimir sent an army in
Moldavia as an aid to Ştefan. But the
Polish army registered a hard failure in the «Plonini» Woods, land of Şipeniţ [3], and
many Polish noblemen were made prisoners by Moldavians” [4]. I think that in this
passage, names "Moldavia" and "Moldavians" must be accepted
with some reserves, because the
medieval sources mentioned the word "Vlachs": "It is known that that after a decisive win at
Sinie Vody on Tatars, Podolia region – including
the Bolohoven Knezats – got under the Lithuanian domination of Teodor Coriatovici. However, in 1354, he
withdrawn his lordship to King Louis the Great of Hungary; he also surrendered the fortresses to «Valach» (...); the
information is provided by the
Russian Chronicle of Bychowich”, and those fortresses are represented by Hotin, Ţeţina and Hmielov” [5]. Referring to the Hotin fortress,
Gumenâi stated: "Of course,
being situated in a territory inhabited by Valachs (...) the garrison was composed of Romanians, information in
this respect presenting Bycovich, in 1354" [6]. In the same respect, Gheorghe I.
Brătianu stated: "In the same year [1359], a Polish expedition against the small Moldavian [?] Northern State of
Şipeniţ, at the edge of Galiţia,
ended by a disaster in the Bukovina forest: soon a matrimonial union favored a merger of that voivodship from
North, with that which was created by the
Princes who emigrated from Maramureş; this will give enough force to the
unified Moldavia to the
extend its border to the East, and to ensure a full control of the commercial road, which will be its main
economic and political reason of existence" [7]. It is known that
in 1392 Moldavia has imposed a control over that road: "This road is the one that, ultimately, without any
doubt, led to the foundation and to the development
of the Moldavian State, from its cradle in the Carpathians of Bukovina to the “Big See”, which its rulers
declared that they have reached in 1392" [8].
Whereas, with “convincing
evidence”, Ştefan Gorovei showed that Dragoş' settlement occurred in 1347, and the overthrow of his
dynasty by Bogdan after 1364 [9]. I believe that, in 1359 was recorded the small Valachs
voivodeship resistance against Poland, and the Polish chronicler Dlugosz named it Şipeniţ Country (Terra
Sepenecensis). As Brătianu stated,
the year 1359 remained in Moldavian Annals/Chronicles as the year of the independence of the common State
of the Principality of Moldavia, which, however,
only later acquired the independence against Hungary. If subsequently, in blurry conditions, the Şipeniţ Country
became a part of Galiţia, the information
presented above explains why the rulers of Moldavia were being
interested in that territory.
The Polish – Moldavian territorial
dispute
In accordance with the Moldavian chronicles, an action that led in future
to the Moldavian-Polish dispute
can be identified during the reign of Petru I Muşat "Prince of Moldavia (1375-1391), founder of the
Muşatin’s Dynasty, son of Margareta Muşata,
the Laţcu Voievod’s sister"
[10]. Petru
“borrows the Polish King, which was in all
respects very puzzling, a sum of 3,000 Italian silver coins, and receives as
surety the Halici County. But this
County of Halici was only proper to the North of Upper Moldavia, nowadays Bukovina; so Petru could certainly have very
well this country through his
chancellors. But then they established the most appropriate Land for such possession, in the so-called Pocuţia:
this province, in direct touch with the northern border of Moldavia, included the Şipeniţ Country, where Lord did
put a “staroste”, according to the
Polish fashion; the County was including the fortress of Ţeţina, the ruins of which can be seen near
Cernăuţi – and Hmielov, that was utterly destroyed; maybe even the Hotin, a big fortress, placed on the right bank
of the Dniester river,.right
on the water. That country remained in the Moldavia’s possession for a long.time, although the Polish
kings never accepted to leave their right on it, considering it.as a hostage for money which
the Polish did not want to pay at all" [11].
Therefore, it.seems
that when the Şipeniţ Country was incorporated into the Principality of.Moldavia for money lent by
the Moldavian ruler. From the point of view of Polish, it.was the putting into service of that
territory, not a surrender of it: they have never.accepted to leave the right over the
territory in question, whilst they did not want to return the contracted debt.
During the reign of Alexandru cel Bun (1400 – 1432) it was recorded a
further stage of negotiations on
the territory in question: "Alexandru leaved to the King of Poland 1,000 Silver coins of Genoa from
the debt and got from the King, who no longer
called back Şepeniţ country in 1411, “the true” Pokutsya, with the famous fortresses of Sniatin and Colomea" [12]. We can see that Alexandru cel Bun
obtained a legal regulation by an
interstate (international) act (an agreement) on the membership of the Şipeniţ Country to Moldavia, but
also the right (as a hostage on account of
unpaid debt of 2,000 "Genoese Silver coins") on "the true
Pocuţia" – the southern part of
Halici Country (with the citadels of Colomea and Sniatin). However, the Polish
did not pay back the debt, so in
1432, Alexandru cel Bun has conducted a predatory campaign in Pocuţia, as a result of which Moldavia wasted the
Ţeţina and Hmielov [13]. After the death of Alexandru cel Bun, Moldavia has failed into
decline: "Moldavia, which was
not threatened by any enemy, did fail quickly in a few years after the death of Alexandru cel Bun. Although Ilie was
the older brother, though his father has took him, a piece of time, as the companion near the throne (...),
although, last but not least, he
was the legitimate son unlike other sons born from voivode’s relations and, there for he deserved to get as wife
the Vladislav the younger's sister, the new King of Poland, - his brother Ştefan dared to rise up against him. They
have fought a number of years, and
Moldavia dwindled in importance, meaning it must recognize, in humiliating conditions, the sovereignty
of Poland and to leave for Poland the Pocuţia" [14]. Namely Poland supported the
replacement of Ilie (or Iliaş) with Ştefan, as the first "followed his father's foreign policy, while
maintaining Moldavia within the anti-Poland
Coalition" [15]. Polish King Sigismund
Kiestut in 1433 "agreeing with Moldavia’s
Lord [Ştefan] by an exchange of letters, in addition to the fact that Ţeţina and Hmielov will be returned to
Moldavia (lost by Moldavia during the campaign of Alexandru cel Bun in Pocuţia, in 1432), established the
boundaries between Moldavia and
Poland. The act stated: «And between these towns Ţeţina and Hmielov and our Country Russia will be this border:
first between our town Sneatin and Şipeniţ – Şipeniţ that belongs to Moldavia, these are separated by the
Kolachin river, and from the
Kolachin river to the great river Dniester, above the village Potok, which
village Potok belongs to Moldavia,
and from this village down on the Nistru river, up to the [Black] Sea belongs to the Country of
Moldavia, and over the shores of the Dniester river is our Country of Russia». As is indicated by this act,
Hotin was in possession of Moldavia.
But disputes for the throne between Iliaş and Petru will determine the first to request the support of Polish,
making them a concession, namely offering them Şipeniţ Country, «the country which Moldavia had from Crown,
with the towns of this Şipeniţ
Country namely Hotin, Ţeţina and Hmielov and with all districts, places and villages of this country we giving
them back. Iliaş justified the fortress’ relinquishment
as a reward for the Alexandru cel Bun predatory campaign in Pocuţia" [16]. But the document indicates that the Poles took over the territory
because the Moldavia Country
"had it from the Crown", meaning that the owner has returned what is his.
The next phase related to the political evolution of the Şipeniţ
territory was recorded during the
reign of Ştefan cel Mare (1457-1504). "From Poland, Ştefan claimed the land which his predecessor
Iliaş left (promising also to return Şipeniţ Country), i.e. the Pocuţia. Yet before getting up on the throne
the new King Jan Olbracht (...)
Ştefan permeated in Pocuţia and picked up in the dominion (1490). Jan Olbracht could not tolerate long time
this humiliation and to receive such a significant damage; so in the year 1497 (...) began an expedition against
Moldavia. At first, the young
King, however, does not present him self as an enemy of Ştefan; contrariwise, he promised to help him to get back
Chilia and Cetatea Albă"
[17]. After the
Poles attack and battles at Codrii
Cosminului and Lenţeşti, Moldavia keeps the disputed territory; According to N. Iorga, "Şipeniţ
Country, meaning Pocuţia" is not "the true" Pokuţia from the South of Halici Country.
"In the years of old age, Ştefan had just one wish: to strengthen his domination in Pocuţia and to snatch the
recognition of this domination
from Polish King. At 1502, fall, immediately after the death of Jan Olbracht, not recognizing the Treaty of
1499 towards his descendant Alexander, who
was, however, an old friend of Moldavians, Ştefan put his hand across
the Land on which he has having a
right. Everywhere Russians of Orthodox law received him with joy, the Moldavian governor (pârcălab)
and customs officer seated in all the fortresses of the Land, till Halici. King Alexander could not find any
support against Moldavians: with
the Turks and Tatars Ştefan has stood in peace, and they do not take a dare to try anything against him. The
far Tsar of Moscow, Ivan, was a relative, by the marriage of the Ştefan’s daughter Elena, with the Tsar’s
successor. The new situation in
Pocutsia, be the power of Moldavian weapons remained, so, untouched" [18].
Therefore, this time, Ştefan cel Mare came in possession of "the
true" Pocuţia, beyond the
Kolachin River – the Southern part of Galiţia.
To note in this context that the disputed territory – Şipeniţ Country and
Pocuţia – do not concern the South
half of the future Bukovina: the Moldova River Valley – the old hearth of the Moldavian State, where was built the
monastery of Moldoviţa, so much
the less the old capital Suceava and other ancient localities (Ştefan cel Mare built churches at Reuseni and Bădăuţi [19], not to insist on the monastery of
Putna).
The descendant of Ştefan cel Mare, Bogdan III the Blind (1504-1517), for
a Royal link – for becoming
relatives with the King of Poland (he asked for one of his sisters) – "was able to immolate
Pocuţia". The Lord of Moldavia has ceded the region, but the Polish King did not send the bride.
"Failing towards the new King Sigismund,
who was to reign in Moldavia if Jan Olbracht would be a winner in 1497, Bogdan gets angry and raids over in
Poland, trying to take control again in Pocuţia (1506)"20. "When the Poles try to take revenge, they
could not make a stunt (...); the war
was at a stop from a time (1510) by both parties fatigue" [21]. Pocuţia remained under
the Polish domination in the effect.
Referring to Petru Rareş (1527-1538, 1541-1546), the historian Iorga
writes that he was "a
neighbor bent to interfere continually in the domestic affairs of Poland, through Pocuţia and of Hungary by
Transylvania"22. "With great prowess Petru-Vodă prepared his attack on Pocuţia, keeping
talking with the Polish and getting the permission
from the Sultan" [23]. "With much easiness
Petru was able to get this way Pocuţia.
Poles did not have a permanent army, but had fought only with the mercenary, which necessitate money, and
the Kingdom did not want to pay, or with the
routs of nobles, which gathering very slowly; castles were badly defended. But
if Petru thought that to conquer
Pocuţia means to keep it, he was all wet. Poland has great generals, and especially Jan Tarnowski, famous everywhere.
Thus, when a Polish Army had the
chance to gather again, Pocuţia got again quickly under the King’s domination. However, Petru
didn’t want to leave this like that, but in a strong rushing, he got in the heart of the province. Then, on 22 August
1531, the fight from Obertyn took
place, where the tactics of Tarnowski, who commended the army himself, the mastery of his gunners,
has overcome Rareş; our Lord lost the guns from Feldioara, and run, with three wounds on the body, to Moldavia.
Petru, who sent forth the routs of
predators, among which Turks and Tatars, in the country which he could not keep, judged this way the Obertyn
affliction, in way that shows from what high point of view our people from the past looked at the defeats and
needs which were coming upon them:
«Do not be proud, for his win the King, hath he did not got it with his self power, but with luck, that
changes often; and did not conquered the King, but God, who punishes Lords for their great confidence in them
self" [24]. As a result of the actions of Petru Rareş it seems that
Moldavia has resigned with the loss of "the true" Pocuţia – beyond Kolachin, as well as
with the amount of money borrowed by Petru I Muşat to Polish Kingdom. But Poland has acquired subsequent the
Hotin fortress from Moldavians.
The following historical moment linked to the territory in dispute was
the one relating to the period
from the reign of Alexandru Lăpuşneanu (1552-1561, 1564-1568). Pointing out
that his reign meant "disunity, cruelty and losses towards foreigners", Iorga pointed out:
“From now on Moldavia did not take a dare to ask from Poles, seriously, Pocuţia; if, thanks to the Turkish
demands, Hotin become Moldavian
again, Alexandru-Vodă does not reinforce it, but contrariwise, commanded, in his second reign, to
broken walls, that can no longer be a threat to neighbors beyond the Dniester and, especially, to the Turks, who
wanted that never from the country
over which Ştefan and Petru Rareş held sway over cannot rises any distress for them" [25]. However, Ioan Voda cel Cumplit
(1572-1574) “held up Pocuţia" [26]. Nevertheless, the question had been
clarified, meaning that the border between
Moldavia and Poland settled on the Rivers Cheremush, Kolachin and Hotin.
However, Poland has demanded on several occasions from Ottoman Porte the area from the Moldavian framework,
which can be identified as the Şipeniţ Country. By “capitulations” (treaties) between Moldavia and Ottoman
Empire – basic element of
Moldavian-Turkish relations in medieval times, the Porte did not cede it. The
first capitulation was completed
in 1511 by Bogdan, the Prince of Moldavia, and the second one, by Petru Rareş, in 1529. These agreements stipulated
that "The Porte is obliged to
defend Moldavia against any aggression" and that "The borders of Moldavia will be keep intact throughout
their extent" [27]. Although some historians dispute the authenticity of the
"capitulations" principle of taking under protection of a State that has voluntarily subjected
its borders and defence (in return for a tribute) by the suzeran power is known in the Islamic world, which has
belonged the Ottoman Empire too.
In 1699 it ended a conflict between the Ottoman Empire and the Polish State by the peace of Karlowitz. The
northern part of the Moldavia Country, which was under the occupation of Poland, was restored. About the
peace concluded, the Moldavian
chronicle says: "The Poles still hardly demanded Country of Moldavia, but the Turks answered to Poles about
the Country of Moldavia that they can not give the Country of Moldavia to be them a gift because it is free, it
is dedicated to the Turks, it is
not taken with the sword. Thus, the Poles seeing that, agreed this way: in the fortresses and monasteries they
took and other places, everything to give back the Moldavians. And Turks to return Cameniţa fortress to Poles, with
all its land, and Ukraine, and to
raise the all the Nohai from Bugeac and to remove them beyond river Don, only the Tatars from Bugeac to be
able to remain. And Turks never will repair
Hotin, or another fortress in Moldavia the Turks will nor build" [28]. In the 1700s the Polish King sent an envoy to Istanbul
in order "to show for Ottoman dragomans the instability from Moldavian-Polish border and to ask for a
correction of borders for the benefit
of the Kingdom, by including Hotin and Cernăuţi counties in its composition. The Ottoman Porte still did not cede
and the borders were re-established by the
Treaty of Delimitation of 14 October 1703, on the previous line before
the war" [29].
Slightly later, Austria began to claim on the territory of Moldavia. At
the end of the 17th century,
Transylvania entered within the Austrian Empire as an autonomous Principality. In 1685 the Austrian
troops entered territory of Transylvania, and, in 1699, by the Treaty of Karlowitz (Sremski Karlovci, in present-day
Serbia), the Ottoman Empire ceded
to Austria: Hungary, Transylvania, Croatia and Slavonia. Banat of Timişoara remained in the Ottoman Empire, but was
annexed by Austria in 1718 by the
Treaty of Passarowitz (Požarevac). In 1718, in an answer given to the Austrian authorities, who demanded
Moldavia, the Ottomans used the same argument – they can not cede Moldavia Country because it's
"dedicated, not conquered with the sword".
After 1793, after the second partition of Poland, Austria came into possession of Galiţia and it oriented its claims
on a part of Moldavia – its northwestern side.
The annexation of the North-Western
Moldavia (future Bukovina) by Austria
In 1775 we consign the moment of annexation by Austria of the
North-Western part of Moldavia.
"Although at the peace of Passarowitz the Porte declared it may not yield the Country of Moldavia to
Austria, being dedicated, not conquered with the sword, however, later it ceded Bukovina and Bessarabia in 1812,
i.e. the Hotin district, a large
part of land of Moldavia and the properly Bessarabia by the Danube River" [30]. By the Treaty of Passarowitz from July 21, 1718 ended the war
between the Ottoman Empire on one
side and the Habsburg monarchy and the Venetian Republic of the other part. Austrian imperial troops have defeated the
Ottomans, which had ceded to the
House of Habsburg Banat of Timişoara, Northern Serbia, including Belgrade, Northern Bosnia and Oltenia.
However, after 21 years of administration
(1718-1739), due to the increasingly large difficulties encountered by
the Austrians, after the war of
1737 and 1739, ended by the peace of Belgrade, Austria returned Oltenia to Ottoman Empire.
In 1775, Turkey had breached the provisions of the capitulations with
Moldavia and allowed the
annexation of the North-Western Moldavia by Austria. There are several causes and motivations of the
annexation of the North-Western Moldavia (named
Bukovina by the Austrians). Iorga notes that "The Austrians would have wanted to use the war [from 1768-1774]
in order to uproot once again the Oltenian
districts from the Turks. Failing, they made a deal with the Russians,
and thus, when peace was now
settled, scouts passed in Upper Moldavia, under the word that they came to establish a cordon against the
plague and the imperial troops had reached,
lodging pillars of border, up to Roman. But the Government in Vienna
found that this breach would be
too scandalous, so they picked only the whole Cernăuţi district, the Câmpulung district and the largest part
of Suceava district, along with Putna, where is buried Ştefan cel Mare, and with Suceava, where the greatest
Lords of Moldavia had resided.
Boyars protested to no avail, and Turks were influenced to agree by gifts. So in 1775 is concluded the Convention
which gave to Austria, under the name of Bukovina
(the Moldavians were saying: Cordun), Upper Moldavia, with the most beautiful forests, the most brilliant
monasteries and villages where were living better the conscience of old peasant’s independence. The Austrians
hurried to break any links between
these Moldavians and the old Lord’s Moldavia" [31]. Referring to the decision
to restrict the lusts of the Emperor of Austria, the historian Ion Nistor's quoted a letter: "On 19 June 1773,
and Emperor Joseph visited Transylvania and
reaching the Saxon’s Reghin wrote from there to his mother, Empress: «I
visited right now with
trecătoarele and Ciuc and Gurgh with the passes leading in Moldavia, as well as a part of the territory
occupied in 1769. This is a real wildness, covered with beautiful trees, but which rot without any use. If by returning
of that territory to Moldavia,
otherwise pretty stretched, but almost without any value, being uncultured and unpopulated, we might get the
corner of Moldavia that touches and Transylvania, Maramureş and Pocuţia, then it would make a useful stunt and
therefore I would ask your Majesty
to request Kaunitz to take into deliberation this issue». The corner of Moldavia that was mentioned by Joseph
in his letter was the Upper Country of Moldavia,
named after the occupation, Bukovina. But without waiting for response, Emperor Joseph II charged Carol
Enzenberg, commander of the 2nd Regiment of the Romanian border guards from Năsăud, with the discreet mission to
pass in Moldavia in order to
collect information on the popular masses spirit and attitude of Moldavians in the case of a possible Austrian
occupation" [32]. After the Austro-Turkish
agreement from 1775 on the illegal
cession of the North-Western Moldavia, "in a letter addressed on 4 February 1775 to his son and her co-regent Joseph
II, Empress Maria Theresa said
that she is not right in the issue of the cession and that this matter is doing a press on her conscience and she
did not know how escape honorable from this
abashment. From these considerations they have recourse to the
appointment of the attached
province, by famous beech forests - silvae faginale – named by chroniclers bucovine - after slavon name buk -
beech, which ranged throughout the Upper Country
of Moldavia, stretching out between Prut and Dniester as small bucovins, and between the Prut and the Valley of the
upper Ceremuș as large bucovins – silvae faginales
or bucovinae maiores or dictae minores. And so it came to the name of Bucovina/Bukovina - Buchenland – for
the Upper Moldavia Country, occupied by the
Habsburgs and incorporated within their empire" [33]. Austria called the two lands of the frontier "Bukovyna, to cover the territorial spoils in the
eyes of European diplomacy" [34]. Pressing of consciousness did not
prevent the Maria Theresa to agree "the
devouring" by the State apparatus of the Moldavian territory annexed to
Austria, so those remorses were
not anything but tears of a crocodile before to devour the victim.
Ion Nistor referred to some causes and motivations of the Austrian
annexation. He confirmed the
Iorga’s thesis about annexation of North-Western Moldavia "for account of" Oltenia, mentioning
the most often cited motif – the need to obtain a strip of routes linking Galiţia with Transylvania: "By the Act of
partition of Poland between the
three neighboring powers – Russia, Austria and Prussia – august 5, 1772, Austria is in possession of Pocuţia,
Lodomeria and Galiţia, incorporating within the Habsburg empire an area of 81 900 kmІ, with a population of more
millions souls. But in its
insatiable lust for further territorial purchases, the Government from Vienna is looking to exploit the weakness of
the Porte, trying to grab Oltenia, as a reward for its role of mediator between Russians and Turks. But as the
occupation of Oltenia would woke
up too much noise among Western powers, which agreed to hold up Poland in order to save the integrity
of the Ottoman Empire, the Vienna Government endeavoured to obtain in exchange for the claims on Oltenia an
extend of territory in Upper
Moldavia Country, which was less exposed to the European powers, seeking to materialize their claims by occupying a
narrow strip of land in Moldavia, in order to be able to open a more convenient way of communication between
Transylvania and Galiţia, although
they existed long before, through Kцrцsmezц pass, leading from Galiţia to Maramureş, by the upper
Valley of the Prut and Tisa to Sighetul Marmaţiei" [35]. The reason for obtaining a road
between Galiţia and Transylvania has been
communicated to the Moldavian authorities from Iaşi, but they have exposed the act of annexation of a stretched
territory, under the pretext of invoking "the necessity" of a strip for a road link between
Galiţia and Transylvania: "Information collected by Enzenberg in Moldavia cane true by the fact that the Moldavia's
nobility, led by Prince Grigore
Ghica opposed to the Austrian occupation, sending over memoirs to Porte, accompanied by maps by which
denounced to Porte the Austria, under the
pretext of opening of a road between Galiţia and Transylvania, and wants
to occupy two of the most wealthy
lands of Moldavia. Austria did not consider the Moldavians protest" [36]. In 1814, the Habsburg authorities have finished the
construction of the road "by
which Austria said, at the annexation of Bukovina, it needs to link Galiţia with Transylvania" [37]. Another formal motif of Austrians was
to set up a health cordon against
the epidemic of plague, "which is much ebbed in Moldavia" [38].
The reason of annexation by a state of a foreign territory of another
state for a need regarding a road
course seemed ridiculous even in that time. Therefore, Austrian specialists in strategies have resorted
to another reason: after incorporating Galiţia within the Austrian Empire, Vienna Court claimed its right
(taken over from Poland) to put
the problem of the territory that throughout history has been in dispute (between Poland – as a possessor of
Galiţia and Moldavia): "As the reason for taking this strip of the North-Western Moldavia in order to obtain the
connection between Transylvania
and Galiţia was not sufficiently convincing, they tried to make other arguments, more thorough. Then they
launched the hypothesis that Northern Moldavia
would have belonged to the Pocuţia (a county situated between the rivers Prut, White Cheremush and Black
Cheremush), which now had been annexed by
Austria and the Vienna Court and would demand the "historic
rights" on this county. Colonel
Seeger had left recently to Warsaw, to collect historical evidence in favour of Austria pretensions on Bukovina, since
Kaunitz has taken the decision to claim from Turkey this territory as part of Pocuţia" [39]. The Austrians would be "identified" even the old frontier between Pocuţia
(Şipeniţ Country) and Moldavia: "Already in may 1774, two detachments of Austrian Hussars, under the pretext of
a repair, have entered into
Bukovina, so that immediately after the departure of the Russians to take over this territory and to fix the
terminals of the frontier along the new border lines already drawn by Mieg. During his journey in Bukovina, the
captain Mieg spotted a mane of
hills and mountains, which, with some interruptions, stretched from Hotin to Transylvania and which he regarded as a
natural border very favorable towards Moldavia.
Mieg even "discovered" a milestone, and this was interpreted as
evidence that the times Poland
borders would be stretched up to the ridge of the hills. In addition, Colonel Seeger, who was in
Poland, worked to support the Mieg’s opinion by historical data. These successes have been accepted in full
by the Court of Vienna, and for
these merits Captain Mieg was elevated to the rank of major" [40]. It should be noted that Austria had hoped to obtain the fortress Hotin with
the surrounding area, or even
several villages in the northern part of Hotin County, but Turkish authorities have retained their territory which
they have annexed in 1715.
It deserves to be evoked some concrete means by which Austria has come
into possession of the
North-Western Moldavia: "On 10/21 July the Treaty of Kuchuk – Kainarji was signed by Russia and
Ottoman Porte, and the Russians even in April 1774 did withdraw a part of the troops stationed in Cernăuţi and
Suceava counties. Then the most
favorable moment to make the planned annexation has come. Marshal Rumeanţev was bribed with 5,000 golden
and a gold tabacco holder, obtaining the tacit
consent of authorities of Russia for the Austria claims" [41].
Therefore, there were several motifs for the annexation of the
North-Western Moldavia by Austria:
1. The imposition of a cordon against the plague ("which burned down
long time before in
Moldavia");
2. "The need" to annex "a strip" (in reality, two big
districts were annexed) from the
territory of Moldavia for the construction of a road linking Transylvania with Galiţia;
3. The historical rights of the Pocuţia (i.e., Galiţia), which have come
in possession of Austria, on the
North of Moldavia (Şipeniţ County).
Among the causes of annexation we can name:
a) "insatiable hunger for new territorial acquisitions; lust for the expansion of the Empire and seizing new
territories bringing profit;
b) to compensate for the loss of another territory Oltenia – in this
case, with the North-Western
Moldavia;
c) a desire to have a strategic area to be pursued in a subsequent expansion in Moldavia and Wallachia,
respectively in the Danube region
and in the Eastern Balkans.
Although in the 143 years of Austrian occupation the territory has been subjected to colonization and
assimilation processes – Ukrainization (especially from 1786, when it was incorporated into Galicia, until 1849, when it
obtained a statute of autonomy,
and became a Duchy under the Empire) in 1918 Bukovina issue has been solved by the reincorporating of the
North-Western Moldavia (hereinafter referred to as the Austrian Bukovina) in Romanian state, founded in 1859,
including by the Principality of
Moldavia (which the Bukovinian territory had been broken of, at 1775). This triumph of justice and
historical truth had been possible thanks to Romanians from
Bukovina, but also due to the negotiations of Romania with the Entente States: "One of the
conditions of the secret Treaty, through which the Romanian Government entered into war together with the Entente
Powers, was beside regaining
Transylvania, also the regaining of Bukovina, down to the Prut River with its capital Cernăuţi, in which the Russians only after lengthy
negotiations renounced and after
it was demonstrated the notability of this small town for the political, ecclesiastical, cultural and economic
life of Bukovina. The secret Treaty of recovering
of Bukovina and Transylvania was signed in Bucharest on 4/17 august 1916" [42].
Thus,
Russia was intended to incorporate the extension, at the North of Hotin County, of the territory between Prut
and Dniester rivers (Bessarabia). In June 1940, when the Soviet Union included in the diplomatic note
(ultimatum) the demand regarding
the annexation of the Northern Bukovina, the Soviets wanted to secure a direct and short link between Galiţia and
Bessarabia, including a railway which connects
Bessarabia with Galiţia. By collapse of the Russian Empire, Romania has been able to incorporate the entire
Moldavian historical territory (including the Bukovinian territory between Prut and Dniester rivers, located
north of the Hotin County) that
Austria had annexed in 1775.
By annexation on June 28, 1940, of the Northern Bukovina by the
totalitarian and aggressor Soviet
Union, the problem of Bukovina was reopened. After August 24, 1991 – the day of Declaration of
independence of Ukraine – the historical Moldavian
(Romanian) territory of Northern Bukovina is under the control of the authorities from Kiev.
Solutions
After the incorporation of North-Western Moldavia in the Habsburg Empire, several variants of administrating that
territory were proposed, which, by extension, since then, could be seen as some solutions to the problem of
Bukovina. "Some expressed the
opinion to include Bukovina in military confine of Năsăud. Others were for joining [of Bukovina] to Galiţia.
An intermediate solution was of those who
stipulated cutting in half of the Bukovinian territory, so that the
Northern part to be annexed to
Galiţia, and the Southern to the confine of border guards from Năsăud. (...) A single voice acted for the
creation of an autonomous province of Bukovina, in order to to acquire on the way this sympathy and confidence of
the Moldavian nation (...)" [43]. In June 1940, the Soviet Union
invaded Northern Bukovina with the motivation
that the Soviets take over that territory because "population [from that
part of Bukovina] in its majority
is related to Soviet Ukraine by the historic community of destiny, as well as through the
national language and national [ethnic] composition". Also, the totalitarian Soviet authorities
noted that "the transmission of that Northern part of Bukovina to the Soviet Union could represent – it is
true only to a limited extent – a
mean of compensating for that big damage, which has been brought to the Soviet Union and to the Bessarabia's
population by 22 years of Romania’s domination in Bessarabia" [44]. In
the light of the outcome of the processes of colonization with Ukrainian
population (during the Austrian occupation), perhaps even the presence of old of a Ruthenian population in
Şipeniţ Country, a solution regarding the division of the territory of Bukovina, at the end of World War I, by the
ethnic criterion, between Ukrainians
and Romanians, would be circumscribed in the European process of solving of the problems of the peoples
of the former Habsburg Empire. In accordance with the schedule of the 14 Points of Woodrow Wilson, the
peoples got the right to constitute
states on their historical territories. Within the terms of remaining of the North-Western territory of Moldavia (the
future Bukovina) within the Moldavian State
(in 1775 the territory in question was poorly populated, having a population of 70-80 thousand inhabitants on an area
of 10.442 kmІ), through its natural development,
it would certainly have been an integral part of the territory of the ethnic Moldavian (Romanian) population.
Because, during the Austrian occupation, by
immigrant flows – especially Ukrainians from Galiţia – it was reached a
situation when, in 1918, in the
Southern part of Bukovina the Romanian population was in the majority, and in the northern part the
Ukrainians population was in the majority, a division of Bukovina by the ethnic criterion would be finally
accepted (even if with a handshake
heart for the loss of a historical Moldavian territory – of the Northern Bukovina) by the autochthonous Romanian
population of the province. In June 1940,
the Soviet authorities had committed an illegality against Romania,
annexing a part of its national
and historical territory. But the Soviets did not respect the reason/motivation from the diplomatic
note (ultimatum): besides the illegality of an annexation of a territory which never belonged to any Ukrainian
State, the crime of the Soviet
authorities in 1940 consisted in the fact that the Soviet-Romanian political border has not been overlap on the
ethnic border (between the two ethnic communities:
Romanians and Ukrainians) as the Soviet authorities suggested that they wished to proceed. Furthermore,
the Soviets annexed the Herţa Region, with a compact and homogenous Romanian population, a zone that never
was part of the Bessarabia or
Bukovina – required by the USSR.
As in June 1940, the Soviet authorities have linked the issue of
Bessarabia with the issue of
Bukovina, I believe that at present the problem of Transnistria should be viewed in connection with the issue of
ethnic Romanian community from the territory of the Northern Bukovina (now in Chernivtsi oblast). A solving
of the problem of the Romanian
community from the Northern Bukovina is possible by the passage of municipalities inhabited by Romanians
(Moldavians) from the Northern Bukovina (and
of the former county of Hotin) to the Republic of Moldavia, in return for
passing of several areas of
villages populated by Ukrainians or Russian speakers from Moldavian Transnistria within Ukraine.
Regardless of the fact when this solution will be taken into account and proposed to Ukraine and to the
international community by the
Government from Chişinău, the Moldavian Executive must do all that is possible to help the autochthonous Romanian
(Moldavian) population – from historical Moldavian
estranged territories (Northern Bukovina) to preserve the ethnic identity. Currently, yet the processes of
assimilation of the ethnic Romanians in Moldavian historical territories in Ukraine take proportions.
References:
1. In 1713, the
Turks took control of the fortress of Hotin, and in 1715 the land was converted into a Raya.
2. Dimitrie
Onciul, Din istoria Bucovinei [From the history of Bukovina], Chişinău, Editura
Universitas,
1992, p. 49.
3. Sepenecensis
terra, in Bukovina, between the Prut and Dniester, where today is located the
village of
Şipenits.
4. Ibid., p. 48.
5. Ion Gumenâi,
Istoria Ţinutului Hotin. De la origini până la 1806 [History of the Hotin land.
From its origins
to 1806], Chişinău, Editura Civitas, 2002, p. 68.
6. Ibid., p. 105.
7. Gheorghe
Brătianu, Marea Neagră [Black Sea], Iaşi, Editura Polirom, 1999, p. 386.
8. Ibid.
9. Neagu Djuvara,
Thocomerius – Negru vodă. Un voivod de origine cumană la începuturile
Ţării Româneşti
[Thocomerius – Negru vodă. A voievode of cuman descent at thebeginnings of
Wallachia], Bucureşti, Editura Humanitas, 2007, p. 208.
10. 100 de
portrete istorice color. Regi, domnitori, alte personalităţi [100 historical
portraits in
color. Kings,
rulers, other figures], Iaşi, Editura Porţile Orientului, f.a., p. 14.
11. Nicolae
Iorga, Istoria românilor [History of Romanians], Chişinău, Editura Universitas,
1992, p. 74.
12. Ibid., p. 84.
13. Ion Gumenâi,
Istoria Ţinutului Hotin..., p. 69.
14. Nicolae
Iorga, Istoria românilor..., p. 92.
15. Ion Gumenâi,
Istoria Ţinutului Hotin..., p. 69.
16. Ibid., p.
69-70.
17. Nicolae
Iorga, Istoria românilor ..., p. 121-122.
18. Ibid. p. 124.
19. Ibid., p.
127.
20. Ibid., p.
142.
21. Ibid., p.
143.
22. Ibid., p.
151.
23. Ibid., p.
152.
24. Ibid., p.
153-154.
25. Ibid., p.
160.
26. Ibid., p.
168.
27. Mihai
Eminescu, Basarabia [Bessarabia], Sibiu, Editura Mileniul Trei, 1990, p. 19.
28. Ion Neculce,
Letopiseţul Ţării Moldovei [Chronicle of Moldavia], Chişinău, Editura Ştiinţa, 1993, p. 36.
29. Ion Gumenâi,
Istoria Ţinutului Hotin..., p. 90-91.
30. Mihai
Eminescu, Basarabia, Chişinău, Editura Verba, 1991, p. 30.
31. Nicolae
Iorga, Istoria românilor..., p. 288-289.
32. Ion Nistor,
Istoria Bucovinei [History of Bukovina], Bucureşti, Editura Humanitas, 1991, p. 9.
33. Ibid., p.
15-16.
34. Ibid., p.
398.
35. Ibid., p.
8-9.
36. Ibid., p. 10.
37. Ibid., p. 85.
38. Ibid, p. 10.
39. Constantin
Ungureanu, Bucovina în perioada stăpânirii austriece (1774-1918) [Bukovina in the time of Austrian rule, 1774-1918],
Chişinău, Editura Civitas, 2003, p. 10-11.
40. Ibid., p. 11.
41. Ibid.
42. Ion Nistor,
Istoria Bucovinei..., p. 371.
43. Ibid., p,
27-28.
44. Pakt
Molotova-Ribbentropa i ego posledstviia dlea Bessarabii [Molotov-Ribbentrop
Pact and its consequences for
Bessarabia], Chişinău, Editura Universitas, 1991, p. 19-20.
The article was published in ”Codrul Cosminului”, Vol. XVIII, No. 1, July 2012, Suceava, Romania: http://atlas.usv.ro/www/codru_net/page18_1r.html
http://atlas.usv.ro/www/codru_net/CC18/1/lavric.pdf
The article was published in ”Codrul Cosminului”, Vol. XVIII, No. 1, July 2012, Suceava, Romania: http://atlas.usv.ro/www/codru_net/page18_1r.html
http://atlas.usv.ro/www/codru_net/CC18/1/lavric.pdf
