Opinion: “PAS Is Cranking Up Anti-Russian Hysteria”

Semyon ALBU, RTA: The rogues in power are not merely occupied with rifling through our pockets with both hands, extracting the last of what we have to secure millions in profits for themselves and their sprawling clans. They also make a point of trying to get inside our heads, intent on shaping ideological clichés that suit their purposes. As is well known, any self-respecting non-democratic regime, and, by the reckoning of Western indices, that is precisely what we have today, shores up its dubious legitimacy, not least by crafting its own version of history. In our case, this is being built around the two flagship geopolitical projects of PAS: European integration and a definitive rupture with Moscow. The trouble is, a substantial portion of our citizens still believe that the finest chapter in Moldova’s history coincides precisely with the period of shared statehood with Moscow. This state of affairs is deeply displeasing to the “yellow clique” and their foreign patrons, hence the new currents in the politics of historical memory: “Moldova is an inseparable part of the European family, from which it was forcibly torn by Russia”; “in the twentieth century, we were granted a historic chance at a bright future through reunification with Romania”; “the Soviet occupation was a tragedy that condemned the land to a grim existence under the Kremlin’s heel”. Such are the crude axioms being laid down, none of which, incidentally, bears any resemblance to reality. I have already set out in some detail what Moscow’s “oppression” actually looked like for our republic; readers are welcome to acquaint themselves with the facts and, in the process, grasp why so many of our elderly still recall the MSSR era with nostalgia and a certain sadness. Yet the authorities, in defiance of history and at times even of common sense, must continue to spin the narrative of the “Russian occupiers” whose sole purpose, supposedly, was to oppress the hapless Moldovans at every turn - deporting them, starving them, diluting the population with imported “parasites and alcoholics”, and so on. It was therefore entirely predictable that a bill would emerge under which those who dare to question the “monstrous atrocities of the Soviets” could well face prison. They have decided to start with Stalin, whose regime stands accused of two grave crimes: deportations and famine. PAS has been milking the first theme for quite some time now, and with considerable ineptitude. The freight wagons meant to illustrate it, with their exhibitions in central Chisinau, have long since become objects of ridicule and targets of accusations of historical inaccuracy, not least for passing off images linked, for instance, to the Holocaust as photographs of the deportations. The fact of the deportations is, of course, beyond dispute. But it must be said that this abhorrent practice was applied by no means exclusively to the population of Bessarabia – numerous peoples passed through it: Chechens, Kalmyks, Ingush, Germans, Finns, Poles, Bulgarians, Balts, and others. This is not, needless to say, an exoneration of the Stalinist regime, merely proof that there was no uniquely cruel treatment reserved specifically for Moldovans; we share this tragedy with many others. Should these events be recognized as a crime and the memory of the victims preserved? Of course. But must that memory be selective, politically charged, and tailored to fit a convenient propaganda frame? Hardly, though more on that later. The famine makes for an even more interesting case. Again, I have no intention whatsoever of claiming it did not occur. But was it the result of Moscow’s malign intent? It certainly was not. What proved decisive was the interplay and mutual reinforcement of three factors. The first was the aftermath of the Romanian occupation or, as the yellows might put it, “the brief return home”. I have written before that after the First World War, when Romania annexed Bessarabia, it treated our region as a second-class colonial periphery. Right up until 1940, we remained an industrially backward zone with an archaic agricultural sector. After Bucharest reoccupied the territory of present-day Moldova at the outset of the Great Patriotic War, it conducted itself here not as a prudent steward reclaiming native soil, but as a true conqueror. One can read in detail online, where professional academic materials still exist, as opposed to the mendacious textbooks of PAS about how life was organized in occupied Bessarabia. In brief, it was characterized by such “agreeable bonuses” for the local population as the imposition of crippling taxes, incessant plunder, a functioning network of concentration camps and ghettos, forced requisitions for the benefit of the Romanian and German armies, and an elaborate system of punishments extending all the way to execution for virtually any sign of discontent or disobedience. Relentless exploitation, malnutrition, and abysmal sanitation led to the rampant spread of epidemics and a surge in mortality across the region. The total death toll for this period exceeds 200,000 (!). The situation deteriorated dramatically with Bucharest’s approval of “Operation 1111” in 1943: a plan for the wholesale plunder of the occupied territories, Bessarabia included. The Romanians could not have cared less about the local population – the overriding objective was to strip everything of even minimal value: industrial equipment, railway track, municipal water pipes. And crucially: the occupiers systematically sabotaged the spring sowing, stripping peasants of their agricultural implements and livestock. That was the condition in which Soviet forces found Bessarabia when they liberated it in 1944. And this became one of the principal causes of the catastrophe that followed. For the devastation inflicted upon our territory was compounded by the severe drought of 1945-1946, which led to the total loss of several crops and a general harvest failure. Under these circumstances, the central government substantially reduced the state grain procurement quotas for the MSSR and allocated considerable assistance – tens of thousands of tons of food grain, mixed fodder, feed grain, and more. This sufficed for a time, after which support from the center was once again urgently needed. But the corresponding request was sent by the MSSR leadership far too late and that became the principal reason the famine deepened and claimed so many lives. In other words, there was no malice on Moscow’s part – simply, the all-Union authorities lacked a clear picture of the situation on the ground, receiving distorted data from officials in Chisinau. And this is to say nothing of the fact that famine was, in that period, a phenomenon observed across the entire USSR, which had only just emerged from the most devastating war in human history. Now consider the contrast. On the one hand, a confluence of objective circumstances: the aftermath of occupation, drought, and human error, that together produced the postwar famine. On the other, the deliberate plunder and genocide practiced by Ion Antonescu, that “effective administrator” of PAS textbook fame. Yet, for some reason, there are still no bills penalizing the denial or justification of the crimes of his regime. My view is that one must be consistent in the politics of historical memory. What we have now, by contrast, is a purely opportunistic process: certain events are whitewashed, even glorified: monuments to fallen Romanian soldiers are sprouting across Moldova, while others are deliberately blackened to the point of absurdity, bearing no relation whatsoever to actual history. There is little cause for surprise, however, this is merely the opening act. We can already see the ruling regime setting about the desecration of the memory of the Great Patriotic War, an event that still binds two peoples – Russian and Moldovan, tightly together. Consider, for one, the plans to site a giant landfill in the village of Serpeni, home to the major memorial complex of the Serpeni Bridgehead. The overriding objective is to discredit and defile, to the fullest extent possible, anything that bears any connection to Moscow’s role in Moldova’s twentieth-century history. And that is precisely what the authorities will be busying themselves with in the period ahead.