”… NOT EASY, NOR DIFFICULT”?! ON ROMANIANIZATION VS RUSSIFICATION POLICIES IN BESSARABIA AFTER 19181 Svetlana SUVEICA „...Nici ușor, nici dificil”?! Despre românizare vs rusificare în Basarabia după 1918 Rezumat În publicațiile lor despre Basarabia, o serie de autori ai perioadei interbelice au comparat politica de românizare cu cea de rusificare, implementată în regiune pănă la unirea acesteia cu România în 1918, cu scopul de a evidenția avantajele românizării în detrimentul rusificării. Examinarea opiniilor personale ale basarabe- nilor - politicieni și angajați ai serviciului public, precum și străinii aflați în Basa- rabia în exercițiul datoriei, scoate în evidență faptul că exercițiul comparației a fost folosit în scopuri similare. Argumentul acestui text nu este convingerea cititorului în credibilitatea unui argument în detrimentul celuilalt, așa cum s-a făcut ocazional în publicațiile anterioare. Vom afirma că fiecare dintre argumente – fie pro, fie contra românizării – apărea drept un instrument credibil în mâinile unor anumite forțe poli- tice care urmăreau să convingă anumiți actori politici sau a un anumit public despre preferințele politice ale populației locale. Exemplele de mai jos demonstrează carac- terul părtinitor al surselor primare; de cele mai dese ori, opiniile personale au fost împărtășite și colectate la cererea agenților guvernamentali români sau a criticilor regimului. Ulterior, materialele au fost utilizate în campania de propagandă în peri- oada Conferinței de pace de la Paris pentru a convinge factorii de decizie și publicul larg de necesitatea respectării „voinței populare” a basarabenilor, i.e. în favoarea României sau întru susținerea intereselor Rusiei in regiune. Cuvinte-cheie: Basarabia, perioada interbelică, românizare vs rusificare, co- lecții private, Conferința de pace de la Paris, propaganda. A publication issued in Berlin in 1921 qualified the Romanianization policy in Bessarabia, implemented after the region joined Romania in the Spring of 1918, as being “not easy, nor difficult, given the low level of literacy, the limited access of the population to Russian schools and the poorly thought Russification that led to the alienation of the Romanian population from the spiritual, civil and administrative life of Bessarabia” (Sotof 1921). According to the author, the Romanianization proved to be successful especially because of the failure of the Russification, carried out by the 1 The earlier version of this paper was presented at the international conference of the Society for Romanian Studies “#Romania100: Looking Forward through the Past,” held in Bucharest on June 26-29, 2018. I thank the panel discussant Dr. Irina Livezeanu for the constructive feedback. 522 Russian imperial regime in Bessarabia during the XIX century up to the end of the World War I. Although it was only a brief attempt to compare the two policies, the publication was widely cited in Romania and abroad (Cazacu 1928, 47-50; Popovici 1931, 226-229; Trandafilo 1941, 133-134). The comparison of the two policies was exercised in various interwar publications, issued inside and outside Romania. Thus, a British author put it in the following way: “Bessarabia was California to Russia; to Romania, she is almost Siberia. There are hardly industries in the country, the main products being fruit, wine and cereals, which have to compete for scarce markets with the rest of the Kingdom” (Buckmaster 1939, 118). After Bessarabia united with Romania in April 1918, the new authorities declared Romanianization as a priority. Romania aimed at creating a national corps of the re- gional elite and introducing Romanian language in the administration, the schools, as well as into the cultural life. The Romanianization of the school system included education in Romanian language, enhancement of the number of teachers who spoke Romanian, and of those who had the necessary knowledge to teach it. The school infrastructure was set up in cities and a good number of villages (Mironov 2012, 37). Extracurricular activities also followed the “nationalist spirit, reflecting the Romani- anization policy disposed by the Bucharest ministry [of Education]” (Filipovici 2015, 345). The processes of nationalization and Romanianization of schools were declared accomplished in Bessarabia in 1922 (Livezeanu 1995, 144). As part of the “cultural offensive,” libraries were completed with books in Romanian and Romanian perfor- mances were put on stage. Along with the cultural institutions, the schools were to be transformed in an important actor of national propaganda. In Bessarabia, similar to other newly acquired Romanian regions, the Romani- anization measures were not very welcomed by the local inhabitants. The Romanians comprised only a third of the urban population (Livezeanu 1995, Table 3 and 10). The majority of Chisinau inhabitants were of the other ethnic origin than Romanian and did not possess Romanian. Minorities who were part of the local elite were not welcomed in public service anymore; many were afraid of losing their jobs. At the same time, a good part of regional officials and local employees expressed dissatisfaction with the elimina- tion of Russian language from the administration and refused to take the ath to the king (Suveica 2010, 193f). The fluctuation of personnel continued throughout the interwar period; the local employees complained that “regățeni,” i.e. employees, who came to Bessarabia from the Old Kingdom or other regions, received privileged treatment. According to the former president of the Council of Directors Petre Cazacu, it took eight months to the administration to be “nationalized”; moreover, “the swiftness and the force with which this operation was done explains why it took place without violence and painlessly” (Cazacu 1928, 289). The Romanianization policy was not un- dertaken for Bessarabia alone. Mariana Hausleitner provides a detailed account of the similar policy in the former Austro-Hungarian province of Bukovina, which brought strong reactions on behalf of the non-Romanian population (Hausleitner 2001). Introduced under a general state of siege and censorship, the Romanianization was justified by the consequences of the previous regime, which worsened the situation 523 of the Romanian majority. At the same time, the peripheralization (Kühn 2015, 367- 378)2 of the newly-acquired regions, i.e. in terms of examining their needs and al- locating resources, occurred; as a consequence, the region faced economic instability and reduced investment in the industrial sector. The authorities blamed for the fail- ures the “old system of Tsarist administration,” which relied on the ethnic minorities and aimed at suppressing “the national movement of the overwhelming majority of the population.”3 Before 1918, the minorities occupied key administrative positions, had a privileged economic status, and easily shared the Russian mentality and the way of life. The 1918 union inversed the situation, by bringing “the harnessing of the Moldovan element and the removal of ethnic minorities elements from the ad- ministration. The union was not only a national act, but an act of political and social justice, which overthrew the undeserved privileges of a minority oligarchy and which gave the precedence to Moldovans who comprise 75 % of the entire population,”4 was mentioned in a Siguranța report. The minorities were blamed first for “impeding the Union” to occur, then for supporting “separatist tendencies” inside and outside the country. Separatism was perceived as being synonym with hostility towards the new administrative and educational measures, which would “make Romanianization impossible” (Livezeanu 1995, 99). The tergiversation of the international recognition of Romania’s borders at the Peace Conference in Paris was also placed on the minori- ties’ shoulders. According to the new administration, the former rule made significant efforts to dilute and russify the population, as well as to alienate the Romanian spirit of the great majority of the population which, subsequently, led to different forms of opposition to the Romanian regime and resistance to it. What was meant by Russification in the post-war publications? As a concept, Russification is today referred to the Russian imperial policy in the western periphe- ries, carried out up to World War I (Miller 2008; Gasimov 2012, 10f.), which went in parallel with “minority repression” (Pipes 1964, 6) and “religious persecution” (Vul- pius 2005). The latest contributions prove that the Bessarabian population, similar to the population of other Russian western borderlands, was never perceived as an “equal participant” in national and imperial projects, therefore, there was not a con- sistent Russification policy, in which it was perceived as an actor. Andrei Cusco and Victor Taki thoroughly explained that the main task of the Russian administration was “managing diversity” at the western borderland, which was not an easy one, taking into account the social and multiethnic composition of the local population. Throu- ghout the XIXth century, the administrative paradigm towards the region was changed 2 “Peripheralization” is used as a concept, which describes the production of peripheries through the economic, political and social dimensions. 3 Arhiva Națională a Republicii Moldova (further, ANRM), fond 691 Directoratul general al Poliției și Siguranței României, inv. 1, dos. 1 (microfilm), f.1-15. 4 ANRM, fond 691 Directoratul general al Poliției și Siguranței României, inv.