cont.
France doesn't base it's national identity based on ethnicity, and yet french culture produced all the major western philosophers, thinkers, scientists etc.
The difference between an identity of a civic nation and an ethnic nation is that civic ones are defined by the state and the history and rights of that state, not by blood or ethnicity.
>Wallachia and Transylvania have been separate entities at various points, that doesn't mean the people living in them weren't the same ethnicity (i.e. Romanian).
We have historic documents where they indeed identified as romanians. And then we had the moldovans who simply identified as Moldovans (until 1848) as a distinct nation, without feeling they are subset of a larger romanian nation.
>Also, Moldavia /= Moldova. Half of what was Moldavia is now eastern Romania. Do you hear those poor occupied Moldavians crying out for liberation? Of course not
They even wanted to start an uprising in 1866 against the union of 1859. But like all true things in Romania, this historical fact is not mentioned absolutely anywhere in history books.
ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mișcarea_separatistă_de_la_Iași_din_3_aprilie_1866
>Wallachia, Transylvania and Moldavia are the names of states, Romanian is the name of the ethnicity that lives within those states.
Not every nation is an ethnic one, and not all of them follow the german model of national construct. Just saying.
>For that matter, did Moldovans complain for liberation between the world wars, when they were unified with Romania?
Kind of hard to complain when all of your able bodied men are sent to the front to die in a ware.
>There was huge popular support for union in 1918, and no opposition to it
This has been proven false by historians. In fact there were dozens of moldovan villages who opposed the union in 1918, not to mention politicians. They simply did not want to be annexed by Romania and wanted to be independent.