Talk:Ion Antonescu/Archive 6

WP:Verify

There are a lot of statements in this article that are not referenced, and a lot of others that all seem to rely on a single source. This is contrary to WP policy, which requires that all facts be reliably verifiable or else be removed. Whoever put this "info" into the article needs to please comply with WP:Verify. Wdford (talk) 15:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we are all already aware of that. As I have said before, I am working on a revamp of the article to address all these issues and much more, so there would be little sense going around adding some info for what is an intermediate version. On the other hand, I do believe that most if not all of the info is readily verifiable, and I have quoted the sources saying that - if the issue has really grown this itchy in the past few days (which would be ridiculous, considering that there are articles about living persons that have been tagged for months and years), you're welcome to track down those citations and add them yourself. My view is: better good than fast. After all, some of the article currently still uses questionable sources (such as the Miruna Munteanu article, which is a very biased, nationalistic journalistic merger of historical facts and speculation - all of what's relevant there can and should be sourced from a scholarly volume; btw, Kollontai wasn't "Stalin's agent", she was a Soviet ambassador etc.) Dahn (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I think all this story, so-called the Marshall's biography, it was written by a jew. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spaima Comunistilor (talk • contribs) 02:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

What are you afraid of, Diaspora ? so much so that you are suppressing contrbutions on the "talk" page! Kindly, please abid by Wikipedia policy and allow individual comments as discussions, even if contrary to your own views and, above all, interests. I find the following contribution interesting, especially since unanswered otherwise than by dismissal of the facts provided and by labeling as "revisionism".

CRITICISM'

The reader of the article, in the critic's opinion, should be given all the facts, pro and contra, and be let decide for himself. It is important to remember that the views expressed in this article, represent by no means a consensus, national, international or even historical.

The criticism is mainly based on the following facts:

1. The article was conceived and written entirely by an anti-Antonescu lobby, mostly represented by persons of Jewish ethnicity, generally with no proven historian credentials. No Romanian or non-Jewish authors were involved. All attempts of even suggesting the existence of alternative views are immediately erased. A policy of bullying such opinions, by insults, intimidation and threats is permanently implemented even on the "discussion" page.

2. What can be considered an important international minority and a categorical Romanian majority disagrees with the views expressed in this article.

3. Repeated attempts of some Romanian officials to deflect the accusation of participation at the Holocaust, (act involving premeditation, planning and above all, acts of aggression on national minorities without any other justification that being part of the said minorities, with no facts or events that could be interpreted as provocation followed by retaliation and not happening in a war zone), were stymied by threats of political and economic pressure against Romania and the Romanian government, making the subsequent Supreme Court nullifications the consequence of such pressures; the opposite views of the Bucharest Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, both official institutions, manned by law professionals, represents a clear proof that the opinions, even in law high circles are controversial at best.

4.To this day, no valid explanation has been offered to historically registered facts, in total contradiction with the profile built by the authors both for Antonescu and for Romania:

1)The active involvement of Antonescu and his government in saving at least 340 000 Jewish lives, during the war. These figures are not even mentioned, contrary to the much inflated figures of the Jews killed and deported in Transnistria.

2)The fact that this actions started long before the German military decline, in Dec 1942 on the Eastern Front, when nobody dreamed to speculate on Germany's defeat (actions implemented between 1940 and 1942).

3)Complete lack of explanations of other apparent paradoxes in Antonescu's life, that cast a powerful doubt on the accusation of being an anti-semite: being friend with Dr Wilhelm Filderman Member of Parliament, the leader of the Jewish Community in Romania, and keeping an open door for him for the whole duration of the war; the fact that his first wife was Jewish; allowing the Romanian Jews to have a cultural life and official representation between 1940-1944 (the Jewish Theater - The Baracheum, in Bucarest remained functional for the duration of the war); permitting constantly Jewish refugees to find sanctuary in Romania (the threats of 1944 of executing any such tresspassers clearly contradicted by the facts and never implemented); active opposition in building a concentration camp on Romanian territory, granting of pensions for Jews that worked in Romania between 1919-1939, even if not Romanian citizens; The critics are stressing the fact that such benevolent treatment of any Jewish community is unique on the whole European area during the war, completely unheard of even in neutral countries.

4)The constant exageration of the death toll, unsubstantiated (alledgedly the Iasi pogrom alone made 15000 victims, yet no objective proof was ever produced, from the medical or the graveyards records, in Iasi or anywhere else on Romanian territory; no evidence of mass graves either).

The figure of 280000-380000 Jews killed in during the war especially in territories occupied by Romania depasses largely the Jewish population of the same territories in 1941, before the implementing of Barbarossa. The authors are deliberately ignoring the Jewish deportation and nationalization of Jewish properties implemented under Stalin during the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, between 1939-1941, wich events greately rarefied the Jewish population in Bassarabia, and even in Transnistria during the interbelic era.

The inconsistency of embarking an alledged figure of 5000 Jews in the Death Train, is not even commented. If the destruction of Jews in the area was the clear and only purpose and if other 10000 were already executed, embarking 5000 in a train makes no sense. It does beggin to make sense if one examines the governmental claims of having agreed to transport them to Constanta, in order to be embarked in British ships. In spite of an initial german agreement, the British ships never got into the Black Sea. The train traveled for several days back and forth, nobody really knowing what to do with the prisoners, and since they were accused of having shot Romanians and Germans, soldiers on their way to the Eastern front, no official dared to help them either.

5.The constant out of context presentation, meant to implement an effect of falsely magnifying glass, focusing exclussively on the Jewish death toll in a war zone that produced during the same period (1941-1944) over five million victims, soldiers and civilians. Meaning twenty five times the alledged Jewish death toll in the area, making their death look not normal, but part of the staggering death figure of the region. The fact that Odessa and Transnistria were war zones at the time of the events, is constantly overlooked.

In the same note of out of historical context, no attempt has been made to examine Antonescu's options, as a military leader, a politician, a man. As a professional, he could chose nothing else but fighting, along Germany and against Soviet Union, in order to recover Romanian territories. As a politician, untalented as he was, he was smart enough to realize the result of an alternative opposition to Hitler: Romania invaded inside a week. Not an option again. As a man of principles with a rigid sense of duty and honour, he chose to save the Jewish population in the Romania Old Kingdom, territory more or less under his control, as a considerable risk for himself and for his country.

The reader will observe the negative feed-back type of fates of the two communities, Romanian and Jewish, on the Romanian territory. Should, ad absurdum Antonescu taken a non-military decision, pacific opposition to Germany or attempt at declaring neutrality, Romania would have been invaded for sure (see the importance of the Romanian oil reserves) and as surely 340 000 more Jews would have died. But half a million Romanians would have lived ! Hitler didn't trust occupied population, all the resistance movements across Europe was proof enough; the recruitment from an occupied Romania would have been symbolic at best. As it is, the figures reversed, half a million Romanians did die, so that 340 000 Jews were saved; only to see how today some of them and their descendants refuse to show any gratitude and focus exclusively on accusing their benefactors.

6. The total lack of mentioning of any Jewish deaths in Bassarabia and Transnistria due to the war itself. A practical impossibility, that all the local Jews would have been killed exclussively trough the Holocaust's executions and deportations, and absolutely none among the five million victims of the war in Bassarabia, Transnistria and southern Ucraine

7.The allegation that Antonescu was given free reign and enjoyed total independence in the occupied territories is completely false. Even the article mentions the presence of Einsatz SS, who never took orders from anyone else than Hitler or Himmler and their direct subordinates. At the time of the Odessa bombing of romanian and german headquarters (Oct 22, 1941) the Waffen SS Leibstandarte division was already there, since September, after securing Crimeea, practically over the fence. To speak of "complete independence of action" in these circumstances is ludicrous. For Hitler, Antonescu was a doubtful and irritating ally, who had already fought Germany in WW 1 with known french and english simpathies, and who's loyalty was based exclussively on the alternative of the German occupation of Romania and on the Eastern offensive meant to free Romanian territories. And who's cooperation was necessary in order to secure the Romanian oil without risking serious losses trougb local armed conflict or sabotage.

8. Trough the same out of contest procedure, the authors choose to ignore that, since in the 22 Oct 1941 bombing superior german officers were killed too, and since the intelligence provided pointed at a Jewish involvement (even if false), not to start demonstrative retaliations was not an option.With or without Antonescu, the Jews of Odessa were doomed. A possible, even probable explanation could be that he sacrificed what he considered to be foreign and hostile Jews, towards which he felt much less responsibility, so that he would continue to hold a position enabling him to save Jews on the main Romania.

9. Clear threats of economic retaliations were formulated by Ellie Wiesel in 2004 to Adrian Nastase, Romanian Prime Minister, by stating that "if they'll learn to live with their past Romanians shall prosper while denying it will bring the doom". Added to the fact that willing-nilling Romania was forced to accept the accusations and to pay compensations, with every attempt of defending itself denied and crushed in its early stages, cast another doubt of the validity of some of the conclusions of the Wiesel commission. The fact that the Commission contained only accusers and no impartial experts and was led by a non-historian who had spent the whole duration of the war in concentration camps and therefore could not possibly provide first hand information nor the willingness and expertise of objectively analysing the historical facts, is significant. It simply places some of the commission's findings and the present article in the same lucrative Holocaust Industry, so much in fashion in recent years. True, the president Iliescu recanted, but, like Adrian Nastase and the Romanian Supreme Court, at (an economical and political) gun point, after being threatened by the Israeli government with international boycot. Vadim-Tudor recanted too, publically appologizing, after being given to understand that otherwise, his political career (presidential candidate) was over before it began. He was and is constantly labeled as antisemite, despite his revolted statement of 2000: "I do not dispute the Holocaust, but I don't think that grief should be exploited as a business"

10. The anti-Romania and anti-Antonescu offensive clearly gained momentum after 1990, as direct witnesses that could testify in favor of both became scarce, as the time passed. Anyway, all pro-Romania and pro-Antonescu statements over the years, many of them stated and/or published by Jewish authors in Jewish publications were utterly ignored.

See Josif Toma Popescu, the report entitled "La Roumanie sauvée de l'Holocauste" (Romania saved from the Holocaust) Le Monde juif, January-March 1982, p. 1-2 and 3-11), significant as it received the written approval of the CDJC, whose director was Georges Wellers, sworn enemy of the revisionists. At the time, J. T. Popescu was a practising barrister in Bucharest. His report is rich in precisions confirming that, thanks in particular to Marshal Antonescu's government, the Romanian Jews saw themselves spared all sorts of hardships inflicted on the Jews of various other European countries. Casting another light on the "Iasi pogrom", alledgedly completely unprovoked, Toma Popescu writes: "A certain number of these Romanian Jews showed their sympathy for the cause of the Soviet Union, which was fighting Romania. At the beginning of the war, in the town of Iasi, a Romanian military formation, marching to the front and passing through a narrow street, had been attacked by some Jewish communists: there ensued an engagement that cost lives on either side as well as amongst the population; only the Jewish losses, considerably inflated by legend, have been recorded in history."

T. Popescu also mentions that the Romanian Jews were not mobilised in the Romanian army and thus did not take part in the Russian campaign, which was to cause Romania terrible losses. As compensation for this privilege, Marshal Antonescu had foreseen "a special contribution imposed solely on the Jews, considering that they were not participating in the military campaign". Nonetheless, upon one of the many interventions of I. Maniu, the projected measure was abandoned.

The Popescu report also mentions an astonishing Jewish privilege: the granting, with retroactive effect, of an old-age pension to foreign Jews who, having worked in Romania, had neglected to satisfy the formalities of naturalisation within the stipulated time. With illegal Jewish immigrants flocking to the country from Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland, the government in Bucharest looked to take measures for the internment and forcible repatriation of such persons but ended up, once again, abandoning the idea.

E.g. from the letter of Constantin Mares, direct witness, published in L'Express in March 1979: "during the Second World War, my Romanian compatriots of Jewish origin were not made to wear the star of David, that they had schools, that, in the capital of the country there operated a [Jewish] secondary school (the "Culture") and a [Jewish]theatre (the Baracheum), the latter being attended by all inhabitants of Bucharest, Jewish or non-Jewish. In those years, on the stage of the Romanian national theatre, the play "Star without a Name", written by the great Romanian playwright of Jewish origin Mihail Sebastian, brought full houses. In all Romania there existed no concentration camps for the Jews, with Marshal Antonescu having personally opposed Hitler's request [to establish them], and, consequently, none of my compatriots were handed over to the Nazis. "

The reader will observe the dates, 1982 and 1979, one could still find living pro-witnesses back then.

11.Recent events show a constant vilifying activity against both Romania and Antonescu: in 2007, the Memories of Dr Filderman, leader of the Romanian Jewish Community, disappeared from the Academic Library of Romania. A hunt seems to be ongoing in order to eliminate any possible alternative views other than the Romanian enthusiastic participation to the Holocaust.

12.Antonescu is continued to be labeled as nazi, despite such obvious anti-nazi acts as crushing the Iron Guard in 1941. Previous attempts at forming an alliance with the extremists were clearly a pacifying political move. The supreme dislike and distrust of any professional military of any paramilitary organization in general and the fanatical ones in special, is well known.

So, I insist, since you are demonizing not a goverment or a person, but a whole country (and not any country, but the one who offered its Jewish citizens more advantages and liberties during the war than even neutral countries), I insist that you should come up with hard facts. Demonstrate if you please with names and dates, what Jewish person was imprisoned, deported, executed anytime during the WW2 on Romanian-controlled territory, by the Romanian government of the time, for no other reason but that of being Jewish. Again, I speak here of Romania-Old Kingdom. I, on the other hand, can produce genuine proof, including photographs, attesting Jewish stores and businesses remaining functional, with their orriginal names, for all the duration of the war.

Also, I would like to know which exaclty of the factual arguments presented in the above (erased !) contribution are you refuting, and on what grounds ? Or, if you are not, why don't you allow the "CRITICISM" paragraph to be added to the body of the article ?

What astounds me is the political blindness (temporary, I hope) of one of the world's most intelligent community, the Jewish one. Bullying contributors to the "talk" page ? Colapsing contributions when they are expressing contradictory views ? What on earth are you hoping to achieve by this ? After you stood yourself so much suffering and injustice you choose to be ignorant of the value of the factual truth ? That's your solution, replacing a german brand of nazism with a jewish one ? Leave the hatchet aside and talk ! HMycroft (talk) 07:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The heading to this section is appropriate. These may be terrific arguments, but for them to appear in Wikipedia we have to show that they've been verifiably published by a reliable source of good quality. Original unpublished research can't be accepted, for good reason. . dave souza, talk 17:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Due to these debates and mainly because the current form of the article was completely written by a single person(1, 2 and 3), it seemed fair to me to add a neutrality tag until the debates on the talk page are concluded. It should be noted that no mather how neutral and honest one attempts to be, he is still influenced more or less by his political views, nationality, etc (this is also valid for the majority of the historians, that's why I believe an article could be biased if written by a single person). --Eurocopter (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Other than the same old relativity based on trumped-up arguments (plus some racist clutter), I see nothing of relevancy in this section. Unless there is a topical debate on the sources or the way there were used in verifying the text, the tags are in violation of wikipedia policies, and the arguments surrounding them are harassment. Also: by now, it appears that the users who keep coming up with such comments are readier to assume that the George Bariţ Institute of History, the Wiesel Commission, the University of Nebraska, the University of Rochester, dozens of the world's leading scholars etc etc are part of a conspiracy, than to wake up and smell the coffee - these, not their fantasies, are the scientific consensus. However they object to that consensus on the basis of some personal synthesis is irrelevant on wikipedia, and, frankly, everywhere else people have fact-based conversations. Dahn (talk) 09:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

And if it's still required from me to reply to each and every harangue, let me note that Mycroft's tiresome rant above is not only ignorant of the policies mentioned by Dave Souza above, it also defiantly flutters by other essential notions (WP:PSTS, WP:NOT, WP:FRINGE etc.) and presents us not just with speculation, but with denialist propaganda, based on plain lies and manipulative half-truths. Of the things he assorted in there, one tidbit cites a supposed letter to the editor from a supposed primary source - Constantin Mares (whoever he is). Let's first note that, even if such an opinion piece exists, it is unquotable per wikipedia policies, and so are all such texts. It's a good example of the motivated agenda such comments stand for while proclaiming "neutrality". For one, the assertion according to which Mihail Sebastian was free to write in Antonescu's Romania, whoever came up with it, is simply moronic - Sebastian did write in the period, but his Star Without a Name was signed with a pseudonym, and never adapted to the stage under Antonescu. It was set to be in summer 1944, but without anybody knowing that the author was Sebastian. Ironically, Sebastian was advised not to make his authorship public, for fear of antisemitic reprisal, and the play premiered as such after Antonescu's downfall. And yes, it did have major success. All of this is made notorious by the publication of Sebastian's diary, which I am to suppose not one of the people who brig this stuff up bother to glance through. Incidentally, what is such "evidence" supposed to show? Let alone that the status of Bucharest Jews does not address the mass murders in Bessarabia etc. (a distinction which the sources cited in this article make necessary); apparently, what these gentlemen are telling us is that there wasn't even official antisemitic discrimination, against the most obvious of evidence! In fact, Sebastian's very case proves this beyond doubt, if one were to take an interest in checking the fact one invokes. it would be amusing were it not egregious.

But the basic point I want to make about these assertions is elsewhere. What happened is that I was struck by the manifest difference between the use of English within and outside the quotes: the former is primitive, the latter is not. So I googled the exact quote, for a sample. Guess what? It's pasted from this crap - part of a neonazi network (note its dedication to combating "Zionist-controlled Germany", "the Zionist-American axis", "the Holocaust Dogma Lobby" etc. That's the agenda, that's what's at stake in this article. The slogan of "Jewish nazism", which surfaces in the post above along other antisemitic themes, should provide extra clue about these motivations. Let's also note that, quite recently (and before I allowed myself to revert and revamp the article), this agenda surfaced in mainspace, within the article, where the very section Mycroft advocates was created on the basis of such rants (for instance, a convoluted idiocy comparing Churchill to Hitler). This was done under another user name, which may also mean that someone is running a sock farm.

Now, to pursue his logic topic by topic and expose all of what my detractor says would be to cater to and borrow from the incoherence of his text. It would also be an utterly meaningless exercise, since, aside from being ill-intentioned and motivated, his venomous text is an ignoratio elenchi. None of his arguments address wikipedia policies; their reasons for questioning the sources are childish and demeaning. The ideology they support has no place on wikipedia - not because I say it, but because wikipedia itself says it.

I also note that the users who support the fringe opinion are seemingly incapable of reading the text. Yes, there is a lot to be nuanced about Antonescu's polices as they relate to Hitler's: this is addressed in several parts of the text. Yes, the exact number of Antonescu's victims remains unknown, and the estimates vary significantly: all respectable sources are cited with what they say about that, and with the numbers they provide; personal assumptions about the numbers and how they got there are part of the same rant, and I will ignore them as such. Other concerns made by respectable historians are noted, with direct quotes. At the end of this foray, it is quite clear that mainstream scholastic opinion, Romanian as well American or German, Jewish as well as Christian, unequivocally supports the notions: that Antonescu was a mass murderer; that his trial, although seriously flawed, was compatible with the essential standards; that he personally ordained the murderous system, regardless of however he and his apologists have later tried to camouflage Romania's guilt. Not a matter of opinion, not a matter of POV.

In what concerns Eurocopter, his interpretation of the "debate" is purposefully askew, and he has in fact stated his own POV in terms that have caused concern within the wikipedia community. So no, I'm not sure I'll accept his as a relevant third opinion. On the basis of that, his own concerns with the article are irrelevant as long as they have nothing to do with enforcing policies, and assume no neutral position. I enjoyed this statement: "It should be noted that no mather how neutral and honest one attempts to be, he is still influenced more or less by his political views, nationality, etc (this is also valid for the majority of the historians, that's why I believe an article could be biased if written by a single person)." Note that it offers a personal interpretation of wikipedia rules, and is in fact absurd: based on that logic, no article could ever be neutral, and all would have to be tagged. What's more, Eurocopter only applies this sophism here. Because, you see, not only is the "single editor" not an actual problem, but he is himself a prolific editor of articles which do not have just a single editor, but also a single source (which is a problem). In some of our first encounters, Eurocopter did his best to promote to FA status at least two articles of which I was the main contributor (with 90% or so of the text), even when this went against my wish; I guess I was not a "problem" back then. Oh, and: this article we're discussing may have been been largely written by me, but I was not unassisted, as anyone can deduce from my sandbox (where I still have a version); two other editors (Bogdagiusca and Biruitorul) have provided me with input and have proofread the text. I am grateful to both.

I also note that Eurocopter's intention of using a wikipedia project for encouraging the said agenda (see here) should itself be grounds for admin scrutiny. Dahn (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, in what concerns your accusations that I state my POV in this case, it is simply an impossibility, as I stopped editing the article since I realised that you misuse or disregard WP policies in any manner you wish so that you can freely push your own POV (WP:OWN, WP:RS, etc). As for my statement that nobody can be 100% neutral I'll just cite Djuvara here: The historian, no matter how goodwilling he is, can never completely detach from the environment in which he was born and grew up. These are the factors which could influence a historian: preferences, personal simpathies and antipathies; beliefs originating from his family, nation, religion, rasial or social class; rational adoption of a theory of historical interpretation (ex. Marxism). As for the articles I had written alone based mostly on a single source, User:Dahn's disinformation attempts are obvious - the First Battle of Targu Frumos, together with the First Jassy-Kishinev Operation were completely ignored by communist Soviet and Romanian historiography, and the first reliable historic material to describe them appeared in 2007, when military historian David M. Glantz published his book Red Storm over the Balkans, the Failed Soviet Invasion of Romania. Concerning those two articles written by you promoted to FA, I'm pretty sure that I appreciated your work and recognized your merits in them during that time. As for the two editors who "assisted" you, those were mainly copyediting/style inputs, not anything related to sources (since you wouldn't allow them to modify anything important).

Considering that this article is part of the Milhist wikiproject, it is perfectly normal that any debates should be discussed on the project's main talk page. Personally, I'm not going to continue such endless and disruptive debates, and once again I'm going to assume good faith (a fact that you should take as a example) and decently step out with this being my last input on this issue. --Eurocopter (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice "good cop-bad cop" attempt, Eurocopter, but I don't buy it (and funny how I get attacked for both not replying and replying to much, on the very same page). As for your promise, i'll hold you to it. Best, Dahn (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh common, this is all you've got after we get used to receive thousands of kb of rave in reply from you? You dissapoint me Dahn, you've already made me break my promise :)). All the best! --Eurocopter (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I could go on. I could point out the contextual irrelevancy of the Djuvara quote (irrelevancy, not falsity), by checking it against a core wikipedia policy: "verifiability, not truth". It is a skeptical musing about historical truth, and its application, if that's what you propose, utopian. In any case, as the intelligent editor that you are, you will realize that its immediate implication will caution to you tag just about any article for "hypothetical NPOV". And, btw, you may want to familiarize yourself with the Cretan paradox. I could let you know (as I did) that your Glantz arguments dodges the point: you created a separate article where there was none, based on what a single source allegedly practices (with the exception that the source in question did not write an encyclopedia entry!); and that, whatever you, did, it still contradicts practice on single sources and, amusingly, your own assertions about the potential bias of no matter how many authors. I could caution you that I did not "promote" those two articles myself - you did, and, in one case, I opposed it - quite inconsistent with the claim you made about an article with a single author being inherently POVed... And I could let you know that the latter claim is illegitimate. I also could caution you that you would need to substantiate the wild claim about what I "won't let" users I collaborate with do, and how you suppose they would want to do "something else" - even if your claim is not in any way relevant to the issue or the point I was making, it amounts to mudslinging.

I could, on a dare. Dahn (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Good boy, I knew you could :)! How's the proper translation of the Romanian saying Hotul striga hotul? Just another unrelated question: do you consider such a discussion useful, when there are so many topics related to our interests almost completely uncovered by wikipedia? I appreciate your interest in Ion Antonescu, but how about Barbu Catargiu, Ion Bratianu, Lascar Catargiu. etc? (it is just sad to see their articles such in a poor condition, although they certainly deserve your attention more or at least as much as Antonescu). --Eurocopter (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

To answer your question as you posed it: yes, I do think it's useful, otherwise I wouldn't be here. I do consider it useful to expose HMycroft's theories for what they are, especially since they are repetitive and insidious, and especially since I stood accused of not replying on this page - rest assured, it's as much interest as they deserved, and I'm done with it. It's also imperative to identify that this sort of reasoning will not stand, as seductive as it has proven for some who edit "patriotically", no matter what reputation they think they have established - the fringe apology has no place in this article, regardless of who those users chose to worship. To answer the question as you meant it: I won't go with either "more" or "at least as much" - I'll go with less. But, yes, they do deserve better articles, and I plan to do something about it. That said, i think you know you're addressing this to someone who has done quite a lot for biographical articles on many Romanians, from many periods, with many viewpoints.

You know, the first part of your post reads like an extended "yo' mama". It's not mature enough to annoy me, if that's what you were going for - but do heed the piece of advice I gave you a section above on this page. Dahn (talk) 17:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm happy you agree that I have reminded you it's time to move on and make something constructive here on wiki. If one of my interests is Romanian military history (along with many others, see my userpage and contribs), it doesn't necessary mean I'm editing "patriotically". Since you are planning to do something with the articles mentioned above, I could help you with some useful sources: Stoenescu, volumes I and II. Best, --Eurocopter (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Didn't we just establish something about Stoenescu's reliability? Dahn (talk) 17:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Glad that you took it seriously :). However, you should read it, it's a good one.:) --Eurocopter (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Erm, I don't think you know what "lecture" means. Anyway, are we just about done here? Dahn (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate any corrections, I'm always seeking to improve my english since it's not at the top level. However, I hope I've properly corrected it now and managed to avoid the repetition as well. Still, you should read it. --Eurocopter (talk) 17:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

useless

" This identity issue is confronted by British historian Arnold D. Harvey with Nazi doctrine and its anti-religious elements: "It seems that Hitler was not even perturbed by the militant Christian orientation of the Antonescu regime".[102]"

This proposition seams useless to me and I suggest deletion. Enegrea (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Why? It is a relevant and qualified opinion on Antonescu's ideology and how it related to Christianity, and falls into place in the article. Dahn (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Because the article is about Antonescu. Hitler's views on his Christian orientation present no interest for readers. And the chapter is too long also. w/e. Enegrea (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It's primarily about Antonescu's Christian orientation and how it related to Nazi ideology, which, I do believe, is quite relevant to the article as a whole. The qualified source found it relevant enough to mention as one of the few details about Antonescu and Romania in an ample analysis of a worldwide phenomenon, and more speculative discussion about what readers may do leads us nowhere. Dahn (talk) 23:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

...And the whole rest of other relevant sources didn't find it relevant to mention it. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; merely being true or useful does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia.", "Keeping articles to a reasonable size is important for Wikipedia's accessibility" [1]. "Ca nuca-n perete" has any english counterpart? 95.76.14.158 (talk) 00:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You (whoever you are) are citing a policy that refers to creating entries, not to article content - which is regulated by content policies, none of which an info properly quoted from a reliable source goes against. The second policy quote you produce is simply not worth answering to, since I find it ridiculous that someone would assume removing that one fact would be done with the interest of shortening the article to what I suppose is claimed to be "a reasonable size". And if you want to get creative with words, it is such claims that fall ca nuca-n perete (to our non-Romanian users, that means "[sticking] like a walnut on a wall"). All in all, I've grown tired of biased wikilawyering, thank you very much. Dahn (talk) 00:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Since you consider that Hitler's views on Antonescu are relevant, you could add other things, as Hitler's opinion that "Antonescu is of Germanic origin, not Rumanian; he's a born soldier. His misfortune is to have Rumanians under his command.". p49. I dont dare to edit your article. Enegrea (talk) 00:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not getting through. Let me try again: the relevancy in the text, no matter how it is phrased, is not about Hitler's opinion of Antonescu, but about an aspect of Antonescu's ideology, as commented upon by a secondary source (i.e. Harvey, not Hitler). It is also not my direct interpretation of anything Hitler said, which is why your analogy is flawed. Rest assured, if that quote would have been picked up and commented upon significantly in such a secondary source (and not just one in a huge list of unmitigated idiocies directly quoted from Hitler's mouth), I would have no problem integrating it somewhere. In fact, the text already features other quotes that were commented upon, and were not part of his aptly-named "table talk", reflecting Hitler's opinion of Antonescu. Those, unlike other of Hitler's rants, were viewed as significant by scholars.

And, btw: the pdf you cite is a copyright violation on an unquotable source - a neo-nazi and denialist site. I couldn't cite if I wanted to. And I don't want to. Dahn (talk) 08:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

For what is used in wikipedia articles and how, you may wish to consult WP:RS, WP:V, WP:OR (particularly, in this case, WP:PSTS). Dahn (talk) 08:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Is not my intention to quote dubious sites/works. That was just a trivia information, but I understand that we have to wait till reliable sources uses it in works about Antonescu. Enegrea (talk) 10:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I see though there are articles in which Hitler is cited directly [2]. On the other hand, it is upon the editors, after all, to decide what is relevant from historians books. I still consider Arnold D. Harvey's phrase inappropriate. Enegrea (talk) 17:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, other stuff exists. I'm not about to start arguing with the guys over there why their approach is risque to say the least, I'm just gonna link again to WP:PSTS. And, no, it is not actually up to wikipedians to decide what is relevant independent of the policies, because that would: a) contradict WP:NOT and WP:POV; b) have obvious and damaging consequences for the entire project, allowing editors to quote only parts they like from sources, or remove entire sources on a whim. That said, "I still consider Arnold D. Harvey's phrase inappropriate" is just not a valid reason to have it removed, and you're flogging a dead horse. Dahn (talk) 17:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Clarification about Molotov's statement

if the statement "After the statements of Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov, according to which Romanian subservience was not going to be a requirement,[149] the factions opposing Antonescu agreed that the moment had come to overthrow him, by carrying out the Royal Coup of August 23.[150][119]" refers to Molotov's declarations on the wake of entering the pre-Barbarossa territory of Romania in spring 1944, i think the statement needs a further explanation... the declaration and the coup where made in different conditions (a large operation was coming to a halt vs. a full scale offensive was making quick advances on Romanian pre-Barbarossa territory), so the reader should be aware of the discrepancy between the situation when Molotov made the offer, and the moment the opposition-simulating parties decided they should accept his proposal. but i may very well be wrong, and Molotov may have reiterated this offer. it would be a pity for one of the better articles about Antonescu on the web to allow such half-truths. Anonimu (talk) 08:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, the source doesn't mention the supposed ulterior motives. It merely discusses this as a motivator, and the article renders it as such. Whether it was a good motivator/honest motivator/overturned motivator is beyond the scope of this article. I'm also not sure if this is a fair assumption once the argument constructed is that these parties were "simulating" opposition.

But, hey, thanks.Dahn (talk) 10:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

but i think the date of the statement is still needed. we don't have to put our own original research, but the reader should know the response to Molotov was quite... late! Considering the great difference between real opposition and simulated opposition, I think this is pretty relevant.Anonimu (talk) 10:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

On your first point, I've had my say. On your other: I think the distinction you make is one about resistance, not one about opposition. Dahn (talk) 11:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

"colleagues with"

"…Antonescu was briefly colleagues with Wilhelm Filderman…" is awkward English, and is in any case very vague. What is the purported relationship? "Colleagues" in what context (classmate? Served together in the military? Something else?). If we can clarify this, we should. If not, at least let's reword as "…Antonescu was briefly a colleague of Wilhelm Filderman…", which is more correct English. - Jmabel | Talk 17:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"complimented his ambition"

Only context gives me any clue what this means, and even then I'm not sure. I suspect it means "stoked his ambition." If that is correct, could someone please edit accordingly? - Jmabel | Talk 17:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Or, if you don't like "stoked", just "fed his ambition". - Jmabel | Talk 18:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"notoriety"

"…retained his notoriety during the interwar period…" Offhand, I think "notoriety" is ill-chosen. It has a slightly pejorative connotation because it derived from the same root as "notorious". Conversely, "celebrity" would be too positive. How about "visibility in the public eye"? I'm open to other suggestions. - Jmabel | Talk 17:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"claimed"

"The booklet claimed extension of Romanian rule beyond the confines of Greater Romania". "Claimed" is a poor word here, in either of its possible senses. The primary sense would be to state something as an existing fact, clearly not what is meant. I assume the intention is a secondary meaning, to "claim" something as one's just desert. I'd prefer just "advocated" or (more cumbersomely) "made a case for the justice of". Again, if someone else can come up with something concise and clear, wonderful, but the current wording will be confusing to most native speakers, who will gravitate to the word's primary meaning. - Jmabel | Talk 17:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"Romanianization"

The article, in referring to "Romanianization" of Jewish-owned enterprises, links to the article Romanianization. That is really about something else entirely: it's mostly an article about imposition of Romanian language and culture (and importing of Romanian population groups) in historically Magyar or Ukrainian areas. "Romanianization" as used in this article refers to the policy of seizing Jewish-owned businesses and transferring them ethnic Romanian ownership (which, by the way, as I understand it, proved very economically disruptive, because the new owners usually were chosen on the basis of political connections and knew little about the businesses they were now supposed to run, but which, in practice, they more or less looted).

Either the Romanianization article should be expanded to cover this topic, or that link should be removed from this passage. By that way, that meaning of "Romanianization" was the subject of a July 2006 discussion at Talk:Romanianization#From_.22reference.22... (in which I participated). Greier, of all people, provided some well-cited material on the subject. - Jmabel | Talk 07:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Having since that time grown more familiar with the subject, I think the solution would be to expand the article to cover this bit - my own comments there addressed the way the article was structured around a single meaning of the term. I personally don't want to get involved in this at the moment (it's bound to be complicated, and that entire article needs to be combed through), but nor do I think there is a harm in linking to it. While your description of the process as used by the antisemitic gvts is dead-on, there is still, I believe, a clear connection between the two nuances of the term: the intent to marginalize people perceived as foreign. Dahn (talk) 12:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with that particular solution, as long as this is addressed. - Jmabel | Talk 15:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Beyond passive voice, and beyond understatement

With reference to the Legionary Rebellion: "…which resulted in some 120 deaths among Bucharest's Jewish community." "…which resulted in…" is awfully weak, and completely omits agency. The Iron Guard and their supporters brutally slaughtered these people, in many cases after systematic torture that parodied the ritual kosher slaughter of cattle. Now, I don't necessarily expect a statement quite that strong in this article, which only mentions the matter in passing, but I would expect something stronger than "…which resulted in…". Any suggestions? - Jmabel | Talk 15:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"during which... were killed/murdered"? Dahn (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I have attempted to address similarly passive wording about the Iaşi pogrom myself. - Jmabel | Talk

Unintentional ambiguity, I assure you. I thought the context would naturally address the who and how, but I see no problem with reformulating the way you did. Please feel free to mend all such instances without asking/explaining yourself (in any case, an edit summary will do for any such case). Dahn (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll take a shot myself at this. If someone thinks I'm going the wrong way, please revert or discuss. I feel something like the opposite of "ownership" over this article: I'm just coming through here as a combination of copyeditor & someone who can identify where a typical English-language reader with an interest in the topic will need more context. - Jmabel | Talk 08:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

"554,000 victims of the war"

Am I correct that this is deaths of Romanians, exclusive of those killed under the deliberate policies of killing Romanian Jews and Romanian Romanies? This should be made more explicit. - Jmabel | Talk 16:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I assume so, but I honestly don't know - and the source won't say. This is what I tried to address with my comment that it conflates civilian victims into the whole (that, it surely does). Also note that, even in this context, both the source and the text place (direct or indirect) responsibility for all these losses on Antonescu's policies. On the other hand, the victims of Antonescu's extermination policies, with the numbers and all sorts of details, are dedicated a lengthy section below. Dahn (talk) 16:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Molotov

This edit of mine attempts to fix a tangled wording. I hope I understood correctly. If my edit changes the meaning, then I did not; however, that would mean that the old wording was even more confusing than I thought, and it should definitely be put more clearly. - Jmabel | Talk 16:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. Dahn (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It still fails to mention that the last time he did it (that is more than 4 months before the coup) the Soviets were just one step away from crossing Romania's border, and not far into Romanian territory as in August.Anonimu (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

So does the source, making your claim original research. The issue in this section is about clarity, not about whether Anonimu would like to add something he considers relevant. Dahn (talk) 16:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Molotov said in April that Soviets won't invade Romania if it changes sides, and several months and tens of thousands of dead Soviet soldiers later the Romanian politicians came up and said "you know that ultimatum last April? we totally think we should accept it" Anonimu (talk) 17:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I heard you the first time, you know. Dahn (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Nationalism and expansionism

Jeez. I'd really like to be bold, but I don't know what to do with stuff that I can't make sense of, and I don't want to misrepresent the sources by guessing what was meant. In the section Nationalism and expansionism:

Nationalism was a main motivator behind Antonescu's policies. A firm believer in the restoration of Greater Romania as the union of lands inhabited by Romanian ethnics, he permanently objected to Northern Transylvania's incorporation into Hungary.

• I could just change "motivator" to "motivation" (better English) but any time we talk about someone's motivation: according to whom? Otherwise it's a speculative statement with no indication who is speculating.
• What does "permanently objected" mean? Makes almost no sense to me at all, beyond just "objected". Apparently something stronger than that is meant, but I don't know what.

- Jmabel | Talk 08:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I made that the introductory statement for the paragraph; I'd imagine his motivation is detailed by the sources used in the phrases that follow right after. It is not speculative (it doesn't say it was "his main" or "only" motivation - it just says it was a main motivation. Plus, it is the common element in his expansionism, antisemitism etc, all of which are variants of nationalism. If you think of a better introductory sentence that preserves the link on nationalism, please replace it entirely.

Indeed, "permanently objected" looks awful. It mean to say that he never agreed to it. Dahn (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Similarly:

This identity issue is confronted by British historian Arnold D. Harvey with Nazi doctrine and its anti-religious elements: "It seems that Hitler was not even perturbed by the militant Christian orientation of the Antonescu regime".

• "This identity issue": the Christian character of the Antonescu regime, I presume? Could be a lot clearer
• "…confronted by British historian Arnold D. Harvey with Nazi doctrine…": huh? the only parse of this that makes sense would be if Harvey advocated Nazi doctrine and used it to confront "this identity issue". Clearly not what you mean, but what do you mean?
• "It seems that Hitler was not even perturbed…": so, uh, what is this about? So Hitler didn't have an issue with the difference in ideology. So what? Nor did he have an issue with Fascist Italy being more focused on the state, vs. the Nazi focus on race, nor (to take a closer parallel, because religion comes into the matter) with the Japanese having a cult of the Emperor at the center of their system. (And, one might add, Stalin was apparently not all that purturbed by having capitalist allies nor many American Christians by having a Communist ally.) So what's the point here?- Jmabel | Talk Jmabel | Talk 09:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Yes. Please rephrase (I tried to avoid the redundancy).
• "Compared"?
• Not my point, but Harvey's: his argument is that, while the Nazis took issue with militant Christianity, their ally brought it to center of its propaganda war. If I can speculate, the difference between this and the Italo-German or Japano-German relationships is marked: the cases you cite differ from, but don't impinge on, the official tenets of Nazi ideology; though, in theory, Harey (or some other) might have also said something similar about those contradictions - it's just not relevant here, but I would imagine such differences would be equally relevant if (briefly) mentioned in an article about, say, Mussolini, since they refer to an essential aspect of political life, and a point of divergence between two allies. If and when treated by the sources, these should also surface in other similar articles - for example, the Stalin article should not leave the reader without sourced commentary on how and why he allied himself with camps who, in theory, did not tolerate his ideology (the shocker there would be the 1939 policy, not the 1944 one). But I'm not editing those articles, am I? One more thing: if you read further in the text, you'll see that the issue comes up again, when the issue of Antonescu's racial antisemitism comes up. Dahn (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

And:

At his 1946 trial, Antonescu claimed that Transnistria had been occupied to prevent Romania being caught in a "pincer" by Germany, "the question of Drang nach Osten", and the Volksdeutsch communities, while denying charges of having exploited the region for Romania's benefit.

OK. I understand the "Antonescu claimed X while denying Y" structure, but looking at just part of that construction that seems like it needs to constitute a meaningful sentence for the rest to hold together grammatically:

…Antonescu claimed that Transnistria had been occupied to prevent Romania being caught in a "pincer" by Germany, "the question of Drang nach Osten", and the Volksdeutsch communities…

I simply can't parse this. Is this "to prevent" (1) Romania being caught in a "pincer" by Germany, (2) "the question of Drang nach Osten", and (3) the Volksdeutsch communities? Doesn't make sense: how can you prevent "the question of Drang nach Osten"? Or does it mean "to prevent Romania being caught in a 'pincer" by (1) Germany, (2) "the question of Drang nach Osten", and (3) the Volksdeutsch communities? That makes marginally more sense, but only marginally. Again: a 3-sided pincer? Is the pincer geographic? Is this, perhaps a pincer between (1) the German Drang nach Osten and (2) certain Volksdeutsch communities to Romania's east? Or what? I'm trying (and failing) to see what this really means to say. Can whoever wrote this take a shot at making it clearer? - Jmabel | Talk 09:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the problem here might be solved if we change "..., the question of Drang nach Osten, ..." to "(the question of Drang nach Osten)", which is how it was intended to be read all along - I realize it may be seen as awkward, but it's not that uncommon to use commas in this situation. Dahn (talk) 16:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Ioan Scurtu and the Legionary Rebellion

Ioan Scurtu's belief that during the Legionary Rebellion Antonescu paused to let the Guard discredit themselves, cited here, is certainly rather widespread. I know I've seen the same in English-language histories, but don't have them offhand. If someone has a second, independent source to cite on this I think it would be good, so that it is clear that this is not the idiosyncratic belief of one historian. - Jmabel | Talk 18:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Noted. Dahn (talk) 23:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Saxon

At one point the text said "Saxon" and linked to Transylvanian Saxons. Yes, I know these people were/are called Sachse, but they are not particularly Saxons in the English sense of that word (relating specifically to Saxony). Instead, they are of more diverse German background than that. Our Transylvanian Saxons article agrees with me on this, so if I'm mistaken there is a much bigger problem. I am changing it to [[Transylvanian Saxons|Transylvanian Saxon]]. Unlike most of the edits I'm making, this might be seen as substantive, so I wanted to make sure it's clear I'm not trying to sneak it by. - Jmabel | Talk 20:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Similarly for Swabians / Banat Swabians. - Jmabel | Talk 20:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Not a big issue, but yes, probably for the best. Dahn (talk) 23:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Odessa massacre

Should the section on the Odessa massacre perhaps link to the article collective punishment? - Jmabel | Talk 23:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. Dahn (talk) 23:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

"Admittedly"

"The Transnistria deportations account for 150,000 to 170,000 individual expulsions of Jews from Romania proper, of whom some 90,000-120,000 admittedly never returned." Admitted by whom? Without agency, the word sits awkwardly here. - Jmabel | Talk 23:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

"Never did return"? Something to that goal. Dahn (talk) 23:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

"200,000 to 300,000 or over"

"Other overall estimates speak of 200,000 to 300,000 or over Jews purposefully killed as a result of Romania's action." The wording is awkard. Is the "300,000 or over" verbatim from a source (in which case let's put it in quotation marks) or not (in which case can't we just say "from 200,000 to over 300,000" (since it's a high-end estimate, this would not misrepresent it). - Jmabel | Talk 23:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what it means to say - I suppose your version is a better phrasing. Dahn (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Diaspora

"In one such instance, he reversed his own 1942 decision to impose the wearing of yellow badges, which nevertheless remained in use everywhere outside the Old Kingdom and, in theory, its Jewish diaspora." Not sure I understand what "its Jewish diaspora" is supposed to mean hear. Does it mean Old Kingdom Jews who had been deported to other Romanian-controlled territories? Or does it mean something else? - Jmabel | Talk 23:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it refers to Jews originally from the Old Kingdom who lived in other parts of occupied Europe, such as France (whether because they had settled there before the war or were trapped there by circumstance). Dahn (talk) 23:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Probable error in a direct quotation

"Romanian liberals had been critical of their government warm relationship with Hitler…": I'm guessing that should be "of their government's warm relationship", but if not then it is bad grammar and deserves a "sic". Since it is a direct quotation, I have no idea which. Whoever has access to the source can work this out. - Jmabel | Talk 03:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It's "government's" in the source. My bad in rendering the quote. Dahn (talk) 04:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

"massive transfer ... on the Eastern Front" & other matters

"…whose objection to the massive transfer of Romanian troops on the Eastern Front…": does this mean "…whose objection to the massive transfer of Romanian troops to the Eastern Front…" (in which case that simple substitution makes this clearer) or to a transfer from one place to another of troops already on the Eastern Front, in which case we need to reword this somehow to make this more specific. - Jmabel | Talk 03:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

"to the Eastern Front" My bad. Dahn (talk) 04:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

"Cassulo and Bălan together pleaded for the fate of Jews, among them those who had converted to Christianity…": If I read this correctly, I would word this as "Cassulo and Bălan together pleaded for the fate of certain Jews, including all who had converted to Christianity…" Is that what it means? Or have I misunderstood? (In any case, it should be reworded less confusingly.) - Jmabel | Talk 04:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, yours is a good rephrasing. Dahn (talk) 04:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Brătianu etc.

Dinu Brătianu also condemned antisemitic measures, prompting Antonescu to accuse him of being an ally of "the Yid in London". Together with Maniu and Ion Mihalache, Brătianu signed statements condemning the isolation, persecution and expulsion of Jews, which prompted Antonescu to threaten a clampdown.

Does anyone know: does "the Yid in London" refer to some individual (e.g. some prominent exiled Romanian Jew) or was it just a generic slur? And, in the second sentence, a clampdown on whom, precisely? These individuals? Their parties? Anyone he happened not to like at the moment? - Jmabel | Talk 08:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

There are two possibilities, as far as I can tell. One is that he was talking in general, the other (which is based on a canard of the period) that he was talking about Churchill. It would be speculative to say which, and the source doesn't comment, but I'm pretty sure it's one or the other. In any case, if it's not a reference to the former, but to the latter, it still is better to treat it as a generic slogan - since, in both cases, Antonescu appears to be targeting British policy. Dahn (talk) 10:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, to answer your other question: it's the individuals. He threatened them with imprisonment. Dahn (talk) 10:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

A very confusing sentence

"On similar grounds, the Soviet occupation forces organized the capture of Romanian citizens, together with the return of war refugees from Romania proper into Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, both of which often culminated into deportations further inland." Utterly confusing.

• Clearly not "Romanian citizens" in general, but nothing here to characterize whom.
• "…together with the return…": totally unclear how this relates grammatically to the rest of the sentence. The Soviet forces also organized this return? It was merely at the same time as this return? Something else?
• "both of which": (1) the capture of citizens and (2) the return of refugees? (1) The return of refugees to Bessarabia and (2) the return of refugees to Bukovina? Something else?
• "culminated into", at the very least should be "culminated in", but it's awfully passive.
• "deportations further inland": I cannot visualize what direction this means. By inland do we mean away from the Black Sea (Romania has no other coast). But on the whole Bessarabia is closer to the Black Sea than most of Romania.

Can someone disentangle this? - Jmabel | Talk 17:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Various Romanian citizens of various backgrounds. Not sure how to phrase that: will "various Romanian citizens" do?
• "as well as"?
• The first variant - both measures.
• "led to"
• "more inland" as in "more remote areas of the Soviet Union"

And you're absolutely right, I had made a made a mess of this paragraph... Dahn (talk) 23:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

"Conflict with"

"The conflict with the new authorities and the majority population is also described by other researchers." Does this mean to say "conflict between"? Or if it is truly "conflict with", who is the third party in conflict with them? - Jmabel | Talk 17:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The Jewish returnees' conflict is the object of that phrase. (And, of the returnees in question, primarily the Zionists who made efforts to leave for Palestine.) Dahn (talk) 23:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Social cohabitation

"…were deemed fit for social cohabitation…" I suspect that I should deem myself lucky to have grown up where I can be totally unfamiliar with the term "social cohabitation," but what does it mean? - Jmabel | Talk 17:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I've closely followed a quote in the source (p.281 - the same notion is discussed on the other cited pages, but without the quote). Let me quote the entire relevant part: "Under a decree adopted early in 1950, those convicted of war crimes who 'demonstrated good behavior, performed their tasks conscientiously, and proved that they became fit for social cohabitation during their imprisonment' were made eligible for immediate release irrespective of the severity of the original sentence." This basically synonymous with rehabilitation as far as I can tell, but: a) the totalitarian nuance is perhaps worth preserving as such; b) the term "rehabilitation" is, alas, ambiguous for a political situation in a communist country. If I may an off-topic comment here (sparked by your "deem myself lucky" remark above), the saddest thing about this issue is not that they released these people (and certainly not that they kept them in prison - although I'm not sure that the penal system of Communist Romania really had a moral legitimacy in taking control of their fates, nor decency in exercising this control). The really sinister thing is that these people were escorted out while the regime was fashioning itself into a meat grinder for students, peasants, regular intellectuals and politicians, and in general people who wanted to live free. In fact, one could say the war criminals were let out to make room for the Zionists. Dahn (talk) 23:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

"Contradictory tendency"

"Beginning in the mid-1960s, when Nicolae Ceauşescu took power and embarked on a national communist course, this was accompanied by a contradictory tendency, which implied a gradual rehabilitation of Antonescu and his regime." Contradictory to what? The previous sentence is already about whitewashing Romanian culpability. Shouldn't it be "complementary" rather than "contradictory"? - Jmabel | Talk 18:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I guess the meaning is obscure in that context. To clarify what I meant: note that the paragraph begins with mention of how the regime [spuriously] celebrated August 23 as its founding moment. This would imply (as it did) that the regime had to put in lots of spin to get to the point where they celebrated August 23 and effectively rehabilitated Antonescu. Something happened as I was writing this: I either had the two phrases one after the other and then added some more in between (forgetting to adapt the remainder of the text) or for some other reason thought that it could still work in the one phrase. So, three options here: 1) briefly mention that August 23 was still the holiday etc. a second time with that phrase; 2) rephrase (as you suggest) to "complementary" - because, yes, it was complementary to the tendency described in the sentence just before it; 3) just drop that wording altogether. Either way is really fine by me. Dahn (talk) 23:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

"complied"

"…documents confiscated or complied by Soviet officials…": "complied" makes no sense here. Is it just a typo for "compiled"? - Jmabel | Talk 00:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Dahn (talk) 01:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Constantinescu

"Political recognition of Antonescu's complicity was first expressed in 1997 by Romanian President Emil Constantinescu, a representative of the Democratic Convention." Besides passive voice—I'll deal with that once I understand what this means to say—what exactly is meant here by "political recognition"? Surely he was not the first Romanian politician to say that Antonescu was implicated in the Holocaust. Are we saying that he was the first prominent politician to say so, the first office-holder to say so, the first member of a government, or what? - Jmabel | Talk 00:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a rephrasing to the recognition he offered as an office holder is in order. I remember I struggled with that (it's also that, as you may know, "politician" and "office-holder" are often designated with the same word in Romanian, and I probably had that at the back of my mind). Dahn (talk) 01:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

"guidelines and circumstances"

"Owing to guidelines and circumstances, the direct imprint is however reduced in comparison to other periods in the country's history." I have no idea what "guidelines" this refers to, could someone please clarify? - Jmabel | Talk 01:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I meant it as a reference to the austere guidelines he imposed on culture - this is meant as an introduction to the rest of the paragraph, which details this relative austerity (Bucur is the one source to mention it explicitly, but not at length). Come to think of it, I should have just used something like that for wording... Dahn (talk) 01:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)