Talk:Ion Antonescu/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Factual error

"Romania engaged along with the Three-Party Pact Aliance in an war of aggression against the Soviet Union and the United Nations".

I account this to be a factual error. The UN was established in 1945, Romania officially ended its participation in the war in 1945 and before that Romania had discarded its alliance with the Axis powers. Moreover there was no formal UN participation in the war. Austerus —Preceding comment was added at 09:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not a factual error, see Allies of World War II, the term United nations was initially coined by Roosevelt to refer to those allied againt the Axis powers, and from this grew the modern organisation. David Underdown (talk) 11:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I know that, but capitalized as a name it refers to a registered organization. Roosevelt used the term in a speech, but the allied powers never officially called themselves as such, being known only as the Allies (see any official document). If the author that contributed the passage I quoted wanted to be correct, he shouldn't have used capitalization (and also to name the source of the construction) in order not to cause confusion. Austerus 10:59, 28 January 2008 (GMT)

Order Michael the Brave I think that he received the order in 1919 serving as an aide to General Prezan`s staff in the Hungarian campaign. King Ferdinand is said to have personally pinned Antonescu with his own decoration. therefore, 1913 is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.136.162.149 (talk) 15:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not find the term expansionism to be corect in describing Antonescu's ideology, I believe Revisionism to be a much more adequate term, as he was not aiming to enlarge Romania's borders but to regain territory which had been ( from his point of view ) lost in prior conflicts. Also at some other point ( I've re-read the thing but i can't seem to find the paragraph :( ) the author confuses and quotes Mihai Antonescu, Prime-minister to Ion Antonescu, regarding the deportation/extermination of the jewish population, as being the latter, so that quote should probably be moved to the article regarding Mihai Antonescu ( if there is one ) or at least properly labeled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfanumeric (talk • contribs) 22:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

To begin with, the "his point of view" argument is a tad risque. But nevertheless: the section is titled as such because it refers to territories which were always outside Romania's borders - Transnistria, Vojvodina etc. The other issues I've tried to deal with with the "Nationalism and" part. Since the stances overlap (chronologically and territorially), I chose to deal with these aspects in a single section (also applied to "Fascism and conservatism"). Still, I trust the overall result was coherent. Also: I find "revisionism" an ambiguous term (consider its many separate meanings); in the case of Bessarabia & Bukovina, a lot of Romanians (and not just) would object to the label, and I've tried to keep that can of worms shut. The scope of that debate is beyond this article.

Error is always a possibility. Please let me know if you find that quote, and I'll check with the source to see if I got it right or not. Regards, Dahn (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Infobox image

Although a recent spate of edits have been horrifically commented, the principle that neutral photo should be in the infobox is a sound one. We don't use post suicide images of Hitler in the infobox, nor should we use his pre-execution image. That can easily be placed at the appropriate point in the text. ThuranX (talk) 22:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

But we don't include personal drawings made by nazi sympathisers, either. I support an actual portrait photo, if we find any free one. bogdan (talk) 22:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll copy the reply I left to Thuran on AN/I here:

":::To Thuran: I partly agree. There are several problems regarding both versions. As far as I can tell, the actual edit replaces a pic of Antonescu minutes before he died with a portrait of his that was most likely drawn by Mirelam herself (I'm saying "herself" because the user name seems to encapsulate a female name common in Romania). It also removes the article from a set of specific categories (probably because these were added between her previous edit and this one).

Now, here's where the problem is: I feel that allowing users to draw their own impressions of a person and other purely artistic stuff (as opposed to drawing a map, a plan, a copy of a blueprint, as well as to adding notable images created by artists who do not contribute to wikipedia) is not what wikipedia is for. Imagine the long-term consequences: wikipedia will transform itself into a promotional tool. I don't know if this issue was ever discussed, but I do know that wikipedia does not allow users to post doctored photographs - the same should apply here. Update: If the image was not created by Mirelam, then it is most likely a copyright violation. In any case, I do believe the indefinite block would have to imply the image being deleted either way?

When it comes to the image it replaces, I have to say I for one am not an advocate of that picture as much as I reject the one added in its stead. The issue is raised by Mirelam as a "self-fulfilling prophecy", and pushes a false dilemma: she claims that headlining the article with an image of Antonescu [shortly before] being executed is an attempt (of "the Jews", I presume) to undermine his public image. That reasoning is awkward and its presumption fallacious: I could just as well say that such an image will risk enforcing the image that Antonescu was "a martyr" and whatnot. But the main problem with that picture is that it may not actually be usable on wikipedia: it is not actually PD, and a fair use rationale would be awkward. In the past, users have added similar pictures of Antonescu, which were deleted for not being PD, and some of which were picked up from neonazi sites (which is also quite grotesque).

If this is really a problem, then, between a creativity contest involving Antonescu's supporters and picking up random photos that are sooner or later deleted, I do believe the article can do without any pictures."

My 2 cents. Dahn (talk) 22:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

So what's the big deal with the photo, anyway? (Potential copyvio issues notwithstanding.) I first read the discussion here, then checked the article out of curiosity -- I imagined I'd find a humiliating or otherwise dehumanising photo, but it seems quite reasonable. Of course, the caption does induce somewhat of an unpleasant feeling, and if we had a PR photo that would've been better, but still, if this is all we've got I don't think it's unacceptable (but then again, potential copyvio issues would be quite a different matter). --Gutza ^{T T+} 01:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

This discussion has been collapsed.

I propose to post an even more actual picture of Antonescu. That would involve exhuming, of course; still there's no doubt that you can get the permit somehow, after all you wrote all this "comedie buffe" you are plased to call an historic article and got away with it. ("Red Dog"? What the hell is this, Winnetou ?) Or, to save time and money, you could take a picture of a skeleton, post it, and sustain that's Antonescu. You could leave both pictures, in fact, before and after the execution, more thrilling that way. Even the articles about Hitler and Himmler were allowed decent photographs in the Wikipedia articles. And they never saved any Jews, quite the contrary in fact...To push an irrational hate sixty years beyond the grave ! boy, you guys need a good shrink. Till then, why don't you search wikipedia for the meaning of the word "pathetic" ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.253.141.80 (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC) Threats again, Mr David Underdown ? I am becoming "disruptive" just because I dared to state there are other documented views and that significant facts were intentionally ommited ? I tried time and again to discuss the matter on this page, and was met with arogance, insults and other threats. Examine the discussion page and you'll see that this was the fate of any individual when contested your own views. You should appreciate however that I, at least, am still trying to show good manners, and didn't erased anything you and your accomplices wrote, no matter how disputable and disreputable and despite that it bothers me no end. Whereas everything I wrote was erased almost instantly. Still, I formulated clearly the points that were never explained although representing absurd contradictions, I quoted from published materials indicating the source, and generally I tried to comply with the Wikipedia policy. Unfortunately far from being "the encyclopedia written by the readers" wikipedia seems to be the property of the Jewish Diaspora. And no, Mr Underdown, just stating that the article contains distorted facts, half truths and even flat out lies and therefore it is contested by millions of people (a non-negligeable figure), that's not revisionism. You cannot simplify definitions that way, not everything that disagrees with you represents revisionism. Again, I do not consider Antonescu to be a hero. Too many of my people died because of his decisions, so that even if his intentions were good, the results were catastrophic. I am a scientist, therefore I cannot even claim an absolute certitude of his inocence. I am merely stating that I have carefully examined the existent facts and didn't find absolute arguments for his being branded as a Holocaust promoter either. I am capable however to accept the truth, even if doesn't suit me. Are you ? Nevertheless, I object to the fact that indisputably honorable actions of his, showing kindness and care and responsibility for all Romanian citizens from the Old Kingdom, especially Jews, are either denied or horribly distorted, or presented as being the result of politics and selfishness. I really tink that Romanians have more to reproach him than the Jews, he did for the Jews what he didn't to for his own people. Half a million Romanians died during the ww2 mr Underdown, as a direct consequence of what Antonescu considered to be the only honorable solution. And as a result he stayed in power till August 44 and was able to actively oppose the deportations and the killing of the Jews in Romania Old Kingdom, to offer protection and sanctuary for non-Romanian Jews. During the war, there was a constant Jewish exodus to Romania, Mr Underdown, from many european countries; now why was that, since according to you and your "historians" authors, Romania and Antonescu were promoting the Holocaust more savagely than Hitler ? So he's not "my hero". But it definitely should be yours. He did for your people what he didn't do for his own, practically sacrificing his own to do so. Alternative explanations with more chances of validity and able to fit into the historical context and into Antonescu profile do exist. If you bothered to read what I wrote before erasing me, then you know what I'm talking about. Now I know that there are few Jewish people that are really religious. For objective reasons, no doubt. Still, Jewish are generally cautious, so they tend to be rather agnostic than pure atheists. Remember this Mr Underdown: to wrongly accuse someone, especially if he's dead and incapable of defending himself, is bad. To demonize a whole country and community and to brand it as country of criminals, is worse. To do that to your benefactors, it's an abomination ! And abominations, Mr Underdown, are taking care of by God, directly. You will notice that I use the present. Past tense would be more appropriate. It's already happening, for quite sometime now, and it would be naive to attribute it exclussively to an irrational surge of antisemitism. Besides, if you are an intelectual, why aren't you curious ? Why not searching for the sake of respect for factual truth ? Why can't you and your people be generous in your victory ? You already won, Romania was branded and humiliated, forced to pay compensations for saving the lives of her detractors, thanks to the enormous pressures of the Israeli Government and the Jewish Diaspora our children are learning in schoold today that their nation is a nation of criminals. Metaphorically speaking, you got your pound of flesh and your thirty pieces of silver, both. You are supposed to be smart, why can't you see that an eventual historical investigation, properly conducted, with professionalism and impartiality this time (and by a comission containing representants of all three cathegories: acusers, accused and impartials) using all facts and possible interpretations, might change a set profile and get a healthy whip lash to some historical sacred cows. With the end result of greatly increasing the prestige of the Jewish community (kind of falling for years, now) around the world, showing that it is the truth and not the compensations you are after. Not that I believe the last paragraph as possible myself. What I think is that you guys are too far gone. You would deny truth if non-profitable even when it stares you in the face. What we have here in fact are intellectual guns for hire, bullies with a laptop, guarding a contentious article, struggling to add insult to injury by every possible means (see the changing of Antonescu's picture). I sadly see that your nefarious influence reaches the wikipedia administration too, my contributions were instantly labeled as non-neutral and erased, while your insults and unsubstaniated accusation passed with flying colors. M Simu 193.253.141.80 (talk) 12:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Constantly inserting this sort of thing directly into the article is disruptive. That's not a threat, just a statement. Provide some real sources to back up your assertions, here on this talkpage, and we can look at editing the article. Until then changes to the article are likely to continue to be reverted. I have no vested interest in this article, I merely came across whilst doing recent changes patrol some time back. Most nations have some dark episodes in their past, the British Empire was hardly short of them, learning about both the good and bad of you contry is hardly labelling the nation as criminal. David Underdown (talk) 14:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC) OK, I'm game if you are, Mr Undrdown. Allow me to congratulate you for the diligence and the insight of your patroling. May I ask why the article on Antonescu, raises your interest particularaly ? If you recollect, 10 months ago, when I expressed in a shortened version and without quotings the same views, I got stymied by you, answering in a rather dictatorial fashion “none of this must go into the article”, or words to that effect (see discussion page). This is NOT a complaint, merely the expression of my curiosity, I'd really like to know and understand the driving forces of Wikipedia behind the facade. And please remember, I welcome, criticism too. I would cherish your views, if possible clearly expressed by each and every point raised in my text, even if they are just opinions. If it's not too much to ask, please inform me, someone, how can I send messages to different Wikipedia users, the same way they are sending their unsolicited messages to me. I got messages from Mr Underdown and from the users AniMate, but I was unable tu reply, much as I tried. Another important point. Is this article and the right to re-write the history of Romania, the property of the authors ? The fact that there certainly are a lot of opposite views, doesn't matter ? If it does, and if some of you, readers of this discussion page, or even of the article, are holding different opinions, STAND ! In fhe name of “let the truth be known, should the Heaven fall”, one of the most beautiful phrases I've ever heard, STAND ! If you are Romanians, old enough to have clear memories from the Second World War in Romania, and you did not witnessed or heard of atrocities clearly directed against Jews on Romania-Old Kingdom territory, STAND ! And say so. And especially if you are Jewish and you yourself or your parents were NOT imprisoned, hunted, deported during the War on the Old Kingdom area, STAND ! AND SAY SO ! Don't forget, the factual truth can be only one. And don't forget, if we, those betrayed, misread, lied and isulted will not fight for the truth, nobody will in our stead. On the same note, and to prove my bona fide, if you are in possession of indisputable proof that on the Old Kingdom orders of Antonescu or his Government were implemented leading to the incarceration, deportation or executions of Romanian citizens of Jewish persuation, for no other reason than that of being Jewish, STAND ! And share your proof. 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. Audiatur et altera pars, always a good advice. M Simu 193.253.141.80 (talk) 02:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC) Cut out the comments about other editors and their motives. Simply state the sources you are propsing to use and explain why they are in Wikipedia terms reliable sources - it's not immediatley obvious to me that the two newspapers (?) you mention above really fall into that category. Ideally we are looking for secondary, academic sources. David Underdown (talk) 09:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC) His views are a form of revisionism and Romanian Holocaust denial. The mainstream history says pretty much what the Wikipedia article is saying. He can bring sources to contradict it, but the sources are almost always fringe and marginal, not the works of respected historians. bogdan (talk) 10:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Antonescu and Holocaust Section Seriously Biased

This section requires serious NPOV work. This includes uncited statements (Antonescu stopping the Iron Guard coup did not "inadvertently" stop anti-semitic persecution, he knew perfectly well what he was doing).

Very little reference is made to the context of most of the attacks against Jews (front-line warfare, Russian Jews sympathetic to Soviet Union, Jewish partisans etc.) The "holy war" stuff is just laughable garbage at the highest level. The entire section seems to be based on the Wiesel report (when the report is demonizing Antonescu) and the previous editor's own stipulations (when the report won't suffice). The completely unfounded quote by Deletant is again laughable, as is the notion that Antonescu ordered the Iasi pogrom (as if he would want to destroy his own city). I suggest allowing myself and others to insert information from new authors (Kurt W. Treptow, Wilhelm Filderman, Sabuin Manila, Larry L. Watts etc.). You may discuss the POV of the article here but until I get a response I will keep a POV tag on the holocaust section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romano-Dacis (talk • contribs) 00:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:ATTR. Tolle, lege. Dahn (talk) 11:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a civilized way to resolve this and there is a stupid way. Romano-Dacis, suppose I want to see what are the POV issues with that section, how am I supposed to find them? Normally, right away in the section, I would find "citation needed", "original research", "needs verification of the sourse", "misses sourses" etc. As of now, an outside reader cannot find that. So, at least from a technical point of view the POV tag is not explained by in-section tags. Please, do introduce them where there is the case, please add more info (preferably with solid citations), and let someone not directly involved to comment on the placed tags. It's possible that some of the tags you would place would be excessive, that others would be in place. Let the appreciation of the tags be done by someone else, not Romano-Dacis, Dahn or Bogdangiusca (although, given the recent quality contributions of Bogdangiusca on other sections of the article, I incline to very much trust his guts, for obviously he must have read a lot, and is not speculating. But ok, for the sake of not taking a side, let's exclude him, too.). Then, based on the existing tags, it would be pretty technical to decide if and what tag the section deserves.

"I suggest allowing myself and others to insert information from new authors (Kurt W. Treptow, Wilhelm Filderman, Sabuin Manila, Larry L. Watts etc.)." Romano-Dacis, that would be absolutely ok. Then Dahn and Bogdagiusca would have the same right to place tags for the new text, if they feel it's the case. Then an outsider can verify the tags (e.g. a "citation needed" tag cannot follow a correct citation, a "dubious" tag can not foolow a scholarly citation etc.) And then, in the end, again it is technical to see if/what tag desearves the entire section. That in my oppinion would be a civilized way to resolve this. Dc76\^talk 09:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

And BTW, whether the section stays with or without the tag for a few days is not important, it is important that in the end it becomes more informative. Dc76\^talk 09:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Might I state, that at least two of the authors recommended by Romano-Dacis are known Holocaust deniers: Watts and Treptow (who is also a convicted child molester). AniMate 22:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Let's also add Sabin Manuilă (I presume this is what Romano-Dacis wanted to write down) not only wrote in tandem with Watts, but was also (get this) a man who took an active part in organizing the Holocaust (search his name here for a glimpse into what he was doing around that time). As for Filderman, allow me to say that a common habit about the sources which deny the Holocaust is to grossly misquote him or up and falsify data about him - see here, page 33 sqq.

As a side note: not that I think wikipedia should even bother with this type of criticism to begin with (it's clearly coming from a very fringe bias that wikipedia strives to have as little to do with - per WP:RS), but I think this kind of annoyance would have been avoided had contributors decided to source more info than they did (I'm planning to do so for a while now, but you have to agree that reviewing just part of the literature exposing and classifying Antonescu's many crimes is an intimidating and not quite rewarding task).

As another side note (just because I think users not familiar with the subject should learn not to let this kind of argument slide): I tend to think that a clear indicator that we are dealing with Holocaust denial is when a user decides to define the Wiesel Report as "unreliable" or "biased". I know it must be frustrating for Antonescu's supporters to discover that the civilized world will reject virtually all of what Antonescu and his cronies took pride in "achieving" for the cause of "Romanianism", simply because the goal was deranged, inhuman, sinister and morally bankrupt. I know it must be hard especially after, out in the open or in underground situations, "formative" institutions like the Romanian Army have maintained a cult of their "Marshal", and when Antonescu's image was spit-shined by even a declared communist regime like that of Ceauşescu. It must be even harder considering that, until recently as a rule (and sporadically since), xenophobia was still being taught in schools and the media. But the Wiesel Report is, if anything, the ironclad proof that not even in Romania does this sort of approach to the subject still have room: the document was commissioned by the Romanian state, drafted by a scientific panel comprising Romanian and foreign academics, and has been the basis of legislation (legislation which would make some of the statements made on this page prosecutable on Romanian soil). Surely, it is not the only source - there are thousands of reliable, published sources, easily available for the eye to see, which back every detail involving Antonescu and his role in the Holocaust as outlined in the report. So, in short, give it a rest.

Oh and, btw: the conspiracy theory about Jews and communism... I'm growing tired of pointing out all the nonsense it comprises, so I'll just say it out bluntly: I wish upon whomever thinks that "the Jews were in a position of power" at any point after 1938, or that they constituted a threat to the Romanian Army, to enjoy exactly the kind of power that those men, women and children had in front of the Romanian administration and its associate posses.

Now, I don't have the absolute expertise which would allow me use expressions such as "laughable garbage" when dealing with scholarly consensus. If I were to claim such an expertise, I would still use them against some of the stuff we have to deal with on this page - though, quite frankly, I'm not laughing. Dahn (talk) 23:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Having read this article for the first time, I agree that parts are badly NPOV. The current lead of the Holocaust section reads:

Antonescu and his government are held to be responsible for the killing of between 300,000 and 400,000 Jewish and Roma civilians in Romania and the Soviet territories it occupied

What is this based on? It seems horribly NPOV, and I'm not even sure you can assign responsibility that directly for a small country caught up in internal conflicts and subject to external influence and war. If someone has said this, it should definitely be attributed. Does someone have a source for it? Phil153 (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm at this page because in Writer at War, Antony Beevor says Antonescu did not share Hitler's anti-semitism, stopped execution of Jews in the Ukrainian areas Romania controlled, and put perpetrators on trial (they served three months hard labor). It does suggest he organized them into ghettos but on this point the passge is unclear. At this point I want to look at other primary texts because the article does suggest bias, particularly given this debate.202.82.171.186 (talk) 01:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

NPOV and sources

I added some more tags where I thought necessary, as I remarked several communist propaganda-style facts and disinformation promoted in this article. My claims rely on Alex Mihai Stoenescu, Istoria loviturilor de stat in Romania, vol. 3, which is one of the most respectable and neutral Romanian contemporan historians. I will commence in the next days the cleanup of this article according to this source. --Eurocopter (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Stoenescu is not a professional historian of any kind, and he is involved with a political party often branded as nationalist (and with a tendency to rehabilitate the Iron Guard). So much for "neutral". Furthermore, Stonescu's repeated claims on the subject are the topic of Romanian fascism of much controversy: here (search his name); here; here; here; here for just a glimpse.

I hereby let you know that, if you plan to delete the reliable sources used, you risk getting blocked - you are already editing against consensus; deleting sources based on some fringe POV is: a) POV-pushing; b) vandalism.

As for the "communist propaganda-style" claim, here's what you can do: mainstream Romanian and international historiography (any shape, color and form) takes a view outlined in the Wiesel Commission Report - which, and I'm tired of repeating this, is also the official position of the Romanian state. The Report is accessible online, and I am surprised (not to say revolted) by the fact that it is not yet used as a main source in this article - a situation I plan to mend myself sometime soon. If you want to brand the majority of Romanian historians "communist", and if you aim to imply that adding such sources is proof of "communism" when attempting to add questionable, fringe, revisionist and obviously biased sources to it, then you are pretty much attempting to take this article outside the pale. Dahn (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I would say that it is not the case to remind me Wikipedia policies. All I did was to request sources for unsourced claims, and my request was abusively reverted by user:bogdan giusca at your dispositions. Also, i'm not sure if you are in the position to state that Stoenescu is not a professional historian. Regarding the so called Final report of the INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE HOLOCAUST IN ROMANIA, I doubt its accuracy considering that the president of the comission was a jew (they were certainly not neutral historians). Unfortunately, the official position of the Romanian state in the past 20 years has been in accordance with foreign interests and pressures. --Eurocopter (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You know, with this sort of argument you just stumbled your way into a corner - just quoting this bias makes administrative sanction the more likely. Continue like this, and my next step will be WP:AN/I. As for Stoenescu, he is simply not a professional historian: his training is in engineering - behold: [1], [2], [3]. As for the verdicts on what sort of scholarship he produces, you have the sources to view. Oh, but I forget: they're written by the ZOG... Dahn (talk) 23:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Reporting me to AN/I for what? Go ahead, try your luck...:)) I know that my actions are inconvenient for you, as they attempt to reach the neutrality of this article and request sources for POV claims, but abusively removing fact and NPOV tags is not a solution in accordance to WP policies. --Eurocopter (talk)

Communists?? Romania was never Communist! That's a lie made up by the Vatican to justify its expansionist conspiracy. There is not a single witness to any supposedly "communist" government in Romania! Anyone who claims otherwise is either delusional or in cahoots with the Vatican, who now have their puppet installed as vice-president of the United States, just waiting for the right time to take over the world. I mean, Stalin was an Orthodox priest for God's sake! This whole myth of a so-called "Soviet Union" is just propaganda to sideline the Orthodox church, just as 9/11 was staged to sideline Islam. The Vatican was also behind the bombing of Bombay. Divide and Conquer. kwami (talk) 02:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Crikey. Please tell me that your comment above, kwami, was sarcastic or a joke. Skinny87 (talk) 10:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Crikey, you really need to ask that? Paul B (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. Is it a joke to say that a study on the Holocaust commissioned by the Romanian govt is of dubious reliability because it was headed by a Jew? kwami (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it is perfectly neutral and reliable and therefore it should be solely used throughout the article. All other historical sources with different point of views should not be used and removed from the article. --Eurocopter (talk) 23:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Eurocopter was, sadly, not making a joke. He clearly asserts that Jewish historians cannot be relied upon in this matter, and though it's not necessarily antisemitic to say that Jews are likely to have a particular bias, it's wholly inappropriate to make accusations in the absence of evidence. Paul B (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not actually agree with adding Stoenescu's statement in Condemnation and execution section also. In my opinion it makes sense where I placed it in that footnote, just afterwards explaining German influence and Antonescu's authority in the country (that's the context Stoenescu reffered to). --Eurocopter (talk) 14:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Appeal to constructive discussion

Before engaging in unconstructive revert wars, I kindly request all editors contributing to this article who do not agree with my edits, to express their arguments on the talk page and try to figure out a peaceful solution. Thanks, --Eurocopter (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I have pointed out exactly what is wrong with adding the only source which you cited. I shall repeat this here: it is a highly controversial manifesto by an engineer who is a nominated Holocaust revisionist, and who is active in a radical nationalist party. You claim Stoenescu is "respectable", "neutral" and a "historian" - he is neither, as I have indicated above with RSes, including Wiesel Commission documents. (While I cannot comment if he is "respectable" as an individual, nor is it my intent to, it would certainly appear that he is not respected.) If anyone needs more detail into that, I shall be more than happy to quote and, where needed, translate those RSes and many others, clearly establishing that Stoenescu is the subject of a controversy over his numerous claims, that he is most often discussed as an apologist of the fascists and antisemites. That is all interest and reply your post needs, Eurocopter. Dahn (talk) 01:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

If, as is claimed, Stoenescu is a revisionist and apologetic, then he'd hardly make a decent Reliable Source; it would be like citing David Irving in the Holocaust article. Dahn, I wouldn't mind seeing some of those translated RSes that state Stoenescu's views. From what I've seen of his writings, per Eurocopter's contributions, he does seem to be something of an apologist and possibly unreliable. Skinny87 (talk) 09:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Very well, I discontinued cite him in Holocaust matters, but completely removing sources and constructive edits is inacceptable and will get you reported. I should also notice you that Stoenescu cites more than 140 books and works in his third volume, most of them of quite reliable historians and personalities (I will check by who are supported his holocaust claims). Or perhaps they were all "revisionist", "apologist", etc. --Eurocopter (talk) 11:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

To Skinny: Okay. first of all, I notice that Bogdan has since added some of the relevant info to the article on Alex Mihai Stoenescu - so maybe something of what i post here is already redundant to that. We can start with a couple of English-language sources:

• a Yad Vashem document on Holocaust denial and distortion, compiled by the Elie Wiesel National Institute for Studying the Holocaust in Romania (created on the basis of the aforementioned Wiesel Commission, and mandated by the Romanian state). It is my understanding this was annexed to the Report. Unnumbered pages (in this version, at least), but searching for his name reveals this: "The reactive argument has several version. In some, Jewish guilt is total; in others it is only partial, yet amplified by what the argument's proponents call the 'complex' and 'tense' circumstances specific to the war. This second scenario would have the responsibility for atrocities remain indeterminate by switching the focus from the regime's own criminal project to the unfortunate general context of the war. Typical of this scenario is the work of Alex Mihai Stoenescu, am employee of the Defense Ministry's foreign relations department. In his book Armata, mareşalul şi evreii (The Army, the Marshal and the Jews) despite minimizing the scope of the Iaşi massacre, Stoenescu unequivocally deplores the fact that people lost their lives. But instead of pointing out the planned nature of the atrocities, he argues that the deaths of thousands of civilians in the death trains was the outcome of negligence rather than a consequence of deliberate action. He claims that the Jews crammed into little cars were suspected of being communists, and the process of selection occurred in a 'tense' atmosphere that led to the death of so many innocent people. He concludes that this was not the first time in history when 'hundreds or even thousands of innocents' had paid for the deeds of 'a handful of [Jewish communist] culprits'." (Pages 59-60 in the Romanian version.)
• the basic argument is made by political scientist and Report co-author Michael Shafir here

For other sources questioning his statements:

• Literary historian Ion Simuţ, in an article for the Romanian Writers' Union magazine România Literară. The article accuses Stoenescu of producing false claims according to which various important figures on the literary scene had been members of the fascist Iron Guard (aka Legionary Movement), as a means to rehabilitate the latter's ideology by proxy. Let me quote a relevant fragment: "Alex Mihai Stoenescu adoptă o perspectivă unilaterală, deci parţială, în explicarea fenomenului legionar: prin slăbiciunile statului şi prin "erorile adversarului". Pe această cale vom descoperi, după cum suntem preveniţi de autor, o Mişcare Legionară "încărcată de calităţi, slăbiciuni şi enigme". E, întrucâtva, de mirare că nu a ajuns la o izbândă deplină, dacă nu e "încărcată" şi de erori. Găsesc că o astfel de procedare emană din perfidia unei demonstraţii, a unui partizanat ascuns." ("Alex Mihai Stoenescu adopts a unilateral perspective, therefore a partial one, in explaining the Legionary phenomenon: through the weaknesses of the state and the 'enemy's errors'. In this way we are supposed to discover, as the author warns us, a Legionary Movement 'laden with qualities, weaknesses and enigmas.' It is somewhat surprising that it never reached full victory, if it is not also laden with errors. I find that such a method is emanated by the perfidious nature of a demonstration, of a hidden partisanship.") And: "Inventarea de scriitori legionari, când au existat şi aşa destui, mi se pare semnul unei abdicări a istoricului de la responsabilitatea şi seriozitatea ce trebuie să-l caracterizeze. Mă tem că, tot restaurând imaginar istoria în "cruzimea" ei originară, mâine-poimâine vor ajunge unii dintre noi în situaţia de a spune: "Cutare a fost legionar! Şi ce-i rău în asta?!"." ("The invention of Legionary writers, as if there weren't enough of them already, appears to me as a sign of a historian's abdication from the responsibility and seriousness which ought to be his characteristics. I fear that, by restoring and restoring history in its original 'cruelty', some of us will end up saying: 'So-and-so was a Legionary! So where's the problem in that?!'.")
• Historian Eugen Ciurtin, in Revista 22. The article discusses Stoenescu's membership in the fringe ultra-nationalist New Generation Party – Christian Democratic as one of its ideologues. It specifically refers to him using funds obtained from the party to compile an "alternative history" of Romania. Ciurtin describes hims as "freelancer-ul Alex Mihai Stoenes­cu, un inginer, ofiter si scriitor care se pre­zinta ca istoric" ("freelancer Alex Mihai Stoenes­cu, an engineer, [army] officer and writer who passes himself off for a historian"). He describes the effort as "revisionism", and notes that Stoenescu, together with known Holocaust revisionist Gheorghe Buzatu, would deal with the main subjects of "The Legionary Movement, the Jewish question, the role of Freemasonry". This is accompanied by the observation: "Stoenescu si Buzatu isi vor putea compila linistiti contributiile anterioare, toate ignorate - din fericire - de orice istoric serios" ("Stoenescu and Buzatu will be able to quietly compile their previous contributions, all of them ignored - thankfully - by any serious historian.")

This should add some depth - there are some more sources, but I should add that Stoenescu is generally ignored by the serious sources outside contexts which address and contain his POV.

To Eurocopter: Maybe the notion is still not clear, even though I posted it on the noticeboard and you (thrice) claimed to be aware of how the rules go. I'll post it again here: "All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them." Let me also underline the part in question: "need not be included, except in articles devoted to them." Is this an article dedicated to Stoenescu or his special brand of revisionism? I'm guessing we both know it isn't. As for how many sources he cites and how, that's completely irrelevant - your approach to the source also contradicts WP:OR in general and WP:SYNTH in particular (see also WP:COATRACK). A source that is questionable (and I believe I have shown how questionable it is) cannot be divided into reliable and questionable "parts", for simple and very obvious reasons. Dahn (talk) 11:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to speak to the 'He cites reliable historins'. That is not necessarily, if we take Dahn's statement that he is a holocaust denier, an indication that those sources are being used appropiatly. Irving, for example, uses some great sources in his books. He merely, from what I have seen and understand, distorts the sources in a way as to provide 'evidence' for his arguments. If a source is unreliable you can't trust they have used sources responsibly, so you must instead go back to the sources they quote and, if they are reliable, look at them and quote/cite from that book. Though we are almost into 'Fruit of the Poisonous Tree' style thinking here. --Narson ~ Talk • 12:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Understood, that's why I stopped citing Stoenescu in Holocaust-related issues (to claim that Stoenescu is generally unreliable you have to come up with serious sources, otherwise it's POV). Please explain why you removed his citations from issues which have nothing to do with the holocaust, and removed sources such as Lepadatu, Giurescu, Barbul and Hudita without any discussion or consensus. --Eurocopter (talk) 13:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

To top it off, and to ironically confirm his "fears", Eurocopter is adding yet more Holocaust revisionist sources. In fact, Gheorghe Barbul is the author of mystification and Antonescu-aggrandizing apologetics! His work is cited as such in the Final Report (p. 82) Minor controversies also surround Giurescu's opinions on the matter, but that is another debate - if anything, Giurescu's claim ought to be attributed. Is it quite clear that we are not dealing with good faith editing? Dahn (talk) 12:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately your comments without being supported by reliable sources, are simple POV. --Eurocopter (talk) 13:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

If this is supposed to be inflammatory, it's not doing its job: if you could post the above message, it means you were also in a position to read the sources I indicated and quoted at length; however, you pretending not to have noticed them does not annoy me as much as it amuses me. Dahn (talk) 13:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of bad faith are probably a little premature here Dahn. Bear in mind you are conversing in a language that is, for at least one of you, a foreign language. It is also more likely he simply skipped over the bullet points in such a long post thus didn't see where you provided sources for your points. I find it best to assume someone is having a senior moment (as we all have from time to time), Hanlon's Razor and all that. --Narson ~ Talk • 13:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't skip his bullet points. All the sources he posted claim that Stoenescu is revisionist, etc, in relation with Holocaust matters, but none of those sources claim that Stoenescu is unreliable in terms of XIX and XX century general Romanian history. Regarding Giurescu, attribute what? There is currently no citation from Giurescu's book in the article. --Eurocopter (talk) 13:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This is getting absurd. Let me point you again to the policies and rules which you claim to have read, and to the many rebuttals which you claim to have read. They establish that, once Stoenescu is considered an unreliable source, it can't be used for anything but itself. Differentiating between "good" and "bad" parts of an unreliable source is not only the introduction of a POV (do see WP:SYNTH), but it is a mockery of wikipedia rules about reliability and verifiability. Furthermore, you see there sources clearly denouncing Stoenescu's claims on many subjects, from the Holocaust to the interwar, and his glaring bias on each and any issue. Finally, your entire argument is a fallacy in the Loki's Wager category.

I am very much aware that you did not cite Giurescu, but I am discussing things in the eventuality that you do (I wanted to write "Giurescu's claims", and missed the "s", which probably made my message look more specific than it was). I also want to point out your misinterpretation of WP:CITE et al: if you did not use the sources, you cannot cite them as references; therefore, the above is your indication that you're just adding bogus references to make it look like your text is validated. And, what's more, the entire addition of such sources in such a hodgepodge manner is another indication of WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK from your part. Dahn (talk) 13:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You just keep telling me the same story and repeating your speech. Unfortunately, all you're doing is reverting other people's work which do not represent your opinion and POV. Your POV is underlined by the facts that you are always reverting viewpoints you disagree with and deleting material that quotes a source you don't approve. It is very said that such wiki articles became so dominated by your and user:Bogdangiusca's POV. --Eurocopter (talk) 14:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Look, Eurocopter, if this is the type of messages you are posting now, this discussion is pretty much comatose. Next time you post something, try to think that I should be able to reply to it without demeaning myself, that's if you insist on not pondering if it befits your project coordinator status. Dahn (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)