User talk:Dahn/Archive 17
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Luca, etc.
Good work on those articles you've been expanding. I just wanted to note that I corrected the translation of "bagă spaima în burgheji"; it's in the imperative. That's also the translation Tismăneanu gives. By the way, do you have a Google account yet? Searching through Google Books can yield some great quotations. Biruitorul 02:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Oh. Well, in case you can use them, let me feed you a couple of quotes culled from GB (Vladimir Tismăneanu, Stalinism for All Seasons: A Political History of Romanian Communism, University of California Press, 2003, ISBN 0-52-023747-1):
p. 126 Arrested in 1933 and released in 1938, only to be arrested again, he went to the USSR after 1940. As a proponent of the Stalinist conception of nationality, he soon took Soviet citizenship and subsequently became a deputy in the Ukrainian Supreme Soviet.
Along with Pauker, Luca was the leader of the Romanian communist emigration in Moscow after 1940. He participated in the establishment of Radio Moscow's Romanian Department and in the activities of the Comintern broadcasting unit România Liberă (Free Romania). Most of the influential Romanian political émigrés were involved in these two propaganda operations, including Leonte Răutu, Valter Roman, Zina Brîncu, Ana Pauker, Constantin Doncea, Dumitru Petrescu, and Alexandru Bîrlădeanu. Luca also played a crucial role in the indoctrination of Romanian prisoners of war in the USSR. After he returned to Romania with "Comrade Ana", to whom he was devoted, he rapidly rose to the forefront of communist propaganda. Although not a gifted public speaker and handicapped by his Hungarian accent, he did his best to contribute to undermining of [sic] the feeble Romanian democracy of the time by delivering countless addresses lambasting the "reactionary" forces and calling for a rapid communist takeover. In private conversations with Gheorghiu-Dej, however, Luca criticized the domestic leaderhsip for having participated in the August 23, 1944, antifascist coup [I thought they didn't]. In his view, it would have been wiser to just wait for the Soviet Army to reach Bucharest, which, he argued, would have brought the RCP straight to power, avoiding the stage of collaboration with the "bourgeois" forces.
As we have seen, Ana Pauker and Vasile Luca combined with Gheorghiu-Dej and the prison nucleus first in the liquidation of the Foriş-Koffler group and then in the expulsion of Lucreţiu Pătrăşcanu from the party. These episodes are perfect illustrations of the ethical quandary of Romanian communism, the pervasive climate of intrigues, conspiracies, innuendo, obloquy, bloodthirsty revenge, and ruthless settlement of accounts.
p. 128 The first of the "deviators" to be hit by the tidal wave of the purge was Vasile Luca. At the meeting of the Politburo on February 19, 1952, Miron Constantinescu presented a report that accused Luca and his collaborators in the Finance Ministry and the National Bank of enemy activity and sabotage. Luca was pressed to undertake a very radical self-critique related to the fact that he had argued against the currency reform, which nevertheless had been implemented on January 28. At the February 29-March 1, 1952 central committee plenum, Luca was linked with "right-wing deviation" and a commission was created to investigate "errors" at the Ministry of Finance and the National Bank.
p. 129 Luca realized his mistake in not having quickly enough uncovered the right-wing deviationism of his direct subordinates in these two institutions. Ana Pauker and Teohari Georgescu, who tried to support Luca, were accused of what was called an "appeasing attitude" (împăciuitorism) in Stalinist cant. In Bolshevik logic, lack of vigilance amounted to "objective" support for the enemy. On March 8, 1952, Luca was accordingly dismissed from the Ministry of Finance and replaced by Dumitru Petrescu. At a meeting on March 13, 1952, Luca, backed by Pauker and Georgescu, fought back and withdrew any acknowledgment of political mistakes. Educated at the Comintern school, Ana Pauker and Vasile Luca knew perfectly well that there was only one step from self-criticism to political trial, so they preferred to adopt a relatively offensive attitude and defied their former sycophants turned prosecutors. [...] A psychological and political climax was reached at the plenum on May 26-27, 1952 [note: May, not August], when the "Luca-Pauker-Georgescu group" was finished off en bloc. Luca was accused of an antiparty and antistate stance in the preparations for and carrying out of currency reform, and of an anti-Leninist line contrary to the interests of the working class and
p. 130 the peasantry with respect to the cooperatives. [...] Hearing the accusations, and knowing very well what his fate was henceforth to be, Luca fainted in the middle of the meeting. [...] Shortly after the May plenum, he was arrested. [...] He was expelled ffrom the party at the plenum on August 19-20, 1953, then put on trial on the basis of his confessions and condemned to death on October 10, 1954, a sentence that was later commuted to life in prison.
Luca desperately wrote to Gheorghiu-Dej denying that he was guilty of the crimes of which he was accused. It is not clear whether Gheorghiu-Dej ever replied, but the archival evidence indicates that he read theese memoranda carefully, underlining things and adding sarcastic comments in the margin. Gheorghiu-Dej's ironical annotations in fact appear in almost every paragraph of Luca's memoranda. Luca died in prison at Aiud on July 23 [not 27], 1963. Biruitorul 03:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Thank you; it looks much better now. A couple of points: this would seem to corroborate the 23 July death date. I don't read Magyar, but see under the 1954 section. Also, the first couple of hits here seem promising, and the third one has a picture, which might be usable, depending on copyright status. Biruitorul 04:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Iancu de Hunedoara
De ce Vajk si nu Voicu? Daca era roman, era Voicu, nu e logic? De ce nu Hunedoara, daca asta este numele romanesc. Sau mi-esti din fratii maghiari care vor sa il confiste pe Ioan de H. numai pt. ei? Eu sunt de acord ca Ioan are istorie comuna si pentru romani si pentru unguri si pentru sirbi. Insa e cert ca era de origine romaneasca. Te rog sa corectezi chestiunile la care m-a referit, si te rog sa nu imi raspunzi ca acest wiki e in engleza. Nu intentionez nici o polemica aici. Mihail ioniu 11:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Raspuns
De ce ar fi speculatie, ma rog? Eşti istoric, de iţi dai cu părerea (meteahnă romănească, de altfel)? Zona era locuită in majoritate de români, iar dacă vrei o carte scrisă pe această temă, mergi te rog la Radu Popa, La începuturile evului mediu românesc. Ţara Haţegului, Bucuresti, Editura Ştiinţifică şi Enciclopedică, 1988 (e clasică). Chiar şi unii istorici maghiari recunosc ca originile lui Ioan de Hunedoara sunt române, deci nu vad unde ar trebui să căutăm aceste origini, în altă parte decât la tată. Mi se consolidează opinia că wikipedia e o chestie amatoristică, de nerecomandat celor care doresc să obţină info de calitate (pentru generalităţi, poate merge). Succes, nu am nevoie de răspuns. Mihail ioniu 17:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Request
Hi Dahn. I was wondering if you could answer Shield2 (talk • contribs)'s question to me here (I don't really have the time right now). Thanks! —Khoikhoi 15:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Constantin Stere
At the moment you might not see a point in an info box, but it gives consistency in look and feel to all the revolutionary pages and will eventually contain an image (if one can be found). Furthermore it makes the time frame/locations clear upon fist glimps of the page, which will benifit the reader.--Fabio 01:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- I found an image, so i suppose it now meets criteria for an info box, im gonna try taking away that ugly border from the photo soon, but if you still feel that the info-box shouldnt be there, then fine, delete it.--Fabio 01:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Ofcourse, i didnt much like the picture anyway, though i have to say that the article never actually made clear where he died? So without the info-box and your little contribution to it, how would a reader know?--Fabio 02:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Two points
1. See the recent additions to Caracal, Romania. If worth keeping, they would need cleanup, but are they worth keeping?
2. I find the Romania '89 assertion here to be dubious, at least in the unqualified way it's presented. There may have been a coup somewhere in there, but not in the classic way, à la Thailand in 2006 or Greece in 1967. Biruitorul 03:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you; that's what I thought. I received a reply from our Dacian friend at the bottom of my talk page; see what you make of it. Biruitorul 14:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] DYK
 |
On October 16, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Vasile Luca, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. |
Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Carpathian Ruthenia
I don't know what to make of Carpathian Ruthenia#Romanians this (mostly recent) mess. I started trying to copy edit it, but it looks like the issues are more than linguistic; certainly nothing I can sort through quickly. Could you please take a look and see if you can sort it out? If not, just kick it back my way and I'll see if I can at least chip away at it. Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 03:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Anniversary
 |
Wiki birthday to you! Wiki birthday, dear Dahn! Wiki birthday to you!
Congratulations on your first Wikibirthday at Wikipedia (October 27, 2005.). On behalf of the community, we'd like to thank you for your countless edits in the past year! Keep it coming!. This Wiki Birthday Balloon was awarded to you by: Fut.Perf. ☼ |
Why are you making so complicated edit-summaries Dahn? Use the diff button once in awhile. Miskin 23:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Why can't you make a copyedit instead of removing my edits? Miskin 13:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] cooperative farming in Denmark
about 90% of all farming of soil in Denmark was cooperative from 1300 (the Black Death, lack of men) to the agricultural reform (the enclosure movement) in 1790s. But the farmers continue the cooperative work if they have need of something in common. Andelsbevægelsen bought cream separator to the farmers as they get dairywork. From 1960s the dairywork had been combined as http://www.arlafoods.com/ is a big enterprise. Andelsbevægelsen get industry to all part of Denmark, no part of the land was to poor as they not get a dairywork if they was many farmers without dairywork. The local blacksmith had great work by the dairywork. Many industry grow from the blacksmiths work by dairywork. http://www.grundfos.com/ start by a blacksmith by a dairywork.
Denmark is a cooperative state.Håbet 06:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- The word Andelsbevægelsen has become somewhat iconic but it literally means the Cooperative Movement, so perhaps "Cooperative movement in Denmark" ? On the other hand, Æ/æ also exists in other aricle names, so I wouldn't worry about that problem (we also have articles using Romanian characters, e.g. Târgu Cărbuneşti) :)
- Haabet's version is a bit short, so if you'll allow me to elaborate a little more; I'm no expert but I know the general outline. Haabet is quite correct that since at least the Middle Ages, the inhabitants of a Danish village would work pretty much like a unit. This situation is known as Landsbyfællesskabet (the village commune). In order to distribute land fairly between farmers, the land was normally distributed between all farmers in a village with each of them owning a strip of land on every field. Reallocation of land took place if the size of the individual families changed strongly. E.g. if one family had many children while another couple remained childless. This system also implied that it would be virtually impossible to work on any one field and only work "for yourself", since your own plot of land might have the full lenght of the field but only be a few meters wide. A second characteristic was that all farms were located close together and near the church, with the result that fields far from the village were often poorly utilized. This all changed in the enclosure movement between 1750 and 1800 which aimed to reunite fields and award them to one owner only. Any farmer would normally be awarded a coherent piece of land + perhaps a piece of a forest. In many villages, farmers were either forced to (or strongly encouraged to) tear down their homes and rebuild them in the middle of their new fields with the intention that this would give them easier access to every part of the field, enabling them to utilize the land more effectively. These events are known as Landboreformerne (the agricultural reforms) or Udskiftningen (the parcellation), and were instigated at the initiative of the Palace in order to raise production. For the next century, a standard village would be comprised of a series of farms, many located a distance from each other, each family working for itself producing grain and raising a few animals. After the war in 1864, two new movements hit Denmark. One was a (successful) attempt to reclaim moors in Central and Western Jutland for farming; mostly sandy land abandoned in the fourteenth century as a result of the Black Plague, but in many cases good for potatoes. This movement was initiated by Hedeselskabet (the Heath Association). Equally important was an influx to the world market of grain from Russia (Ukraine and Poland) resulting in a sharp drop in price. This threatened to destroy the income for many farmers and the result was a change in production from the production of grain to the production of dairy products and meat. In short: when a farmer couldn't sell his grain, he fed it to his cows and pigs. This change in production resulted in a need for dairies and slaughterhouses, and the only way to pay for such massive investments was for a large group of farmers to share the cost and risk between them, thus creating the cooperative dairies and slaughterhouses. I don't know for sure, but I am pretty sure banks were created in this way as well. The new situation implied that farmers would buy cheap grain from Russia and feed it to their livestock, selling milk, butter, eggs and meat for a much higher price. This movement also resulted in the creation of both the Danish Bacon and Danish Lurpak Butter brands. Following 1950, a joint stock company was later formed out of a series of dairies uniting into two rivals Mejeriselskaberne Danmark and Kløver -> later united and renamed MD Foods -> now Arla Foods which controls almost all of the Danish milk market. Danish Crown [1] also owns its existence to the cooperative movement.
- The combination of the Cooperative Movement and the switch away from the production of grain resulted in a great increase in wealth for the average Danish farmer and it became very important in the way Danish farmers perceived themselves. The system was also attempted in other places where Danes settled, e.g. in the Danish communities in the United States. Before World War I, Denmark tried to get a good foothold on the Russian market (which succes, the Russian Revolution cost Danish industry a ton of money). Attempts to construct cooperative dairies in Russia played a large role in this policy, and a few were actually built there. The Russian Revolution destroyed this work, but new attempts were made in the Baltic States during the Interwar period. I don't know if attempts to export the system to Poland ever materialized but the idea was considered in the Danish Foreign Office in order to boost the exports of Danish machinery. Attempts to export this system were often linked with attempts to export the Danish system of secondary education for farmers; Højskolebevægelsen. Both movements were studied in other countries, but Danes know next to nothing about what happend elsewhere. I hope this can give you a little outline about this movement, and if you have any information what happend with these thoughts in Romania or elsewhere, I'd very much like to see it. Happy editing. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 10:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Thank you for your reply. I had a strong feeling that Romania might have undergone an agricultural reform so late that any cooperative movement would have been somewhat meaningless. The Danish agricultural reforms came so early that they couldn't compensate for the later increase in population. Until a good part of the 20th century, Denmark was very underindustrialized, and it was orignially a very poor country. So the cooperative movement was a means to try to enable more farmers to maintain a living in their place of birth, since the towns and cities wouldn't be able to swallow up so many people, and probably also to avoid massive emigration. Only few parts of Denmark experienced emigration, most importantly to the United States, and the most important of these regions was Schleswig due to the German rule there.
- Denmark actually got a second redistribution of land but it came very late (1920s - 30s?) and it was far from drastic enough according to the Social Democratic party - but naturally way too drastic for the Conservatives. It effectively meant the creation of a number of small-scale farms (in Danish: husmandsbrug). A "husmand" literally means a man with a house in contrast to a "gårdmand" = a man with a farm, implying that the latter could make enough from his farm to live off the land alone while the "husmand" would also have to work as a manual labourer, craftsman or similar in order to feed his family. The top stratum in a village was the priest and schoolmaster, then came the big landowners; "gårdmænd" or better. [In some cases, the very big farms / small manors were formed before these reforms. In other cases - like the village where I grew up - well, one family played cards very well 200 years ago ...] Next level of society was the craftsmen who normally owned a bit of land as well. The bottom of society was formed by husmænd and completely landless people. So in the Danish example, the land acquired from the manors was not only paid for in cash by the government, but it wasn't used to increase the existing farms in size but to create new ones. The region where this movement probably was most important was in Southern Jutland (= North Schleswig) which had been reunited with Denmark in 1920. When the government pretty much forced through an acquisition of large German "Domänenpächter" farms splitting them up into tinier units, that was effectively a way to try to ensure that Danes didn't leave the poorly populated and poorly industrialized province. Before the war in 1864, North Schleswig had a population density pretty much the same as the rest of the country; in 1920 it had virtually the same population as in 1860, while the population density of the rest of Denmark had doubled. The population density of South Jutland County is still half the density of my native Funen County, due to a massive emigration from the former for the reason cited before. Btw; the cooperative movement also resulted in a very important series of co-op stores known as Brugsen. Every parish pretty much had one. Today, they are still a pretty big player on the market. They merged with the similar stores in Norway and Sweden a few years ago, and they are today known as "Coop". Happy editing. Valentinian (talk) / (contribs) 16:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Petofi
although i have trouble understanding what that message means to say - if you have trouble, then please do not rv. please ask, my sources - national geographic hungary and literature magazine from budapest: elet es irodalom --Mt7 13:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
