User talk:Dahn/Archive 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Re: Re: Moldova

Please consider these two points:

1. The Romanian Cyrillic alphabet is similar to OLD Cyrillic alphabet used by Russians. The Russian-based Moldovan alphabet used in Moldavian ASSR since 1926 was based on the NEW Cyrillic (see Reforms_of_Russian_orthography). As there were evolution of Cyrillic in Russia, so there were in Moldova. Anyway, we should mention the preceding use of Cyrillic, inspite of any differences. 2. The repressions of 1940s are covered in details, but the repressions of 1988-1992 aren't covered at all, where people who didn't speak Romanian were encourage to leave away from Moldova, were fired from their jobs, etc. Officials did't prevent crime towards those who didn't speak Romanian, and there were cases of physical violence and murder towards people who didn't speak Romanian, there cases weren't even registered; no first aid were given to the victims.

[edit] Language

Thank you for your reply, anyway there are statements like "Moldovans were encouraged to adopt the Russian language, which was required in order to get a public job (Russian was supposed to be the language of international communication)" at MSSR, but nothing is writted about the "oppressors" became "opressed" and vice versa in 1987-1992, i.e. the situation has changed 180 degrees. For example, you know the case when deputees from Transnistria were physically beaten in the parliament in Chisinau for their attitute towards the new language law; the demonstrations in Transnistria against the new language laws have been suppressed by the police, with people killed by the police in 1989. According to King, p.173 "During the height of nationalist rhetoric and violence, from 1989 to 1993, a total of 22,351 Russians left Moldova for the Russian Federation".

This is no doubt that there were less violence comparing to Stalin's gulags, but the "Culture and ideology" of 1987-1992 was 180 degrees of Soviet times. While the "Culture and ideology" of Soviet times are exposed to some extent, the "Culture and ideology" of 1987-1992 is not exposed at all.

[edit] People's Tribunals

Hi, Dahn. I was literally seconds away from sending you the message below. I'll be watching the Phanariotes page like a hawk.

Just in case you were looking for a new project (...), I think Romanian People's Tribunals could use some expansion; this covers the trials as a whole quite well and this gives an account of the journalists' trial in particular. I don't have time for the task just now and if you don't either, I quite understand, but let's keep this in mind for the near future.

Also, I found a great quote from an American journalist writing in 1942 here (NB: Legionnaire publication, though the whole article is quite interesting): “Gelozia lui Carol pe Codreanu a cauzat cercul vicios de răzbunare şi violenţă care i-a pătat domnia... Gelozia sălbatică a lui Carol a izvorat din faptul că C. Z.Codreanu era şi făcea tot ce Carol îşi dorea să fie şi să facă. Încă din 1920, când a auzit prima dată de Mussolini, Carol şi-a dorit să creeze o mişcare fascistă în România. Şi Codreanu a creat această mişcare de tip fascist. Carol şi-a dorit să fie iubit de poporul său, mai ales de tineret. Şi Codreanu a fost un Făt-Frumos care a cucerit inimile poporului sau, mai ales ale celor tineri. Carol a dorit să fie un tribun în imaginaţia Românilor, în loc să fie rege. Şi Codreanu a fost un tribun care era în imaginaţia Românilor atât un martir, cât şi un profet... Drumul spre prăbuşirea domniei lui Carol poate fi urmărit înapoi, prin negura de sânge şi ura, până la invidia Regelui pe Corneliu Codreanu.”
I think it casts the matter in an interesting light by trying to find a psychological source for the two men's conflict. If we could work this into the article on either Codreanu or Carol, that would be nice, but either way, we should try to emphasise that their clash was not just political but also personal, with the charismatic, beloved (no, I'm not a Legion sympathiser myself, but he was a very attractive figure to many) Codreanu upstaging an ambitious, hubristic King at every turn and finally being rubbed out by him. A drama of almost Shakespearean proportions. Biruitorul 20:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Good points, and I look forward to the re-invigorated PCR article. Actually, as discussed here, a systematic format for all the Romanian party articles, which are currently a little disorganised, would be a good project, eventually (I'm always putting things off, you see). Arguably, though (and this is mostly just a guess), (1) Carol's power was not great enough in 1933-4 for him to take decisive action against the Guard; he was still bound by the 1923 Constitution and while events were edging toward a Yugoslavia-style solution, Romania was still a parliamentary democracy at the time and violent suppression of a popular, largely home-grown movement may not have been in his interests (as opposed to suppression of the Soviet-backed PCR). (2) At the time Duca was shot, Carol thought he could still come to some sort of accomodation with Codreanu, to try and ride on or co-opt his popularity, perhaps. Even if the American journalist's view is imperfect (and it is), one does see (or one is tempted to see) a pattern of Carol mimicking Codreanu (Guard ideology=>1938 Constitution, Tinereţea Legionară=>Straja Ţării, close Church/Guard relations=>Cristea as PM, personality cult of the Căpitan=>that of Carol, etc.). Eventually, once he couldn't take things anymore, once he sensed Codreanu as a genuine threat to his own power and knew for sure that one or the other of them must lose the struggle, and he had assumed the power to effectively curtail opposition to his move – only then did Carol strike. At least that's my somewhat uninformed view; published sources would be welcomed. Biruitorul 21:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed your work on the parties and was very pleased with it. We might broaden this discussion to the noticeboard, but let's keep it here for now. These are just some random thoughts about where we want to head on this topic. Clearly, a fundamental question is whether a party is defunct or active, and we have that pretty well answered. We have a party infobox, which is good–do we include that for defunct parties? I'm inclined not to, but maybe. We also have a template for current parties, but that can use improvement, and we should make one for historical parties. Here's where we look at other models. Interesting ideas are contained in the approaches of Sweden, Great Britain, Poland, New Zealand (present and defunct, Ireland (present and defunct, and the Netherlands (present and defunct). Which one do you like? I think the Dutch model could work nicely, with elements of the Irish and Polish thrown in as well.

Interesting insight into the Codreanu business. I will try to look for other material and see how I can fit it in. By the way, another area we could explore more is relations with the Church. On the one hand, there was the rival PNC (which again Carol backed long after the Legion had become the dominant religious party). On the other hand, the Legionnaires built lots of churches, including the Orăştie Cathedral and (I think) Mănăstirea Caşin; the reburial of the 14 shot at Jilava was copiously attended by clergy; and generally, religion played a big role (Garda, Căpitanul şi Arhangelul din cer...). They also did lots of social service and charity work. (It's an odd way of showing Christian forgiveness by assassinating so many "traitors", though.) So that could be expanded upon, as well as the Church's own policy toward them and its reaction to their various deeds. As usual, though, finding non-Legionnaire sources may be hard.

Thank you very much for the kind words. I more than reciprocate those feelings toward you; I have tremendous respect for what you do. I only wish there were more like you here. And yes, I certainly do find your edits to be as neutral as can be. I like the Mihalache/Maniu comparison, but, if we are to extend into other parties–who's our Groza? Or our Dej? I've got my ideas... Biruitorul 08:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

It's all right, I'm patient. For now, we can probably put off the PNŢ-PNŢCD question, but I too am inclined to merge, particularly as (1) there was some continuity between the two and (2) there's just one PNL article, and that party's 1948-1989 history closely parallels that of the PNŢ, at least domestically.

I've done the easy part – revamped the current parties template, on the Swedish model. I'll keep you updated as I tackle the more difficult defunct parties question.

For the party category I have a comment on the first part, about the PCR. How about limiting it to politicians who held a political post of some importance before 1990? Of course, it's the "of some importance" part that's tricky. Maybe those covered by the lustration law – although that could yet be too broad.

Question on the Codreanu article: Codreanu was approached by Goga agreed to have his party withdraw from the elections – should this be Codreanu, approached by Goga, agreed to have his party withdraw from the elections ? I would have changed it myself but I want to make sure the sense remains correct.

I'm glad you have something to work on for Church-Guard relations. Neither do I know of any specific Church-PNC relations, so it might just be worth mentioning in the PNC article something to the effect of "Despite the party's name, it did not maintain [significant] formal ties with the Romanian Orthodox Church, which was much more closely allied with the Iron Guard".

I was in fact thinking our Dejs might be in their Doftana phase, but indeed, watch out for those Brătianus! I actually do have PNŢ antecedents (so maybe an anti-PNL predisposition), with my great-grandfather (1890-1982) having been quite active in the party in jud. Soroca; he was also high up in the local adult leadership of Straja Ţării, so I was happy to see you write an article on that. Biruitorul 08:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to keep PNŢ as well; with redirects, that shouldn't be a problem. As for the poor quality of the PNŢCD article: you're right, but somehow I find it difficult to care, if you know what I mean. Especially when they've gone through three useless name changes when PNŢ would have done just as well. But there is a little more on them at ro.wiki (which has three articles on the party), so I may try to incorporate it sometime.

I'm thinking of putting no icon at all in the defunct parties template: I could divide it by time periods, but if I did that, there would be just one party in a 1948-89 template, which wouldn't be too useful.

For the PCR category business: "party activists" might work, plus a description within the category header, plus some monitoring by us to see that the right people are put into the category. I'm not sure, though, that total objectivity is possible. Anyway, as best I could tell, these are the categories covered by the law (sorry for the lack of diacritics):

membrii si membrii supleanti ai CPEx si ai CC al PCR, secretarii CC al PCR, membrii Consiliului de Stat, ai Consiliului de Ministri si ai Marii Adunari Nationale; sefii de sectie, prim-adjunctii si adjunctii acestora, prim-vicepresedintele si vicepresedintii Colegiului Central de Partid, sefii de sector de la CC al PCR; ministrii secretari de stat, secretarii de stat, ministrii plenipotentiari; prim-secretarii si secretarii comitetelor judetene de partid; redactorii-sefi si redactorii-sefi adjuncti din unitatile de presa si edituri, cadrele didactice din Academia „Stefan Gheorghiu“ si ale scolilor judetene de partid; angajatii Departamentului Securitatii Statului; inspectorii generali, sefii de inspectorate de Militie etc
Quite a crowd, no?

That's what I was thinking about the PNC – a clarification. But you are right that our knowledge of the PNC is limited so we should probably wait until we find out more, if we ever do. If only Wikipedia had been around in the 1930s.

Somewhat unusually, my grandmother's family has lived în mediul urban for a few generations, so they were probably PNL types, especially her grandfather, an ethnic Greek merchant from Brăila. My other grandfather was from near Teiuş and a Greek Catholic until 1948; I'm guessing his family was PNŢ. After my other grandmother divorced him, she re-married; I was quite excited when her husband told me he was a friend of Antonescu's nephew during the war, but unfortunately, he never had the pleasure of meeting the Marshal himself.

I put in a link for Straja Ţării in the article on Carol, which is currently not that good on his actual reign (to say the least), and which is further damaged by the fact that the Hohenzollern coat of arms has now been deleted for some reason. Biruitorul 20:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)