Talk:Dorohoi pogrom

}

Holocaust category
Should this be listed under the "Holocaust" category. Although it did take play in the same time frame, I'm quite sure there was no connection to the Final Solution, thus, I'm a bit uncomfortable with this event being labelled as part of the Holocaust.
 * Well, it's before the final solution was decided upon, so certainly it's not related directly. However, I think it can be seen as a precursor for the Holocaust in Romania, much like the Kristallnacht. It shows that the killing of Jews in Romania was not just at the hands of Germans, but was done willingly by the Romanians themselves. okedem 08:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Rebellious
If the troops were not rebellious, then at least it should be made clear that:

1. They were not endorsed by the goverment; and 2. That the goverment eventually stepped in and stopped some of the abuse.

To me, an army that takes military action on civilians without specific orders from the state, is being rebellious. --Thus Spake Anittas 07:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand your point, but I think the wording should make it clear that there was a wider antisemitic policy, and that these actions did not occur in "empty space" - there was context to it, created, largely, by government actions. I'll see what I can suggest later. okedem 07:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree; and I also think that many of the Jews from Bessarabia supported the Soviet takeover, so it wasn't all a myth, as the article somehow suggests; although that should have been irrelevant to the Jews of Dorohoi or any other Jewish civilians. --Thus Spake Anittas 09:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits by Chriss Muss
Before making radical changes, deleting whole sections and sources, use the talk page.

I translated this whole article from the Hebrew Wikipedia, so don't accuse me of using "copy-pasted text from a website". If it's anywhere else on the web - they copy pasted it from here.

I'm very willing to discuss your objections to the current state of the article, but don't go making unilateral, radical, changes without discussing them. okedem 12:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You do not own this article. You do not speak of "unilateral" when the only contributor here, besides me, is you. You do not make encyclopedic articles in the tone of soap-operas. Chriss Muss 12:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to understand the concept of consensus, which is the major point of editing here. Making radical changes without discussing them if frowned upon. I'm not an unreasonable editor. I don't hold that the article is perfect, and I have no problem with making changes to better it - for example, in the latest version I took your point about the August withdrawals, and added a better cited, clearer version of the background paragraphs. But things need to be discussed to reach a good result. okedem 12:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You do not make encyclopedia articles. You make soapy movie scripts. Chriss Muss 12:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a productive comment. What, describing the actual events is wrong? okedem 12:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "Rivka Croitoru had her breasts amputated." WTF?!?!? And the musshy end "Among the pillaged goods were cans of paint, which were not properly sealed, and the convoy's trail was marked with paint stolen from the Jews." Ohh, I guess we this is when the credits starts running: the trucks go down the road, the paint runs a red line down the dusty roads, and the cheese soundtrack starts playing. Now that we`re finished, let`s make a soap-opera about the Romanian deads, what do you say? Please mind, I`m not anti-semitic, and I do not try to disculp the Romanians. The Jews were of course innocent, but the anti-jewish propaganda (jews equals bolshevics equals criminals) was, unfortunatelly, effective. But be fair, and present the whole facts. Chriss Muss 12:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you want to edit war over style? I think you added some interesting facts, that should be in the article. However, you did so while deleting/rewriting whole sections. Work with me, I'm sure we can find a good compromise. okedem 12:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am asking you, to kindly self-revert, and discuss the changes with me here. okedem 12:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I will not revert because altough not perfect, on the whole, the articles is much, much better since I camed. No offence. But I will discuss it nonetheless...

Background section
What is wrong with it? I see you insist in removing the part that sayd that there were crimes against Romanians, and say that there were in fact "demonstrations of joy" (against the evil, psiho Ro soldiers; m.n.). I`m sorry, for that isn`t right. Kinda reminds me of holocaust denial. Chriss Muss 12:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, my version includes the sentence "Attacks on the soldiers by locals are also documented." Seems good enough for me.
 * Not for me. Chriss Muss 13:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Your refusal to self-revert is not helpful to a productive discussion here. You've already made your numerous changes, completely to your liking, so what's the point now?
 * I'm asking you again - self revert, and discuss the changes here. I'm willing to do so, but doing so after the fact is somewhat pointless. okedem 12:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

"The Pogrom" section
I copy-pasted it from here Compare the academic style of it, and your horror-like unsourced mentionings of breasts and testicles cutting... Chriss Muss 13:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, you can't just copy whole sections from these documents as your own. If you want to use something from it, you have to include it as a quote (like I did in the background section), and clearly state the source before or after the quote.
 * Second, the horror tales, I feel, are important here, the give the reader some more understanding of what actually happened. I know they seem unencyclopedic, but I think they add something here, more realistic than simply saying "torture", or something like that.
 * As horrible as these things seem, they are all sourced, with Ancel's book. okedem 13:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The sentence
The sentece which I removed is so stupid that I cannot explain its stupidity in words. Let us have a look at the sentence:

"These acts were committed before Romania entered the Second World War, before it became Germany's ally, and before a single German soldier set foot on Romanian soil."

Here are my concerns:

1) Why say that it happened before Romania "became Germany's ally," if you say that it happened before Romania entered WW2? Romania was never Germany's ally before WW2 (only Austria's ally just before the start of WW1), so if you say that it happened before Romania entered WW2, then you do not need to say that it happened before Romania became Germany's ally, even if some people may not know about it.

2) I am quite sure that more than a single German solider set foot on Romanian soil. Such events as WW1 come to mind, but I'm sure that a single or more German soldiers set foot on Romanian soil even before WW1 (The Teutonic Knights come to mind); as well as after WW1, but before Romania joined Germany in WW2.

3) The sentence sounds as if it is trying to explain that anti-semetism existed in Romania prior to the German influence on the country in WW2. I do not agree with such an approach. One can interpret the sentence for trying to say that it would be less bad if it had happened during the time when Ro joined WW2--because of Germany's influence on the country--than prior to WW2; and that is stupid!

Overall, this is a very stupid and awkward sentence to use in the article! --Thus Spake Anittas 18:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The sentence makes it clear that this act took place without German influence or command, and that's important. People tend to think all the attacks on Jews during this time were due to German actions, and know little of the willing cooperation (and initiative in the matter) or some countries/peoples.
 * Even after we say it was before Romania entered the war, it's still not clear - what if they were Germany's allies, and so did it because of them? It's an important distinction. Not because it would make it worse or better - but so people can understand the reality of it. Giving people information - this is what we do. This Pogrom was genuine Romanian antisemitism, not Nazi dogma.
 * "German soldier" - It's obvious from the context that the sentence talks about German soldiers entering Romania during that time - WW2, not years before. And, again, it's an important distinction - German soldiers began entering the country on October 8, 1940, and Romania only joined the Axis powers on November 23, 1940 - a month and a half later. okedem 18:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The German soldier entering Romania is totally irrelevant to the anti-semetism that took place before and after WW2. It is not the German soldier that could influence these things, was it? Apart from that, it is illogical to assume that people will understand what you meant to say, when the meaning can be interpreted differently. Lastly, such analyses are not for you to make, but for scholars. You are to report academic sources and theories, not make one of your own. There is a lot of controversial statements made in the article, with few sources to back it up. --Thus Spake Anittas 18:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no analysis in that, only the facts - despite occurring during the general period of WW2, the pogrom took place before Romania's involvement in the war, and before any direct German presence. German soldiers can definitely influence events - relatively quickly, Romania was full of German soldiers - some 500,000 of them. It's a different atmosphere.
 * I'm not particularly interested in what every single reader might interpret - these are facts, and the reader can do with them as he pleases.
 * All material in the article is sourced, seemingly controversial as it may seem. okedem 19:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Source the statement of German soldiers being able to influence events in Romania by attaching a footnote to the source, or else the statement will not be included. I'm not interested in your facts, but in academic sources. --Thus Spake Anittas 19:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Firstly, there is no such statement in the article. Secondly, the presence of half a million German soldiers has an obvious influence on events - it's trivial. Are you disputing the timeline? I'm not making any claims beyond the facts. okedem 19:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * How is it trivial and relevant when the anti-semitic feelings existed before the German soldiers entered Ro? You don't have to prove that by saying that despite no German soliders entered Ro, the anti-semitism still existed in Ro. Why don't you read about Corneliu Zelea Codreanu and realize that anti-semitism existed in Ro before the 20th century? That guy formed the first anti-simitic organization in the world and here you are babbling about German soliders, when it was in fact he who accelerated the anti-semitism in Germany and other countries. Duh! You say that it is a fact, but I say that it is an irrelevant fact because the two events have no relation to each other. It is a fact that Julius Caesar was assassinated. Should we include that in the article? --Thus Spake Anittas 19:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's highly relevant, because at this time Germans were killing Jews en masse (or at least gathering them in camps) in other places in Europe. It's important to clarify that this particular event was not related to Germany. okedem 19:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Have it your way, but I just think that if one must underscore that the events which occurred in Germany did not influence the events in Ro, then one should make it sound right. As it is now, that section sounds like shit. Good luck with the article. --Thus Spake Anittas 19:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Biased presentation
Currently "Various reports speak of attacks on the retreating soldiers by Jews, though their veracity is disputed, and some have been proven to be fabrications." There is then a reference:, though this summary page it links to doesn't support the claim. However, Chapter 3 does seem to talk about the subject: (some other archive versions weren't completely downloaded and give errors). This exact reference used by the author of this sentence says, on page 18 (17 based on page numbers), "At the same time, the July 10, 1940, issue of the newspaper Curierul israelit included an article pointing out the differences between the Jews from the Old Kingdom and those from the surrendered territories. It also severely criticized the anti-Romanian attitudes of those Jewish citizens who acted against Romanian authorities and troops during the evacuation." The document does not deny that actions against troops occurred. On page 16 (or 15 by page number), it says historian Gheorghe Barbul fabricated a story about two Romanian army officers who did not exist, giving the source as "Mihai Pelin, op.cit., pp. 88-101." There are two previous references to works by Mihai Pelin but it seems to be referring to the second one, which unfortunately does not seem to be available online. The author of the document mistakenly referred to the work's title as "Adevăr şi legendă", when in fact it is Legendă și adevăr. Mihai Pelin was born in 1940 so did not experience any of the events himself; one would have to read his book to see if he offers convincing evidence that the episode was fabricated. It appears the book that supposedly includes a fabrication was published in 1950 (when the 'Cold War' was still going on, the main subject of the book had been executed three years before, and Romania was controlled by a pro-Soviet Communist party). This also means that unlike when the accusation of fabrication was made, many people were alive who had direct experience of the events (though many others had also died or were in Soviet work camps). Any obvious fabrication would have been pointed out. This source does not support the claim that reports were proven to have been falsified.

As pointed out in this same source, and elsewhere such as Wilhelm_Filderman and Ion Antonescu, Jewish people in the main part of Romania were not sent to concentration camps or killed by the military. At Talk:Soviet_occupation_of_Bessarabia_and_Northern_Bukovina I linked a translation that is actually a letter from Antonescu to Filderman, explaining why he was allowing persecution of Jewish people in the areas occupied by the Soviet Union. If actions taken against Jewish people in those areas were not a result of what happened during the withdrawal, as even Jewish organizations acknowledge in the reference used on this article, it is difficult to explain why Jewish people in the main part of Romania were not persecuted before, during, and after the time when those in Bessarabia were. 50.135.249.113 (talk) 21:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The source says, "Not only the story, but also the two protagonists were entirely fabricated." Again, reading the book in question would certainly help, but Ion Antonescu was married to Maria Antonescu, who was the daughter of "Romanian Army captain Teodor Niculescu and his wife Angela". It's possible the Captain Niculescu mentioned in the source was in fact the father-in-law of Ion Antonescu. As Maria Antonescu was born in 1892, he would have had to be around 70 years old. 2601:600:8500:B2D9:550E:1A12:AF33:E2CF (talk) 22:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dorohoi pogrom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090613061634/http://www.inshr-ew.ro/en-index.htm to http://www.inshr-ew.ro/en-index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)