Talk:Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina/Archive 1

This page was archived following the instructions at How to archive a talk page.

Merge
Should this article be merged with June 1940 Soviet Ultimatum? - Andrei 18:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Or parcelled out. Or retitled. Or something. Because less than half of this is about the Occupation. We could use something with a focus on the occupation, but seems to me like something of a POV fork (though I've reduced the POV) of a general history of Romania during the War. - Jmabel | Talk 05:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It is very long already and I do not think that it ought to be merged, but they can both have the small 'see also' kind of links. - Pernambuco 01:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I was not aware about the other article. I agree they should be somehow joined. This article is about the occupation and the consequences, if you want in reference to the population that was occupied. The other one is about the ulitmatum and the occupation, somehow in refernce to the country that lost some territories. Of course "see also" is ok, but I somehow feel Jmabel has a point with "POV forking". Even if the two "POVs" do not necessarely contradict each other, they are somehow situated geographically in differnt places :) One looks forward and to the left, the other looks forward and to the right. Will it be really too long? There are in several places, here and there, descriptions of excetly the same thing. If you would agree to merge, then what would be the new title? :Dc76 05:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, merge, as per comments left on Talk:June 1940 Soviet Ultimatum Turgidson 01:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Facts
I'm in the process of editing; there are a few changes I've felt quite confident to make, but others I want to discuss.


 * There is reference to Carol abdicating for the fourth time (a bit of a stretch, since at least two were abdications of his future claims not of a present crown). Offhand, I only count two prior abdications: once to marry Zizi Lambrino, once to go off to Paris with Lupescu. What is the third?
 * He married Zizi and renounced as "heir to the throne" twice, in September 1918 in Odessa, and in July 1919 in Romania. Then in december 1925, then in september 1940, just as you said. The last two were formulated "renounced to the throne". Even the forth time, he managed not to say the word "abdicated". Here is just an ad-hoc sourse found with google, but if you insist I am sure it is possible to find something in English, too.:Dc76 05:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * With reference to the Iron Guard: "a party whose ideology and actions were quickly shifting from a national-Christian doctrine to fascism." This seems way off. We are talking about 1940. I would say that even by 1936 the Legion had become at least primarily fascist, well within Codreanu's time at its helm. But I won't say I'm expert on this, so I'd like others to weigh in.
 * No, you are right, the old formulation was incorrect. From yearly 1920s to late 1930s, the fascist idiology was gradially shifting, becoming more agressive. When the parties were not in power anywhere, and moreover hardly were known, they started with something resembling a national-Christian doctrine nowadays. Then they only advocated "not only jews". But as they got more confident, as closer to the power, they became more agressive. Among others, now it was "no jews". After Codreanu et CO's arrests and assacinations in 1938-39, the original "moderate" leaders were out. The new leaders did not remember the "not only jews" time. After 1939 it was a fascist party in the modern understanding of the word. But it was fascist as well before. What was shifting, was the fascist ideology. In Romania it became what we understand now by fascism in 1938. This is just to clarify things as outside observers, I am not not trying to justify their ideology. (But it is strange how people after WWII mostly blame everything on a handful of individuals. This party had real support, with real grass roots. It is easy for the society to blame a couple people and come "clean") Anyway, this is now out of the text of the article.:Dc76 05:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Was the March 6, 1945 government (the first government of Petru Groza) "totally Communist"? Weren't several other parties also in it, and only later absorbed into the Communist Party? - Jmabel | Talk 04:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it was not totally communist, there were two parties with real support: Groza's own, based on his union (he was a left-wing union leader before), and a Hungarian minority left-wing party, both morally (but not ideologically) pro-communist. All the other parties in his coalition, communist included, did hardly have 1000 members. All pro-democracy parties were excluded (the three major were the cristian-democrats, the liberals, and the social-democrats). All the parties eventually were absorbed into the communist one. The idea is that unlike the government before, which despite a lot of Soviet troops in Romania, was (to practical possibility) independent, Groza's was taking orders (literarly) from the Soviets and the communists of Pauker and Dej. The change was very sudden. And the gradual absorbtion had effect only on the carrers of the people who were absorbed. The policy changed within months, in certain aspect within days.:Dc76 05:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

POV
"The collaboration with the occupation Soviet authorities in 1940-1941 of a (small) number of Bessarabian Jews contributed to a general suspicious attitude towards Jews…": like the people of the region had just loved the Jews before this, and only the perfidy of some Jews led to their participation in the Holocaust? Give me a break. - Jmabel | Talk 05:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * heh. This kind of discourse is associated with the Holocaust denying. "The Jews asked for it". I tried to fix that part a bit. bogdan 22:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Just passing by. I've tried to adress some npov problems, even I still find the general tone of the article a bit too smelling of "patriotic history".--Aldux 23:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Right now, I see that some good-faith editor changed to this:
 * The collaboration of a number of Bessarabian Jews with the Soviet occupation authorities was seen as a pretext by the Romanian administration to take action, which resulted in massive killings and deportations after Romania regained the territory in 1941.
 * Does that rase any objection?


 * For the relations of the Jews and the local population, consider this, you have 270,000 Jews within 3,750,000 total population, every major town has a significant Jewish community, several have a Jewish majority. The Jews are forbidden by law (in the entire Romania) to occupy posts in state administration, in the military and the police. Jews (simply by the sheere size of their proportion in the towns) control a big part of the trade, industry, many doctors etc. Yet, despite this, there was not a single anti-Semitic incident until 1940, which would be more than a quarel between 2 people. Jews and Romanians were not brothers, but they were very good neighbors. Iron Guard and LANC had only very few supporters in the region, comparing to just accross the Prut.
 * There were some extreme-left Jews, who felt that the discrimination before 1940 was severe enought to justify taking matters into own hands in June 1940 and helping Soviet troops. There were incidents when they attacked the Romanian troops preparing to retreat, sabottaged transportation, led Soviet solders to capure certain individuals. But strangly, there seemed to be exactly one such group in every county, and when solders were questioned thoroughly later, what seemed 200, was more like 50, what seem 50 was more like 15 etc. You hardly have more than 1000 people for all this 3,75 milion of population. The fact that there were Jews among them, does not mean there were only Jews. For the Romanian authorities later it was simpler to say it was the Jews than to say that they failed to discover subversive organizations in due time. The Soviet authorities forced every of the approx. 200 members of the local clandestine communist party to make new applications to enter the party. Many refused, saying they were pround to be communists for years. But ability to think was not what Soviets wanted from new party members, so they, too, tried to minimize the role in June 1940 of the local communists. Many of which indeed were Jews, but what %-age, if there were 275,000 Jews and approx 200 communists + approx 1000 retainers, Jews and non-Jews together.
 * But when Romanian troops withdrews, they spread the word that Jews attacked them. Someone heard what someone told what someone thought to see... The numbers in the tales always grow very fast. And June 1940 was a shock for the population, it was all worst fear come back: the country build so hard in 1918 was crumbling. Then in Semptember 1940 - again, the same shock, and the same cowardness, and the same Carol, and... wait to hear the most important conclusion.... yes you guess.... his mistress is Jew... So here you are- Jewish complot! It was a suspicion about Jews that was very fast induced to the population, it grew up within months from inocent jokes about Jews to (for some, and not few people) outright hatred. In preparation for the takeover in July 1941, the new authorities and the gendarms were instructed how to deal with traitor ... Jews.
 * Finally, about the numbers of Jews killed. Before June 1940 in Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina there was no holocaust. In June-July 1941, every major town/city had two places about which everyone was wispering: the siege of the KGB, where you find the bodies of those that "dissapiered" during the previous year, and the backwood where the German "specialized groups", and some zealous Romanians given to them for "orienation in the field" killed Jews. In one single month, just as the front was passing, over 10,000 were killed. And obviously not those individuals that were communists and did what they did in June 1940. Fortunately about 150,000 Jews retreated with the Soviets, helped by the fact that Romania waited 10 days till July 2 to start the advance, so as to be in line with the German troops to the north. And the remaining 100,000? Here is the tragedy. They were deported within a couple months to what was Romania-administred Transnistria in 1941-1944, and for some reason (too many war-related worries, and/or simply cowardness) the rest of the population hardly protested. Strange enough, the non-Jews hid the Jews when the front was passing by, but after that, when the returning Romanian authorities were speaking of separating Jews to Transnistria, the rest of the population thought it's OK. There were not 3,75 million killers, there were sufficient 1,000, and 3,75 million spectators that did nothing. They somehow thought someone is going to create a paradise for Jews in Transnistria. 80% of Jews deported to Transnitria were dead within 3 years! :Dc76 06:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Anyway, I want to thank everyone who contributed to the clean up of this article, I have seen from its "history", there were some very painstakingly thorogh edits. I don't mean that the article is perfect, but it's much better than it was. :Dc76 06:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you, please, state below what sentances are now still POV, so we can work them.:Dc76 06:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, guys, now that you're at it here, could someone check the Romanian source provided for a similar statement over there (second paragraph, 3rd sentence)?

PS: Dc76, feel free to revert me, I just couldn't help myself there... :-) --Illythr 01:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't understand, what do you want me to revert? If you refer to my grammatical mistakes, sorry it was late, and I did not check myself the second time. Thank you for correcting them. :Dc76 03:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, them. It's considered rude to edit other people's posts, but I just couldn't resist... :-) --Illythr 15:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, you did not edit anything, you just corrected obvious mistakes. You can do so in the future, I don't mind. To me, editting is erasing a sentence or certain words. :130.225.20.50 14:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Paul's Goma essay is very long (300+ pages), 15 minutes would not suffice, it need many hours. If I would have time, I'll read it, but cann't promiss too soon. What exactly should I look for? Which sentence do you want me to support/not support? That might help. In fact, the best way is only to use Goma to find the appropriate references, but not document by Goma's essay.:Dc76 03:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That article's not going anywhere, you can take your time, of course. The sentence is over there the 3rd sentence of the second paragraph. This section of the talk page there can further clarify my concerns for you. --Illythr 15:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I see, the discussion in that article is interesting. Unfortunately, these things are still very itchy today. When people discuss them, often one side looks at the other with suspition "is he an antisemit?", "is he trying to say there was no holocaust?", "is he a communist?", "is he a fascist?" I hope that since we live long after the events, and are probably all young people, we can discuss them more detached: an antisemit/communist/fascist will manifest his strangeness in other ways as well, so hopefully we can rule out these qualifications. About the events: so what if as many maybe as many as 2-3% of some ethnic group (although I think the actual numbers are much lower) did something terribly wrong, that says nothing about the group in general. Even if it were 99%, it would be injust to blame everyone. The problem is that the big chunk of the population does not like to think and analyze, but preffers to believe what is told (all Romanians are bad, respectively all Jews are bad). Moreover, the average person is unwilling to admit that sometimes in the past he/she had wrong oppionions about other people.
 * I will start with myself. At some point I did not believe Romanians killed more than 1000 Jews total during WWII. My reason at that time was that the sourses I saw all claimed there were 800,000 Jews murdered. Now, 800,000 was to me a gross exageration, since there were hardly so many Jews in total. So I regarded all this sourses as propaganda adn dismissed them, just because one key piece of information was totally wrong. In time I learned that I was wrong, that there were more than 1,000 Jews killed. I learned that 800,000 was far from true, but 1,000 was also far. When I read recollections describing particular camps with a small number of people (2,000-3,000), then I realized that my old impression was wrong. I realized that all that was real, happened, and that the only things false were that the same people were counted several times and the blame on the general population. I went as far as to find Romanian sourses from the time giving that 75,000 Jews from Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina were in 1942 in camps in Transnistria. I also know this does not include 19,000 Jews from Odessa at one particularly grossome time. And some other deportees. I learned how many people retreated with the Soviet army in 1941, and where they went. Occasionally I got even first hand evidence: Jews from my home town who told me exactly where they were in 1941, former Romanian officers who fought in my home town in 1941, and former Soviet solders who did in 1944, people who lived around in 1940-41, in 1941-44, 1944- on. When you hear them telling you these things personally, understanding that the only reason you ask is your curriosity, especially when they are old and know that otherwise these things will go with them, they onten tell you much more truth and frankness than historians. Of course I can not conclude anything about numbers from what a few people told me, but the real-life stories I heard were extraordinary. To me they are more valuable than 100 sourses. But of course, I cannot use them on wikipedia, because that would be original research. They can be however very helpful in understanding how truthful is a given sourse: I dismiss right away a sourse that says or implies that en event did not occure, when I had been told about instances of such events by some perticipants, and I assign more weight to sourses that tell the spirit of events in a simmilar fashion as the participants told.
 * Fortunately for me, I grew up having Jewish friends as playmates years before I knew what "being a Jew" means. Also, fortunately for me I met many-many Jews. All sort of Jews. I saw exeptional people and I saw cunning ones, I saw professionals and amateurs, I saw people honest and truthful and always ready to help, and people indefirent, or always ready to say a bad word, I saw people of an exceptional intelligence, and I saw mentaly retarded ones. Many Jews have helped me in life, just because they were good people, and others have tried to hinder me, just because they were not so good ones. The most important thing I learned is that one should always look only at the person, a thing which I knew at the very begining, but somehow not with such overwhelming evidence. Jews, just like all nations on earth, are distributted according to a Gauss curve with regard to any personal quality you name. Sometimes, for things like intelligence or verticality, Jews have a slightly bigger standard deviation, which explains why there are more Nobel prizes and more left-wing extremists among Jews. I like to think of myself as not having pro- or anti-Jewish bias, even when I have definite oppinions about some or other events or situations.
 * The same goes about the pro-Soviet attacks in 1940. Unfortunately, these are still badly documented, at least as far as easily available documents, because this was for many years taboo.
 * Jumping directly to Paul Goma's book, it is difficult to read also because of his style. It is like reading "Dilema", if you know what I mean. Goma's book is very oppinionated, but I don't think I heard anyone doubting the facts, and I doubt I will, because he stands very much to loose if a fact proves wrong. Goma was one of the main Romanian dissidents, alongside Blandiana, Cornea, Ursu, Coposu, Petrescu. To understand his passionate style, think just of one example: Mircea Dinescu in December 1989 on Romanian television, his level of coherence there when the events were developing. It would be probvably interesting to write a short Wikipedia article about Goma's book, in time of course.:130.225.20.50 14:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

POV issues
I was asked to list my issues about POV here. I already dealt with a lot of them by my edits, and others have also edited well since. My main issue is how this topic is framed. Clearly the topic is broader than the Occupation of Bessarabia by the Soviet Union (we even mention Finland!) but the framing puts a focus on Soviet abuses and ignores or minimizes Romanian abuses: the almost complete destruction of Bessarabian Jewry gets one paragraph. I still think this should be refactored. In fact, it is unclear exactly what "occupation" the title refers to: it seems to encompass the 1940-1941 occupation and also the later Soviet hegemony, well past a date where it was legally an occupation and into an era when it was an annexation.

Here's are some additional specifics:


 * The only discussion of the military reasons for Romania's withdrawal is the sentence "All military installations and casemates, built during a 20-year period in the event of a Soviet attack, were ceded without a single shot, the Romanian Army being strictly ordered not to respond to any provocation." This provides no suggestion of why they withdrew, and implicitly suggests that they had a serious option of not doing so.
 * "the Iron Guard Legionary Movement (partly destroyed in 1938), a fascist party": two things here, one in each direction:
 * "partly destroyed in 1938" is something of an understatement. It probably deserves a link to somewhere relevant. Almost certainly if we are going to get into that at all, the killing of Codreanu and the others who died with him deserves a mention.
 * "a fascist party" should probably be "an extremely antisemitic fascist party". Antisemitism was arguably even more central to their ideology than to Hitler's, and it is by no means inherent in being fascist.
 * "Despite disagreement from all political parties" emphatically needs citation. Might be entirely accurate, I don't know, but right now we are being asked to take it on faith.
 * Also uncited: "generally with little or no education at all, many of them criminals"; and "people who had no strong family or native land ties" could use a rewording: they doubtless often had family ties to one another, just not to Bessarabia.

I suspect there is more, but it's late and I'm tired. - Jmabel | Talk 07:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much, Jmabel for your comments. First of all, what is the article about: June 1940, why, what happened, the aftermath. The fate of the Bessarabian Jews in 1941-44, in my oppinion desearves a separate article. But the present article should have a link to it, as the two events are interconnected. Other links I was thinking of adding later: about the labour camps in Siberia, Ural, Kazakhstan, and Far East. That would be yet another article. I like to think of this article, of the needed article about Bessarabian Jews in 1941-1944, and of the article about labour camps as sitting in a list of articles regarding Romania & Moldova's history just before, during, and just after WWII. The "aftermath" part of this article should ideally have many links to other articles (about Soviet hegemony, about Bessarabian Jews, etc. etc). The reason Finland and the Baltics are mentioned, is that June 1940/Bessarabia was not a singular event, but an instance of a bigger series of events. Again, the same problem - better linking from this article to other articles.


 * The things you list. I agree 100% about 1, 2.1, 3, and 4. 4 is immediate to correct, 1, 2.1, and 3 will need more time, the reader can take that on faith for a couple weeks until we get to do this, but then obviously there should be links.


 * 2.2 Do you mean there were non-snti-Semitic fascist parties? If yes, then my understanding of how far the category "fascist party" streches is different, and I should read more. If you have some link, I would appreciate. I mean, in my understanding a nationalist pary is not a fascist party. I would say that the German christian-democrats after WWII contain a large nationalist element, but clearly they were not fascist, on the contrary, they were anti-fascist. To me nationalism is a neutral term: it can be both negative (as a component of fascism), or positive (as for example the idiology that led to the brake of Austria-Hungary). Of course, it also matters what was before nationalism: an equal society (then nationalism is clearly a breach of normality), or an un-equal society having a strong anti-nationalist element (then nationalism is cleary a drive towards equality). Simmilarly to Christianity: 313 - move towards equality, 392 - move towards inequality. Going back to the Iron Guard, many of the "old generation", Codreanu included, despite having a pathologic antipathy towards Jews, did not wish Jews to be exterminated, and some even agreed Jews need not be separated. The "new generation", however, had a model: think and talk - and you end up like Cordeanu, act - and you built the National Legionary State. If you want, "new generation" representatives could both kill and kiss Jews, depending on what direction the wind blows, while the old guard, although did not advocate killing Jews, would never kiss them even if threatened with death.


 * But I am not the person who can compare the anti-Semitism of the Iron Guard (both "old" and "new" guard), and Hitler, because I don't know enough. Nevetherless, I recall this very particular event: in 1933, in his capacity of chancelor, Hitler had to make the annual visit to the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Natural Sciences in Berlin. At that time it's head was Max Plank, who dilicately raised the question that Jewish scientists are unjustifiedly persecuted. Since Hitler's replies were in total breach of any kind of logic Max Plank could think of, he had to give more down-to-earth explanations, and said: "there are Jews and Jews". The persons witnessing the discussion recall that Hitler's color of the face started changing up and down the whole spectrum of the rainbow, he started to jesticulate like a conductor, and simmultaneously to produce sounds ressambling at least half a dosen differnt instruments. When his pationate 15-minute "talk", during which only words like "blindness", "German scientists" and "Jews" could be understood, finished, Max Planck was already half way home, and the tour of the KWI had to continue without its director. If it is possible to be more anti-Semitic than that...? :Dc76 20:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "Replacing" the people that left or died, over the years some almost 1 million newcomers arrived from the Soviet Union generally with little or no education at all, many of them criminals, people who had no strong family or native land ties, without any professional qualifications except for the fact that they could speak Russian.
 * Now, where does that come from? This passage uses weasel words ("generally", "many of them criminals") to make a rather blanketing statement about all Russian/Soviet newcomers of the time. It is also grossly incorrect (or at least skewed) since the engineers, technicians and various other specialists who arrived back then were the ones to build the entire industry and science branches of the MSSR practically from scratch. Additionally, many retiring officers and soldiers of the Soviet army were given residence there upon their return from Germany. --Illythr 01:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Right on that one. I'm putting the POV tag back and looks like it will remain there for a while... -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  01:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've narrowed the tag down to the problematic section. The rest of the article needs a bit of rewording, but I found no extraordinary claims there. --Illythr 02:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Who suffered the consequences
Hi, Illythr. Someone pointed above the article June 1940 Soviet Ultimatum. I suggested to merge that article and this one. About your change: I don't think "Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina" should be replaced by "Romania". I think it is B&NB that suffered mostly. R lost territory, but that not so bad as being decimated. There were many refugies from B&NB to R, but these people meant a lot more for the territory they left than for the one they moved to.:Dc76
 * And I think, it should be separate from the paragraph about France, because why then the other events are mentioned (Poland, Finland, the Blatics). I think it should be one sentence=one last paragraph of that section.:Dc76 14:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well my change was with the context of France - The passage says that first, France suffered and lost its territory and then it was the turn of Bessarabia/NB, so, one would assume that the turn was to lose territory. But Bessarabia was part of Romania, and thus was lost itself - to Romania. I sort of dislike the entire passage - it feels as if this passage belongs more to a history book, than an encyclopedia. For example, for the Jewish population, the Soviet annexation was a relief, as they were already second-class citizens in Romania by the time (I have no info on Russians during the period). --Illythr 00:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Status of article
I've moved the following rather note from the article page. (I've also fixed the spelling.) - Jmabel | Talk 05:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This article logically needs to links to about a dozen more other articles. This is being remediated; feel free to help. Also, despite substantial past improvement from different editors, some of the formulations in this article might still be lame, and could be improved. If you see a problem, but can not find a fix, list the problem/comments in the talk page.


 * Hi Jmabel and Illythr, Thank you very much for your very constructive observations and suggestions. I found all of them legitimate and logical; for some of them I would rather use some partial re-wording, for others I accepted your view completely. Therefore I did not answer directly under your questions and observation, but I've tried to address them in the article.
 * I did not read yet Goma's book, and once I do, or once I have found more biblio about the issue raised by Illythr, I will definitevely want to discuss this more with you.
 * I have also suggested that the article June 1940 Soviet Ultimatum be merged here, and we shall see in one month what people have to say (maybe it indeed does make sense to have two articles, but now to me it seems they overlap).
 * And, of course, when you see weasel words, don't be shy to edit. When I write I try to cover the facts, knowing that it is easier to edit later than to research from scratch. I am very glad to have collaborated with you here, and I am even more glad to have met civilized editors. I thought this page would be vandalized, but your good-faith edits helped avoid all that. I don't like the "barnstar" idea, but you desearve something along that lines, at lest my sincere appreciation. :Dc76 20:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Same source
It looks like most of this article as well as the stuff from over there comes from the same Romanian source. Hmmmm... --Illythr 23:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that the source is other than the one cited? Or are you questioning that it is a reliable source? Or what? - Jmabel | Talk 01:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I'm thinking that if it's indeed the same source, it could be moved to that article as well. As for reliability, well, it did contain some highly POV text, but most of it was removed, AFAICS. --Illythr 22:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Reverting
Many thousands died from epidemics as a result of 3.5 million Soviet solders passing through Bessarabia in 1944 (the German and Romanian troops opposing them until August 1944 numbered under 600,000).

What is the relevance opposing German/Romanian troops to the epidemics caused by the Soviet ones? The "cannon fodder" part looks rather opinionated to me. I think that particular tag was correctly placed. --Illythr 23:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The whole sentence is also incorrectly formed - the epidemics did not result simply because the soldiers were passing through the region (unless all 3.5 milion were infected, of course). --Illythr 23:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I understand that you prefer a better formulation. No problem, let's just work on a better formulation expressing the same facts.

Epidemics

 * The number 3.5 million is relevant because it is a tiny territory. Bringing so many people at one time means keeping them in bad living conditions, and hence there will be more infections. It does not mean that all were infected. It is mathematical, that the more crowded it is (over a reasonable treshhold) the exponential of that is the likelihood of infections. And it does not matter if the actual number of infected people was 1% or 99%. 600,000 is used only as a comparison. Those 600,000 were already dense enough for the frontline. The soviet military leaders wanted to be sure, b/c a failure meant more or less 6 more months of war, hence the numbers. I did not mean to say anything abasing to the regard of soviet solders. The problem were the military planers who were relying on numbers instead of quality. Hence unavoidable side effects such as infections. I don't see the current formulation inappropriate, but if you tell me, perhaps it is. Any reformulation would obviously be welcomed by me.
 * I think the 600,000 figure is still irrelevant in that particular sentence, as it is obvious that Bessarabia was not the final goal of the Soviet army. There were quite a bit more Axis forces in the Eastern Europe. In fact, the whole Iassy-Kishinev Operation took only some three weeks and was one of the most effective Soviet operations during the war. "The crowd" was already in Bucharest on August, 31. The 3.5M figure is probably also referring to future reinforcements passing through, as the standing Soviet forces were around 930,000-1,300,000 in strength. Demonstrating that the epidemics came from a very small number of infected troops is also quite difficult without the actual numbers at hand. "Many thousands" is suspiciously vague, as that can be anything in the reange of 2000-19000 people. A good source must be either very precise in such things, or at least explain, why an exact number is unavailable. Perhaps something like this:

"Epidemics within the passing Red Army troops had at times spread to the local populace and caused death of XXXXX civilians. --Illythr 20:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have exact numbers (and don;t have the time for this now). I have also no objection if you modify that passage. :Dc76 17:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Cannon fodder

 * In the other sentence, however, "cannon fodder" is the key point. They were poorly armed and equipped. The idea was that sufficiently many will die in the first few battles so that this problem would dissapear. Unfrotunately, that meant exactly "cannon fodder". I am talking about those that died. There was no training. They did not know the language and did not understand the commands, they were just doing what everyone was doing. And having a back line of NKVD troops that fired on them in case they did not advance means no more and no less than using them as "cannon fodder". I understand that the problem was not in Bessarabia only, as the famine and deportations were not restricted to Bessarabia only, but the fact that it was widespread in all territories held by the Soviets does not make them smaller crimes. I Would make the comparison with Jews sent to the concentration camps. If someone uses "guinea pig", although oppinionated, that is the truth. The fact that their crimes were inhuman doesnot mean that we should not tell the full truth about nazis and communists, however oppionionated that would not seem at a glance. :Dc76 17:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that it's possible to prove that all those drafted in Bessarabia were purposefully used and were killed as cannon fodder. Besides, in late 1944 the Soviet Army was no longer under-equipped, although the fresh recruits certainly might have been. I didn't get the Jews comparison, BTW. I don't think the term is used in reference to Jews who were test subjects to the Nazi experiments, though. Not in Wikipedia, at least. In a similar case, calling Nazis "bloodthirsty monsters" wouldn't be far from truth, especially if referring to the SS. Such language is unacceptable in an encyclopedia, though. (Unless used to quote someone important).

Anyhow, both of these sentences must be referenced.

PS: Heh, it shows that you're inexperienced in the unnatural sciences. :-) If you want to insert the "cannon fodder" part, you can do so, if you but reword it. Instead of saying that the draftees were "cannon fodder", you can mention that the fresh recruits from Bessarabia were sent to battle un/undertrained and underequipped resulting in a higher proportion of casualties among them. Same info, factual (even more so) and in a neutral tone, too. It still needs to be referenced, though. --Illythr 20:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * SS and NKVD can be characterized as "bloodthirsty monsters", yes. But Germans and Russians/Soviets in general - of course not. I am not insane. This is plain obvious. (I can not call a person who would make such confusion evil, for even an evil person can recognize such obviousness; I would just call such person insane. Even bin Laden does not call all Americans by such names.)
 * And yes, i agree with you, I don't have experience with unnatural sciences :-):Dc76 17:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have a direct reference stating that the Soviets used people drafted in Bessarabia in 1944-1945 as "cannon fodder" (and I agree, such an explicit reference would probably be hard to find), but let me add some circumstantial evidence showing that such practices did indeed occur in World War II in Eastern Europe. Here is a documented description, of which the following is an excerpt:   "Many thousands of young Polish deportees were branded with Soviet citizenship, forced into Soviet or quasi-Polish military garb and treated like ordinary Soviet cannon fodder."  I do not claim this is incontrovertible evidence that similar practices obtained in Bessarabia, but I think this is enough evidence to make the claim plausible, and worth looking into.  Turgidson 22:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That a huge number Soviet soldiers was used as cannon fodder, whether by inept commanders or consciuosly, is well documented even in Russian sources. But the claim that there was an ethnic bent to it needs some serious independent research. --Illythr 23:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * All I ment to say by that sentence is your first sentence above: That a huge number Soviet soldiers was used as cannon fodder, whether by inept commanders or consciuosly, is well documented even in Russian sources. + teritorial (not ethnic) bent. I never said ethnic bent. Among those died as cannon fodder there were thousands and thousands of all ethnicicties. BTW, the whole (2-3 sections of the) article is(are) about the consequences for the population in general, not for some particular ethnic group. Mentioning people of only one ethnic group or the other used as cannon fodder would be blasphemous to those that died.
 * As for the teritorrial bent (that includes, but is not restricted only to Moldova), there were several discussions between Stalin and some Soviet officials about this, which resulted in official decision to draft en masse from the western regions newly acquired by USSR, and to suspend the 1926 or 1927 (don't remember which one) -year born draft throughout USSR. The discussions are mentioned in some of those people's memoirs, so I'm sure we can find something on internet. And the text of the official decision can also be found. So I don;t think that would be difficult to support.
 * But again, the key point is, and I am afraid you misunderstoond me on this in several articles, I am talking about ALL the people living in Bessarabia (in this case it refers to those living there in 1940-44). The people of ethnic minorities that lived in 1940 in Moldova were targetted as well, and in the same degree. One can make discussion about those that came after and those that were in 1940 (although it would be issue by issue, as in most of the cases it is the same, but let's say that there are 2-3 issues where there is a difference), but making distinction between people who were in Bessarabia in 1940, and were of different ethnic groups - it's ridiculous and, I will say it again, blasphemous towards those that were mercilessly persecuted or killed. The fact that among communists the proportions of ethnic groups might have been (even if considerably) different, only gives conclusions about communists, not about any ethnic group. There were no ethnic groups with more than 1% communists among them. 99% are not responsible for what 1% did.:Dc76 17:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I read "They did not know the language and did not understand the commands" and assumed you're talking about Romanian speakers.
 * I was not aware about the territorial bent. I'll try lookingfor it. Got any names? --Illythr 20:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Odd quotation
Who is being quoted at “the enormous losses, that Romania's 20 year rule caused”? What language was the original in? I ask, because this is clearly not native English: English would not call for a comma before "that". - Jmabel | Talk 00:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds to me like quotation from the Ultimatum signed by Molotov. In that case the original language is Russian, and it shouldn't be difficult to find the original text (maybe even one of the already existing sources contains it?) The Soviet history books, taught in schools before 1989 had it, isn't that true? I'll try finding the source, but since I am not presently in Moldova or Romania, I can only rely on things available on internet. :Dc76 12:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"politically left-wing oriented"
I don't think that all the Jews (second-class citizens throughout Romania by 1940) were "left-wing oriented" (the "no infringements on cultural life" excuse sounds kinda lame, btw). I also suspect that not every single Moldovan (that is, "ethnically Romanian Bessarabian") opposed the power change of 1940, as the article implies. In general, the article's still in the process of conversion from a nationalistic rant ("darkest hour", "suffer the consequences"...) into a worthwhile article. It'd be best done by adding/quoting more sources (perhaps Russian, or even Soviet) sources: the Soviet POV is virtually absent, the listed consequences and the economical impact are strictly negative etc). As I lack such sources, I can only reword some especially POV'ish passages, for now, at least.

PS: By "Soviet POV" I don't mean the propaganda, but rather, the reasoning behind the actions of the Soviet government at the time. --Illythr 01:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * First, I would like to say a few words about how I "read" the sourses. Then I will say at the end about the current version of the article.


 * By all means, obviously not all Jews were left-wing oriented. These people were unfortunately hurt the most: both sides view them as trators. They must have gone through really hard time. The sourses in Paul Goma's book, which I read about 1/4 (not starting from the begining) point out to the fact that many Jews have retreated to the Romania proper in 1940. The same sourses describe the kind of retibutions Jews had to face there in the wake of the "Red week" events. So, you both loose everything you have accumulated in a life's work, and then get bitten for that!


 * As about Jews from Bessarabia per total. They represented something like 8% of population as the time. The total number of people in the so-called "terrorist bands" could hardly reach more then 10,000-20,000. Even of these I guess about 90% were just following the croud. So, first, 250,000 or so Jews might have had some center-left political view (read classical Social-Democrats) or even center-right views (definitevely a minority, but maybe as high as 20% of them), nevertheless their "worst" thing for which one could theoretically blame a person is just for standing by and not trying to stop terror. If one would start with such requirements, then 99,9% of people on earth are big sinners. Now, second, as many Romanian sourses point out, the majority of those who on 28-30 June were publically rejoycing, a month later were walking with their heads down. Considering that we know how much they must have been disillusioned by the Soviet life style, and the fact that they had to face their neighbors every day who will just look at them and say nothing about how they behaved during that week, if there was something in their actions for which they had to "pay" - they did so plin şi îndesat, especially considering that moral pain is 100 more hurting than physical pain.


 * Which brings us to the conclusion: 2,000, which surprizingly coincides with the number of members of Communist Party in 1940. If we assume that there were another 2,000 strong simpaphases that for a reason or another were not party memebrs yet, we get 50% of 4,000.


 * The reason for which there were so many Jews among the members of the Communist Party, I think we discussed that before. My personal opinion on that is very clear: Jews did not have a state of their own at the time, so a person did not have the option of either going to Israel or integrating in the country's society. They only had some elements of the second option (limited ones, since he/she still would be a second-class citizen - public offices would be out of reach for him/her). In that conditions, the fact that only 1% of them have found solution in an extremist ideology, shows exactly the opposite: somehow 99% were able to remain normal people under abnormal circumstances. I would very much like to see such percentage among Romanians.


 * Among members of Communist Party there were many non-Jews, according to different sketchy sources, about 50%. The majority of sources are to some degree questionable, but from their abundance one can make some preliminary conclusions, that's how I read the numbers above. There were many ethnic Romanians among communists. I never said the opposite. And even those who were not Communists, there were some who did not mind Soviets come (not that they knew much about the Soviets at the time, they would find out on their skin once that happened).
 * this is just WP:OR Anonimu 17:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not about any expression in the article, it is about my personal understanding that I was openly sharing with Illythr to understand what we misunderstand. My opinion is by definition OR, that what exactly what I said above.:Dc76 18:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * My personal opinion: if "darkest hour", "suffer the consequences", etc are presented as the description of the events, than that is clearly far from a neutral tone. But if that is said clearly to be the way a portion of the population (even the vast majority) perceived it, then that is ok by me. To be fair, then one should necessarily include the Soviet POV, as you have described it. I absolutely agree with that. There is some, but not much of that in the present version of the article. That's a good observation you have pointed out.
 * Sorry, those expression aren't accepted in wiki, per WP:TONE, WP:APT and WP:WTA.Anonimu 17:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * if that is said clearly to be the way a portion of the population perceived it. It is ok in wikipedia to cite opinions, as long as it is clear that that is an opinion.:Dc76 18:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It can count as an opinion only if is attributed and is sourced.Anonimu 19:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course:Dc76 19:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess, the source is either Goma's or Usatiuc-Bulgăr's books... This could probably be neutralized with ". Jews were seen as "friends of Communists" and blamed with carrying out the attacks leading to these losses. This had further contributed to the anti-Semitic sentiments already present throughout strong in Romania." --Illythr 20:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You have a golden mouth. Plus, from what I read, (yes, I admit, from one sided sources), I see that the anti-semitic sentiment in July 1940 has gone out of control, it was in the hands of the ordinary people who felt justified to make justice for themselves. I am surprised it did not go more than several dozen isolated incidents (resulted with deaths, not just some scratch). The authorities had zero control over it. If I would have been a state official at that time, I would have been very scared to let something that out of the hand. Of course, i have some more basic objections, I believe even the mild anti-semitic measures in place were wrong, and instead of easing the situation, as the authorities were claiming, were contributing to accumulating tension which one day exploded. My point is only one: in July 1940 there was not just anti-Semitic sentiment, it was anti-Semitic rage, it must have been very scary. I know I will express a personal opinion now: but I think the root of all this evil was in the communist ideology. Were it not present, I believe (maybe naively) things would not have developed so bad. That is of course my personal political belief, I put equality sign between the two most dangerous ideologies 20th century has seen.:Dc76 23:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, all anti-semitic manifestations from Alexandria in 270 BC to the Kishinev pogrom of 1903, are because of the communists. Anonimu 14:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that Antisemitism in Romania had anything to do with Communists. It had everything to do with it's rapprochement with Nazi Germany, IMO. Jewish sympathies towards Communists were just an excuse. The slogan "We're all equal, except for the subhuman scum" looks much better without the last part, especially if you're one of for those considered subhuman. --Illythr 03:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Antisemitism in Romania started in 1860s, in mild forms first of course, but then grew constantly. It reached its climax in the wake of 28 June 1940. That is only one step in a long ladder. People often tend to think that the last step brings you up, forgetting all the previous ones.
 * To whom are you atributing this slogan: "We're all equal, except for the subhuman scum", to me? If yes, I will never speak with you again, that would be the worse thing I was ever blamed in my life. I sincerly hope I misunderstood you here.:Dc76 17:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * On a second thought, I doubt you could have thought that about me. But I'll be waiting confirmation, so I can safely appologize for misunderstanding.:Dc76 20:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Most certainly not. I was comparing Soviet and Nazi official positions. You have nothing to do with this.
 * Antisemitism has existed as long as Jews themselves. The Antisemitism in the article is supposed to refer to its sharp rise over the "normal background levels" under the increasingly fascist Romanian government of the late 1930s - early 1940s. --Illythr 22:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sincerely sorry for misunderstanding. Oh, you were refering to something like why Jews chose Communists over Nazis, I see. You see, my point here is that dispite having some sympaphies (none can forbid that kind of right or blame based on it), 99% did not actually choose one side, which was the moral choise here (they were both evil, but you have to experience to convince yourself). And people like Antonescu, dispite not being threatened with extinction, and actually not forced to make any choice, did made the wrong choice. On a different note, this discussion has gone too far. I really feel like in trenches in Spain in 1936 with Anonimu. :-) Maybe we can limit to discussions about specific things from the article itself. And start a new discussion topic, by the way.:Dc76 23:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As for the consequences, it all depends about the interval we look at. If we compare 1940 with 1956 or 1960, the negative impact is clear and obvious. But if we compare 1940 with 1985, then we should observe that there are lot of achievements. True, they were due to the gradual development of technology, economy, society, etc, one can argue that that would have happened anyway. But, comparing 1940 with 1985, one does not see a negative difference (at least in technological and economic sense).
 * The occupation de jure ended in 1947, so the article should present the consequences in the late 40s, and only exceptionally those of the early 50s.Anonimu 17:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The occupation de jure ended on 27 August 1991. De facto people start living more (but by far not completely, due to huge political restriction in place) normal lifes after Stalin's death.:Dc76 18:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, according to the 1947 Paris treaty Bessarabia and N Bukovina became parts of the Soviet Union. So no occupation. Anonimu 19:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina were not part of Romania in 1947. Whatever Romania signed them (and under foreign occupation!) is void, because the territory was not Romanian in the first place in that year to be just traded. It is not about Russians and Romanians here, but about 3.75 million people who lived there. It is not yours, it is their territory.:Dc76 19:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that Anonimu is correct there. Still, the "Consequences" part may contain more contemporary things, if they can be traced (and sourced) as such. --Illythr 20:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe we can avoid this legal question if it won't be part of the article. My opinion is based on my belief that Romania did not have the right to trade territory in the first place. There was no referendum or elections or anything. Just accepting an ultimatum overnight. So, in this logic, in 1947, Bessarabia was not Romania's to give. Romania might have then only renounced its right over Bessarabia (although some would question even that, due to foreign military occupation), but noone has asked the people of Bessarabia and northern Bukovina anything, they have not renounced to any right. Let's not forget, that Romania got those territories in 1918 because those people wanted. She did not have any capacity to impose anyone anything after loosing to the Germans.:Dc76 23:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Who cares about the rights of the population. Transnistrians decided by a referendum that they want independence, but noone listened to them. No, Romania got those territories in 1918 because the allies didn't want a powerful soviet state. The self proclaimed "Sfatul Tarii" was not an elected body, thus was not representative and had no right to decide for the vlacophone population of bessarabia, not to talk about the other ethnicities in the region.Anonimu 14:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * sure, England and France, which never had a single solder in Bessarabia. And sure, all parliaments in the world are also self-proclaimed. You have just given the best example of negationism on your part. did you ever hear of the Ukrainians, Russians, Bulgars, Polish, Germans, Gagauzians in Sfatul Tarii. Do you know this name, Stefan Balmez? :Dc76 17:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * France actually had quite a few soldiers in Bessarabia in that period. No, parliaments are elected, even in deformed workers' states. Negation of what? Minorities were under represented (less than 30% even if they made more than 50% of bessarabian population).Anonimu 20:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * More than 20? I am very curious where did you read that. You negated that Sfatul Tarii was an elected parliament. It was not elected according to the todays standards, which were impossible due to begining anarchy, but it was in the same rules as the bodies elected in the wake of dissolution of Austri-Hungary. And let me add, the elections for "Ucheriditel'noe sobranie" in Russia in 1917 were by far less democratic than those in Bessarabia for Sfatul Tarii. According to your logic (as I perceive it) Czechoslovakia declared independence ilegally, and Yugoslavia was formed illegally as well. IMO you negate the fact that all these were legal bodies and represented the will of the people at the time.
 * Since the french trained the romanian army in the last part of the war and since they sent an expeditionary force at odessa, most probably they were more than 20. Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia had no legal status until the treaties of the Versailles system. So yes, initially both were de jure separatist(CZ-SK) or occupied(YUG) territories. Anonimu 21:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This guy does not find any french or english solders in Bessarabia. If they trained the Romanian troops at Iasi and were present at Odessa, does not mean they also controlled Bessarabia. Your kind of claim would really need seriousl backing, for it contradicts scolarly work. As for CZ-SK, YU, MD, etc - just say plainly, you do not recognize the rights of self-determination of nations (also recorded sometimes as Wilsonian principles). We don;t have to fight a war on whether they were right or not, we just found what is the core here, why we disagree.
 * I've never claimed french soldiers controlled Bessarabia. It doesn't matter what i think... i've just exp;ained what was the situation according to international law.Anonimu 22:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The minorities in Bessarabia had 30% of places (sharp, not less) because they represented 30% of the population. See for example Clark's book. The same Vladimir Voronin recognizes the full legality of Sfatul Tarii and supports the proclamation of independence in January 1918 (in the wake of the soviet failed coup). He does not agree with the April 1918 decision to unite with Romania, he considers the deputies were manipulated, and there were too many abstentions. I can understand him: his father was a Soviet officer killed in a bombardment in 1941 (his mother was Moldavian (ethnic Romanian) from Corjova). It is easier to live with the heart that your father died in a just war, then in a war those initial month was not just at all. If Voronin's father would have died after 26 July 1941, it would have been easier for him to accept the oppinion of the majority of his conationals. (Romania's continuation of war over Dniester I view as an agresion. It was Germany's war, not Romania's. Providing oil was already way to much Romania was doing. Providing oil to a party in a war you do not agree with is actually a very bad did already.)
 * You're the negationist. In 1897 moldavians represented only 47% of the bessarabian population, and considering the allegedly extensive russification policy of the empire, the number of moldavians in 1917 was at most 45% of bessarabia's population. So every one who doesn't support you view must have some hidden interests?Anonimu 21:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The same author (Clarck) claimes the results of census were rigged. People were asked if they understand Russian, and those who understood it, were recorded as Russians. 47% are people who only spoke Romanian, whose knowledge of Russian are so poor that they do not understand what you mean if you address them in Russian. Many Moldavians did! If recognizing the correctness of the 1897 Russian empire census information of national composition of Bessarabia, then yes, me like Clark believe these data were wrong, and we negate the correctedness.:Dc76 21:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That author is obviously anti-russian, and his book has already been criticized in wiki for partizanship. The census shows that only 8% of bessarabia's population had russian as mother languages, so your motivation doesn't stand up. Anyway, at least this census didn't claim moldavians as russians who forgot their tongue... Anonimu 22:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Besides, if you declare null and void all treaties signed without taking the will of the people into consideration, or due to the presence of hostile armies in the immediate vicinity of the "donator", you'll have to revert the political map of the world to the Stone Age "layout". --Illythr 03:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, all I meant is that people can use this as a pretext. In case of Moldova they used it in 1991, where they declared independence "in virtue of the nulity of the Molotov-Ribbetrop Pact". By doing so they claimed they were occupied since then. To choose independence or union with Romania in virtue of the same thing was a political choice, and every nation is entitled to it, be it right or wrong choice. You see, for a treaty to be null and void, two things are necessary: unchallengible legal argumentation why it is so, and practical steps to make it so. For example the Baltic states's governments in exiles kept only 1st part, while the second was achieved in 1991. Until 1991, Molotov-Ribbentrop was not void, it was actually in place. :Dc76 17:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * here's a speech of Voronin talking about the soviet soldier who 'liberated Moldova. So the current moldovan president considers the presence of soviet troops a liberation, an important POV omitted in the current article. Molotov-Ribentropp became void when Hitler attacked the Soviet Union.:Anonimu 20:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Be my guest, add his oppinion. Noone doubts what he believes about the subject. You see, this is why is NOT MY article, I am not oblidges to add all POVs, but I hope that my additions will positively provoke others to complement. It would be a totally different issue if I would have to put my name under the article: I would have been scolarly obliged to add every important player's views. That's part of the reason I am not a historian: I don't like when right becomes wrong and wrong becomes right, but that's the eternal feature of history.
 * If Molotov-Ribbentrop pact became void on 22 June 1941, then Soviet Union would not have re-occupied re-annexed the area in 1944. If Soviet Union would have stopped in 1944 on Dniester that would have resulted in a maybe totally different world today. But that IMO was impossible: comunism, just how impossible it was for Germany not to start war: fascism. On the same tokken I have to list here Antonescu's Romania: dictature. Unlike the other two who were profoundly idiologically motivated, he wasn't, but he manged to surpass in stupidity. And paid for it. Unfortunately the country paid as well.:Dc76 21:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Soviet Union didn't recognize the Paris Treaty (neither US did), so, for them, Bessarabia was just an occupied Russian territory (see the soviet maps from the period). That's why they re-occupied it in 1944, not because of the M-R.Anonimu 21:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Er, the Soviet Union didn't stop at its original borders (which, BTW, included Bessarabia, as the SU never recognized its secession) not because of any ideology. The invading Axis armies weren't there just on a tourist visit, you know. --Illythr 22:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, so they occupied Herta and the Serpents Island. The title should be changed to: Liberation of Bessarabia, annexation of Northern Bukovina and occupation of Herta, Serpents Island and minor islands on the Danube by the Soviet Union. Anonimu 22:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My revert to Anonimu's edit was exactly based on the fact that he erased "left-wing oriented". By consequence the sentence turned into a nationalist rant (it was implying there were Romanians vs ethnic minorities). And in the same edit, he added a NPOV tag on that section. :-) :-) His NPOV tag was perfectly appropriate: he erased the core of that sentence. :-) It is like I remove "not" from Clinton's "I did not have sex with that woman", and right away comment that Clinton admitted. That was all I meant by reverting him.
 * Since that is factually false and is not NPOV, i don't care about what the deletion of that phrase would imply. Anonimu 17:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and you are maybe ready to beat someone for a disagreement of opinion with you, and do not care about what your action would imply (pain)?:Dc76 18:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If that someone had stolen something from me, i surely wouldn't careAnonimu 19:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What did I steal from you????? :Dc76 19:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess Anonimu means that the section is pretty POV anyway (which it, incidentally is, IMO). --Illythr 20:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Now, about the current state of the article. I do not believe it is very good. I have not read it entirely for quite a while. I wanted to do the merger, and then re-organize it, and see what is missing (I believe still a lot is missing). What I described above, is how I see the events, not any kind of defending of the different expression in the article. I just wanted to tell you honestly how I read the sources. So you can see whether a particular formulation is a bad formulation and you can automatically assume that I would support you in the search of a better one. Or (hopefully there will be few or none such case), you can say, "I do not agree with that of your personal opinion conclusion. I think X does not imply Y, and you got it wrong." I am not God, I can actually try to understand and maybe even change my opinion. I prefer changing my opinion (about some detail or aspect) from wrong to right rather than keeping it wrong. Of course, I would not change it before actually convincing myself I was wrong. :-) But, I am a human, and humans are not perfect.


 * Since the talk came to Goma's book, here is my preliminary opinion (after reading about 1/4-1/3 selectively): At least 50% of it is just reproducing different fragments from source: Romanian military archives, Romanian (official) informative reports, Soviet documents about party's activity during 1940s, numerous citations from witness accounts. And has a huge bibliography list. For that it is an excellent source material. I mean - not to read Goma's interpretations, but the sources he cites: sometimes he has pages and pages or simply reproducing sources, some of which do not actually support his personal conclusions :-). Of course, we would need, the most often found of those to get directly a copy (I don't believe Goma could go that low as to change words in the citations, but just for completeness sake.)
 * That book is highly selective. It shows only a part of the documents. Using it exclusively to source this article would be against WP:WEIGHTAnonimu 17:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No one is trying to use this book exclusively. It is just a source, and only for citations it provides, not for author's opinion, which we do not cite. Every book is selective. But I highly disagree with your adjective "highly selective":Dc76 18:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is that Goma's and Usatiuc-Bulgăr's books form some 70-80% of the articles content, making it rather one-sided. --Illythr 20:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, there are still the old Soviet history books, and basically any book from the Soviet period touching the subject. Problem with that is, it is so much propaganda that it is difficult to find something reasonable to cite. Anyway, I am not in Moldova now, and can only have access to things over internet. (e.g. I don't have Usatiuc-Bulgăr's book with me, I used it earlier, I only have 2-3 pages of notes from it now.) You see, this article is not my property, and I don't want to be held responsible for not having more sources when everyone who has internet connection can edit it. I am not historian, my bread is not wikipedia, I do not feel any inner responsibility as when I author something in my field...:Dc76 23:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Every history book is propaganda, because that's what history is. This is not a reason not to cite soviet books.Anonimu 14:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Be my guest, you would know better what to cite from there. But don't ask me to do that. I have had enough of it. Cite appropriately, and noone would object to it, they would stay in the article. I could vouch for those citations, for I am pritty sure I would recall them.:Dc76 20:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not want to discuss that part were he talks about how many Jewish deaths are attributable to Romania. I believe that number 1 is already a very big number, and I do not see ANY difference between 400,000 or 150,000. I also do not like his approach: if Jews (mostly he says "Jews" and not "that particular Jew said") say "Romania is guilty", "Romanians have killed", "The Romanians have do so much wrong that even Nazis are better", "Romania must pay", then I do not agree that to that one should respond "Jews have killed", "Jews have terrorized", "Jews have done so much wrong that even Soviet Communists are better". I believe one should always write: That particular person... (and give his name!), or That particular small group... (an give its size!). Crimes are not committed by the crowd, but can must be always attributed to particular individuals. Even if that means every single individual that is in the crowd. People bear personal not collective responsibility, even when their acts are done in a group. Doing it in a group can only be aggravating for the individual, but never justifying.


 * And my reason is obvious, and a very personal one: I have met hundreds of wonderful Jews in my life, from childhood till today, not 3-4, but literally hundreds, several dozens of which I got to know very well. When you get to say jokes about both Jews and Romanians and laugh at them, you really get to know the person. They were sometimes the ones supporting me when I needed most and others tried to pretend busy. If those individuals wanted wrong to my nation, than this world is upside down. I can never in my life associate these people with a particular 2,000-strong crowd. And I am talking about all kind of Jews: Russian, Bessarabian, American, Romanian, from Israel and descendants of Romanian, or Russian, or Bessarabian, or even northern Bukovinian Jews, etc, etc. Maybe it is the age: I have not seen 1940 with my eyes, maybe all I want to see is reconciliation, while for someone like Goma who vividly remembers everything that must be much harder. But the conclusion can only be one: no more hatred, we are all brothers (as you have put it once). :Dc76 16:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Your opinions are irrelevant, this is an encyclopedia, not a blog.Anonimu 17:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, I was not talking to you in this paragraph: they are by definition irrelevant to you.:Dc76 18:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Dc76, I appreciate your opinion, but if only I am its intended recipient, it's probably better to either post it to my talk page or email me by using the "email this user" function on my userpage, to avoid any confusion and cluttering this talk page. --Illythr 20:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am very sorry, my mistake. - Just wanted not to brake my message into half here, half on your talk page. I don't mind everyone reading it, but they are nothing more than my opinions. My personal opinions do not have to have encyclopedic status :-) :Dc76 23:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Issues

 * Message to Anonimu: I have nothing against you personally. Honestly. Can we actually talk about the article and disregard personal political views, please? About Ukrainians, I see a citation in Goma's book from a government report by the Cernauti's mayor when he arrived in Bucharest: he says that the bahavior of the Ukrainians in the city was "very correct" He adds "they offered free bread and meals to the people who were evacuating". If those kinds of people are enemies... please, think for a moment, we are actually talking about real people and events. It is unacceptable to blame someone of something when he/she has done the opposite. :Dc76 16:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not what you, me or Goma thinks.. this is about what happened. And ukrainians were pretty happy to get rid of the romanization policyAnonimu 17:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Geting rid of Romanization policies and open-heartedly support an occupation by an idiology they did not share, are two completely different things. Do you have any sourses that state that there was support of occupation based on ethnic criteria? At least Goma provides sourses: he cites them, and in this part does NOT express his personal view. Look, maybe we got to much personal into this, we can definitevely ask for halp of someone like Biruitorul (if he'll have time and interest) or anyone else. Let's not start an edit war now. We are civilized enough that we can talk first. Consider also the following example, and think whether the way you added the NPOV tag is not simmilar. I see 100% coincidence:
 * It is like I remove "not" from Clinton's "I did not have sex with that woman", and right away comment that Clinton admitted.
 * Dc76 18:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have proofs of romanization policies, do you have any proof that they supported an ideology or another? I don't know, probably the fact that all history boooks written by ukrainians consider the soviet occupation a liberation? Goma choses from thousands of documents only those that support his POV. I'll accept a mediation only from a non-romanian/non-moldovan/non-vlach user (who has at least 1 year experience on wiki)Anonimu 18:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not question that there were Romanization policies, I did not ask for proof of that, but that, as you imply, they actively supported the occupation. You are trying to askribe an ideology to all Ukrainians! They were not all communists! On the contrary, less then 1% were! Only Soviet-era history books say the occupation was liberation. The fact that they remained in their houses and did not retreat with Romanian army (as 95% of Romanians did stay!) does not show they loved Soviet Union and wanted it to come and occupy them. What the wanted was territorial authonomy, and some wanted to be part of (non-communist) Ukraine.
 * For Goma, why don't you tell that to Goma, not to me. We are not discussing his book here, but only its sourses. You are absolutely welcome to fill in the missing parts. But, please, do not whitewash a Nazi because some Nazi-hunter has selectively taken only the parts that prove the Nazi's crimes. :Dc76 18:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You said "non-romanian/non-moldovan/non-vlach" !!!????? Are you a racist or something? I don't care what nation would be a person who would spend his time helping us, I only have given you an example of an exceptionally civilized user.:Dc76 18:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I implied nothing. I just removed a factually false statement. You can't speak for what Ukrainians believed or not. One thing sure it's true though... they supported both the Khotin and the Tatar-Bunar (allegedly soviet-supported) uprisings. Bessarabia is a very sore subject for Romanians, and since Romanian are generally russophobic (and for them soviet, ukrainians etc are just other names for russians) i don't think any romanian here could handle such a mediation.Anonimu 19:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no connection between Hotin uprising in 1918 and Soviet occupation in 1940.
 * It shows that Ukrainians weren't happy with the romanian administration.Anonimu 20:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The Tatarbunar uprizing was communist and Soviet supported, even the Soviet history books tell that. It was not a popular uprizinf of local Ukrainians (in a region with mixed population, where Ukrainians were 4th or 5th group after Bessarabian Bulgars, Romanian, Lipovan Russians, Gews, Bessarabian Germans). Tatarbunar (south Bessarabia) had nothing to do with Romanization policies in northern Bukovina.
 * There were less romanians than Ukrianians there. The region was a szekelyfold of the east. Romanization policies were implemented all over romania, "from the dniester to the theiss".Anonimu 20:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Why don;t you say Bessarabia is a very sortee subject for you? After all you can only speak of yourself. Why are you assuming that all Romanians or Bessarabians are Russopobic? If your neighbor don't know the difference between Russians, Ukrainians, communists, etc, I invite you to Moldova, and you can see that every small child knows that! Romania is not the same as in whichever part you live in. And do not generalize many Romanians' ignorance to Bessarabians, please. Biruitorul is not the only person I can think of. How about Illythr? Yes, he is Moldovan (born in Moldova). Not ethnically Romanian, but does not matter, he is a citizen of that country as anyone else, and I can personally add I only wish all citizens were like him. I suppose you don't believe that people of different ethnicities can just live in peace... Anyway, goodbye for today. I leave you to do with the article whatever you want today. Chiar vreau sa vad cat obraz o sa ai, cat o sa schimbi inainte de a discuta.:Dc76 19:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually i don't care about Bessarabia. I just come here when i saw the left wing thingie and i decided someone should remove the pov from this article. I do generalize because i know a lot of normal people... people who don't give a dime about history or bessarabia... the majority of romanians. Not when one of the ethnicity tries to impose its customs and language on the other. Anonimu 20:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I can vouch for user:Dahn and user:TSO1D - if they're Russophobes, then I'm a blood-drinking, children-eating Stalinist. --Illythr 21:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Dahn is anti-communist, thus anti-sovietic.Anonimu 21:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Dahn is anti-communist? That's news to me. So, why did I have not so nice impression about him in the first place? Oh, I remember (of course I rememeber, just kidding), he, in my oppinion, is not how to say very fond of Moldavians(=I mean ethnic Romanians from Moldova), if you know what I mean. He thinks, as far as I understand, they bear most of the responsibility for where they are now. He might actually not be very far from truth after all...:Dc76
 * Anti-Soviet =/= Russophobe. Besides, Dahn appears to be anti-nationalistic and thus sorta neutral to this particular issue. --Illythr 21:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * To me nationalism is like social-democracy, but in the mirror. While fascism and ultra-nationalism is like communism and ultra-socialism. The things that I reproach to socialists is the emphasis on priveleges. Classical example: modern France. The things that I reproach to nationalists is that thinking of your nation well does not imply thinking of other nations worse. Unlike then I don't believe it's a zero-sum game. Or if you want, I am a nationalist (=social-democrat in the mirror) who does not hate other nations, just loves his.:Dc76 23:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * How could someone who is anti-sovietic come and find a balance between the dc76-esque and the soviet POVS?Anonimu 21:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't know. Maybe, paraphrasing someone Illythr might remember, there are no fortresses that intelligence can not take. :-) :Dc76 23:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I think that a person who is both anti-nationalist and anti-Communist will either be able to effectively mediate by countering both POVs to a NPOV or massively add fuel to the fire, depending on his intelligence and diplomatic skills. Based on what I know about Dahn, I'd bet on the former. --Illythr 01:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Dahn is too egocentric to be a good moderator.Anonimu 14:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Eh, wasn't Cicero talking about money there? Don't think I can remember him, I'm not THAT old! :-) --Illythr 01:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No-no, I ment something much more simple, maybe I am misquoting: there is no fortress that the communists can not take. It was sort of popular saying, and I think it was atributed to someone from Soviet civil war, Frunze? Lenin? someone else?
 * I had once a "conflict" with Dahn, we had to go to reporting incidents board or something (it went pretty far, but died out by itself when we both lost too much time and lost all interest in continuing). Then I took opposite POV to his on Tismaneanu, to which article he contributed a lot, but many (including me) were saying he was often whitewashing the guy. Appart from that we did not have any direct contact (dispite occasionally contributting to the same articles) until this. If he wants to come here, I will be assuming good faith. But I cannot promiss to not protest if I will disagree with him. You are also a good mediator yourself. There is also another way: I give the name of a user, and Anonimu does, and those two exchange a little ideas. My choice (if only he would have time to waste on this) would be Biruitorul. You see, Biruitorul has a good chance to actually convincing me when there is a case. At any rate, maybe just 4-5 guys from time to time looking what's going on, without taking any arbitrator vows.:Dc76 01:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course he defended Tismaneanu. By defending him, he defended his report, and thus attacked communism. Anonimu 14:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * By the same logic anyone who claimed that during WWII there was Holocaust (100% of sane people) should be dismissed because by admitting it they thus atacked nazism?
 * There's no connection between what i said and what you claim I meant. Anonimu 20:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You said X (Dahn) defended Y (Tismaneanu report), hence he attacked Z (communism), and thus his oppinions are by definitons not good for discussion. I said that on the same tokken, X (Simon Wiesenthal) defended Y (the existence of holocaust), hence he attacked Z (nazism), and thus his oppinions are by definitons not good for discussion. :Dc76 21:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Besides, I might disagree a lot with Dahn politically, but the thought that he has some kind of conspiracy in mind is just non-sense. He is just a user who has an oppinion on some subjects different from yours and from mine. That does not exclude that in many instances he might be perfectly right. :Dc76 17:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The discussion was about his ability to moderate this subject, not his oppinions. Since he refused, I consider this part of the discussion closed. Anonimu 20:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you think we actually need an official moderator here. What will he his/her purposes? If to reconcile our oppinions: that will be impossible and will neve happen. (If we two were to live in 1936 in Spain, we would perhaps be talking now with guns.) If to find an edit to this article: there are more editors but us two, and also the article could attract a lot of more information to be put in. We two do not own it. I only object when you just copy-edit (IMO very biased) and do not actually bring new material. When I had disagrements with Dahn on Tismaneanu I noticed he had contributed a lot there and was still doing so, which I did not wish to do. So, after doing several edits to make sure he understood the point of objections I withdrew, because I was not interested to actually do reasearch on Tismaneanu.


 * Although I contributed (just marginally) to this article, I stayed away from the discussion up to now. There are several statements in the above that I take exception to, but let me not dwell on them -- there is enough controversy already, no need for me to add to it.  But I simply cannot let the following statement by User:Anonimu go unchallenged:
 * "I'll accept a mediation only from a non-romanian/non-moldovan/non-vlach user"
 * User:Dc76 already expressed his dismay at the sentiment implied by this statement. Let me also state my dismay. I find this discussion based on national origin, and the underlying theme -- ascribing motives to editors solely on their (supposed) ethnicity -- truly beyond the pale, and contrary to several of the fundamental principles of wikipedia (not to say, of basic decency).  I'd say, let's get back to basics, and assume good faith all around.   Turgidson 22:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * While I generally understand your position, I have to respectfully disagree: The AGF principle works only before conflicts start. When you have one, all means to neutralize the issue are valid. `'mikka 23:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps so -- I'm not that familiar with all the intricacies of the rules, I'm just starting from what I know so far, and extrapolating, based on what I view as common sense. At any rate, I maintain my objection:  stating that any user belonging to certain ethnicities would ipso facto be disqualified to mediate in this (or any other) dispute sounds intrinsically discriminatory to me. I don't have all the wikipedia policies at the tip of my fingers, so I don't know which of these policies would apply (if any), but sorry, just plain common sense tells me this does not sound right.  Does it sound right to you?  Turgidson 23:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not talking about the rules. In fact, when it comes to a conflict there is no rule how to fix it, only what procedure can be followed. In terms of mediation, the rule is that both sides have to agree on a mediator. If one side states that they don't want a Romanian mediator, this is most probably rooted in the conflict itself, not just some kind of racism. If people acted in pure logic, we wouldn't need any mediators at all. If a mediation became required, it means that the discussion went beyond logic, and the desire to eliminate some mitigating factors, including possible nationality-related bias, should not be frowned upon. `'mikka 00:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the explanations. This is news to me (I'm kind of new around here, and trying to avoid fights, not too productive a way to spend one's time :)) -- I'll keep it in mind.  Yet -- E pur si muove! It still doesn't sound right to me -- I personally would never resort to such an argument, even if allowed by the procedures, or rules, or whatever.  Well, I hope not -- one should never say never... Turgidson 01:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, it is my duty to add that Anonimu seems to have some common sense: he did not edit the article when I told him that I will be out. Well, you see, there is something else about humans, not only political view and ethnicities. They have the capacity of cooperation, to put aside one aspect and talk independently about another. I hope we can start building something from that. Political opinion is not the only thing a person has to give to the world.:Dc76 23:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If people acted in pure logic, we wouldn't need any mediators at all. If a mediation became required, it means that the discussion went beyond logic. Mikka, I can't believe I start to agree with you. :-) Maybe we should take a brake for a few days and come here later. Who knows, maybe at a palm's flip the logic will prevail, and we could actually talk even directly. Well, I sort of understand him: if I were a convinced communist, then just like him I would become anxious at yellow green (where I stand), not at dark brown (where one should worry):Dc76 01:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * ?!? Anonimu 14:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Amen to all that. That's why I like Mathematics -- it's all a matter of pure logic, none of this fuzz intrinsic in discussing history, or other human affairs. Though arguments can get heated in Math, too.  Go figure.  It must be human nature...  Turgidson 01:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have already lost my interest, so maybe the whole dispute would just die out. Right now it does not say "left-wing oriented" as originally, but "mostly ...". I have never heard of anyone saying that the majority who rejoiced were not communists or sympathizers. But of course "mostly" does not mean "all". So, if he is happy to live with "mostly", then we will start a new conflict on who's maore happy to live with that :-) Anyway, I hope someone would one day actually add more info to the article not just copyediting. Which does help to bring NPOV, but still wikipedia for me is an encyclopedia: it is easier to read through non-neutral portion of a text to find info than through a neutral one missing important info.:Dc76 01:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You're not God. You heard only what you wanted to hear. Your POV is very naive. I'm not happy with "mostly", since that is unverifiable. I know there's a clone of wikipedia where every subject has 2 articles: one with a a favourable POV, and one with an unfavourable POV. You should go there, since in this wiki all articles should be NPOV.Anonimu 14:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am calling your oppinion "extreme", but I have the decency of not calling you "naive" :Dc76 17:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't. Anonimu 20:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You said above Your POV is very naive.:Dc76 21:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Really? Would you mind providing a link to it? It should be an interesting read... --Illythr 03:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This bicephalic wikipedia sounds like an urban legend to me. I'll be waiting for a link breathlessly.  Turgidson 03:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I have not been following all the above (I just followed enough). No matter what other users have decided I think about Goma or Moldavians (I see the latter libel is still being voiced), and no matter how strong some people feel about some issues, there is an objective fact: Goma's book is not a proper source, and why using it discredits wikipedia.
 * Goma is not a trained historian, and he was five years old at the time of the events.
 * The book is inflammatory in tone and polemic in nature.
 * A large number of authoritative historians and political scientists have considered the book to be both spurious and negationist (some have also called him "neo-fascist", just to give you an idea). To my knowledge, there was simply no scientific figure that would endorse his books on "historical events". Even if the event described is trivial, find another source mentioning it.
 * The ideas present in the book are, by all means, those of a minority viewpoint in scholarship, just like Stalinist discourse on the matter of Bessarabia. Wikipedia, as you gentlemen may already know by now, does not endorse minority POVs.

I'm pretty sure the backlash here will continue forever, so I will not be getting involved either in the debate or arbitration (especially since it is the habit of Romanian users to immediately engage in theories about one's supposed views, one's background, and political science in general - all of which are tiresome, irrelevant, and disruptive discussions). That said, if anyone needs to find out the full scope of controversies involving Goma (which some wikipedians do their best to hide), I can give details in separate discussions, and help clarify what must be obscure to non-Romanians. Dahn 11:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not "libeling" you eternally anti-Moldavian. I mentioned that in one instance in the past we had a long disagreement, which IMO had this as a core. I have not seen other instances from you in this regard since then, but I have seen pretty good quality contributions from you on wikipedia on many topics since. I do not assume (that would be wrong by definition) that you will have a anti-Moldavian bias in the future, I am sorry if my sentences on that were not cristal clear. About Goma's book, I would like to add a few onservations in reply to the above:
 * Goma's book consists of 1) extensive citations and of 2) his personal opinions.
 * Most of the latter are inflamatory and polemic (I believe that was his aim, and I don't see that a necessary evil). With some of Goma's comments I have strong issues (strong objections), even totally disagree. With most of Goma's comments I disagree in the tone: I believe it is wrong, even in a polemic, even as a provocation in a discuccion, to atribute a small group's sins to a whole community. I think when one notice that "one side" sees only half of the victims, the "other side" should not "reply" by pointing out only to the other half and totally forgetting about the previous half. I think that's what Goma does, and I think that's wrong.
 * I would object to any inclusion of Goma's views as a source. The citations are a different story, we can actually read and cite those sources. Doesn't matter that he was 5 years at the time. The citations are irrelevant to what age is the author of the book. If you were to write a book with excerpts of different sources about Caesar, noone will ask you to be 2100 year old.
 * The ideas present in the book are, by all means, those of a minority viewpoint in scholarship, just like Stalinist discourse on the matter of Bessarabia. I think Illythr and Anonimu pointed out exactly to this: absence from the article of the latter discourse. I don't see why wikipedia should not present all viewpoints, be they minority or majority, as long as they are clearly attributable. This is history after all, not physics or chemistry. A physical law will not change in time, a history statement - might.
 * The people who were bringing to light the horrors of Nazi Germany were also characterized by "a large number of authoritative historians and political scientists have considered ... to be ... spurious". I have not seen a single statement in the book that says there was no holocaust, and not a single endorsement of any legionary or cuzist idea. But again, I suggest we include 0% of Goma's discourse, so this should not even be an issue here.
 * Again, I am sorry if I am being (perceived by you) preemptive in my assumption about your opinions, background, etc. But, if you don't mind, I would like very much to find out the full scope of controversies involving Goma (which some wikipedians do their best to hide). Are you referring to me? Could you, please, tell me what I am hiding? If you don;t want this here, you can use my talk page, a sandbox, or even email, whatever you prefer. I have nothing to hide, but I will keep the comments at the level of discrecy that you will choose.:Dc76 17:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Goma's book was actually suggested by Illythr to read a few months ago.:Dc76 21:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, AdrianTM had used it as a source to back a suspicious statement in the Bessarabia article, so I was looking for someone to check the book out and see whether it's really that bad. --Illythr 22:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * To Dc76: wikipedia simply does not work like that. Fringe opinions, especially one expressing ideas such as anti-semitism, are not material for sources or citations. If used at all, they will not be masked as "sources", they will be simply be mentioned as what the author thinks, and only where it is important what the author thinks (in an article on him, or an article on his book). Furthermore, discerning "fact" from "opinion" is an invitation to original research, and, when the book itself is doubted, everything in it lacks reliability as a rule. Wikipedia specifically says: if you can only trace facts to a dubious source, they are not facts (better than tracing Mengele's biography to a book of Holocaust denial is not to trace it at all). Even if that were not the case, the discussion about Goma's claims involves Goma's real or alleged manipulation of facts (that is implied in the countless opinions expressed, according to which he is a negationist and a revisionist). One of the "facts" that he talks about is a plan of the Allies of World War I to create a "Jewish state" in Bessarabia... Such fantasies do not belong on wikipedia, and the person using them discredits himself as a source (just as Rosenberg is not a source on Judaism or the history of Germany, though he is one on anti-semitism).
 * I'm not sure what you mean in your comparison with Nazi Germany, but, if it means to say what I think it does, it is both inaccurate and out of place.
 * I was not referring to you in that particular statement about hiding facts, Dc76, so you needn't take offense.
 * In short, Goma is not a source - or, at least, not a source for anything other than Goma himself (and even there with a grain of salt, as he made a habit of theorizing various things about various people). His is neither a reliable testimony nor a scientific verdict. It is simply a large pamphlet of no scientific value. Dahn 00:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Addition, to set the record straight about the "anti-Moldavian" issue: I still consider what you did at the time insulting. Insulting because you took statements out of context when there was no possibility for misinterpretation, insulting because you cropped and split my sentences to make it look like I was saying what I was not saying, and insulting because that action had widespread effects (a user whose name I will not mention here picked up your accusations and your manipulated citations to repeat the accusation). I do not expect you to apologize for that, but neither will I apologize for calling that "trolling", in the strictest definition trolling has. I can and will move on, especially since you indicate you will not promote that idea any longer. Dahn 00:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd be interested in that. If, for example, this statement comes from the book, then the whole of it becomes rather suspect. --Illythr 12:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, his books on the subject are based on this sort of "information". See this for example. Dahn 12:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In Dahn's article, I find this very interesting title: They Got What They Deserved. I don't know why someone can even doubt such sentences are by definition absurd. I actually happen to know people who got what they never deserved, and people who deserved in full and never got anything, and at least personally I have not known or heard of anyone who deserved and got (all categories Jews). Anyone can give an example to contradict this? I very much doubts so.:Dc76 17:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Do note the scare quotes. The article states that this is Goma's opinion towards what happened then. --Illythr 22:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Social and demographic consequences - blatant POV
This section is blatantly POV, because is basically blames Russification on Romanians, whereas the whole point was to deport all Romanian elites and then replace them with Communists. The refugees were mostly of the administration, but deportation touched peasants, small workers, etc. Dpotop 07:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh, blames? Are we reading the same section? The section is indeed POV, because it forgets to mention that those "outright criminals" were called to rebuild the entire country from ruins and develop its economy to surpass that of Romania. And so they did. But I don't think this can be found in sources whose explicit goal is to demonstrate how evil the Soviets were. No, I'm not a Communist and not even a sympathizer. :-P I'm just annoyed at how selective the history articles about Moldova are. --Illythr 12:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, the same. This section implies that the country was devoid of elites due to refugees to Romania. My impression is that those refugees were only the very big elites and the administration. My impression is that the problem was mainly due to the 2,000,000 Romanians deported to the Gulag or killed, cf. Antiromanianism. Dpotop 12:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The deportations are mentioned in detail in the previous subsection. (without a single reference, I might add). --Illythr 12:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It may be useful to either link or add the info from over there, if the sources are good. --Illythr 12:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I added the references, and we must merge the two sections into a single one (we were editing at the same time). Dpotop 12:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Dpotop, you are talking about 1940-1956. Illythr, you are talking about 1956-1991. Can't you see guys you are talking about different things? Noone came in 1945 to build the economy, it stayed in ruins until late 1960s. And many nice people came in 1960s-1970s (true, the majority were not nice, but that's a totally different question about social groups), I mean professionals, who did not leave Moldova when it went through economic downturn in 1990s, as the "visitors" did - this actually proved, who's visitor, and who's come to stay and be part of the country. What better prove than the mother nature's design you want?:Dc76 17:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

could you highlight the section from where those number were taken? (just draw a red square around them in paint and upload the images on imageshack.us or another free image host)Anonimu 12:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Nummbers and dates
"29,839 deported to Siberia on 13 June 1941, 35,796 on 6 July 1949 and 2,617 on 1 April 1951 " The first two seem very high for a single day, are we sure it wasn't over a period of a few days or a week? Rich Farmbrough, 14:27 5 March 2007 (GMT).
 * There were 3 major deportations. These are their dates. Of course it took time to gather people and send them. These are the dates NKVD went to their homes in the night, in all localities at once. You should read 29,839 as the number deported in 1941 (of course 1,000-2,000 on other small occasions throughout that year), not times 365 or whatever! :Dc76 17:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Current state
Man! There has been a lot of back and forth (some of it constructive, some rather ad hominem) since I last looked in here. It's more than I can wade through. Could someone possibly give a neutral summary of what issues about the article (if any) are currently in dispute, so that we can archive this monster discussion? -- Jmabel | Talk

Romanians greeting Reds?
Perhaps, but new questions are raised by the mention of "Jewish community leaders": who are these leaders, and should we trust them? Might they not, like Paul Goma, have a vested interest in making their own side look less bad? I'm not saying their claim is unbelievable, but I hope citations are forthcoming. Biruitorul 00:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * To clarify: my comment was foremost aimed against generalizing, because it is automatically implied that one has knowledge of every person who took part, and could indicate that none of them was Romanian (which is impossible). Now, for the details, leaving aside the Romanian communists, various Romanian opportunists and Romanian white trash (all of whom are referred to in an article written by a Jewish community leader in Magazin Istoric - I have it home, but it would take me time to reference it). According to the Final Report of the Wiesel Commission (which, btw, I would strongly urge to be used as a source for this article):

În al şaselea rând, chiar unii români i-au primit cu bucurie pe sovietici în Basarabia şi nordul Bucovinei. Este cazul oraşului Soroca, unde notabili locali, precum primarul Gheorghe Lupaşcu, fostul prefect Petre Sfeclă, preşedintele secţiei Frontului Renaşterii Naţionale (Partidul Naţiunii) Alexandru Anop şi inspectorul şcolar Petre Hriţcu, au organizat un miting pentru a-i primi pe „eliberatorii sovietici”. După cum nota regele Carol al II-lea la 30 iunie 1940, acesta nu a fost un caz izolat. “Ştirile din Basarabia sunt tot mai triste. Din, păcate am avut dreptate cu aşa-numita reorganizare a F.R.N., mulţi dintre conducătorii de acolo s-au arătat complect bolşevizaţi, fiind cei dintâi care au primit cu drapele roşii şi flori trupele sovietice”


 * I rest my case. Dahn 00:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, this example, these names, is/are present in Goma's book. For that kind of things I was suggesting to use it, not to support Goma's POV. In fact, in section "Red week" which will be in construction perhaps 2 years if not more, I wanted to list such instances: 2-3 sentances for each county.:Dc76 23:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I frankly don't care what Goma lists. See below. Dahn 00:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, btw, the problem with Goma is not that he vests his interest on making his side look better, but that he has developed the whole conspiracy theory according to which there are sides, and those sides are the Romanians and the Jews. Even if Jews would have been the only ones welcoming Soviets, even if no Jews would not have protested the occupation (as many actually did), nobody is to be held responsible for what another person did, and I frankly don't even think that there is anything intrinsically wrong in what those people did (unlike killing people on the basis of what they reportedly believed, which is what Romania did and cannot possibly justify). I would have to say that a Ukrainian welcoming Soviet troops at the time was pretty stupid (though nothing more); I cannot even say as much about those Jews who did that, since they were subject to sinister discriminatory legislation by then. Dahn 00:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "Oh, btw, the problem with Goma is not that he vests his interest on making his side look better, but that he has developed the whole conspiracy theory according to which there are sides, and those sides are the Romanians and the Jews." If that is indeed your main objection to Goma's book, then I fully agree with you here. I "agree" with Goma's citations and sourses, but I do disagree with many of his conclusions, especially that this would have been and ethnic conflict - IT WAS NOT.:Dc76 23:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Dc76, I have stated this as clearly as I could: Goma is known to have provided and relied on false information, and to have disseminated it; to the academic world, he is either irrelevant or scandalous. There is absolutely no reason for using Goma, and there is no discussion about it (just as there is no discussion about using David Irving to reference articles on the Holocaust). I personally do not negotiate on this issue, and I believe all respected contributors will agree with me here. Furthermore, even if I were to accept using fantasies such as Goma's to source this article (or in any other article on this issue), it would still be original research to tell what is fact and what is not opinion in his rant (I repeat it here: most of what he presents as "facts" are actually either sophistical twists or blatant paranoia). In case it is not clear: that was not my main reason for objecting to Goma, that was my reaction to a comparison made between Goma and x, which, IMO, owed to the fact that Goma had poisoned the well; my full reason for objecting to Goma is immense, and so common-sense that I should not even have to voice it - in fact, I can safely say there is no reason to even begin considering using him as a source. Dahn 23:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ok, let's agree on what we agree: Goma had his good share of contribution in poisoning the well. On soursing, let's deal case by case: if we go to the actual sourse, and find those exact word, I hope you will not agree for the simple reason that Goma coppied them into his book. The discussion on more than that belongs, IMO in Paul Goma, which as you see I don't contribute.:Dc76 00:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It does not work like that. Where did Goma copy the information from? How reliable is that information? (If it is as reliable as the crap about Woodrow Wilson turning Bessarabia into Eretz Israel, I don't wanna know.) If he did copy it off of some reliable source, and if that source is made available (and preferably transparent), yes. Only in that event. Additionally, every single statement must be attributed, and, if there is anything as reliable contradicting it, that should be mentioned as well. Dahn 01:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Aha. Well, let's keep this in mind for inclusion. The more specific it is, the more compelling the article will be (to a point) - rather than refer to "some people", naming actual names I think will enhance its credibility. Biruitorul 00:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go with a reluctant "yes". While I do agree on principle with the "naming actual names will enhance its credibility", note that the matter is a little more complicated than that. The major risk here is making this seem like "the Jews, the Ukrainians and three Romanians from Soroca (x, y, and z) welcomed the Soviet troops", whereas the article I mentioned, the Final Report, and Carol alike speak in more generic terms (presumably, because each is a synthesis of the situation instead of a record, and because all names are bound to be irrelevant). On the other hand, mentions of "who greeted the troops" in texts that shy away from mentioning Romanians (starting with Antonescu's own propaganda) consistently fail to provide names themselves (or even, when they do provide names, they turn up to be invented, as can be read in the Report). So, yes, but with all this in mind. Dahn 00:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "the Jews, the Ukrainians and three Romanians from Soroca (x, y, and z) welcomed the Soviet troops" Obviously that is unacceptable. Here is how it shoudle be "In Soroca county, x, y, z, t, v and w, along with a 100-string group of youth following them...", without a single time mentioning anyone's ethnicity. IMO:Dc76 23:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It also depends on how we phrase it. I would say to start with a more general comment ("Romanians were among those who welcomed..."), and then provide illustrative examples ("for instance, in Soroca,..."). Biruitorul 01:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Additionally, I think Carol's comment about the FRN is extremely interesting (and, incidentally, rather ironic, in a "kill by the sword..."/"fiecare pasăre..." way). I would also include it in full in the future. Dahn 01:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe we should discuss more on how the article should be structured: which sections and what should they contain, event-wise, info-wise. That was my aim when I last time reorganized the article: to fix an outline succetion of sections/subsection for later development (where needed).
 * But I failed to generate the kind of discussion I wanted, in turn generating argument with Anonimu on "mostly left-wing". Right now, partial edits to unfinished sections give to the whole article a tent of POV - the same edits to a full article would have had minimal impact.
 * To use the Holocaust Commision report to sourse some statements - sure, no problem. Use it as a further reading or external sourse - rather not, for the simple reason that the report was not about the Soviet occupation.
 * BTW, sorry but I do not know which Carol's comment do you guys refer to. Could you, give a link, please, or just tell in words what was there. :Dc76 23:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I find the reason for "not using the report" ridiculous - it mentions the occupation at length, it provides many accurate details, it explores the myth involving "Jewish activities", and it is clearly non-partisan. In fact, it is not "about the Soviet occupation" simply because it is about more than the Soviet occupation - nobody is suggesting using this article to source post-1940 events, but actually reading it, Dc76, will clarify that it does deal with exactly the issues that have been intensely obscured on this page.
 * Carol's comments are included in the quote I provided. Dahn 23:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not saying to not use it. I am saying to use it to support apecific statements (sentances). The report fails totally to mention the killings, tortures and deportations that the Soviets did, including those in the days and months immediately after 28 june. Because: it did not aim to do that. :Dc76 00:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And, again and obviously, I am not saying we should use it to source things it does not say. If it does not talk about Soviet murders (alleged or real), it will obviously not be used for that. Why are we even discussing this? It will and should be used as a source for what it does say. And you will have to come up with a neutral source that does mention the killings (the University of Hawaii tables are a good start). Dahn 01:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * And I will clarify this: this article was and is a mess, not because of recent edits, but because of the way in which it was created, because of the generalizations and the highly dubious and POV details it comprises. Dahn 23:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) the numbers of victims is POV detail? I hope you don't mean that. 2) since there are very few scholarly works of fine quality on the issue (there are many average or small quality works), the subject would have an air of generalization for years to come, until it is more thoroughly studied by historians. 3) the article is still a mess because except Illythr's constructive comments in November, which relatively to what it was before his comments improved the article a great deal, everyone else is more worried not to loose face of position in a dispute. Even when we disagree, we still can make a discussion, not a dispute. You know that I know there are 100 differnt ways of refrasing the same info, and I know that you know the same thing. I am not intending to get stuck with you on some word. That makes sense to do with Anonimu - he will never agree with me anything by definition - not with you. :Dc76 00:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1)I want to look into all those sources. Everything that was taken from Goma is under suspicion of bogusness. 2)There are quite enough relevant scholarly works which do not generalize. Additionally, the generalizations I am referring to are of the "left-minded people", "cannon fodder" type - which seem to be backed by a POV (however justifiable that POV may be), not by a quest for accuracy. 3)This is not about me not losing face, it is about not using articles as speeches or display-cases, and to make them as informative and accurate as proper sources permit us. Dahn 01:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

your last edit
Ok, then just say so: "politically left-minded and lichele". I only object if a given edit suggests that the population was 50%-50%, or something like that. It wasn't: the supporters were less than 2%, those ready to take arms agaist were maybe 25-30%, and the rest 70-75% (the vast majority of average and less the average - economically - peasants) were just asking themselves what's going on and how they could better addapt to the situation. I can not sourse such numbers, obviously, noone was taking a poll then. But all sourses indicate that is was not a 20% to 30% with 50% watching situation, or like that. The activists on one side were an ignorable minority from 4 million of population (population=3.776 mil in 1930, meaning approx. 4 mil in 1940) 2% would mean 80,000 - already by far an exageration. In Chisinau they had 500-1,000 supporters who took to the streets, out of 100,000+ urban population. Where did this whole "ethnicity" dispute came from? Even the most ardent anti-Romanian Ukrainians were opposed to incorporation into USSR - all that they wanted was at most incorporation of their villages into an independent Ukrainian state. They did not support Soviet takeover, but simply kept quiet to see what kind of consequences the occupation would bring upon their villages. The same about "white" Russians who fleed the civil war. The average Jew wanted equality of opportunities, access to public positions (and the example they were giving at the time were the first secretary of MASSR and of Dubasari raion just before 28 june), economic freedom, not a communist Jewish state in Bessarabia or a Holodomor-like administration. (The fact that one person defected from communists to the west to become Europa Libera's redactor only means that that particular person had something in his mind, simmilarly to wikipedia editors pushing time and time again their POVs - I fail to understand while instead of exposing that individual Goma makes remarks about a whole group of people, who do not share(d) that individual's POV.) I think one of the best sourses of population's state of mind in that period are Eufrosinia Kersnovskaya's memoirs - if you know Russian, I strongly recommended their reading, you will not regret the time, it's almost like a piece of art. :Dc76 00:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * For starters, I picture it is much easier sourcing the notion that "not many people welcomed the Soviets" (in fact, I think that the Report itself indicates it somewhere). The issue here is about "who those people were", when: a. no poll was taken; b. virtually all allegations to have made on the subject were the work of Romanian authorities, are known to be false, and known to have been used in propaganda. So, in short: what you want to say is "few people", not "some communists and white trash" (if I call the FRN officials "lichele", it does not mean I expect people to agree with me that they were). What you should say is "around n% people", and do so based on a reliable source. Dahn 01:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You lost me with the Free Europe remark and what it "proves", but I'm pretty sure that is not a conversation I want to have. Dahn 01:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's something: I was looking through Butnaru's The Silent Holocaust on google books (for an entirtely different reason). And guess what? On pages 65-70, there is an account of Jewish persons killed by retreating Romanian troops. I do not vouch for the accuracy of the info, and I dis not check it against the report (which, I should mention, is also available in English). However, let's keep this in mind. Dahn 02:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

late reply to Dahn's last replies
Let me just say in short that what you wrote since my last edit of the talk page, seems to me healthy common sense, and a good basis.

A few details:
 * "only few people welcomed the Soviets" - I would prefer this fullhartedly. (I changed your "not many"/"few" to "only few")
 * I only used once Goma for editting this article: to get the names of members of the Crown coucil, which in fact Goma presents incompletely, so I had to google to find more. I did not use Goma for more. But I was (am) going to use his citations to go find those in the original sourses, and use them in the article. Therefore I was making this fuss about using Goma as a reference. (In my field, if I use a sourse even to read and understand something, it is customary to be honest and cite, even if totally not used for the text itself. Of course, there are different standards in science and in encyclopedia, therefore i wanted to be sure I understand.) But I only understand to use it as you described above (i.e. citing the actual sourse, not Goma), so I consider this item clarified. I would refrain from openly doubting that Goma coppied correctly a citation, but to be sure and avoid non-sense discussions I would prefer to read (/cite/link to, where available online) the original.
 * I never had in mind that this article should be for "speeches or display-cases". I simply wanted it to be "informative". Therefore, even if in the future it would happen that I disagree with you, regardless how much we would disagree, please know, I still want to hear your voice. Your participation does make things more informative to the average reader in the end, regardless of the means and time. I am not sure that the ends would always justify the means, but I do ackknwoledge that the end would be positive. So, it's about efficient time/discussion-management.
 * Of course, there were many cases of Romanians taking what they saw as revenge on Jews - apparently several thousand (!, maybe even 5,000 or more total, in several hundred "small" cases) dead or injured in June-August 1940) - this excluding the major cases, such as the 2 death tains from Iasi, the Legionary uprising in 1941, etc. An account of such an event is for example in the memoir of Usatiuc-Bulgăr: he claims to witness the exhumation by crying relatives of 20 Jews killed during a preceding night on the fringes of the town of Nouăsuliţa by a retreating Romanian contingent (around 1-2 July 1940). If I remember now, even some of what Goma cites contain references to such cases. What I fail to understand is why some people (on both "sides") tend to see this as a Romanians vs Jews persecutions, when they are both crimes, and personally I don't care what ethnicity is the criminal, or wheter he did that in the name of some noble cause that he arived to twist to such an extent as to kill!
 * Dc76 20:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, DC76. I'd like to commend you for the statement: "In my field, if I use a sourse even to read and understand something, it is customary to be honest and cite, even if totally not used for the text itself." I'm not sure what your field is (it's not relevant to this discussion, anyhow), but let me say I fully agree with the spirit of the statement.  And let me tell you, not everyone does that, even in science, which I find very annoying.  Now, I also understand there are different modus operandi at WP, which I accept, though it still doesn't sound quite right to me.  Oh well, things are not always the way one would want them to be — one must learn to play by La règle du jeu.  Turgidson 21:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I will postpone my answer to other comments made here and elsewhere, and address this particular issue for now. What I have actually stated is the following:
 * Goma's books are not to be used as sources, for reasons that are self-evident.
 * If an information was fished from Goma, presuming it relies on accurate sources, it would need to be referenced to those sources, after those sources have been reviewed by the editor (and not based on the assumption that Goma quotes them properly - because of reason 1). It does not matter to anyone how banal that info may be, and, furthermore, if its sole source is Goma, it quite frankly does not exist. As I have said before, and as wikipedia regulations will back me, if the only source for an information is dubious, then the information is superfluous; if it is reliable, it can easily be found elsewhere (cited or in the original). No, I do not accept the argument that, reliable or not, Goma is one of the few works to deal with this subject - I have proven that this is not the case, and I dislike the fact that this point was repeatedly circumvented for the sake of using Goma.
 * There is no fundamental difference between Wikipedia and any other work that strives to be reliable. Dahn 22:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi.
 * agree in reference to this book (not that I intend to ever use any other of his books here, but just to be humanly fair and consistent - I don't assess people, but rather every piece they write)
 * a) first sentence - agree b) second and third sentences: if I have some preliminary, yet unverified edit that needs to be soursed, I will write it in the talk page, and only when I get to the sourse I will review the edit according to what I read from the entire section or chapter from where the particular citation is from. c) forth/last sentence - irrelevant (although there is some truth in what you say) in view of the fact that Goma will not be used directly. Let's just focus on more sourses. What I do intend to use from Goma is his list of bibliography, which by far is not an elementary work to compile.
 * disagree, however this has exactly 0 (zero) to do with the article. If you restrict to history, even there there are big differences, but let's say you might be right with respect to "fundamental differences" (true scotsmen )
 * I am finished with editing this article for now. I will need to read much more to do more significant edits, and sincerely I don't know when I will have the time. I just wanted to do the merge today. Anyway, thanks for you kind assistence in resolving the above issues.:Dc76 23:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)