Romanian & Hungarian war-crimes

Agarici, Dragos03, Johnny, I made a new thread.
To avoid further off-topics here or something else that may cause a mod intervention.

http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?sh...t=0&#entry34730

I dont know if the new thread has any point for us who "know" some things, but let me know what you think there.

take care

And what would be insinuating here? Is it so hard to speak frankly?

You also don't know other members in person, but you had no problem assuming things about them just from their location and nationality. But that is another matter.

The "nationalist" epithet isn't something bad, at least IMO, when used reasonably. I myself am one and despite much BS I have to put up with, I am proud to be Romanian. The nationalist I had in mind was dragos03, because ever since I knew him from different WWII forums (AHF and Feldgrau) he always defended Romanians when it was the case, usually with evidence and reason, just like I tried to do. I would be very sorry if he chose to leave the forum, even though we had different opinions on some matters.

You I don't know that well and don't really want to, but my opinion is that you are wrong. Regarding the "subculture" you tried to prove it existed. You presented several examples, of which one was in 1601 and it did not involve skinning, but burning. The example for 1940 was a lynching as was the one in 1989. Only the one from 1956 actually presumed skinning alive. IMO unconvicing and seems more like specullating. Btw, you haven't answered Sid's question about episodes from "Teroarea Fasicsto-Hortysta" with skinning alive.

But that wasn't dragos03 who listed those events, it was Agarici. Dragos03 just presented the Treznea incident and made a debatable comment. He did not vilify or try to denigrate others, at least not IMO. I think a clarification is neccessary to settle things out.

Please note that when I made my initial comment yesterday, following my return from Europe, that stirred the subsequent furor, I wasn't referring to a particular member, but several ones. Dragos03 was one of them, as I directly quoted his text. Agarici was another one, as I summarized his inflammatory post. There are others, too.
I hope this clarifies the issue.

I would be sorry to see Dragos03 or any other current members leave, as it wouldn't solve any issues, just would leave them hanging in the (virtual) air, unanswered.

We are all adults here and joined the forum to debate issues. I hope we all can handle criticism, even if it may sound harsh to the addressee. If I would have not be able to do the very same thing, believe me I would have left long time ago, as I was personally targeted repeatedly thoroughout my activity on this forum. As it turned out, some of those are no longer with us here and I still am.

Gen. Dénes

Criticism is one thing, accusations of xenophobia and chauvinism are more serious and should not be used so easily IMO.

Thank you Victor for your attitude on this issue.

I also think that we are all adults here and we can discuss based on facts, without insults. I quoted my sources on the Treznea story. When i researched it, i asked people from all sides, including the Hungarians.

Denes didn't quote any clear source for his version. The fact that he only relied on Hungarian sources proves his lack of objectivity. Instead of facts, he turned to insults. It seems that we're not all adults on this forum after all.

And what would be insinuating here? Is it so hard to speak frankly?

You also don't know other members in person, but you had no problem assuming things about them just from their location and nationality. But that is another matter.

The "nationalist" epithet isn't something bad, at least IMO, when used reasonably. I myself am one and despite much BS I have to put up with, I am proud to be Romanian. The nationalist I had in mind was dragos03, because ever since I knew him from different WWII forums (AHF and Feldgrau) he always defended Romanians when it was the case, usually with evidence and reason, just like I tried to do. I would be very sorry if he chose to leave the forum, even though we had different opinions on some matters.

You I don't know that well and don't really want to, but my opinion is that you are wrong. Regarding the "subculture" you tried to prove it existed. You presented several examples, of which one was in 1601 and it did not involve skinning, but burning. The example for 1940 was a lynching as was the one in 1989. Only the one from 1956 actually presumed skinning alive. IMO unconvicing and seems more like specullating. Btw, you haven't answered Sid's question about episodes from "Teroarea Fasicsto-Hortysta" with skinning alive.

I have to say that your post was quite an unpleasant surprise for me. I thought you are another kind of person. But never mind…

QUOTE VICTOR:
“Agarici: ‘Example: two communities, a conflict in the past, one of the parts did the majority of the killing, and brutal ones - but we should keep quiet about that because from today’s point of view it seems incorrect and prejudiced that there’s mainly one to blame, and this could be harmful for the present relations between them. Oh, and it is also embarrassing for some…’

Victor: ‘And what would be insinuating here? Is it so hard to speak frankly?’”

You didn’t understand al all what I was trying to say. I was implying any such reality, not only the abuses of the Hungarians in North-Western Transylvania. I had in mind the deportation of Gypsies by the Romanians during WW2, and the executions which occurred during the reinstauration of Romanian administration in Bassarabia, in 1941.

QUOTE VICTOR:
“You also don't know other members in person, but you had no problem assuming things about them just from their location and nationality. But that is another matter.”

When exactly have I done that? I think you are taking me as someone else.

QUOTE VICTOR:
“You I don't know that well and don't really want to…”

Thank you. I think I should use that as a motto in each of my post from now on, so that your mature and polite attitude towards a fellow member would became visible. If I remember well I never attacked, offended or had a fight with you. Unlike other members I didn’t blame you when, according to Dragos, you insisted for only a temporary ban for Alexkdl regardless his outrageous insults and threats to me and to other people; and let’s remember that unlike some of them I was right in the middle of everything. We’ve also exchanged some private messages after that incident, with a quite positive feed-back from me. Neither had I manifested the syndrome of “liberating” the forum from some administrators which control everything in spite of what the members think.
Given your above statement though, I think there is no serious chance of a neutral, unbiased discussion/attitude in here. At least Denes was man enough to tell me frankly what he think about me and I did the same. Sometimes when a dispute is heated this kind of things happen but as mature persons we can deal with them so I have no hard feelings towards him. But for jumping from a difference of opinion to assertions like “I don’t like your face” there is a word in Romanian, I can’t find right now its English equivalent: “mojicie”...
If my presence here is disturbing for you, you can tell me that straight. Or you can make a list with the members you don’t like and kick them out, it is your site after all.

This post has been edited by Agarici on June 20, 2005 04:32 pm

I assure you that at the moment when both Victor and me discovered the threats and insults sent by PM by that member, none of us had second thoughts on banning him permanently. Having clarified this, let's move on.

Victor and Sid,

I hope I will clarify this once and for all.

Quoting Sid, I was referring to skinning alive or other “SUCH ACTIVITIES”, which require a contemporary culture of that kind. Skinning doesn’t have a special place since the action involved means a calculate activity having as purpose or finality the killing of that person/those persons in great torment and involves sadistical acts. Is this so difficult to understand? So the activities which would qualify would be pulling out the nails as a part of beating to death, forcing a stick in someone’s mouth until it get through the other side, trying to skin a person with a fork or pulling out his eyes and putting a coin or an insignia in the orbits, pouring petrol on a person’s head and setting her on fire, raping and killing someone in front of the family and other of this kind. A culture/subculture which have tolerated such acts in big number, during a certain period of time, could have also been, in my opinion, an environment where the skinning alive of a person was plausible.

Again, I repeat: I used only well-known examples because this should have prevented, in my opinion, the useless debates around the question if they really took place or not. It seems that I was wrong. The fact that they are common knowledge was also the reason for which I didn’t mention any sources (and that I admit it was a mistake); maybe they aren’t common knowledge after all. And the case of Baba Novac was mentioned only to illustrate that, as Sid said, the practices of this kind are originated in the pre-modern age, being quite common occurrences in those times.

This post has been edited by Agarici on June 20, 2005 04:34 pm

The feeling is mutual after reading your initial posts in this topic.

Jun 18 2005, 12:55 AM, you wrote:

Thank you for clearing this up. My mistake.

It is not about attacking or fighting with me. There are plenty members that had disagreed with me over the time. It is your attitude and subtle ironies that just don't make me want to befriend you. No need to feel offended about it, because it wasn't meant as an offense. We don't all have to be friends here.

So that is what is really bothering you? If it makes you feel better, just yesterday I have received 142 emails from that person with "EAT SH*T AND DIE" or something like that.

Have any of your opinions been censored here before? As for bias, none of us are bias-free, including yourself.

I never said: "I don't like your face". First of all I don't cathegorize people by the way they look, but by how they act. I just said that you are right that I don't know you that well, but I don't feel the urge to get to know you better. I just don't like your attitude and I think I am entitled to my opinion. I have disagreed with many other people in the past and I would never jump from a difference of opinion to assertions like “I don’t like your face” and resent this statement.

I disagree. In my opinion that is generalization that simply doesn't hold. The number of people committing attrocities is too small compared with the larger part of the population. Going by the same logic, Romanians are predisposed to cruelties because some bruttaly disfigured the bodies of a couple of MI officers during the 1989 Revolution or for beating people to death because they look like intellectuals in 1990. In such cases, where a large decree of sadism is involved, I believe it is better to judge each case in part, according to the sources available and to the individuals involved in it. Culture/subculture doesn't IMO influence maniacs that much.

The feeling is mutual after reading your initial posts in this topic.

Jun 18 2005, 12:55 AM, you wrote:

It is not about attacking or fighting with me. There are plenty members that had disagreed with me over the time. It is your attitude and subtle ironies that just don't make me want to befriend you. No need to feel offended about it, because it wasn't meant as an offense. We don't all have to be friends here.

Have any of your opinions been censored here before? As for bias, none of us are bias-free, including yourself.

I never said: "I don't like your face". First of all I don't cathegorize people by the way they look, but by how they act. I just said that you are right that I don't know you that well, but I don't feel the urge to get to know you better. I just don't like your attitude and I think I am entitled to my opinion. I have disagreed with many other people in the past and I would never jump from a difference of opinion to assertions like “I don’t like your face” and resent this statement.

1. As an answer to your first quotation, the difference is that I while I presented some facts you made a personal remark.

2. For the second, I was reacting to another personal attack, that of Sid Guttrigge who said that I incite to ethnic hatred. I still expect his apologies for that. My reply was more substantive that the paragrapt you quoted and I told him that it is not normal to deny facts based on ignorance; if one does't know if a fact is real or not is normal to question that fact instead of denying it. And such a categorical attitude as Sid's was at that point seemed to me of the self-sufficient and patronizing type

3. As for the last three of them, I think it is obvious regardless what you're trying to say: I mentioned some facts and I clarified what I was trying to say. You cannot and would not deny the facts, instead you reveal an entire web of innuendos from which I can understand only that it seems normal to you to develop personal hardfeelings to the members of the site and react on that basis, and that you resent me because I use irony. Maybe you should close the forum or keep it for your close friends only. However, very disappointing...

This post has been edited by Agarici on June 20, 2005 08:07 pm

I disagree. In my opinion that is generalization that simply doesn't hold. The number of people committing attrocities is too small compared with the larger part of the population. Going by the same logic, Romanians are predisposed to cruelties because some bruttaly disfigured the bodies of a couple of MI officers during the 1989 Revolution or for beating people to death because they look like intellectuals in 1990. In such cases, where a large decree of sadism is involved, I believe it is better to judge each case in part, according to the sources available and to the individuals involved in it. Culture/subculture doesn't IMO influence maniacs that much.

This is exactly what I meant. It is that simple and still you failed to understand; sorry. I started form a manual-type definition of culture (political, social culture) like Almond and Verba's (the same implied by Sid Gutridge I think). So in this acception the culture/subculture is circumscribed to a space (community) and time (a certain period). And you are right again, due to certain social-political features (the dissolution of authority after a totalitarian regime, the preeminence gained by so many suppressed conflicts) Romania of the post-1989 years was the stage of such a violent culture. That's why the probability of such kind of events to take place was much higher here and in that time than in other countries in that time or in nowadays Romania.

Two observations tough: the MI/USLA military were shot dead by the Army military who did not know who they were (thought they are terrorists) and then desfigurated. It is a major difference because the policemen from Harghita and Covasna were beaten/tortured to death, some by their fellow citizens who knew well who they were.

The second: you don’t usually measure the gravity of such atrocities in comparison with the number of population; you do not make a ponderate calculus. If one would do that the threshold of tolerance for such actions would be very low for the countries with big population. You count the facts itself, and if you do want to make a comparison you compare the analyzed society with another similar social environment. If you do that you will see that the situation from Transylvania, 1940-1944 (peace time, not an area of operations) stands out.

EDIT: maybe now you'll understand how gratuitous your attaks were.

This post has been edited by Agarici on June 20, 2005 07:55 pm

And I still have one big remaining question: why couldn't you, as the moderator you are, simply ask what was I trying to say if this was unclear, instead of attributing your thoughts and guesses to me, and saying that you dislike me as a person? By the way, I never used irony on you, as for the others they were perhaps mature enough (for not saying "men enough") to take it as irony of to "fight back". And if this is in your view a reason for making personal remarks, you should modify the forum rules in order to forbid irony.
If you'd be a fair, civil person you would apologize for that, but I don't have too much hope... However, this type of reactions to a difference of opinions does say something about one's character.

This post has been edited by Agarici on June 20, 2005 08:47 pm

As for interethnic realities, maybe we should start a thread with multicultural realities and positive experiences, or maybe those who will remain on the forum should do that. We had enough about crimes and it would be only fair to talk about the good things too.

The fact is that for almost every violent event happened in Transylvania during 1940-1944 or in Harghita-Covasna in 1990 there were Hungarians who risked and often lost their lives in defense of their neighbors or friends. I think their personal example and outstanding courage in front of the angry, manipulated lynching mobs surely stands out and are real assets for the humanity. We should not forget or neglect that, by focusing too much on the conflicts.

This post has been edited by Agarici on June 20, 2005 08:44 pm