Jump to content

Talk:Mihail Manoilescu

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 82.76.116.46 (talk) at 05:00, 12 June 2017. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Question about last paragraph

This is a good article, but the last paragraph doesn't quite make sense:

Manoilescu died in Sighet prison in 1950; his body was buried in a common grave. The communists tried him in absentia, and sentenced to 15 years in prison for the pro-fascist views and policies.

Why would Manoilescu be tried after he was dead and buried? Maybe this last sentence belongs in a previous paragraph? But the one above says he kept being tried (not in absentia) and put in jail almost all the time from 1944 on.... Turgidson 03:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, one of the sources indicates that he was dead when "brought" to trial. I suppose it is either because they did not want it to be known when he died or did not care what had happened to him. I wanted to make it a bit more explicit without making a guess, but I just didn't know how one would go about formulating and/or explaining such an absurdity. Dahn 10:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they did not want to be known about his death, probably not about the date and not about the circumstances. The family has been officially informed about his death after 8 years, when I assume it was no possibility anymore for identification, by this also not giving the family the opportunity to bury him properly .--Anonim0011 (talk) 18:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I now understand what could have been the logic behind this travesty. I wonder though what possibly could have been the legal basis for such proceedings. I'm no legal eagle, but I assume the Legal Code must stipulate somewhere that a person cannot be tried if the authorities know that person is dead—or at least, that's what common sense tells me. I don't know what else to say, but it would be good if someone could come with an explanation for this, otherwise that last paragraph will likely leave the average reader bewildered... Turgidson 13:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a bit more from the source. I hope it makes it clearer for the average reader. Dahn 15:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added the word "later", just to make it doubly-clear (since this is indeed such an unusual case). This looks about as clear as one can get given the available info, and the unusual circumstances. The only thing that may help clarify further the issue would be to add the precise location of the court, and when the sentence was passed—if and when such info becomes avaialable.
One more thing: is it known what was the cause of death of Mihail Manoilescu in Sighet prison? Looks like the mortality rate among inmates there in the late 40s, early 50s was brutal. Are there any records (and statistics) on that? Turgidson 16:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All I could find in a quick search was that he was "deprived of medical assistance" - unfortunately, the source is massive and not entirely available on the net. Dahn 16:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, hold the presses: I just found this - don't know if the link works, I viewed it in html and it would not open in pdf, but that may be a problem with this computer's settings. We can use it from html, in the worst case scenario. Dahn 17:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This also came on google for me, but it wouldn't dowload; I've tried again, with two different browsers, but no luck. I'll try again later... Turgidson 17:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, looked at html. Says he died of typhus, which is close to what I would have guessed (my hunch was tuberculosis). Turgidson 17:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We can milk that html for all it's worth. Want to help? I have to go for now, but I'll be back later to do it. We can then split in two halves, and each add our own to the text. What say you? Dahn 17:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, two links in the text seem to be right up your alley - Tancred and Gazeta. Dahn 17:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. It seems to be written in atrocious English. I'm rather jaded, but I may look into it later. Dahn 19:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I put in the details on his disease and death. Except perhaps for some tidying up, that whole thing seems to be rather complete now. I don't have the time to read the whole Harre article now (nor am I familiar enough with the subject to comment on it), but the other useful potentially useful information there is the stuff between 1944 and 1948, when he was in and out of prison, but still trying to put to use his economic expertise to get the country going after the War. I would need to study this in more detail to form an opinion, but it seems like a good thread to pursue. Coincidentally, this is also something I plan to look into when I get a chance -- the whole economic aspects of the situation in Romania in those transition years, which I think (at least in a first approximation) tend to be neglected in favor of the more dramatic aspects (such as imprisonments, etc), for perfectly understandable reasons of course, but yet, in the big scheme of things, the economy is crucial (he said it, of course, but even a broken clock is right twice a day :)). Turgidson 19:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Then I'll look through the rest, and merge it with what we already have. I generally dislike using a biography for the odd detail, even if the text will just back up details that are already in the text, so I would like to read and use all of it in the future. I don't know precisely what you mean when you mention the economic situation, but I wouldn't get lost in unnecessary detail on this page - rather, I would summarize it in articles throughout the "History of Romania" series (Biruitorul has proposed a Great Depression in Romania article for the pure context, and that may be a good idea to look into). Dahn 19:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wasn't proposing expounding on the economic situation in a biography -- far from it -- rather, I was thinking of a separate article. I haven't seen Birutorul's proposal, but that sounds very much along the lines I was thinking (Griviţa Rosie and all the rest, yes?), though my personal interest would be to analyze the period of, say, 1944--1952, and see how the economy fared in that period. And not just dry text about pig ore production and whatnot (who can read pages an pages of statistics??), but some well-made Excel charts and stuff, plus comparison with other (related) economies at the time, get a macro feel for the subject. Kind of hard work, but if there is enough interest (and not too many distractions, or aggravations), perhaps doable. Turgidson 20:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I didn't get you the first time (I can read it into your post, now that you mention it, but I missed it on the first reading). My suggestion would be to summarize these in Communist Romania, and then create topical articles on, say, industries, that you can link in there as well. Better for the reader to have an article on SovRoms than one on "Romanian trade with the Soviet Union during the 1940s-1950s" - more to the point, less abstract, less room for content forking. Is that what you had in mind? Dahn 20:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not sure what I have in mind -- I would have to review bottom-up the whole Romania part of wikipedia, and spend a few hours on concentrated thinking before answering this question. Better to do it slowly, one step at a time -- I'll get back to you on this when I'm ready to say something semi-cogent. But off the top off my head, and without checking all the relevant pages (sorry if some of this already exists), what I'm sort of thinking about would be an "Economic history of Romania" sort of series -- not necessarily new pages, surely much of it could go into existing structures as added detail. But some of it could be stand-alone, eg, the Great Depression page. Or something like the "Romanian Oil Industry" -- eg, I recall reading somewhere a long time ago that Romania around 1938 was one of the top oil producers in the world (perhaps #4 or so?), and looking how that affected the entry of Romania in WWII, the strategic bombing of the Ploieṣti oil fileds, etc., and maybe also explaining in part the SovRoms, an on to the modern era. I know all these things are already treated locally, in the respective historical articles, but organizing them differently, from a different unifying point of view (economic/historical rather than purely historical), with more attention paid to quantitative aspects (eg, oil production per year, evolution of oil reserves, refineries, chemical and engineering aspects, etc), may shed a different light on things, and appeal to a different set of people. Eg, my hunch is that most Americans readers (but probably others, too) would be less interested than us in, say, the internecine fights and jockeying for power that occured, but much more in the economic aspects, especially if presented with color bar charts (sigh:)), and integrated somehow with the global economy. But again, this is just off the top of my head, I would need more time to reflect what's possible and what's realistic to attempt, and, of course, anything major like this would need some really careful preparation on how to integrate in existing structures. Turgidson 20:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Though I would rather stick to narrower articles for fear of forking (charts could just as well fit into such articles), this may have potential. And, yes, I fully agree with an oil industry article (it fits into my definition of "narrow"). Dahn 21:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done deal. When I get a chance, after I finish some current projects, both on wiki and in real life (and if in the meantime I do not get completely put off by some of the more annoying people that roam the land around here, like that someone who really started to get under my skin with his repetitious panegyrics for Stalinism :(), I will create a page on Oil Industry in Romania. To help visualize what this may look like, see Oil Industry in Azerbaijan (complete with some of those Excel color pie charts and bar charts I've been dreaming about :)). Turgidson 22:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I shall be visiting with what I manage to find when you have time to start it. Btw, should "industry" be with a capital "i"? Dahn 23:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latin America and the Article

Really Latin America? I want to see any government in the world that had applied his policies, of creating a corporatist government ruled directly by the corporations itself. Cause I know that sort of government have not exist in history even in Italy (as Manoilescu constantly argue) I deleted the sentence.

You may found groups, that supported the corporatist view of him, thats different. But surely you may also, find they were very few, and no movements supported directly his ideas.

Why the article is so distorted against Manoilescu? It needs to be clean and neutralized. Wikipedia is not a political nor a ideological standpoint.--Tercerista (talk) 12:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of content and misrepresentation of sources

Dear IP, please stop removing content referenced to reliable sources and do not change such content just because you don't agree with sources. This is not metapedia: when the subject of an article is a fascist supporter, he doesn't get a complimentary whitewashing. Thank you! Anonimu (talk) 07:53, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just keep walking buddy,you are not welcome here. And do not try to get a lawyer. We know the "fascist" story and we also know what Jewish services pay for these stories.82.76.116.46 (talk) 05:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mihail_Manoilescu&oldid=785196853"