Dl. Larry Watts raspunde in engleza, observatiilor d-lui Petre Opris, facute pe romaneste. Formatarea apartine d-lui Watts.
Problema „Larry L. Watts”
Detaliile din cărţile publicate de Larry L. Watts demonstrează că nu cunoaşte toate aspectele problemelor pe care le abordează.
RE: My Knowledge
I would like to stipulate from the very beginning that I most assuredly do not know all of the aspects of the problems that I broach in my books. However, I do know something of all of them and a good deal about some of them. I began studying the Soviet bloc in 1975 and Romania more specifically in 1978. I remained academically and then professionally occupied with it ever since, catching the last 21 years of the Cold War and observing – from time to time at first hand – Romania’s role in it. I have conducted research on various aspects of it, particularly Romanian foreign and security policy and, especially when working for U.S. “think tanks,” on its military and security services. So, I presume to believe I might make a useful contribution on this topic.
Nu ştiu dacă el a greşit sau traducătorul, însă amănuntele pe care vi le-am semnalat mi-au sărit în ochi.
Re: Translation and Editing
I would also like to stipulate that there are indeed many errors, even in the original English, to which I made an errata sheet including some 80 such errors. The work has not yet benefited from a professional editing. There are, naturally, errors in the Romanian version and, yes, I was not able to do a proper editing job on that either (volume II is actually in worse state than volume I). I would have preferred that the situation stood otherwise but, as is so often the case, life is what happens when you are making other plans.
Part of the translation/editing problem that is quite serious is the fact that, although my bibliography of some 50 pages appears in Fereste-ma, Doamne, De Prieteni (it is on pages 717-771, before the index, for those who have had difficulty finding it), somewhere along the line (typesetters, printers, etc.) it was left out entirely of the second volume Extorting Peace/Cei Dintai Vor Fi Cei Din Urma. I was unaware of this until I saw what I thought were bizarre allegations that my work had no bibliography. Well, as it turns out, the Romanian version of what is titled in English “Extorting Peace: Romania and the End of the Cold War, 1978-1989” has no bibliography. I will see to it that it is corrected in future editions. Also odd, the original English version has the bibliography idiosyncratically placed AFTER the index. And so it goes.
Cronologia elementară scârţie şi orice istoric ştie faptul că fundamentul unei opere se creează cu ajutorul cronologiei. În concluzie, Larry L. Watts nu prezintă încredere, deşi a indicat foarte multe surse documentare. Practic, a inundat cititorul cu asemenea surse – în opinia mea, într-un mod propagandistic. O carte de 700 de pagini impresionează prin dimensiunile sale şi cititorii obişnuiţi pot spune fără să citească: „Da, omul acesta a făcut o carte bună”. Recenzia pe care am făcut-o, la cea de-a doua carte a sa, am trimis-o deja în România.
RE: Chronology and Propaganda
I don’t understand what the criticism is regarding chronology. Perhaps it might be explained more clearly?
Likewise, if you can specify the propaganda or the propagandistic aim then I might be able to respond. However, your current formulation is so vague that it doesn’t qualify for much beyond innuendo.
The first volume, by the way, is 795 pages and not 700 pages, so non-readers impressed by size (ahem) should be more impressed still.
Nu am dorit să scriu despre sistemul de propagandă „în buclă” pe care Larry L. Watts l-a folosit din plin şi în prima sa carte. Spaţiul tipografic al unei reviste este limitat şi, pe de altă parte, nu doresc să îi fac de râs pe Larry L. Watts şi Ioan Talpeş. Am înţeles că lui Larry Watts îi place în România şi doreşte să fie prieten al românilor, aşa că evit să spun tot ceea ce cred despre operele sale.
RE: Concern for My Reputation
First, please, say something concrete about the system of propaganda “in bucla” so that I will know my transgression. Secondly, I promise you, I love a good laugh. I plan on having one at your expense.
And please, do not worry about Ioan Talpes. He assumes all responsibility for his “Foreword” to my book and can certainly take care of himself.
You misapprehend me. I do not desire any more friends. I desire the respect of people whom I respect. But even they have my permission and encouragement to say what they think and to point out my errors. I am so dedicated to getting it right that I will even take the extreme measure of changing my mind when faced with persuasive evidence. And I am especially interested in hearing such opinions from persons whose knowledge and judgment have been confirmed repeatedly.
Aşa se cuvine din punct de vedere politic. L-am întrebat public pe Mark Kramer, la conferinţa de la Leuven (Belgia), ce părere are despre sursele utilizate de Larry L. Watts în cărţile sale? El a răspuns într-un mod diplomatic. Nu l-a criticat pe Watts, ci a spus că, prin ideile sale, Watts susţine reabilitarea lui Ion Antonescu şi Nicolae Ceauşescu. Sunt două chestiuni de care Watts este foarte ataşat în cercetarea sa.
Re: Mark Kramer and Rehabilitation
This is deserving of a separate blog, so I will return to this in the near future. However, I cannot resist asking. Who, in your opinion, are the two most controversial characters of Romania history of the 20th Century and what might be ‘strange’ about an historical researcher being drawn to a controversial topic?
Şi eu am observat acelaşi lucru. În plus, Larry L. Watts critică într-un mod voalat sau direct anumiţi analişti americani: Ronald Asmuss, A. Ross Johnson, Douglas Clarke, Mark Kramer, Juliana Pilon şi Vojtech Mastny.
Re: Ronald Asmus, Ross Johnson, Douglas Clarke, Mark Kramer, Juliana Pilon and Vojtech Mastny
I have criticized none of these persons. However, I have taken issue with some aspect or detail of their work, which is how the process of academic debate functions. Just as I permit and encourage (hopefully useful) criticism of my own work I also feel invited to provide constructive criticism – or at least to ask difficult questions regarding – the work of others. Ron and I had many go rounds when we worked together at Radio Free Europe in the mid-1980s, when we worked together at RAND in the late 1980s, and when he was in charge of NATO enlargement and sold on the idea that only the Visegrad Group should be admitted and I was working on NATO integration and military reform in Romania and had a very different opinion. Likewise, Ross and I go back to the same period at RFE and he is one of the reasons I went to RAND. A couple of years ago we – Ross and I – were on a panel at the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars together with Mark Kramer and Vojtech Mastny (and the CIA officer who ran Colonel Kuklinski in Poland). The video of that panel is on the Wilson Center website and my written presentation is at http://www.wilsoncenter.org/staff/larry-watts.
Mark Kramer and I have locked horns on several occasions, most recently, two weeks ago in San Antonio, Texas – he maintaining there is “absolutely clarity” Romania was advocating foreign military intervention against Poland in August 1989 and me pointing out that all of his sources are Soviet, Polish or Hungarian whereas all the Romanian sources adamantly exclude any form of foreign military intervention. With Kramer, as with Vojtech Mastny, my disagreements are with their conclusions and aspects their work and they do not take my questions and differences of opinion as personal attacks. I have indeed criticized Juliana Pilon’s short pieces from the second half of the 1980s at the Heritage Foundation claiming that Romania was a Soviet Trojan horse, just as I have when Ion Mihai Pacepa, Vladimir Tismaneanu, or Ambassador David Funderburk made the same claims before the archival avalanches of the new millennium. The claims were originally made when there was no access to the relevant archives. Only someone dedicated to an agenda having absolutely nothing to do with historical truth would continue to affirm the same today. I cannot recall taking issue with any of Douglas Clarke’s work, but, if I thought it wrong-headed, I surely would have in open discussion.
Totodată, Larry L. Watts a scris de mai multe ori „Constantin şi Olteanu (2013)”, deşi sursa corectă este evidentă. „generalul Constantin Olteanu”. Oare toată lumea a greşit şi doar Larry L. Watts are dreptate? Nu cred aşa ceva. Experienţa îmi spune că „este ceva putred în Danemarca”.
RE: “Constantin si Olteanu”
Really? I would refer you to the section on Translation/Editing. But if your experience as taught you to use this as a basis of “proof” that “something is rotten in Denmark,” you should get out more.
Dacă am încercat un contact cu Watts?
Am discutat în primăvara anului 2012 cu domnul A. Ross Johnson la Centrul „Woodrow Wilson” deoarece s-a arătat interesat de opiniile mele despre prima carte publicată de Larry L. Watts în România. I-am pus la dispoziţie materialul pe care l-aţi primit şi dvs. şi mi-a spus că îl va aduce la cunoştinţa lui Larry Watts.
RE: You and Ross Johnson at the Wilson Center
I have met with Ross virtually every year, often on more than one occasion, both here in Romania and in the United States, since 1987. I spent a month a few desks away from him in November 2013 when both of us were Wilson Center Scholars. He gave my books a sterling review on Radio Romania Bucuresti last year (October 13, 2013, 2100 hr) We had a couple of conversations at a conference two weeks ago (November 19-22) in San Antonio.
Funny, he didn’t mention you. Nor did he ever feel it necessary to pass on anything you might have given him.
În concluzie, Larry Watts nu a avut un redactor de carte care să elimine greşelile de cronologie etc. Nu ştiu dacă Watts a scris cărţile respective sau au fost „ajutat” de Ioan Talpeş, preluând masiv din ideile vehiculate de fostul şef al SIE.
Subiectul acesta nu mă interesează în mod deosebit deoarece nu am timp să mă ocup în detaliu de operele altora. Le analizez, le utilizez şi, pentru prieteni, îmi exprim punctele de vedere. Time is money!
RE: Regarding authorship
The jury is in. The 17th Earl of Oxford wrote it.
And I would still like to hear the nature of my chronological problem (other than the fact that I am getting much too old for this).