Talk:Soviet occupation of Romania

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Soviet occupation of Romania is within the scope of the Russian History WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Russian History. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Contents 1 Like Italy 2 totallydisputed? 3 Liberation vs. Occupation 4 "Occupation" not "judgemental" 4.1 Summary by User:Dahn 4.2 Comments from User:Daizus 5 Romania was ruled by the Comintern during the Soviet occupation 6 Comparison with the Baltic Republics 7 suggestion 8 Outrage! 9 What's the time frame of this article? 10 WP:OR 11 Move 12 Outrage #2! 13 Reverts of adding context 14 Talk:Northern Group of Forces 15 "Liberation of Romania by the glorious Soviet Union" 16 Additional source 17 Lead paragraph 17.1 Shortened 18 Occupation 19 Disruptive tagging 20 Frank Wisner 21 A note on local initiatives 22 August 23 and the lead 23 Press clippings 23.1 Occupation type 1, 2, & 3 24 Split proposal

[edit] Like Italy

Didn't the Romania change sides in 1944 during World War II? If so how was Romania under Soviet militay occupation if the Romainan Army was fighting as an Ally? Is not the situation legaly similar to that of Italy during World War II? --Philip Baird Shearer 22:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Romania was supposed to be an ally, but practically, it was under Russian occupation. As soon as the Soviet Army came in Romania, they took possibly hundreds of thousands of Romanian prisoneers (of which at least 75,000 German ethnics and many other pro-Germans, anti-communists or just people that fought the war against the Soviets) and tooked them to Siberian work-camps, of course without the Romanian government's approval. Romania had nothing to do at the time, as Nazi Germany was on a downfall and the West couldn't care less about the Eastern European countries, especially since Russians were supposed to be the good guys. Eventually, the Soviet Army imposed its own Communist government and forced the King to sign his abdication. bogdan 23:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

If the Romanian Government was in agreement with Soviet forces in their country then legally it was not a belligerent military occupation. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Although there may be disagreement about the exact legal status, the Soviets (as Bogdan pointed out) behaved as de facto occupants. Eugen Ivan 23:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, I don't think Italy had to pay war reparations, whereas Romania did -- just one way in which they were not treated the same. If it is assumed that Romania was a sovereign power, then it should have had control over its own citizens, but, for example, the deportations happened without any legal agreemnent between Romania and the Soviet Union. Eugen Ivan 23:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The "should haves" and analogies aren't our affair, except insofar as we can cite some authority claiming them.

FWIW, the Soviet view, as I understand it, was that Romania's "deathbed conversion" came too late; they never formally recognized it. But I don't offhand have solid citation for that. - Jmabel | Talk 17:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] totallydisputed?

Why is there a "totallydisputed" tag on this article? I don't see any explanation from the person who put it (on March 3, 2007). Unless there is a sound reason for the tag, I think it should be removed -- I have no idea why it was put in the first place. Turgidson 21:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The title Soviet occupation of Romania implies that Romania was occupied territory until 1958. Neither the text, not the references provided support this assertion. An Allied Control Commission is not occupation!

Also, the events of of 1944 can equally be described as "liberation", as part of the liberation of Europe. The only motivation for the selection of the title seems to be the Nazi-POV that "commies were baddies"-- Petri Krohn 22:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

"Nazi-POV"?? Are you implying that anyone who opposed the Soviet domination of Eastern Europe after World War II was a Nazi? Turgidson 23:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No, -- but if you start labeling liberators as occupiers, it is very difficult for others to tell you from a true Nazi. -- Petri Krohn 23:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Look, I resent this bandying about of the word Nazi when referring to other editors. First of all, I did not label anyone as either "liberator" or "occupier" -- in fact, I have not even contributed (yet) to this article. I just wanted to know what your motivations were for putting the "totallydisputed" tag. The response -- basically acussing anyone who does not agree with your POV ("commies were goodies", perhaps?) as being "Nazi" -- makes me strongly doubt your neutrality and impartiality in this matter. At any rate, I remain unconvinced by the argument you propound. Turgidson 23:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

1. The use of the word "you" does not refer to you, it is just an example of the passive voice in the English language. I am sorry if I have insulted you.
2. I believe it is a mistake to play the Hitler card, and use the word Nazi in Internet discussions. Here we are however specifically speaking about events of 1944. As far as I understand (without checking any sources) the Red Army mainly fought Nazi German forces on Romanian soil.
3. ("commies were goodies", perhaps?) In the 1944 context, the commies (or the Allies of WWII in general) were the good guys.
4. It is OK to "oppose the Soviet domination of Eastern Europe". Domination is however not the same thing as military occupation, as this article now implies.

-- Petri Krohn 00:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

All right, let's forget about the Hitler card -- I still think it was brought up too fast and loose (to close the discussion?) -- but I'm not the kind to dwell on such things, nor the kind who gets intimated by such discourse. Back to the substance: First of all, I do not understand why you insist on 1944. The article clearly refers to the Soviet [military] occupation of Romania, which indisputably occured between 1944 and 1958 (that's 14 years and change, not 1 year, if my math is correct). Second, I started added info to the article, including a reference (Sergiu Verona, "Military Occupation and Diplomacy: Soviet Troops in Romania, 1944-1958", Duke University Press, Durham, NC, 1992. ISBN 0822311712 ) and a short review of this book. Clearly, the subject is backed up by scholarly reseearch. I will try to expand on it when I get a chance. In the meantime, could we please consign the Nazi epithets to the dustbin of history? Thanks. Turgidson 01:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I will not give up the "Nazi" argument. We are discussing the liberation of Europe from genocidal Nazi tyranny. While the Red Army was "occupying" Romania, German Nazis were loading the last 1 million Jews onto railroad cars to extermination camps in neighbouring Hungary.

On the reference you provided. Yes I see the word "occupation" in the title. I also see the name "Sergiu" and the year 1992. To me these are signs, that this "American" book is most likely an example of the anti-Soviet or "pro-Nazi" POV that emerged in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union.

On the definiton of "occupation". There are American troops in Germany. I do not think anyone can dispute the fact, that the troops had an effect on the policies of West Germany. The situation has however not been considered military occupation after 1953. -- Petri Krohn 01:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Petri, your hatred of Nazis blinds you to considering that Stalin was no less genocidal and evil as Hitler. You insisted Stalin liberated the Baltics even though he invaded and occupied them without provocation. Here you insist liberation from Nazism is a holy grail wrapping Soviet aggression in a mantle of nobility. Your equating of anti-Soviet to pro-Nazi is really about as hateful as one can get, and I've heard it all from you before already. Do you troll Eastern European articles just to look to see where you can inject your ludicrous POV that Eastern European anti-Soviet sentiment arose only after the demise of the Soviet Union and has as its basis neo-Nazism? You trample on the memory of millions of Eastern Europeans buried in mass graves in Siberia. I propose that we not even acknowledge or respond to your contributions here. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 22:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Bravo! Biruitorul 00:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Here you go again: because an author's first name is "Sergiu", ipso facto you conclude he must be "pro-Nazi". I find this attitude a clear example of Anti-Romanian discrimination, and contrary to both the spirit and the letter of what wikipedia is all about. Thus, I will stop arguing with you -- this is too much. Turgidson 01:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

What I am saying is that the book, although published by the Duke University Press, is written by a "patriotic Romanian". Anti-Sovetism become a common trend in Eastern Europe after 1990. I have now read the review, and Sergiu Verona seems to be no exception. -- Petri Krohn 02:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

And that disqualifies him? After 45 years of hell, don't people have a right to be angry and write about it, but also be trusted to do so in a neutral way? People like Hannah Arendt, Anne Frank, Primo Levi, Elie Wiesel and Rudolf Vrba are (rightly) regarded as neutral, authoritative sources on the Holocaust, despite having very strong personal anti-Nazi biases (for obvious reasons). Why not see Sergiu Verona, Bartolomeu Anania or Corneliu Coposu in the same light? Why promote a senseless double standard? Biruitorul 17:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

(reindented) Let's talk about the actual review for a moment. I've read it too. Petri's conclusion is drawn from the following, which marks the review's conclusion: "This monograph, to be honest, is less about Soviet-Romanian relations than it is about a patriotic Romanian's view of contemporary British and American interpretations of those relations. This reflects what is now available in the archives, and clearly Verona has poured over them, for he relates--and quotes--the sources in excruciating detail. More synthesis would have helped his readers focus upon the central problem, an important one, posed by Verona--the symbiosis between military and diplomatic policy in the relations between the USSR and Romania." (my emphasis)
     Motivation: patriotic Romanian; Sources: contemprary British and American interpretations of those (Soviet-Romanian) relations; Detail: "excruciating"; Flaw?: "More synthesis would have helped..."
     That is, the reviewer faults Verona for not doing enough synthesis (i.e., INTERPRETATION); "patriotic" is in the context of having left no stone unturned in providing as absolutely comprehensive ("excruciating") a compilation of information as possible.
     Rather than indicating a Romanian-POV work, as Petri contends, the review indicates a remarkable lack of Romanian-POV historical interpretation.
     You can't take two words: "patriotic Romanian" and then say the work is biased. That's not what the review says. That's not what the concluding paragraph says. And most importantly, that is absolutely not the context in which "patriotic" was stated. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Liberation vs. Occupation

A "liberation" doesn't last 14 years. Never mind the fact that the Red Army did not "liberate" anything - it played no role in the August 23, 1944 coup - but even if we accept the (highly dubious) premise that the Red Army were liberators in 1944, I would be very surprised indeed if you came up with a non-Communist source that describes the entire 1944-1958 period as a "liberation". Since the article refers to the whole period, and since the description of "occupation" is well-supported by legitimate historiography, there is no need for the tag. Biruitorul 04:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No, the occupation did not last 14 years. The word "occupation" could possibly used for the events of the Battle of Romania of 1944. A state of military occupation may even have existed until the Paris Peace Treaties of 1947. The period from 1947 to 1958 was certainly not an occupation, no more than the presence of American troops in West Germany after 1953.

What is notable about the situation in Romania is, that after 1958, it was just about the only country in Europe, run over by WW II, that did not have foreign (or Allied) troops on its soil. -- Petri Krohn 04:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, my good man, this is a classic case of OR: you're using your definitions to demarcate what was and what was not an occupation. By contrast, at least four cited, published authors explicitly state that Romania was under occupation until 1958. Is there anything you can cite to the contrary?

If there are verifiable sources claiming that West Germany was under Allied occupation after 1953, then there would be a strong case for including them in the appropriate article. But West Germany wasn't Romania, and furthermore, US troops weren't propping up an evil, hated dictatorship whose functionaries the people were itching to hang from lampposts at the earliest opportunity. Biruitorul 05:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You only seem to have repeated my original (non) argument, that "commies were baddies".

As for West Germany, I am not arguing the it was occupied. I do however understand that such an OR argument can be made, and was in fact made by the Bader Meinhof group -- Petri Krohn 06:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, given that in Romania alone they killed >200,000 people and imprisoned many times that number, yes, they were objectively evil. But no, I didn't just repeat your original argument - I offered citations for the term "occupation" through 1958 - something you have done nothing to counter. As for the BRD: feel free to insert that fact into the appropriate article. That's not the issue. The issue is that the historiography is on my side, and despite your attempts to deflect the discussion into odd tangents, my central point still stands - namely, that verifiable sources back up the notion that Romania was occupied for 14 years (as if that was ever in question by reliable historians). Biruitorul 06:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The above claim by Petri Krohn is nonsense. Austria was occupied by Allied troops only until 1955, and so by 1958 it certainly did not have foreign (or Allied) troops on its soil. Neither did Yugoslavia. Neither did Albania. Neither did Finland. Before pontificating about the history of Romania (or other countries in Europe) during the Cold War, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the subject. Turgidson 05:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You are right, I missed Austria. Finland cannot be included, as it was never "run over" i.e. conquered by Allied troops. (We did have an Allied Control Commission until 1947.)

Anyway, as far as I know, the only piece of Europe, that was occupied territory in 1958 was Berlin. -- Petri Krohn 05:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The Soviets attacked Finland on November 30, 1939, and the two countries fought in the Winter War and the Continuation War. During that period, some pieces of Finland were indeed "run over" by the Red Army, and the Soviets never gave them back. Ah, well. Turgidson 05:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

1. We're not discussing the post-1958 situation. 2. You want to ask Estonians about that? Latvians? Lithuanians? I dare you to move Occupation of Baltic states. Poles - oh, Poles. East Germans? Czechs? Slovaks? Bulgarians? Georgians? Ukrainians? Biruitorul 05:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You cannot justify the tendentious title for the article by bringing a bunch of cherry picked quotes. "Since the article refers to the whole period", the neutral title is History of Romania (1944-1958). --Irpen 05:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, I've responded to yours on Latvia and the Baltics as has been done here already (directly below), the article is about the occupation not the whole period. And so far, no one has produced a shred of evidence that the Soviet presence ceased to be an occupation until their departure. The installation of the Allied (Soviet) presence was a legal agreed-to war-time occupation. The Soviets remained subsequent to fulfilling that purpose--their tenure according to the armistics would be considered terminated with the signing of the peace--the armistice treaty making specific reference to the front line of the war. Regardless, the subsequent deportations of Romanians and population transfer (does not have to be deportation to a gulag) of Soviets into Romania and its government all confirm an illegal occupation. If we confirm the Soviets maintained their presence ostensibly to execute their Allied duties--such as needing to manage their communications to Austria--any such continuation confirms occupation, legal or not. These are facts, not opinions or WP:OR conclusions.

    To say citations showing it was an occupation are "cherry-picked" is disingenuous. A flat-Earther can accuse me of cherry-picking quotes to prove the Earth is round. Where are the "cherry-picked" quotes of the opposition to indicate it was not an occupation? Surely the opposition must be able to provide some (to support the position that the title is biased).

    Irpen, your position is invariably that, "Gosh darn it, 'occupation' sure does sound like a nasty POV kind of word" ("tendentious title" being your fancy way to put it), with nothing else to indicate the term is not factual. If the facts don't suit you, and since you like interesting words, might I offer a German one for you (Eskimos have lots of words for snow, Japanese--death, Germans--angst): weltshmerz, angst over the way the world is versus the ideal way you personally would prefer to see it. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 13:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

First, the article is not a general history of Romania in that period, but rather aims to treat only the Soviet occupation. For a general history, we have Communist Romania.

Second, how do you define "cherry-picked"? What would not be "cherry-picked" - entire paragraphs? Chapters? Books? The quotes demonstrate a clear pattern - namely, that reputable historians, as a matter of course, refer to the Soviet military presence as a 14-year "occupation". Are you able to provide citations to the contrary? Even cherry-picked one? If not, the tag should go. Biruitorul 05:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I can find you dozens of source that call the communist system brutal and inhuman. Similarly, i can find sources that call the capitalist system brutal and inhuman. The articles are not called "Brutal and inhuman communism" or "capitalism". Same here, "Occupation" is a judgmental term. It cannot be used for a title. References usage in the text is permissible. --Irpen 06:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

That analogy is invalid, since "brutal" and "inhuman" are adjectives, while "occupation" is a noun. Find me one Wikipedia article with an adjective of that sort in it (other than in the title of a work). In contrast, "occupation" is, as I have shown, the term accepted by historians for referring to this subject. If you wish to move it to some other place, you must first provide a valid citation showing that that other term is used by historians (given the strong historiographic basis for "occupation"). Can you do it?

Moreover, if you feel so strongly about the issue, will you move Occupation of Baltic states - an article that makes clear that the occupation lasted until 1991? If not, why not? Biruitorul 06:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The bad title of the Baltic article is no justification to have another bad title. I will deal with the Baltic article as the time warrants. Another "Occupation: article (Occupation of Latvia) has even been the subject of the arbitration case and the arbitrators refused to intervene. The article still carries a tag.

The tag is only there until I take care of filling the article with citations to answer your accusation it's not adequately referenced. A bias tag doesn't mean it's the article that's biased, it could be the tagger. (For example, we've seen that anyone who does not paint the Soviets as glorious heroic liberators of Europe is a Nazi, plain and simple, according to Petri Krohn.) —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 13:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The analogy is valid. If you dislike the adjective, USSR was also called an "Evil empire". You can find lots of terms in the infamous Black Book of Communism. Those terms did not create article titles. "Occupation" is a judgmental term. Soviets did not just invade Romania in 1944. They rolled in on their way as they were eliminating the Nazi plaque from Europe, something that no one else seemed interested or willing to do. Soviets were no angels either, but this can be discussed in the article's text, the title is not the place to make judgments. --Irpen 06:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

First, I didn't cite the Black Book of Communism (admirable though that work may be). I cited historians, like Tismăneanu, known and valued for their impartiality. You're still deflecting the central issue: where are the alternate names for the occupation? I await actual citations. The fact is that a broad cross-section of historians have made a judgment - that it was an occupation - and Wikipedia's rules allow us no option but to follow their judgment. We can't make up our own title just because the Reds weren't 100% bad.

It's a shame that the Latvia article still has the tag. As for the Baltics one: the title was just retained by a strong majority vote earlier this month, and again is supported by published sources.

Finally: the US, the UK and France were also interested in rolling back Nazism, as were the occupied peoples of Poland, Norway, etc. But that's not the issue: the issue is that they occupied Romania for 14 years, and you still have not come up with reliable historians who claim otherwise. Biruitorul 06:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Of all the nations interested in eliminating the Nazism, Soviets happened to be the only one that was also willing and able to do it. It was physically impossible to do so, without rolling through Eastern Europe. So, it is not black and white to use judgmental terms, despite the fact that Soviet control was no picnic, that's all.

Now, what is the scope of this article? What is it going to cover? 13 years? Then "history" is your title. Something else? Then please be more specific. Currently, the article has no content, POV title and is just a placeholder. --Irpen 07:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No, the Western Allies were also willing and able to do it. Both were needed, and the Soviet contribution in Europe, overall, was greater. However, it was also impossible to eliminate Nazism without rolling through France, where the Reds had no role.

"Occupation", while slightly judgmental, is well-grounded in historical literature. Again, you will not succeed in deflecting me from my monomaniacal devotion to sources. Do you have any alternate sources that posit an alternate name for the occupation?

It's going to cover 14 years, and specifically focus on the occupation; for the broader history we have Communist Romania. "History of the Soviet occupation of Romania" is redundant: just like we don't have "History of World War II" or "History of Nazi Germany", so too, it being an historical event, we don't need to have the word "history" in the title. And again, the title is not POV; it is backed by established sources for which you have not provided an effective counter. Biruitorul 07:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I repeat, the problem is not with your sources. The term is sourced and may be used in the text with references. The problem is the combination of the title and the scope of the article (or lack of scope). If the article is to cover 14 years of history of Romania, the title is History of Romania (1944-1958). If the article is to be about the applicability of the term "Occupation" for the regime of those years (note that the latter article would be completely different from the former one), the tile could be Soviet occupation of Romania (term). Currently the article simply makes a trivial statement that Soviet military presence in Romania lasted from 1944 to 1958. This implies, IMO, that this is going to be about those 14 years. Once you define the scope clearly, we can discuss the best title for it. --Irpen 07:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It will cover 14 years of Romanian history, but not the whole of Romanian history in that period - only a relatively narrow slice thereof. It will say nothing (or virtually nothing) about Collectivisation, about Lucreţiu Pătrăşcanu, about the Piteşti prison, about King Michael or about Jewish emigration. (For a bird's eye view of those issues, see Communist Romania.) It will, however, say a great deal about the Soviet occupation of Romania. It will tell about the legal basis for their presence in Romania, about their arrival in Romania, about what they did once they were there, about their numbers or personnel and matériel, about their negotiated withdrawal, and about their effect on Romania's political, social, cultural and economic life. Because the term is sourced, and because the term refers to what the planned article will be about, there is no alternative title available. Biruitorul 07:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello. All sources are OK, no problem with it. I only would like to see the article longer and deeper. As for the term occupation, well as a person from the country "liberated from fascists" (sigh) by the Heroic Soviet Army in 1968, I am strongly in favour of the true "occupation" form. In same way the German occupation of Czechoslovakia article lies here without any objections and problems. I wonder why there is always a controversy surrounding Soviet foreign policy and its consequences. Hmmm. - Darwinek 08:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, the article will at some point be developed. The trouble is that the Romanian contingent here is fairly small, with only a handful of us consistently writing developed articles. So it may be a little while before we get to it. But even if we do, Irpen has stated that he takes issue with the titles of the much longer "Occupation of Baltic states" and "Occupation of Latvia" articles, so we're still not safe... Biruitorul 16:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Historical literature clearly supports this article. Dpotop 09:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

However, it would be interesting to follow the legal basis for the Soviet military presence in Romania from 1944 to 1958. From 1944 to 1947, clearly, it's an occupation (de jure). After that, according to the Paris peace treaty [1], the Soviets had the right to keep as many military as they wanted in Romania, for the purpose of "ensuring communication lines with Austria". But then, what about after leaving Austria? Dpotop 09:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

See above. We plan to explore all these details in depth, provided sources and time.

Meanwhile, one other point: is not "The Holocaust" a "judgmental term"? Well, yes. But a broad cross-section of editors (not to mention historians, politicians, etc.) has decided to use that term and not a more precise but less evocative one like "Mass murder of Jews by Nazi Germany". Same with Nadir of American race relations: a little judgmental, but it's what historians use. The case for removal of the tag becomes stronger, brick by brick. Biruitorul 16:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not comparable. There was no soviet occupation of Romania as a state under international law, and since international law is as neutral one can get, i think we should find another title for this article.Anonimu 16:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome. I was expecting you. Care to make an alternate proposal? As for the contention that under international law it was not an occupation between 1947 and 1958, you are perhaps correct, but it has been called an occupation by reliable historians, as it was one de facto. Have you got sources that call it something else?

I don't think we need this article at all. We already have articles about all aspects of that period. It was generally called occupation by the western media after the cold war began and by the ceausescu-era and post-ceausescu romanian media. No, it wasn't not even de facto, romania had it's own government and it's own army. The fact that the gvt of the period listened to stalin's orders didn't make Romania an occupied country. Otherwise, it would have changed the gvt/system after the soviet military presence ceased. I'm sure the Great Soviet Encyclopedia called it liberation.(note:i wrote the message before reading jmabel's comment) Anonimu 18:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Well, occupation, for example, in the Baltics, pre-dates the Cold War. Official occupation of Romania in accordance with the armistice pre-dates the Cold War.

Was the presence of Soviet troops on Romanian soil called "occupation" in any international agreement pre-dating Cold War? If not, it wasn't occupation under international law. Anonimu 07:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Your contention that it wasn't an occupation because the government did not blossom into something else when the Soviets withdrew is draws a conclusion where there isn't even a cause and effect relationship.

 ?!?Anonimu 07:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You contend: "Romanian government did not change when Soviets evacuated." ERGO: "Romania was not occupied."

Far more likely: "The occupying Soviets insured the formation of a Romanian regime which took its cues from Moscow; as well, their presence guaranteed no resistance to the Soviet pillaging of Romania, its people, and its resources." ERGO: "The evacuation of Soviet troops from Romania indicated the Soviets were confident they had insured their continued domination of Romania and its affairs; also, that they had stocked their coffers full at the expense of Romania (the Romanian well was dry)." —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Your observation that Romania had a civil adminstration and its own army does not preclude occupation by the Soviets.

So what else you need, except presence of troops, to have occupation?

• If anyone can cite any post-peace signing agreements, that would assist in the discussion. I've seen (non-Romanian) references that the Soviets extended their stay to fulfill their Allied obligations (which would indicate continuation of prior de jure legal occupation). —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course, why don't we eliminate all articles about Communism, unless they're from the Great Soviet Encyclopedia. Unfortunately for you, we will be heard. We'll shine the spotlight, we'll name the names. And let's try an experiment with German occupation of Czechoslovakia:

"No, it wasn't even de facto, the Slovak Republic had its own government and its own army. The fact that the government of the period listened to Hitler's orders didn't make Slovakia an occupied country." Doesn't sound too plausible, does it?

From what i know, the German army only occupied a western region of slovakia during most of ww2. And it was an independent state until it was overrun by the germans in 1944. Anonimu

No, it was a puppet state. Biruitorul 23:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Romania and Hungary were too. Anonimu 07:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No, Romania at least was sovereign and took decisions independently of the Reich. Hungary too was a puppet state only from October 1944. Biruitorul 18:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It didn't act like a sovereign one. Anonimu 20:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The United Kingdom last acted like a sovereign country in 1956. It's still sovereign, though. Biruitorul 00:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Then ww2 Slovakia was also sovereign. Anonimu 11:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If you wish. But Romania was more assertive of its sovereignty, as it refused to deport Jews, and Antonescu even authorised the issuing of numerous fake baptism certificates in order to save Jews. Biruitorul 19:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't Antonescu the one who decided to deport jews to transnistria. Wasn't Antonesuc the ruler of Romania?Anonimu 21:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

He shared power with the King. More importantly, he also saved hundreds of thousands of Jews, something the Slovaks never tried to do. Biruitorul 23:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

And yes, it very much was a de facto occupation. De facto the occupation of Iraq ended in June 2004, but it's still generally considered an occupied country, de facto if not de jure. If Dej had left the Warsaw pact in 1959, he would have been crushed. Ever heard of Dubček?

In school i've learned that generally you need at least 2 terms to think of induction. Anonimu 19:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

And one term to think of occupation. Biruitorul 23:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

 ?!?Anonimu 07:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

 ! Biruitorul 18:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

 ?

&*^%

The fact is that large numbers of foreign troops on one's soil constitutes an occupation, and historians recognise that. You have provided no legitimate alternative historical names for their presence. Biruitorul 20:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

What's large? If the state accepts or ask the military presence, there's no occupation. Is central Dobruja nowadays occupied by the US?Anonimu 19:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Right, I should have said that they were an occupying force not only because they were large. (And yes, I consider central Dobrogea occupied territory, as the legitimate ruler of Romania, Mihai Hohenzollern, did not agree to those troops being stationed there.) Biruitorul 23:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• I have to agree that simply "large numbers" is not sufficient. The Soviets stationed more troops under the mutual assistance pact than the entire Latvian army (25,000 Soviet versus around 16,000 Latvian), but it was legal and not an occupation. What came afterwards, however, was an occupation.
• That said, the Romanian-Allied armistice is certainly a case of accepting occupation. That Romania agreed to the occupation under the terms of the armistice does not make it a non-occupation.
• If you can cite an agreement between the Soviet Union and Romania for the continued presence of Soviet troops after the Allied occupation was terminated based on Romania meeting its obligations under its terms, let's see it.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

And of course the situations are comparable. "Holocaust" is a Jewish term from the Old Testament, and expresses a judgment about the event rooted in Jewish theology (though adopted and shared by almost everyone else). It's not (or at least was not initially) a scientific description of what happened, but rather one based in the overwhelming emotions it generated. Similarly, "nadir" is not an entirely scientific term, but it's been adopted by historians, which is why we use it. And why we should use "occupation". Biruitorul 17:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think either "liberation" (very POV) or "occupation" are the right terms here. Germany was, under international law, "occupied" only until the two governments (East and West) were formed, even though many countries kept troops on German soil right down to re-unification (and the U.S keeps troops there even today). In Romania's case, I don't know the exact legalities, but I presume that the "occupation" officially ended after a government formed based on the 1946 elections, however flawed and dishonest they may have been. So this title is OK if we are only going to that date, but if we are continuing until the troops left then something like Soviet military presence in Romania would be a much more neutral title.

If this is a general history down to 1958—not focused specifically on the Soviet role—then I think it has excessive overlap with Communist Romania, and we should consider refactoring material and re-titling both; I'm not sure what would be the best titles, though. - Jmabel | Talk 17:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not a general history; as I indicated above, "It will cover 14 years of Romanian history, but not the whole of Romanian history in that period - only a relatively narrow slice thereof. It will say nothing (or virtually nothing) about Collectivisation, about Lucreţiu Pătrăşcanu, about the Piteşti prison, about King Michael or about Jewish emigration. It will, however, say a great deal about the Soviet occupation of Romania. It will tell about the legal basis for their presence in Romania, about their arrival in Romania, about what they did once they were there, about their numbers or personnel and matériel, about their negotiated withdrawal, and about their effect on Romania's political, social, cultural and economic life."

I could live with the term "Soviet military presence in Romania", except that:

1. "Occupation", through 1958, is used by impartial historians. We could, however, clarify the issue in the text, saying that although the formal occupation ended in 1946/47, the term is generally used to cover the entire 14-year period.

And all those "impartial historians" are, with one exception, romanians (hope i don't get the racist tag again for this)Anonimu 18:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Last I checked, Romanians aren't a race. But what's the relevance of that? Aren't Romanians capable of writing their own history, like the Jewish authors Hannah Arendt, Anne Frank, Primo Levi, Elie Wiesel and Rudolf Vrba are eminently capable of writing their own history? And by the way, Tismăneanu is a Jewish American, as far as I know. Biruitorul 20:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say that. No, romanian are russophobic (you know: Bessarabia, the treasure, Bukovina, sovroms etc) and i can't trust them in those matters. Where those jews objective? If he choses to identify as a Romanian, he is one. Anonimu 19:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

2. We have "Occupation of Baltic states" and "Occupation of Latvia", but those were not occupations under international law either. Biruitorul 18:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

So if someone created two articles with wrong titles should we do the same?Anonimu 18:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not simply a matter of their being "created". The "Occupation of Baltic states" was recently upheld by a strong majority. And both are supported by historical literature. Biruitorul 20:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No, you are wrong on point 2). According to the pro-occupation POV, th Baltic States were de jure occupied. -- Petri Krohn 18:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Care to cite for that? The Baltics each were fully part of the USSR, with the same governmental structures (Republic-level party, presidium, first secretary, etc.) as every other Republic (except the RSFSR, a special case). Biruitorul 20:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

What would you like to have cited? That all three Baltic states took steps to insure their de jure continuity? No one argues that the Soviet Union made the Baltics a de facto part of the Soviet Union. But since they did not do so legally, it was an illegal annexation and a continued occupation.

    And, on "neutral" (following), let us take care not to believe that averaging' of something that one can provide a basis for and something one cannot provide a basis for something considered "neutral." (Basis meaning something other than one's opinion that "occupation" is a POV-kind-of-word.) According to this logic, we would average the "flat Earth" view with the "round Earth" view and wind up with a sphere chopped in half as a "neutral" view of Earth. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 22:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but according to wiki guidelines every article should have a neutral title, not one supporting a certain POV. If only one POV is presented in the article, than it doesn't respect NPOV. If there's an article under another title discussing the other POVs, then we have a POV forking, against wiki rules too.Anonimu 18:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

We can't have two titles for the same subject. And since "occupation" is supported by a broad cross-section of historians, it's perfectly legitimate to use that. Biruitorul 20:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It important to mention the context in which the tern "occupation" was used (that is: after the beginning of the Cold war, in the west, and after ceausescu came to power, in romania)

And... of course the USSR wouldn't use the term. What's your point? We don't follow the Politburo line here. Biruitorul 23:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Neither did the Allies before the Cold War began. And i think neither Russian historiography nowadays. Anonimu 07:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

First, it was an occupation by the terms of the treaty itself, so your claim is nonsense. Second, you mind citing some "Russian historiography"??? Biruitorul 18:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No, the treaty doesn't mention any occupation.Anonimu 20:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it mentions the occupation of Austria, for which, by implication, Romania was being occupied. My question remains, though: you mind citing some "Russian historiography"??? Biruitorul 00:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't imply nothing.Anonimu 11:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The treaty mentions the occupation of Austria. By implication (or are you not good with logic?), Romania too was being occupied in order to facilitate the occupation of Austria. My question remains, though: you mind citing some "Russian historiography"??? Biruitorul 19:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Logic doens't work that way.Anonimu 21:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should review your logic textbook. Again: if not for occupation purposes, why were they were. Do a little deducting. My question remains, though: you mind citing some "Russian historiography"??? Biruitorul 23:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, everyone. First of, all, let me note that this debate could range on for many months to come, and I think that both sides here are mistaken about at least one thing each.

In the case of "liberation": it is simply inapplicable in this situation. For one, "liberation" implies something limited in time and scope (one simply cannot liberate a country for 13 years on end, and we already have this article for the original events). Secondly, it is absurd when applied to this situation: the Soviets did not liberate Romania from x occupier, but, if they did any liberating, it was to free Romanian citizens from other Romanian citizens (those who cite the existence of an Allied Commission better should also know that this was not created in liberated countries, but in former belligerent states). Furthermore, in this scheme, Romania actually liberated itself (if you will check your facts, you will notice that the Romanians took out their own fascist regime, and that, for a while after that, sought mediation with the Soviets for a couple of weeks or so - during which time Romania was technically at war with both the Germans and the Soviets, and hundreds or even thousands of Romanian soldiers were taken prisoner by the Red Army, while many simply ran away). After Romania joined the Allies (she said) or emerged out of the Axis to be discussed in the future (the Allies said), the Romanian Army fought alongside the Soviets all the way down to Slovakia, and Soviet troops were able to simply move between Moldavia and southern Transylvania.

Though I have linked to this page from many articles, I must admit I have always had a problem with the title, and wondered if it was not possible to rephrase it better. Though, obviously, I find "occupation" much more accurate than "liberation" (in fact, I find the latter completely inaccurate), I have several grounds to urge moderation in assessing the situation. For one, most historians deduce that it amounted to an occupation rather than claim that it was an occupation, while virtually all point out that, both officially and practically, the situation was by far more complex. There was actually no military authority administrating Romania (or, at least, nothing beyond Iaşi in 1944-1945); in any case, there was nothing of the sort lasting until 1957. If the Allied Commission was an occupation administrations (and it makes little sense to say that it was), it was gone by (I think) 1947. The Commission was on a partnership basis, and the Soviets abused it (that is to say, it was of the Allies, but the Soviets made it/were allowed to make their own). The Soviets did not disestablish the Romanian government, they rather toyed with it (and relied on a direct line with the Communists to push any change they saw as necessary, which can only symbolically be considered "occupation"); when the government was changed, there was no official or unofficial Soviet participation, merely Soviet approval. Furthermore, we all know that relations with Soviet authorities were equally advantageous to a group of Communist power-seekers, who toppled an inner-party group to replace it with their own, who were the same to continue Romanian Stalinism after Stalin was dead, and who were the same to pretend that they had all along sought an end to Soviet influence. And, may I add, Romania joined the UN in 1955.

The best solution here seems to me as the following: rename this article and links to it in other articles to Soviet military presence in Romania. Use its body of text to discuss at length what that implied for Romania (based on reliable sources), what in it is equated with "occupation" by historians (based on reliable sources), and what its main events were (based on reliable sources). This is my proposal - feel free to discuss it below.

PS: I would picture that it is impossible to apply the same criteria in Latvia etc., where nothing in use here would be relevant. Dahn 20:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it may be by now obvious that I did not read the entire dialog going on on this page, but I find that Jmabel has made the exact same proposal. Dahn 20:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

As long as we note within the article text that reliable historians generally refer to the 1944-58 period as an occupation, I don't have a strong objection to your proposal. However, I still prefer the current title due to its own basis in the literature on the subject. Biruitorul 20:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

How about Soviet military occupation of Romania? This gibes closely with at least one book that deal specifically (and, as far as I can tell, in most depth) with the subject, namely, the book by Sergiu Verona, "Military Occupation and Diplomacy: Soviet Troops in Romania, 1944-1958". Basically, I hope we all agree on the indisputable fact that the Soviets had military units galore in Romania during that period, and that those troops could help enforce policies such as the SovRoms and the deportations of Germans from Romania, yes? (Not to mention the direct exploitation of uranium ore mines in the Western Carpathians, a subject that I plan to look at in more detail at some point.) It all boils down then to the question: was that just a "military presence" (at the most benign, this could just be a bunch of soldiers sitting around in their compounds, playing backgammon or kicking ball -- is this how most people would read the title?), or a "military occupation" (OK, maybe at the most extreme, this conjures images of tanks rolling around, crushing everything in site, which I surely don't want to imply). The question, then, is how to best formulate the complexities of the situation in as short, yet as accurate as possible title. All in all, I'd say "Soviet military occupation of Romania" is the most appropriate. In the meantime, while people still argue about it, I will try to simply add to the article when I get a cahnce (right now, it's not much more than a stub), so as to make the debate hopefully more clear, once the substance is there in more detail. Turgidson 21:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

What acts of the Soviet army in 1947-1958 can be considered the acts of an occupation army? (Remeber that even the right-wing terrorist groups in the mountains were inactivated by Securitate troops, not soviet ones)Anonimu 19:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, allow me to commend what you are doing to this article.

The problem with using "military occupation" is basically the same as with using "occupation": for it to apply, Soviet troops would have had to actually replace Romanian authorities on at least one level (which was not the case, not even in 1944). Of course they were able to impose several policies on the basis of their military presence (although it always took two to tango, especially with the SovRoms), but this still does not equate in itself an occupation.

Most historians I have read do agree that it was an occupation, but do not indicate that they would use the term in any context. I have just reread Cioroianu to get the exact point he makes: while he titles a chapter in his book "Extent of the Soviet occupation", he says, just a couple of lines further in the text, that military presence effectively amounted to occupation (for ca.1944 at least). There are two things to note here, IMO: one is that us, unlike Cioroianu, do not have the liberty of naming an article based on our own conclusions; the other is that, if most sources do what Cioroianu does (and I think they do), we have no problem signaling that it was de facto an occupation throughout the text itself, while first noting that it was not from a legal point of view.

I would also like to note that "military presence" does include all forms of presence, including occupation - so it may still be the most adequate here (or, rather, it is the most adequate I could think of). Dahn 21:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Occupation" not "judgemental"

The term "occupation" is not "judgemental." There are clear and specific criteria to apply to determine whether there is an "occupation."

1. Did the occupying authority prevent the local sovereign authority from executing its duties to its population? If yes, then "occupation." (Military or not military does not matter.)
2. Was the local authority being supported (kept in power by the occupying authority) one that came by that authority legally (that is, it was the de jure sovereign authority) or was it someone installed by the occupying force subsequent to the occupation? If installed by the occupying force, then "occupation."
3. Annexation of territory which did not belong to the Soviet Union prior to the war would be a permanent occupation of that territory (subsequent de facto recognition of borders notwithstanding); it would remain as such until the de jure authority formally signed a treaty ceding sovereignty to the Soviet Union.
4. Do we have a map of what "fifty-one hundred kilometers (depending upon conditions of terrain) from the front line" looks like? Beyond that, the treaty restored Romanian Civil Administration, however, answering to instructions and orders of the Allied (Soviet) High Command, so, still an occupation even if civil authorities were executing day-to-day responsibilities. And where not administered by Romanian authorities, of course, occupation.
5. If it took until 1958 for the Soviets to leave and circumstances to change, well, then that's how long the occupation lasted if it meets the criteria for being an occupation--and since the Sovuet presence was introduced as a formal occupation of Romanian territory as the result of the Armistice Agreement, then that's what it is. There's no time limit on how long an occupation can last.

I will go back and read the talk here more thoroughly (disregarding the anti-Soviets are Nazi-loving scum rhetoric) to see how well these questions are addressed. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I do not take issue with the term for being judgmental, but for being, IMO, incorrect. Second of all: I know no occupation that is not, in effect, military occupation, which is defined by strict criteria - the most basic of which cannot be applied here. In my view, these are the issues that make the change in name be/seem rational, and not the criteria you list above. However, I will answer your questions in their order:

1. Not really, no
2. It was the same authority, and, in theory, it was succeeded, not replaced. That is to say: the Communist Party forged elections in 1946, after three successive governments of three political shades ruled Romania from 1944, all of them local. Forging the elections required no notable help from the Soviet army etc. that I know of. In late 1947, Romania had some sort of a coup, during which the governmetn (legitimate on paper) forced the king to abdicate and proclaimed a people's republic yadda-yadda. In this process too, there was no significant help from Soviet authorities that I know of. Note: both processes had Soviet approval, one would guess, but that is another matter.
3. That applies to territories lost through the Treaty of Paris (therefore held 1944-1947), unless the various inter-Allied conferences count as international treaties on their own. Let us also make note of the fact that, for reasons that are best left out of this discussion, Romania actually ceded those territories in 1940.
4. I'm not sure what is meant by the 5,100 km. issue; Finland had an Allied Commission, but was not occupied; the Allies did not "restore", but recognized the civil administration, which allowed the Soviet troops to pass through its territory.
5. No, because the Soviets never administrated anything. Your argument is like saying that East Germany was occupied by the Soviets until 1989, and that Germany is still under American occupation. By some point, there were also conventions signed between Romania and the Soviet Union in respect to the presence of Soviet troops (as unfair as they arguably were); after 1955, Romania was part of the Warsaw Pact; at no point in this interval did Romania cede control over or disestablish its own army. Dahn 00:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

To #3: let us also note that Romania regained those territories from 1941-44. I don't know if that has any relevance, but let's note it. Biruitorul 00:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The thrust with the Baltic occupation and annexation has been its illegality, leading to terming the entire Soviet tenure in Latvia as an occupation. While some have dismissed the notion that an occupation can last 50 years, it can last until (proverbial) hell freezes over. There is no time limit when the results of an illegal act suddenly or gradually become legal. Romania, however, appears to be a simpler case.

    In the case of Romania, you have a treaty signed (which has that bizarre 5,100 km provision) which provides for the direct administration of Romania by Allied (Soviet)--not my parentheses, the treaty is written that way--forces, except further than 5,100km from the "front line" where Romanian civil administration is in charge, but explicitly answering to and doing the bidding of the Allied (Soviet) forces. So, one way or the other, the entire country is legally occupied and under Allied (Soviet) authority by force of treaty.

    Dahn's contention that the Soviets "never administered anything" is completely contrary to the clear and explicit terms of the treaty. The clerks at city hall don't have the be Soviet imports to be administering on behalf of the occupying authority.

    So the the question is:

• when did the Soviet Union (or other duly appointed representative of the Allied powers) and Romania sign an agreement stating that Romania had satisfactorily discharged all its obligations under its treaty with the Allied powers and that the Allied occupation was ended?

That is the earliest date one can say occupation ended.

• If such an agreement was never signed, then the occupation did not and could not end until the Soviet troops left.
• If such an agreement was signed, and it included a request by the sovereign authority of Romania to continue the presence of Soviet troops, then one can call it many things, but subsequent to that date, "occupation" is not one of them.
• However, if such an agreement to continue Soviet presence was signed before an agreement was executed that the Allied occupation of Romania had come to a close, then such an agreement continuing the Soviet presence is certainly suspect at the very least as it would have been signed by local authorities who were answerable at that time by force of treaty to the occupying Allied (Soviet) forces.

Based on the text of the treaty, there is very little that's open to interpretation here. My "argument" isn't actually "like" anything, I am just sticking to what's documented. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I should mention that if at any time, before or after any official end to the occupation, the Soviet Union deported citizens of Romania from the territory Romania to its own territory, that of the Soviet Union (somewhere other than the Soviet Union does not count in this case), then that is an act of aggression against the sovereign state of Romania, rendering the Soviet Union an illegal occupying force. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's this: "In October 1944, the Sănătescu government [8/44-12/44], at the solicitation of the Allied Control Commission, began arresting young ethnic German Romanian citizens, who were placed at the disposal of the Soviet command. Under the Rădescu government [12/44-3/45], faced with ultimatums from the Soviet command, trains carrying Transylvanian Saxons left for the Soviet Union... In a Protest (dated 13 January 1945), the Rădescu government noted the Romanian government's obligation to protect each of its citizens, regardless of ethnic origin, and of the absence of a legal basis for the deportation of the Transylvanian Saxons". Biruitorul 02:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That works. It's been a while, I'll need to do some searching for the specific deportation text to see where it appears. That is considered an act of war against the population of Romania. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Section III of the Fourth Geneva Convention states an Occupying Power must not transfer or deport protected persons from occupied territory nor deport or transfer parts of its own population into the occupied territory (Article 49)--I'm sure not the only reference but it will do for a start. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you. I'll put in a note. Biruitorul 03:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

And if the date of official end of occupation is the treaty at the end of the war and the Soviets simply never left, again, occupation (if no specific agreement). If the Soviet position was "continuing Allied presence", then occupation (whether or not one considers it legal). —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

First, let me preface this note by saying what a relief is to have a logical, pragmatic discussion on this subject, after being subjected to invectives such as (and I'm only paraphrasing sligthly) "all non-commies are Nazis" and "all those whose name ends in u are Nazis", just for raising the question of why this article was tagged, and for bringing a reference backing up its title. I still don't quite understand why such speech is tolerated around here, but let's move on.

Second, there are all sorts of points being raised in this (spirited, yet thoughtful) discussion. I cannot even begin to address them all -- some are really new to me, I'd have to mull them over -- but at the very least I think several of these points should be addressed and developed in the article.

So let me then focus for now just on point #5, and Dahn's response to it, to wit: "No, because the Soviets never administrated anything. Your argument is like saying that East Germany was occupied by the Soviets until 1989, and that Germany is still under American occupation. By some point, there were also conventions signed between Romania and the Soviet Union in respect to the presence of Soviet troops (as unfair as they arguably were); after 1955, Romania was part of the Warsaw Pact; at no point in this interval did Romania cede control over or disestablish its own army." True enough, but what does this prove? For comparison, let's look at the situation of Austria, at a comparable point in time (1945--1955) -- an example that I brought up before, but let me now quote ad-literam from History of Austria#Allied occupation:

Under the Allied Commission established by an agreement on July 4, 1945, the country was occupied by the Allies from May 9, 1945 until July 27, 1955. Like Germany, Austria was divided in four zones, each of which was controlled by one of the four allied powers, with Vienna being also divided into four zones. Austria participated in the Western European "economic miracle", with the benefit of the Marshall Plan. In April 1945, the Soviet government allowed the establishment of government including socialists, conservatives and communists, but led by the socialist elder statesman Karl Renner. This government was recognized by the western allies later that year. Even though under occupation, the Austrian government was officially permitted to conduct foreign relations with the approval of the four occupying governments under the agreement of June 28, 1946.

As we see, there is no compuction in calling that the "Allied occupation" of Austria. And that occupation did not prevent Austria from establishing a functioning governement, to conduct its own foreign relations, etc.; also, for all I know (correct me if I'm wrong) at no point in this interval did Austria cede control over or disestablish its own army.

I don't think Austria had an army at that time. Anonimu 19:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Correct. According to de:Österreichisches Bundesheer (in the infobox and the chronology, with the aid of a dictionary), the army was re-established in 1955 (having been dissolved, presumably, in 1938). Biruitorul 00:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Anonimu: if you really feel the urge to add inane comments in the middle of what I wrote, could you please at least have the elementary courtesy of not messing up the text, by inserting a blanck space at the beginning of the next line? Thank you. As for your claim that the Austrian Army did not exist during the Allied occupation of 1945-1955, do you care to back it up with a reference? You may even try and add it at Military of Austria or Military history of Austria, where there is absolutely no mention of such a 10-year hiatus. Let's see what the editors who wrote those pages will have to say. Turgidson 23:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Biruitorul: Thanks for the reference -- I didn't think of checking de.wiki for this. Nevertheless, here's a tidbit that I found: once it became clear that the Communists were trying to gain power in Austria, with the help of the Soviet Union, the United States forces in the area sprung into action to defend democracy. As a concrete measure, the core of the future Austrian Army, B-Gendarmerie, was created in 1950, and secretly trained and equipped by the United States Army. Thus, for all practical purposes, Austria had the nucleus of an Army for half the period of Allied occupation. This is a side issue to the discussion for this article (though still relevant in several ways), but I wonder how come nothing is said about this on en.wiki, in one of the two articles I quoted above -- after all, one could not have expected the Austrian Army to have sprung at once from nothingness, after a hiatus of 10 (or even 17 years), right? So maybe there is an opportunity here to develop those two articles, too, and set the record straight. For reference, see:

• James Jay Carafano, "Waltzing into the Cold War: The Struggle for Occupied Austria", College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2002. ISBN 1585442135

Officially Austria didn't have an army during the period. Romania did.Anonimu 07:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Unofficially it didn't. Romania did, officially, but unofficially it was just an appendage of the Red Army. Biruitorul 18:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately, international law doesn't care about unofficial things.Anonimu 20:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ever heard of Customary international law? Custom is a pillar of international law. Biruitorul 00:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but the subject has nothing to do with customary international subject. Please keep on-topic.Anonimu 12:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course it does. Customarily, overstaying your occupation is illegal. Biruitorul 19:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

International treaties override customs. Anonimu 21:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

They violated the terms of the treaty by carrying out deportations, thus making them an illegal occupying force. Biruitorul 23:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

(Well, of course, there was no Piteşti experiment, Danube-Black Sea Canal, Sighet, Jilava, Gherla, etc in Austria during the Allied occupation or thereafter, but I guess this is immaterial to this discussion, so passons.) But note at least one difference: Austria chose to take advantage of the generous offer presented by the Marshall Plan, thereby joining most of Western Europe in an "economic miracle" that eluded Romania, who (like all other countries in the Eastern Bloc, chose not to take advantage of the Marshall Plan. Now, why is that? I submit that that had something (a big something) to do with the Soviet occupation/presence/just being there/however one wishes to call it; to quote from Marshall Plan#Rejection by the Soviets:

On July 12, a larger meeting was convened in Paris. Every country of Europe was invited, with the exceptions of Spain (which had stayed out of World War II but had sympathized with the Axis powers) and the small states of Andorra, San Marino, Monaco, and Liechtenstein. The Soviet Union was invited with the understanding that it would refuse. The states of the future Eastern Bloc were also approached, and Czechoslovakia and Poland agreed to attend. In one of the clearest signs of Soviet control over the region, the Czechoslovak foreign minister, Jan Masaryk, was summoned to Moscow and berated by Stalin for thinking of joining the Marshall Plan. Stalin saw the Plan as a significant threat to Soviet control of Eastern Europe and believed that economic integration with the West would allow these countries to escape Soviet guidance. The Americans shared this view and hoped that economic aid could counter the growing Soviet influence. They were not too surprised, therefore, when the Czechoslovakian and Polish delegations were prevented from attending the Paris meeting. The other Eastern European states immediately rejected the offer. Finland also declined in order to avoid antagonizing the Soviets. The Soviet Union's "alternative" to the Marshall plan, which was purported to involve Soviet subsidies and trade with eastern Europe, became known as the Molotov Plan, and later, the COMECON.

One way or the other, I think we need a discussion in this article of causes and consequences of the rejection of the Marshall Plan by Romania in July 1947, and of what role (if any?) did the occupation of Romania by Soviet troops at the time play in this momentous decision. By the way, anyone knows exactly who took the decision? Was there an official act of the Romanian government, signed by King Michael I of Romania? Turgidson 02:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be OR. Anonimu 19:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Why? Biruitorul 23:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

"What if"'s are OR by definition. Anonimu 07:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Depends on what the definition of if is. Where is the "if" in what I said, except in "(if any?)", which, to helpfully translate for you, means "not devoid of content", not "what if that happened", as you seem to infer. And the quotation I provided above (directly from the Marshall Plan article makes it plain that Romania rejected the Marshall Plan in 1947 precisely because it already was a Soviet satellite, and so it simply followed Joseph Stalin's directions in the matter. No ifs and buts. Turgidson 12:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussing "consequences of the rejection" is an "what if". Anyway there could be another reason for the rejection: the ro gvt simply couldn't accept money that came from the exploitation of workers and colonies. Anonimu 12:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The consequences were clear as daylight: Countries such as Germany and Austria who chose to accept the generous offer of the United States made by United States Secretary of State George Marshall got the Wirtschaftswunder; Romania, who chose to follow Joseph Stalin's friendly advice, got the SovRoms. And, puhleease, spare me the agitprop jargon. Turgidson 13:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You see, now that's pure OR. That was the morally right thing to do. You don't accept gift from robbers, or else the Furies will come and haunt you.Anonimu 13:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

First, the consequences were clear, as historians have documented. Second, who were the robbers? Were not the Soviets, who exploited Romania to the bone, the real robbers? Biruitorul 18:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

What historians: Mama Omida or Ciresica? For a nationalist like you, yes, they were robbers too.Anonimu 20:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No, just people like Adrian Cioroianu, Lavinia Betea, Ilarion Ţiu... You only have Mihail Roller on your side. And my being a nationalist has nothing to do with this. The Soviets robbed Romania până la sânge. Let's not hide that fact. Biruitorul 00:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Ilarion Tiu? Why not Horia Sima? Lavinia Betea? who's that? Cioroianu... he began writing SF? They just like any other colonial power. Why, because they imposed lower prices? This happens nowadays in every 3rd world country....

Would you care to back up your slanderous statement comparing Ţiu, an employee of the prestigious newspaper Jurnalul Naţional, with Horia Sima? Betea also writes for them. What does Cioroianu's SF writing have to do with anything? He's cited extensively on Wikipedia. No, other colonial powers were not so bad. And have you heard of the tezaur, of the resource stripping, of the famines they created? This was criminal! Biruitorul 19:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Where did i compare Tiu with Sima? ?!? Yeah, and the hell is a very cold place. What famien did the soviet cause in Romania. As i've already said stealing treasures and resources is a typical colonial attitude (but the Soviets didn't steal resources, they just bought them at lower prices than normal, just like the western powers do in the 3rd world).Anonimu 21:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You said, "Ilarion Tiu? Why not Horia Sima?" The 1946-48 famine in Bessarabia, an integral part of Romania, even if not recognised de jure as such. Please. Their crimes far outweighed those of most Western colonialists, who at least never tried to impose Bolshevism. Biruitorul 23:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Summary by User:Dahn

To summarize my point, and help clear some misunderstandings about it:

• as I have said, 1944 to 194something is indicated by most historians as an occupation, though this may not comply with actual official status. Nobody could extend that to 1957, unless to stress a point (if you will, to call a spade a spade, to define it as a duck etc. - "despite conventions, it amounted to that"). That point can and should be rendered throughout the article: I see no reason why it should also be in the title (in itself, the title ought to be as close to neutral as possible).
• the presence of an Allied Commission is not in itself proof of occupation. Austria was occupied because it was administrated by the Allies (the four zones mentioned and the direct comparison to Germany, both of which do not apply here). As mentioned previously, Finland too had an Allied Commission, and it had no foreign presence whatsoever.
• citing instances of abuse will not make it officially an occupation, but, at most, effectively an occupation. For one, we all know that Stalin didn't give a damn about official status, and allowed himself to break it as a rule (a point which can and ultimately should be present in the article). Secondly, the tradition of abuse (deportations, etc., as well as, probably, the rejection of the Marshall Plan, were the result of abusive influence and cooperation with various forces on the inside, not that of military law). Thirdly, the fact that the Romanian government did have the power to protest indicates further that there was a national authority who could at least try to oppose this abuse, and had vehicles to report it as an abuse.
• such points are almost perfectly equatable with the previous German presence (economic control, advisory bodies, submission of the Romanian army to a centralized command), which one would have to stretch exactly as much in legal terms to call "an occupation".

Again, I believe the article should adopt the de jure (and the post-1953 de facto), whereas the body of text can detail the 1944-1953 de facto. Since I last replied here, I notice that some absurd speculations about the Comintern, the Hungarian Revolution etc. were also made on this page, and I thank established users for seeing through them. Hopefully, we are not using wikipedia to endorse speculation, projection, and personal theories.

To answer the point about the Marshall Plan: whatever influence might have arguably been exercised by the Soviets, the fact is that it was rejected through an official act of government (it's telling that the minister who signed that act was not a Communist). Dahn 14:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Dahn. Thanks for the explanations, and the cogent summary. I gotta run now, but let me mull this over, and I will get back to this. In the meantime, just a point of information, if I may: who was the minister who signed that act? I searched last night on wikipedia (not very thoroughly, I must admit), and could not find any further information on this besides what I wrote above. Somewhat independently of this discussion, but still in a related vein, I think we need a better framework to explain the economic situation in Romania following WWII, including the rejection of the Marshall Plan, the adherence to Comecon, what role the war reparations and the SovRoms played in the overall economy, etc. In other words, more of an integration of historical aspects with economic aspects -- one reinforcing the other in explaining things. Have such studies been done? A big name in this approach to history is Niall Ferguson, but alas, as far as I know, he has not treated the subject of Romania in any deatil... Turgidson 14:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

For your first question: Tătărescu. About the rest: I have at home an entire issue of Dosarele Istoriei dealing with the issue, and Cioroianu has a chapter about it. This may lead us somewhere, but I'm all tangled up in issues right now (both wiki-related and real life). I request your permission to introduce more profuse citations from Tismăneanu to your text in the future (I have the entire book in Romanian, and could replace or alternate references to provide more data from that book as well). I would also like to propose creating a separate section for "in popular culture", and move the davai ceas issue over there (together with other facts one can fish out from here and there, all of which are likely to be interesting). Dahn 14:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from User:Daizus

I am not sure where to add my input since the discussion diverged so much in so many sections. Though I am not an expert in these events nor particularly interested in them, since my small contributions to the history of Communist Romania here in Wikipedia I confronted such topics. One of the materials I've read is an issue of Dosarele Istoriei - 12(88)/2003 and it's a about of series of articles signed by Teofil Oroian, pp. 22-45. Their titles in English (not translated, but proposed by their author) are: "Prolonged and Defying Stationing of Soviet Troops in Romania", "Soviet Counsellors in the Romanian Army. A brief historical perspective", "War Doctrine, Fighting Methods and Procedures of Soviet Inspiration", "Glorifying Stalin and the Soviet Army".

What these articles say about "Soviet occupation of Romania". First it denounced the abusive installation of Soviet military units. In November 1944, ordered by marshall R. I. Malinovsky, 3 Soviet infantry divisions occupied Romania. One near Ploieşti, one near Bucharest, and another one having regiments in Petroşani, Deva and Arad. The terms of occupations (purpose, duration) were not given at that time. The Romanian side through the generals N. Rădescu and C. Sănătescu expressed concerns about the stationing of Soviet military units as article 3 from the Convention of Armistice stipulated only allowance and support for Soviet and Allies military forces in passage through Romanian territory if the military situation demanded that way, not hosting them for unlimited time and unknown purposes. The threatening answer came from general V. P. Vinogradov in December same year, invoking the same article and claiming the Soviet army could take any measure they thought necessary in the terms of that article. The end of WWII ended the de jure possibilities for Soviet units to remain on Romanian territories. However, in June 1945, the Soviets asked for more areas where Soviet units to stationate grouped in four areas each one of them encompassing several cities. Again, the terms of occupation were not specified just an ultimatum for Romanian units to leave those areas. With all these, further abuses were recorded: the Soviet units stationed in other places than stipulated, the Romanian units from other areas than stipulated were evacuated (and also related facilities - barracks, hospitals, etc.), plus many other abuses (damages, theft, etc.). Oroian estimates from the average food supply that a Soviet army of about 500,000 stayed in Romania until 1947.

Secondly, after the Peace Treaty from February 10 / September 15 1947, in article 21, Romania's situation was stipulated as such: "all Allied troops will be retreated in 90 days, except USSR, which can keep in Romanian territory the armed forces it considers necessary to maintain the Communication lines with Austria". Oroian concludes: "thus the presence of Soviet military troops was legalized in Romania, and the status of occupied country for Romania became not only de facto, but also de jure". He also adds this was a pretext, as between USSR and Austria, there were 3 communcation lines: Lwów-Kraków-Vienna having 630km and a capacity of 60 trains/day, Stryj-Mukacheve-Budapest-Vienna, 680km, 14 trains/day and finally Ungheni-Paşcani-Adjud-Oradea-Budapest-Vienna, 1350km and 7 trains/day. He does not estimate the number of remaning Soviet troops after 1947 invoking the lack of documents. He concludes "The Soviet troops remaining in Romania after the signing of the Peace Treaty, will stay here for more than 10 years, continuing to alter deeply the Romanian society in all aspects ("continuând să marcheze profund societatea românească în ansamblul ei"). Divided in 14 garrisons, they were retreated only in 1958, after a Romanian-Soviet agreement, ending the trauma of the Soviet military occupation of Romania.". This is the end of the first article. The next article, on Soviet counsellors, starts with "The occupation of Romania and other states from Eastern, Central and South-Eastern Europe by Red Army was the decissive factor in installing the Soviet domination East of Iron Curtain and forceful installation of the Communist regimes. In this context, one of the objectives of the new Stalinist-obedient governments was the cleansing of the important institutions of the state, mainly the army, and afterwards their recreation after the Soviet model. For the efficient development of such actions, on military issues, Soviet military counsellors were sent. However, they had leading, control and surveillance roles in the main institutions and bodies of the state, but even in the economical units of average importance."

I'm giving these accounts of Oroian to point out not that only "occupation" is a term used (as it was already exemplified), but also I find the context wide enough to believe the term "occupation" can be legitimately used here with no fear of OR, while we are backed up by these (reliable, I guess) sources.

And last but not at least, I believe the term "military presence" is somehow POV-ishly vague. This military presence it seems to have a purpose to control and change Romania in the interests of USSR. When someone says "presence", some people may think of it as something very neutral and passive. The term "occupation" reveals a purpose of that "presence". As long there's scholarship to evidentiate and argue for such purposes, I don't see where is the problem really. Daizus 12:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This looks like very valuable information. We now have a section on Soviet occupation forces in Romania, that includes estimated troop strenths; for now, it's just for 1945-1952, since these are the data I could find so far (in Verona's book, which is widely available in libraries in the US). I think it would be great to have details about location, communication lines, etc, like the ones you found about (plus, of course, context). I plan to add more info from Verona's book as time permits (btw, tables would be better, but I haven't used them yet in wiki mode, just plain html), but having another source (like Dosarele Istoriei), one complementing and reinforcing the other, would be really good. Turgidson 14:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Romania was ruled by the Comintern during the Soviet occupation

The Romanian governments after March 6, 1945 were imposed by Moskow. The communist leaders who effectively ruled the country after that date (Pauker-Luca-Georgescu-Dej) were acting as agents of the occupation power. Some of them (Pauker, Luca) were even members of the Soviet communist Party. All the important decisions were taken in Moskow, to be implemented locally. The leaders of the feared Securitate were Soviet agents, some of them even NKVD generals. The Red Army carried military actions on Romanian territory, in particular crushing the anti-communist resistance groups. There were Soviet counselors at each level of state administration. So the title "Soviet occupation" reflects reality. In fact, Romania's governments can be considered as occupation governments at least until 1958.

Arguably after that year the situation changed. Political prisonners were freed in 1964. In 1989, Ceausescu even claimed back the territories annexed by the USSR in 1947 after the Paris peace treaty (territories they had illegally occupied in 1940 and reoccupied in 1944). To say that the communist government of Ceausescu is of the same nature as the Cominternist occupation regime of the Pauker years amount to WP:OR and a very twisted view of history. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Icar (talk • contribs) 10:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

First, a technical point: the Comintern was dissolved in 1947, and replaced by the Cominform -- in part as a means to counter the Marshall Plan, and to create a mechanism for Soviet control of the economies (and more) of the countries of the Eastern Bloc (see discussion above). Second, as you can see, I am in favor of calling a spade a spade, and, following established usage (both by historians and an common parlance), calling the Soviet occupation the Soviet occupation. Having said that, though, there is a fine line to thread: what I think one should avoid is falling in the trap of victimology, and blaming everything under the Sun on the Soviets. Hard as it is (and I understand the sentiment, believe me), one must resist the impulse, and look at the historical record in a calm, dispassionate fashion. True, the Communist system was imposed on Romania by the Soviets -- there were only about 1,000 members of the Romanian Communist Party prior to August, 1944; without Soviet troops on Romanian soil in the folowing years, it is very hard to believe that such a small Party could have taken control of a country of about 20 million people, so rapidly (in just a couple of years) and so totally. But must also keep in mind that by 1948 there were over 1 million Party members, not brought into the Party by force of bayonet, and not all NKVD agents -- not by far. Also, keep in mind the comparison with Hungary: although the Soviet military occupation there was somewhat similar -- in both cases, rationalized by the Soviets as means to keep open the lines of communication with their troops in Austria (a country under Allied occupation until 1955) -- the Hungarians rose against the Soviets in the Hungarian Revolution of 1956. In that Revolution, Romania chose to side with the Soviet Union, and, directly or indirectly, had a role in the ensuing repression (eg, the imprisonment of Imre Nagy at Snagov). Anyhow, perhaps I digress -- my inclination would be to look at the specifics of what the Soviet military occupation/presence/whatever we call it, and deal with them in a very concrete manner in this article. Once all the facts are in place (and I think they're just starting to come out -- see for example the excellent point about Section III of the Fourth Geneva Convention, brought by Pēters J. Vecrumba, and now in the article -- we'll all have a better overview of the subject, and hopefully a more solid basis for further discussion. Turgidson 12:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Minor point: the Comintern was actually dissolved in 1943, and the Cominform did not assume its exact functions after the hiatus. It would also help if the point about Geneva is actually cited from a secondary source that applies it to Romania, because it would otherwise fall under the suspicion of original research. Thirdly, I want to stress again that historians actually speak of abusing a certain situation, leading to a de facto occupation sometime in the 1940s (probably to 1953) - a respectable and solid point, one I agree with, but not reflecting de jure status. Dahn 14:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake: yes, 1943, not 1947. And yes, Cominform had more of an economic/governmental flavor than Comintern, which was much more of a purely political/revolutionary/conspiratorial bent -- well, of course, for a good reason: much of the aims of the Comintern had been achieved by 1947, so it was time to get down to "business". And yes, I agree with you that the de jure and/or de facto occupation had become much more tenuous after Stalin's death in 1953: again, its aims had been achieved, so why bother getting their hands dirty and diverting resources and manpower, when the locals (Dej & Co) were doing the job so well for them? Yet, yet, there are still a few aspects of that lingering presence of Soviet troops in Romania in the latter stages (1953--1957/58) that I think are worth pursuing: the exploitation by one of the SovRoms of the uranium mines for obvious Soviet military purposes, the situation vis-a-vis Yugoslavia, the corridor to Austria up to 1955, and of course, the repression of the Hungarian Revolution. I don't know enough about this right now, but these are just a few of the subjects that I think may come into play in this article towards the end, thereby justifying the extension from the 1944--1947 period (where the case for calling it an occupation is the most clearcut -- both de jure and de facto), to 1947--1953 (still a darn good case, but because of the de jure aspect, not as strong), to finally 1953-1958 (up to Khruschev's formal letter), where things just wrap up. If nothing else, I think this calls for splitting up the article in several sections according to this rough chronology, and putting some of what we have so far as subsections. Sounds plausible? Turgidson 15:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, it is the best solution. With that in mind, we could change the title to "military presence" and clarify what was arguably occupation and what was not, or we could leave the current title and center the article on the period when it was an occupation, with sections completing the history up to 1957. Personally, I favor the former solution - it is less controversial and more bullet-proof without being dismissive or inaccurate, and it clearly establishes what the article is to be about and where it fits in the general scheme of things (for one, why it is not redundant to Communist Romania). Dahn 15:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I need some more time to form my thoughts on this -- there is quite a bit of info popping up, and many points of view here, to which I'd like to give due weight -- but let me try another, slightly different tack for now, see what you think. My objection to "military presence" is not so much that it is not strong enough a word to describe what happened, or even that it does not conform to all the written sources already in the article (which specifically use the word "occupation"), or common usage and parlance. All valid objections, I think, but if that was all, I may still concede your point, for the sake of compromise. But, the more I think about this, the more I come to realize that this is not just an issue of "presence", as in the physical presence of the Red Army motoring around in T-34 tanks. That was important in the early days -- what I would jocularly call the "Davai ceas, davai palton" phase. What I think was more important, especially in the latter phases (after political control was firmly established) were the economic aspects of the occupation -- the bleeding dry of resources, the establishment of a command economy on the Soviet model --as well as the remodelling of the military and security services on the Soviet model. I would submit this was not an act of mere presence -- but of total (or nearly total) political, economic, security, and military domination that took place, especially in the mid-to-late 40s and the early 50s. If we lose sight of this overriding fact, I would say a lot would be lost from the picture. In practical terms, then, how about something like "The Soviet occupation and domination of Romania"? Kind of unwieldy, and not totally clear where would that end (1958? 1964? 1968?), but let me float it nevertheless, as a trial baloon. Turgidson 17:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

About the technical point: like the NKVD, the Comintern changed names but one cannot possibly mention in a discussion all of them. I agree that victimology is a trap, and is to be banned from an enciclopaedia. Now about the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, your argument highlights that the Romanian government in 1956 was just a puppet government under Soviet command. Whether "Romania" had a role in the repression is debatable, however one should keep in mind that the governement of Romania at that time was acting strictly according to Soviet wishes. It was Soviet Union acting through its agents in Romania. Ordinary Romanian people like Paul Goma who voiced their support for the Hungarians were persecuted. This episode should be contrasted with Ceausescu's open opposition to the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia (by then the Soviet troops were gone).

My point was that there was real occupation, from 1944 to 1958. This was not the only Russian occupation of Romania in recent history. In the early 1800 there was also a long period of Russian military occupation. I am not saying that everything was bad during these occupations (it was not) but calling it by its name is just common sense. Icar 13:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Check also this for Romanian reactions to the 1956 revolt in Hungary. Icar 13:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know the article about the Bucharest student movement of 1956 (I only made a few cosmetic edits to it) -- it's a really good one. And yes, the governement of Romania at that time was acting strictly according to Soviet wishes. But why? Both Hungary and Romania were (or recently had been) under Soviet occupation. How come things diverged so drastically in 1956? Admirable as the student movements were (and they did not only happen in Bucharest, also in Timişoara and elsewhere), they did not come even close to the Hungarian Revolution in significance and impact (or even to the Poznań 1956 protests, I'd say). There must be another (independent) variable in this analysis, to explain the observed phenomena. Turgidson 13:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I cannot give exact citations for now, but I remember several reasons being proposed for that by various authors: one is that we had no direct border with the West; another is that, while the leadership was interested in preserving genuine Stalinism (which it used even against Pauker), we had no opposition from the left (which had been instrumental in Hungary); we had no approval of Khruschevism to make us dream of the possibilities, and, when we did, it was still with Gheorghiu-Dej at the helm (and with Miron Constantinescu in some library).

I could also point out an essential factor: you say "[Dej] was acting strictly according to Soviet wishes". Things are unfortunately a little more complicated than that, IMO: Dej was actually acting strictly according to his wishes, just as he always did. Romania openly disapproved of the de-Stalinized Soviet Union, and chose between it and Hungary because, of the two, the former was closer to the Stalinist legacy. It was all part of the game to keep himself in power against the wishes of his own people:, and much to the relative indifference of the Soviet Union. When this type of discourse failed him just 6 years later, we had the "national path to Communism", imposed by the very same guys and elaborated further by a guy from Scorniceşti (according to Cioroianu, in 1968, the Soviet Union did not even ask Romania to take part in crushing the Prague Spring, knowing that the Romanian leadership did not have any reason to do resistance beyond face value). Dahn 15:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe Icar's point here is not about protesters, but about the state. Protesters were not indeed as active in Romania as in Hungary. But that does not change the fact that the ruling class had a Soviet obedience. Dpotop 14:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison with the Baltic Republics

It has been argued, that as we now have an atricle on Occupation of Baltic states the word "occupation" can also be used in the title of this article. This arguments are however different:

1. Regarding Romania, the only arguments presented are that Soviet presence in Romania was de facto occupation. So far no one has come up with a credible argument that it was de jure occupation after 1947.
2. In 1991 the Baltics declared independence as successor states to the soviet republics. This new independence was recogniced by all countries, except possibly Finland. There was almost absolute continuity in government; in Estonia the Edgar Savisaar cabinet continued in office, with no major change in policy. The change happend after 1992, with the new "citizenship" based parliaments. In Estonia the discontinuity/occupation policy was promoted by the new prime minister Mart Laar. While the Baltic states were de facto part of the Soviet Union, the argument is that de jure they were under occupation. I am not saying this intepritation of history is correct. What I am saying is, that the de jure argumet is the basis used for naming the period, and the related Wikipedia articles "occupation".

-- Petri Krohn 14:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming my last response will eventually reappear as part of this user talk page transplant. There are multiple variations of use of "de something" and occupation in use:

• de facto occupation — functionally an occupation, appears to be used as "...although it does not qualify according to strict adherence to the definition of an occupation"; de facto is not a subsitute for de jure illegal...
• de jure legal occupation — meaning an occupation legally agreed to by the parties concerned, as, in this case, the Allied (Soviet) presence according to the terms of the armistice agreement
• de jure illegal occupation — meaning an occupation not sanctioned by/not conforming to international law and/or prior agreement, illegal according to the terms of law, i.e., a presence to be regarded as an occupation under the rule of law

I have used de jure occupation without qualification to mean "legally sanctioned" while Petri Krohn, I realized, is using it in the "regarded as an occupation according to rule of law" sense. For clarity I would suggest we not use de facto as it also implies lack of a true occupation--which appears to be part of the "controversy", and qualify whether we mean an agreed-to occupation or a not-agreed-to occupation. I see more Latin in our future. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

IMO, de facto does not an article title make. Moreover, there was no de facto after 1947/1953 (depending on whom you ask). Dahn 15:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Subsequent to the transplant below... The argument is not that it was a de facto (having all the hallmarks of but doesn't quite qualify) occupation versus a "real" occupation. The occupation under the armistice was a de jure-legal occupation. Subsequent to the armistice, whether legal or illegal, the presence was still an occupation. Only if there were a subsequent agreement specifically between Romania and the Soviet Union to the presence of troops would such a stationing be considered legal and not an occupation; regardless, deportation out of Romanian citizens and transfer in of Soviet citizens (and particularly into the civil administration) would then abrogate that agreement, making for a de jure-illegal occupation.

    I didn't title the article, but I can guarantee it is not meant as (sorry for more German, it just fits), the "Ersatz Soviet Occupation of Romania". —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If occupation means to replace a country's administration with foreign military rule (and it does), there was no such measure in Romania. Ever. Not de jure (as noted), and only arguably de facto (since all measures rendering this image were abusive). Romania signed an armistice in autumn 1944, during which it agreed to host a Soviet presence. Several such agreements were subsequently signed, and, as far as I know, most of the abuses were disguised as "Romania accepts" (for example, all the exploitation of resources was done either as "war reparations" - and, let's be fair, if Romania payed through the nose, it doesn't mean that there was no grounds for at least some of the reparations - or as "common ventures"). Dahn 16:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, I hope you will note that I am not discussing the "de facto illegal" option, since that is by definition POV. Dahn 16:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, "de facto illegal" is, in fact, non-sensical.

     Occupation does not have to be military rule (nor does it require "war"), it only requires that the (sovereign) local authority is replaced by/answerable to the occupying authority--that is, no longer in charge. So, when "Romania signed an armistice in autumn 1944, during which it agreed to host a Soviet presence" it agreed to an occupation. The armistice clearly states that Romania closer than 5,100 km to the front line is directly administered by Allied (Soviet) authority; beyond that boundary, administration is by Romanian civil authority answerable to Allied (Soviet) authority. Romania under the armistice is the very definition of a de jure legal occupation. One could not manufacture a more clear and unambiguous example.

     "Military rule" (meaning local authority totallly disbanded and replaced by members of the occupying armed forces) is certainly sufficient to create a state of occupation, but it is more than is required. Using "military rule" as the gating factor which determines occupation "yes" or "no" is a common misconception.

     Likewise, whether the standing army of the occupied territory is, or is not, disbanded during the period of occupation is totally superfluous. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Do these matters extend as far as 1957? Dahn 20:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't know. As I've said, I found reference in a military journal to the Austria "excuse" the Soviets used to continue their "Allied" presence, but I haven't found anything better--or anything indicating if the continued Soviet presence in Romania was sanctioned by a formal agreement following the peace signing. Mention has been made of agreements but nothing has popped up yet.

I see the article does mention the agreement regarding lines of communication; that would at face value indicate the continued Soviet presence continued to be a legal occupation.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

(Transplanted rest of user talk w/Petri Krohn...) And I violated my own subsequent suggestion by using de facto to mean by force (considered illegal de jure) when that's not the appropriate usage...
Regarding your note, the Baltics are a more complex topic to discuss, I'll return to Latvia and the Baltics after doing due diligence on citations. In reference to Romania, the argument is not about de jure versus de facto occupation.

• The occupation of Romania by Allied (Soviet) forces, with the Soviets being the duly appointed representatives and executors of Allied authority on Romanian territory, as agreed to by Romania in the armistice agreement = de jure occupation
• The presence of Soviet forces after the 1947 date (assuming the signing of the peace terminates the war-time armistice)...
  • If the Soviets justified maintaining their presence to execute their Allied duties--the occupation of Austria being one such instance--then the occupation continues, regardless of de jure or de facto
  • If the Soviets deported Romanian citizens and transfered/installed Soviet citizens in the government, then the occupation is rendered illegal by Soviet acts regardless of the prior de jure status of occupation either by armistice agreement or the stationing of Soviet troops on Romanian soil by the express agreement by pact/treaty between the sovereign Romanian government and the Soviet Union--speaking of the Baltics, there is a parallel here: the stationing of Soviet troops in the Baltics under the pacts of mutual assistance were a de jure presence and not an occupation; the subsequent invasion and subsequent Soviet actions are what changed their presence to an occupation. You cannot argue that there was no occupation of Romania after 1947 simply because the de jure Allied occupation under the terms of the war-time armistice would have expired.
  • If there was no specific pact/treaty between Romania and the Soviet Union including the continuation of Soviet presence, then occupation.
  • If there was such a specific agreement, then a de jure stationing of Soviet troops as I've already indicated (though suspect if agreed to while de jure occupied)--however, deportations and population transfers would immediately render that de jure stationing an illegal de facto occupation. That it is a de facto (by force) not de jure (by agreement) occupation makes it no less an occupation.

On a related topic, perhaps you would like to share why you so passionately, vehemently, and categorically denounce any and all "anti-Soviet" expressions as nascent post-Soviet Nazism? I would prefer to understand your position and perhaps persuade you otherwise rather than ask Wikipedia to simply ban you from articles not painting the Soviet Union in a positive light. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I left your "Romanians welcoming the Soviets" picture as the Romanians actually finished the war fighting on the side of the Soviets regardless of their former Nazi alliance. But realize that photos of people "welcoming" Soviets (regardless whether genuine or a staged propaganda op) do not spin-doctor an "occupation" into "not an occupation." —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
(end of transplant)

Hi, Pēters J. Vecrumba -- I love that last paragraph! I had some inchoate thoughts along those lines when seeing that "in your face" agitprop pic of "Poporul Sovietic eliberator" smack in there, but you put it much better than I could (perhaps, because you are more dispassionate about it?) Turgidson 16:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Quite the contrary. I've been accused of some rather ugly things because I do not hold the Soviet Union and its actions in high esteem, nor do I suffer lightly those who parrot Stalinist propaganda as "facts" worthy of equal consideration to the actual facts.

     That the actual facts don't fit the agendas of some Wikipedia editors is not my problem. I'm merely pointing out where they are doing what they accuse me of (interpreting events to suit their argument in the most blatantly POV and often astoundingly fact-free fashion possible).

     So, the picture is nice. If I deleted it, I would be "pushing my POV" and "suppressing the neutral point of view." (Note the other side always lays claim to the "neutral" center regardless of how extreme or outlandish their position is.)

     It's far better to recognize the picture--and what was attempted to be accomplished by its insertion--for what it is. We can't eliminate propaganda if we don't leave any around (with a big red "PROPAGANDA" sticker on it) so that people can learn to see it for what it is.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] suggestion

Excuse me for intruding into your discussion, as nobody asked my opinion. First, on a secondary aspect: what happened to Turgidson on this page was indeed quite hallucinating. To cope with such situations, you need a huge portion humour, hoping that common sense will prevail, what, in this case, actually and eventually happened. On the actual issue, I‘m inclining to second both Dan`s proposal and arguments: “Soviet military presence in Romania” is probably a better choice, when it is made clear in the lead and demonstrated with detailed sourced info in the body of the article that this “military presence” amounted to a de facto military occupation.

Now let me remind that military occupation was but one aspect of a much larger package of imposed macro-social transformations during the 1950s, which lead to what one might call “Sovietization of Romania”. My suggestion would be to include the Soviet military presence/occupation into one broader entry called “Soviet presence in Romania”. This article would encompass the most salient aspects of the Soviet presence, however taking care in addressing but those specific aspects directly attributable to the Soviet presence. Thus, the article should present Soviet organized action in main areas:

• in economy: the SovRoms, as instrument of goods transfer from Romania to the Soviet Union, which went quite far beyond the due war reparations (there already exists a good in depth article on this)
• in administration: the institution of the “Soviet counsellor”, which crucially contributed to the Sovietization of Romania (very briefly, for those ignoring what that was: for years, every position in the central, departmental and local Romanian administration was duplicated by a Soviet counsellor, who watched and trained his Romanian counterpart and ultimately took decisions)
• in education: content of teaching is drastically changed in order to glorify everything Soviet and Russian, the Russian language and history of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union become compulsory
• in culture: entire Romanian culture is revisited following Soviet criteria with subsequent considerable changes in cultural and editorial policy
• in politics: Muscovite wing wins (a temporary) dominance within PCR (good wikistuff already exists, to mention but PCR article)
• in military: (the role of the military occupation of Romania in crushing the Hungarian revolution 1956)
• in foreign policy: rejection of Marshall plan
• etc.

As a conclusion, the consequence of the Soviet presence in Romania was the throughout adoption of the Soviet model, so that up to the late 1950s Romania was quite a replication of its Soviet model. It wasn’t after the early 1960s, that first signs of differentiation occurred.

Such an article would set into an integrating perspective the aspects of Soviet control over Romania, which otherwise risk remaining disconnected or even unmentioned. (The article would also provide useful information which could help dealing with the issue of how autochthonous the Romanian communism was. My, in no way original, view is that after the first years, as Soviets intervened directly to implement the system, the Romanian Communism was built up and maintained by Romanians according to a Soviet design and following own power interests: Romanian actors willingly playing after a Soviet screenplay.) --Vintilă Barbu 16:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

There are several arguments that, IMO, make "Soviet presence in Romania" vs. "Soviet military presence in Romania" unusable. One is that the alternative proposed is vague, both in form and content: Soviet presence may mean just anything - to stay within the point made here, it can also refer to the presence the Soviets arguably had through the Communist Party before 1944, and, to stress the point, it could also merely refer to the Soviet embassy in Bucharest, or to Soviet visitors to Romania. On the other hand, the Soviet military presence engendered (at least partly) all other aspects of actual Soviet presence in culture, economy, etc. (I will stress again that it takes two to tango, and the 1 million PCR members did provide at least one partner). All aspects of the presence can easily be detailed here and alluded to in other articles, without a need to change the article title (any occupation had more aspects than purely military/political ones, and there is little need to either rename those articles accordingly or create separate ones). Please take this into consideration. Dahn 20:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the words of encouragement. As for the proposal you make, please do consider my latest comments above, and see what you think of "domination" as a possible word to be thrown in the mix, in addition to the two other possibilities under consideration ("occupation" and "presence"). Otherwise, I think there is quite a bit of common ground between several of the proposals on the table. With a bit of effort (and some hard work!), I think there is quite a bit of potential here for a good article to emerge. Turgidson 18:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Just for the purpose of comparison, I did a Google search for some of the proposed titles for this article. I know, this is far from being the only criterion, but still, it does give some indication of usage out there. So:

• "Soviet occupation of Romania" : 425 hits
• "Soviet domination of Romania": 46 hits
• "Soviet presence in Romania": 8 hits
• "Soviet military presence in Romania": 5 hits

Google also claims 7,900 hits for "liberation of Romania" [2] -- Petri Krohn 01:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

1. 7,110 hits. 2. A lot of those hits refer to other liberations, like 1989. 3. In any case, the Soviets didn't liberate anything: King Michael did any liberating that needed to be done on August 23, with the arrest of Marshal Antonescu. Biruitorul 02:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It does? I only get 98 (with settings exactly as the ones used to get the above count), and that includes "liberation of Romania from the comunist regime", "liberation of Romania from a sick political system" [communism], "still describing with sorrow the "liberation" of Romania", " fall of the Berlin Wall, the liberation of Romania, the Czechs and their Velvet Revolution", "The liberation of Romania from Ottoman suzerainty", "the liberation of Romania from Nicolai Ceausescu, the crushing defeat of communism in Poland and Czechoslovakia", "the "liberation of Romania by the glorious Soviet Union" was dropped from the preamble to the Constitution", and, well, you get the picture. Turgidson 02:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Google exaggerates the numbers:

• "Soviet occupation of Romania" -wikipedia [3] lists only 29 results; of these 4 are Wikipedia mirrors or (Amazon) search results, giving only 25 genuine occurrences.
• "liberation of Romania" -wikipedia [4] gives 55 results; 50 of these refer to the events of 1944. -- Petri Krohn 02:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Either way, "liberation" is out as a title because, even overlooking the pro-Soviet POV, no liberation lasts 14 years (it's a one-time thing), while occupations can stretch on indefinitely - no doubt some members of Plaid Cymru claim that Wales has been occupied by England since 1284. If you want to create an article just on the "liberation", well, don't, since we already have Battle of Romania (1944). Biruitorul 03:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, so I see you came down from 7,900 to something more realistic, in two digits. Google doesn't exagerrate -- it just depends on what search criteria you use. Removing wiki from the mix of course will decrease all numbers by some factor (though normally not from 7,900 to 55...). Again, a whole bunch of those "liberation of Romania" links refer to something else (not just 5 -- I quoted more right above, and none came from wikipedia). And here is a quote in full from one of those links you so cherish, at [5]:

“

The liberation of Romania would be a joy-ride. Her maize fields suited our tanks admirably. Czechoslovakia was another matter. Forests and mountain passes are not good terrain for tanks. The Romanian army had always been the weakest in Eastern Europe and had the oldest equipment. But in Czechoslovakia things would be more complicated. In 1968 her army was the strongest in Eastern Europe. Romania had not even a theoretical hope of help from the West, for it had no common frontier with the countries of NATO. But in Czechoslovakia, in addition to Czech tank divisions, we risked meeting American, West German, British, Belgian, Dutch and possibly French divisions. A world war might break out in Czechoslovakia but there was no such risk in Romania. So, although preparations were being made for the liberation of Romania, we clearly would not go into Czechoslovakia. The risk was too great.... Elementary logic suggested that it was essential to liberate Romania and to do so immediately.

”

This apparently comes from a Soviet soldier reminiscing about the good ole' days of Summer, 1968, and what the wrenching choice they had to make: which country to "liberate" first: Czechoslovakia or Romania. You wanna add this quote somewhere? Go ahead, feel free. Turgidson 03:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Also:

• "Soviet occupation" Romania: 76,400 hits
• "Soviet domination" Romania: 26,600 hits
• "Soviet military presence" Romania: 3,870 hits
• "Soviet presence" Romania: 667 hits

See what y'all make of this. Turgidson 18:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

While there are military aspects to an occupation, I would ask you to consider that "military" is not required for "occupation." ("Presence" is the Klingons visiting Federation space station K-7 for shore leave. Trekkies, anyone?) —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Pēters, I know no other definition of occupation that I can reasonably source. Do you? Dahn 20:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to go back and find the convention/article(s) specifically addressing the local authority no longer being the controlling authority but the external authority being the controlling authority equaling occupation (military not required). It's out there. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Here goes:

• The earliest definition of occupation is found in Article 42 of the (1907) Annex to the 1899 Hague Convention No. IV Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land. It states: "a territory is occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised."
  • This would be the "classic" definition of a military occupation. Note, however, that this definition dates to a period when war itself was considered a legal means of settling disputes. As such, there would have been no thought given to the possibility of something other than "military" occupation.

Since the Soviet army wasn't "hostile", this definition doesn't fit the situation of Romania. Anonimu 07:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It was very hostile, so the definition fits perfectly. Biruitorul 18:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It was hostile to the fascist regime. But it ceased to be after 24 august. Anonimu 20:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

First, Antonescu, being an Orthodox Christian, could not have been a fascist, as Fascism is atheistic in character. Moreover, the USSR regarded Romania with a very suspicious attitude long after 24 August. I call that hostility. I call mass rape and murder hostility. Biruitorul 00:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a well known fact that the Iron Guard had numerous Orthodox priests as members. Atheistic priests? I don't think so. Suspicion is a normal attitude towards a former enemy (especially one that changed sides only when you were on the verge of defeating him)... that not hostility in the sense used in the Hague Convention. So? I call it sausage.12:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Since when is the Iron Guard fascist? As Mircea Eliade made clear in 1937: "Astăzi, lumea întreagă stă sub semnul revoluţiei. Dar, în timp ce alte popoare trăiesc această revoluţie în numele luptei de clasă si al primatului economic (comunismul) sau al Statului (fascismul), ori al rasei(hitlerismul) - Mişcarea Legionară s-a născut sub semnul Arhanghelului Mihail şi va birui prin harul dumnezeiesc". It certainly does accord with the Hague Convention, and your dismissive attitude toward Soviet murder and rape is worthy only of condemnation. Biruitorul 19:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

When did you read the wiki (or any other international encylopedia) article about the Iron Guard the last time? Why do you think that Codreanu recommended to his followers in "Carticica sefuluid e cuib" to talk about "Afinitatea între fascism şi Mişcarea Legionară."? Sorry, but everyone knows what the convention meant for "hostile": two states fighting each other. If the state of war did not end on 24 august or with the signing of the armistice, it surely ended with the paris treaty in 1947( as the preamble says, the powers an Romania "AGREED to declare the cessation of the state of war").Anonimu 21:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Having links with fascists does not make one a fascist. In that case we'd have to consider people like Francisco Franco, a falangist, as fascists. First, the Romanian state became illegitimate as the King lost power. Second, a lot of atrocities were committed in 1944-47 - those of a hostile power. Biruitorul 23:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• For a more contemporary definition of occupation we have the Fourth Geneva Convention, Paragraph 2, Article 2, which states: "The Convention... shall apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance."
  • This definition and subsequent legal interpretation focus on control of the territory (the following has been stated multiple times in international judgements where the law of occupation is concerned as it guarantees humanitarian aid and human rights of those in the occupied territory): "...the occupying power must be in a position to substitute its own authority for that of the occupied authorities, which must have been rendered incapable of functioning publicly;...; the occupying power has a sufficient force present, or the capacity to send troops within a reasonable time to make the authority of the occupying power felt;...; the occupying power has issued and enforced directions to the civilian population;... "

This definition could be applied to the first part of the Soviet presence, but no way to the situation of the 50s.

Sure it could. There was never an agreeement modifying the terms under which the Red Army could stay. Biruitorul 18:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually there was one : The Paris Peace Treaty of 1947. And there was also an alliance treaty between Romanian And the Soviet Union in 1948, but I don't know its terms.Anonimu 20:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

And after 1955, when Austria was evacuated? They were certainly there illegally for three years at least (I would say 14). Biruitorul 00:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

As i've already said, i don't know the contents of the Soviet - Romanian alliance treaty of 1948. And in 1955 the Warsaw pact was signed. Probably that allowed Soviet troops to remain. Anonimu 12:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

As long as you say probably, without citations, no one has to believe you. Biruitorul 19:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's compare it with NATO. Is the presence of US troops in Romania occupation?Anonimu 21:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say yes, as Băsescu is an illegitimate ruler. Only Mihai Hohenzollern is legitimate, having been anointed by God to rule Romania. Biruitorul 23:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

So, the armistice provided for Allied (Soviet) occupation. I do also have to add a few words on the "occupation is a POV word" Wikimovement (sources cited in international court):

• "‘[o]ccupation’ has . . . acquired a pejorative connotation, and as a result, occupants would tend to prefer euphemistic titles to portray their position" (Eyal Benvenisti, The International Law of Occupation, 1993, p. 212.)
• "To many, ‘occupation’ is almost synonymous with aggression and oppression", (Adam Roberts, “What is Military Occupation?”, British Year Book of International Law 55 (1984), p. 301)

So, the discussion regarding the title is not about Soviet occupation being synonymous with oppression and/or blaspheming Soviet honor, it's not about whether the word occupation is a good word or a bad word, it's who was in control and what agreements were in place associated with that control. What the Soviets chose to do with the occupation is what makes it good, bad, or indifferent--and is not linked in any way to whether the use of the word "occupation" in the title is appropriate.
    Perhaps the defenders of Soviet honor go on the attack when they see the word "occupation" not because of the word itself but because, invariably, they will find that the Soviets did something bad during the occupation. It's the Soviets own doing. They made their bed and now the defenders of Soviet honor have to lie in it. (Pun on lying unintentional.) —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact that it has an pejorative connotation makes it non compliant with the title of an encyclopedia article.Anonimu 07:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, so when do we move "The Holocaust" to something else? Don't you understand that NPOV only goes so far? We also have to call things what they really are (as documented by reliable historians)! Biruitorul 18:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outrage!

Above, User:Anonimu made some highly inflammatory statements directed at the Romanian people, which I want to highlight below.

Aren't Romanians capable of writing their own history, like the Jewish authors Hannah Arendt, Anne Frank, Primo Levi, Elie Wiesel and Rudolf Vrba are eminently capable of writing their own history? Biruitorul 20:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say that. No, romanian are russophobic (you know: Bessarabia, the treasure, Bukovina, sovroms etc) and i can't trust them in those matters. Where those jews objective? Anonimu 19:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Here, Anonimu claims that Romanians, who lived under 14 years of Soviet occupation, cannot be trusted to write about "those matters" - ie, the Soviet genocide against the Romanian people. He does not say, though, that Jews writing about the Holocaust cannot be trusted.

First, there was no Soviet occupation. The Romanian gvt welcomed, or at least agreed with, their presence. There wa sno Soviet genocide against Romanian people. I never said what you claim in your last sentence.Anonimu 06:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The facts, as well as history texts, clearly indicate that there was a 14-year occupation. You never answered my comparison to the Jews, so I am correct in claiming that.

What facts? As i've already said, this is a matter fo international law, not the opinions of some russophobic historians. Now you also read minds?Anonimu 20:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

And there certainly was a genocide against the Romanian people. First, there's actually a book by a former political prisoner, Gheorghe Boldur-Lăţescu, called Genocidul Comunist în România.

What could you expect from a detainee. Every murderer or thief now claims he was a political prisoner.Anonimu 20:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

More important, look at the Convention on Genocide!:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Conditions a and b clearly apply to the Romanian people as a whole, whether the genocide was done by the Soviets directly or by their puppet government. Conditions a, b, c, and quite probably d and e apply to the Romanian people in Bessarabia. So there absolutely was a genocide against the Romanian people, though we have managed to survive. Biruitorul 18:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Until 24 august Romania was at war with the Soviet Union. So the soviets had the right to kill Romanian soldiers. Also we're not talking about the Romanian constituting nowadays less than 5% of the Moldovan population, and anyway there no proof of d) or e).Anonimu 20:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

What acts of the Soviet army in 1947-1958 can be considered the acts of an occupation army? (Remeber that even the right-wing terrorist groups in the mountains were inactivated by Securitate troops, not soviet ones)Anonimu 19:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Here, Anonimu labels the brave fighters of the Romanian anti-communist resistance movement "right-wing terrorist groups", just as Communist propaganda branded them "bandits". He disgraces their memory, as well as that of equivalent groups such as the Cursed soldiers and the Forest Brothers.

They were right-wing, and they were terrorist.Anonimu 06:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's just your POV, but it gets us nowhere. If the Bush White House were writing an article on the Iraqi insurgency, they wouldn't call it that, and certainly wouldn't refer to it as the "Iraq resistance movement" in the first line. The White House prefers to speak of an entity called "The Terrorists". While I have a good idea who they're referring to, and as a political rhetorical device it carried them through a couple of elections, from an academic viewpoint "The Terrorists" is quite devoid of content. Speak to me of Jemaah Islamiyah, of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, of the East Turkestan Liberation Organization, and we're getting somewhere. (Not that a more precise name makes a terrorist group's aims more legitimate, but at least we know what we're talking about.) "The Terrorists" doesn't do much for me, either to describe jihadist groups or Romanian resistance fighters. Two sides of an old propaganda coin. Biruitorul 18:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Would it matter if i'd say "the black peasant coats", "organization T", "voice of the blood" or "white partizans"?

If you want, or, for all I care, call them terrorists. But by doing so, you expose the perfidy and low moral character of your thinking, by denigrating the memory of those brave freedom fighters. Biruitorul 00:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Aren't the suicide bombers in the territory of Palestine brave enough? Cause they fight for the freedom for their land, but in every news bulletin they are called terrorists. Morally, those mountain groups were as guilty as the Securitate troops that were sent to disband them.Anonimu 12:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they are brave, but they're not fighting communism. No, the mountain groups were fighting for freedom, while the Securitate sought to shore up tyranny. Tyranny. Freedom. Learn the difference. Biruitorul 19:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Is communism the only wrong thing in the world? Freedom and tyranny are relative. One's freedom might mean tyranny for another.Anonimu 21:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No, there are other evils in the world, but communism is one of the worse. And no, it's pure nonsense to say that "freedom and tyranny are relative". Free speech, free press, free religion, free assembly. Universal freedoms, respected in the West and desired by the freedom fighters. Not respected by Bolshevist tyrannies. End of story. Biruitorul 23:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and to answer the question: see the Soviet-ordered Expulsion of Germans from Romania after World War II. Biruitorul 23:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

What part of 1947-1958 didn't you understand?Anonimu 06:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Why 1947? They were occupants from 1944 on. Biruitorul 18:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Because then was the international statute of Romania settled.Anonimu 20:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

So we just forget about the Germans? I don't think so. 1944-47 won't just disappear down the Memory hole. Biruitorul 00:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Then make this period about the 1944-1947 period.Anonimu 12:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No, we'll cover the whole period in the article. Forking is bad. Biruitorul 19:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Then we'll have to change the title.Anonimu 21:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No, the occupation ended when troops were withdrawn in 1958. Any quibbling is pure tendentiousness. Biruitorul 23:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what is this discussion doing here? This article has all the sources it needs, so it's NPOV, so the discussion is over.

ask Biruitorul. he chosed to extract some of my comments and create a new section.Anonimu 07:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he shouldn't have given you any attention, given that the article is supported by sources. Dpotop 09:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, but I wanted to highlight this outrage. Biruitorul 18:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Blah... Anonimu 20:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Spitting on the graves of millions of innocents is not mere "blah". Biruitorul 00:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What innocents? Anonimu 12:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The millions killed by Bolshevism. People like Iuliu Maniu, Tsar Nicholas II (a saint, since you say you are Orthodox), and Grigorie Leu. People like the Holodomor victims. Biruitorul 19:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Weren't Iorga, Armand Calinescu and I.G. Duca innocent too? Tsar Nicholas innocent? asta sa i'o spui lu mutu... BOR already has a bloody tyrant as a saint, it doesn't need another.Anonimu 21:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

First, they were enemies of the Guard, which wanted to establish a Christian commonwealth on Romanian soil. Second, I challenge you to go to your priest and denounce those two saints, and see what he says. You're not the one who canonises people - the Church hierarchy does that, and as an Orthodox, you must now venerate those saints or leave the Church. Third, I note you skipped over my mention of the Holodomor victims. Or the Katyn massacre victims. Or the tens of millions of others shot and starved to death in the Gulag, during War Communism, during the Purges, and on and on. Innocents, the vast majority of them. Biruitorul 23:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the French Resistance was terrorist, too, but they are revered as heroes and (the dead ones) martyrs of freedom. Dpotop 07:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

So are the suicide bombers in israel according to some organization. Moreover, they too call themselves resistance or liberation army. (this deosn't mean i equate French resistance with the groups active on the territory of Palestine.) Anonimu 07:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let's make a deal. You manage to insert the "terrorist" qualification in Resistance during World War II, and then you can insert it here. Dpotop 09:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What's the time frame of this article?

It is important to determine the time scope for this article. There are several periods to consider, each of which presents different conditions. First period is the Battle of Romania (1944), when Romania was on the Axis side and Red Army has entered Romanian territory. There can be no doubt that as Romania was acting as Soviet enemy, Soviet forces were occupying Romanian territory they took. Then we have a period following King's Michael's coup (which seems to have no article, as far as I can tell, and is only described in passing in related articles like Michael_I_of_Romania#Turning_against_Nazi_Germany, Romania_during_World_War_II#The_royal_coup), where Romania switched to the Allies side. Although Romania was now Soviet ally, Soviets were obviously edgy with their yesterday's enemy, and Soviet troops entered Romanian territory, from many records acting as if they were on conquered enemy's territory. On December 1947, the time of official Communist Romania begins. In 1958, Soviet troops withdrew from Romania, which would remain part of the Soviet block until 1989. I don't think that the period of 1947 to 1958 can be described as occupation, anymore then Poland (where Soviet troops did not leave until 1993, IIRC): once the Soviet had their puppet government, I don't think they needed their own troops do do any 'occupying', they remained there as guarentee that status quo doesn't change (out of curisity, why did they leave in 1958?). So the only real controversy is whether this article should cover the time from royal coup in mid-1944 till Dec 1947. That should be answered by citing reliable sources per WP:V and WP:RS: when Soviet troops in Romania are mentioned in this period, are they mentioned as 'occupying' force or not? Lastly, the current article doesn't seem to be actually describing much; consider either merging this article into one of History of Romania subarticles, or renaming it into Soviet troops in Romania and describing that subject.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, "Occupation" did happen, so the article topic is valid and it may be expanded. The term "Allied occupation" referred to other occupations as well. And of course, occupation ends with establishment the power from occupation administration to established government, be it puppet or not. Of course, the remaining presence of foreign troops is usually called informally "occupation", but Piotrus is correct to refer to them as Soviet troops in Romania, unless there was a official term, similar to Group of Soviet Forces in Germany. BTW, what about Soviet troops in Poland, Piotrus? Mukadderat 03:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

What about them? I created a small stub based on pl wiki. For good or wose, I tried to avoid usage of any POVed terms :) PS. The Polish wiki article on pl:Północna Grupa Wojsk (Northern Army Group) notes that Soviet forces in Romania and Bulgaria were called Southern Army Group; there was also German occupation Army Group and Central Army Group (Austria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia). Note that the English title is my translation, I'll see if I can verify that was indeed the term used for those formations. PS2. Here you go: Southern Group of Forces, Group of Soviet Forces in Germany. So we still need Northern Group of Forces (I'll translate it from pl wiki soon) and Central Group of Forces.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Please allow for a bit of time to develop the article. Only two days ago, it looked like this, and most time and energy since then has been spent discussing things on this talk page, only relatively little on expanding the article. But once things hopefully cool off a bit (although a lot of the discussion has been very instructive, some has been, let's just say, a bit less than pleasant), I expect the article will take better shape. Why did the Soviets leave in 1958? Well, Khruschev just decided to up and go -- something to do with Yugoslavia, it's being said, but who really knows, maybe he just figured the job was done, so time to bring the boys back home? Will add the story soon, it's well documented. Name for the article? There's a big debate raging about that, it will take a while before we reach a working consensus, my hunch is. Thanks for the suggestion, it has merit. I personally prefer the title as it is, for several reasons, one of them being it's the most commonly used, both in the historical literature, in common parlance, and on the internet (see the Google hits count above). By the way, one of the few books that deals exclusively with the subject at hand is titled "Military Occupation and Diplomacy: Soviet Troops in Romania, 1944-1958" -- both the title you propose and the existing one can be extracted from this! (The only other book that I could find that deals specifically with the subject is called "The Red Army in Romania", which has also its merits, perhaps?) Turgidson 03:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

One reason I am not very happy with the occupation title is that is is quite broad. A good part of my unease with the title is a situation at Occupation of Poland (1939-1945), where the article was moved to that title from Treatment of Polish citizens by the occupants, and I am not sure if with the new name it is not destined to be a well meaning but still content fork of History of Poland (1939-1945). What can this (Romanian) article describe that would not fit into history of Romania series? If your goal is to illustrate the presence of Soviet troops in Romania, than I'd suggest stating this in the title. Occupation implies you will write about Soviet occupational government (was there such an entity?), economy of the occupied lands, people living there, and such - which sounds to me like fork of history of... article. Again, as far as I see it, 'Soviet occupation of Romania' would make a good section title in the history of Romania series, but I just don't see it as a stand-alone article (I do see a stand alone article on Soviet troops in Romania, separate from South Army Group, though - both of which are notable topics).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You'll need an answer from more experienced users than I on that (I have not worked on History of Romania). But, at first glance, there is no way all the planned material for this article could fit in the "mother article" you mention. Right now, pretty much all is said in History of Romania about this topic is one sentence: "Soviet occupation following World War II led to the formation of a communist Peoples' Republic in 1947 and the abdication of king Michael, who went into exile", after which the article simply jumps to the early 1960s! I agree, there should be at least a few more lines in between 1947 and 1960-65 -- if nothing else, mention of the PCR General Secretary during that period, Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej! (How soon they forget...) On the other hand, there was a proposal to merge this (budding) article into Communist Romania. Here there is a bit more on the subject, eg, "During the early years, Romania's scarce resources after WWII were drained by the "SovRom" agreements: mixed Soviet-Romanian companies established in the aftermath of World War II to mask the looting of Romania by the Soviet Union, in addition to excessive war reparations paid to the USSR", and "Harsh persecutions of any real or imagined enemies of the communist regime started with the Soviet occupation in 1945. The Soviet army behaved as an occupation force (although theoretically it was an ally against Nazi Germany), and could arrest virtually anyone at will, for perceived "fascist" or "anti-Soviet" activities. The occupation period was marked by frequent rapes, looting and brutality against the civilian population. Shortly after Soviet occupation, ethnic Germans (who were Romanian citizens and had been living as a community in Romania for 800 years) were deported to the Donbas coal mines. Despite the King's protest, who pointed out that this was against international law, an estimated 70,000 men and women were forced to leave their homes, starting in January 1945, before the war had even ended. They were loaded in cattle cars and put to work in the Soviet mines for up to 10 years as "reparations", where about one in five died from disease, accidents and malnutrition." Except for that, and perhaps a bit more, the article deals basically only with the internal aspects of Communist Romania (at least up the early 1960s), with no sustained attempt at describing in-depth the role played by the Soviet occupation forces (that's how they are called in that article, and I never heard anyone complaining about that there...) Now, one could conceivably try to put all this (and there is quite a bit, believe me) in the Communist Romania article, but how long can that one get? And, by the way, note that even that article branches on to other subtopics, such as Romanian anti-communist resistance movement, Bărăgan deportations, Piteşti prison -- all significant, to be sure -- but are they more significant than the ab initio event, i.e, the Soviet occupation of Romania? Turgidson 05:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:OR

Guys, recall that we are not here to decide whether Romania was occupied w.r.t. the Geneva convention text defining occupation. We are here to report what other people say. Dpotop 09:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This article and its title is supported by good reputable sources. This whole fuss about changing its name is pointless, given that cited authors use the word "occupation" for exactly the time span of what you call "the Soviet military presence" in Romania. Dpotop 09:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No, this is a case of international law. Those sources (none of them official) don't have to respect wiki's NPOV guidelines and can use whatever name they want for the period, but this is an encyclopedia article and should respect it.Anonimu 10:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Just like we should move "The Holocaust" because it's not NPOV and used by unofficial sources, right? Biruitorul 18:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

And, BTW, Piotrus, the comparison with Poland does not hold for the first post-war years. There was no Polish central authority in Poland when the Soviets came, whereas in Romania there was at least the King that tried to resist. However, I do agree that the situation after 1947 (Peace Treaty and King gone) can be compared with the one in Poland. However, cited historians use the term "occupation", so we should use it and explain what it meant. Dpotop 09:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

There was the Polish Secret State which the Soviets did their best to destroy (and suceeded). There was also armed resistance against the communists (cursed soldiers). So there are quite a few similarities, too. Please note I don't object to the usage of term 'occupation' in the article, I just don't think its the best (descriptive) title for the article.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move

Should probably be moved to Allied occupation of Romania. - Francis Tyers · 11:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Or alternatively Soviet military presence in Romania. - Francis Tyers · 11:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No, the armistice convention clearly states that the military forces are exclusively Soviet. Dpotop 12:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

"An Allied Control Commission will be established which will undertake until the conclusion of peace the regulation of and control over the execution of the present terms under the general direction and orders of the Allied (Soviet) High Command, acting on behalf of the Allied Powers. In the Annex to Article 18, it was made clear that "The Rumanian Government and their organs shall fulfill all instructions of the Allied Control Commission arising out of the Armistice Agreement"

It says "Allied Control Commission" right there. The Soviets were allies. Either way, I don't mind "Soviet military presence in Romania" either. The occupation was by the Allies, the Soviets had a military presence. - Francis Tyers · 13:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The Soviet Union stopped being an ally of the United States and Great Britain long before the Soviet troops left Romania. See: Cold War. Turgidson 13:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

This was after the occupation. - Francis Tyers · 14:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but the occupation continued right through. There was no agreement changing the Reds' status in Romania after 1947. Biruitorul 18:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Although under Allied auspices, the Soviets were the sole occupants and sole representatives of Allied authority. They were not a presence under a larger Allied occupation, so it is still a Soviet occupation. And the armistice in all cases explicitly refers to "Allied (Soviet)" authority. In keeping with an earlier suggestion that (at least a part of) the article be sectioned by timeline, the first part could accordingly be "Allied (Soviet) occupation under the Armistice". We should give the article some time to develop, I think.

     As for the afore-mentioned pejorative connotation, which the "neutralists" would advocate as "occupation" being "POV," an occupation is an occupation regardless. The U.S. occupied Japan after the war (and Occupation of Japan redirects to Occupied Japan). There's no double standard of applying "occupation" only to Soviets. There is a POV tag on the Occupied Japan article, but it is not over the use of the term occupation, rather, it's over the over-simplified content dealing with the legacy of the occupation. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Please notice that the discussion is shifted from the non-recognition of the therm "occupation" in title to the clear definition which period is to be called "occupation". Your comparing with Japan clearly talks in favor to restrict the topic of "occupation" to period 1944-1947, when the Soviest were in official charge, just like gen. Mc.Arthur in Japan: his cease of command of Japan did not coincide with withddrawan of all American troops from Japan. Just like there have long beem American military bases in Japan, there were Soviet military bases in Eastern Europe "to defend socialist democracy", but not to directly govern the corresponding countries. Mukadderat 16:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

There are parallels to the Japanese armistice situation. The Allied occupation of Japan began at the moment of unconditional Japanese surrender; the peace was signed September 8, 1951; it took force on April 28, 1952. That treaty provides for the withdrawl of occupying Allied forces as soon as practicable (while also providing for continued occupation south of the 29th parallel). It says that withdrawl is not absolute, subject to (new) bilateral or multi-lateral agreements to have Allied presence in place on sovereign Japanese territory. Note there is a clear demarcation between prior presence and subsequent presence--which requires new accords. Furthermore, the sovereignty of Japan over its territory is explicitly recognized. Therefore, if a sovereign Japan subsequently chooses to agree to Allied presence, that is no longer an occupation.

    The Roumanian peace treaty, first of all, makes no mention of recognizing the sovereignty of Romania. With regard to Allied presence, it states that "all Allied forces shall, within a period of 90 days, be withdrawn from Roumania, subject to the right of the Soviet Union to keep on Roumanian territory such armed forces as it may need for the maintenance of the lines of communication of the Soviet Army with the Soviet zone of occupation in Austria." No recognition of Romanian sovereignty. No indication that continued Soviet presence (note, the treaty text no longer says "Allied (Soviet)") requires any agreement (one can argue the treaty was the agreement) or has any fixed term (but since defined by the Allied occupation in Austria, that lasted until October 25, 1955). The treaty made no demarcation between the old presence and the new presence where the Soviets were concerned--only explicitly changing it from Allied (Soviet) to plain Soviet. As written, the Soviet Union now unilaterally defined its "rights" and "needs" (and therefore associated actions) within the territory of Romania with no obligations to the other Allied powers or to Romania. Just reading what's in the text. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Vercrumba, judging from your name, I see where you are coming from: the case of Baltic States. This case is different from Romania. In Baltic it is clear that the word "occupation" may be applied to longer period, because Moscow exercised direct power over Baltic states in official, governmental form. Although some other people may prefer the term "annexation", because Baltics was formally incorporated into the Soviet structure on equal terms (willingly or not), rather than on the terms of external domination. Mukadderat 16:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Francis Tyers: By March 5, 1946 (a date when Soviet troops were in full force in Romania) the Cold War was already in full swing. I refer you to the Iron Curtain Speech, given by British Prime Minister Winston Churchill at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri, where he said, and I quote:

“

From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an "iron curtain" has descended across the Continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia; all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject, in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and in some cases increasing measure of control from Moscow.

”

I refer you to the September 12, 1944 signing of the Armistice treaty, prior to the Cold War:

• "The printing, importation and distribution Rumania of periodical and non-periodical literature, the presentation of theatrical performances and films, the work of wireless stations, post, telegraph and telephone shall be carried out in agreement with the Allied (Soviet) High Command." Complete Soviet control over all media and public and private communications.
• "Rumanian Civil Administration is restored in the whole area of Rumania separated by not less than fifty-one hundred kilometers (depending upon conditions of terrain) from the front line, Rumanian administrative bodies undertaking to carry out, in the interests of the reestablishment of peace and security, instructions and orders of the Allied (Soviet) High Command issued by them for the purpose of securing the execution of these armistice terms." Romanian authorities answer to Soviets.

Let's at least agree the armistice was an occupation.

As for Mukadderat and "where I'm coming from," I'm only coming from having read an awful lot of reputable sources on the rules of war, of occupation, and of guarantees of human rights in times of war and/or occupation. I'm perfectly content to say Soviet occupation ended in 1947 with the signing of the peace. But no one is producing facts supporting the end of occupation, just conjecture and personal interpretation. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree, actually the very wikipedia article says for 1947: "all allied forces must be withdrawn with some soviet forces left to do something useful". While I agree that the second half of this phrasing leaves a wide backdoor for Soviets, the official occupation ended in 1947. Mukadderat 21:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

We can't correct every article at once. It's one thing to link to an existing Wikipedia article by good practice. It's another for Wikipedia to start quoting itself. I've seen people write stuff in one article then quote it in another and say, "Look, here it is in an article." Using Wikipedia in these sorts of discussions is not good academic practice. Everything--discussion and article--should be based on outside sources. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 02:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

At the time, Churchill -- who I hope you will agree knew a thing or two about all this -- clearly recognized what the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe (in particular, Romania) was achieving.

"in one form or another, subject to a high measure of control" isn't occupation. He could have reffered to the soviet-supported communist parties taking power in those countries. But soviet military presence in Romania had little to do with the gaining of power by commies (even if we were to believe dahn's "forged election" pov, the soviet army wasn't "physically" involved in this "forging")Anonimu 17:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

To support this opinion, let me remind that there was Soviet zone of occupation in Austria, but no communism happened there. Mukadderat 17:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, right. And that's because there were also troops from the US and UK in there, nearby. Otherwise ... well, I'll let you fill the blanks, because logical deductions are considered "original research" here. [Turgidson]

No wrong. In Germany, also split in 4 there were the same troops on the same distance, and no any "otherwise" hapened. Mukadderat 21:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Mukadderat: A novel and interesting parallel you raise. I need some time to mull it over, will try to get back to you on that. Turgidson 16:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I should have felt flattered, but in reality I said nothing novel so far. (This would be against wikipedia policies :-) Mukadderat 17:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry -- I'm not the one to bring up the OR argument if I don't like the conclusion of a logical deduction, based on available facts and assumptions (mathematicians are trained to always do just that!) What I commended you for was to bring up the parallel with the US occupation of Japan after WWII -- this is something that had not been discussed at all here. I still find the thought intriguing, on a purely intellectual level. It may make a good MS or even PhD thesis to compare the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe to the US occupation of Japan in the aftermath of WWII, but alas, that does not seem to be within the scope of wikipedia, at least not till such a putative thesis would have been written... Turgidson 18:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I am more than sure that such parallels have already been drawn. hence may be withing the scope of wikipedia. Mukadderat 21:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outrage #2!

Sorry for disrupting the more enlightened discussion above, but Anonimu's pontifications are growing ever more outrageous.

Mai usor... doar nu vrei sa'ti pocneasca o vena la cap... ca dup'aia mori si ce se face Romania fara tine...Anonimu 12:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. When I become prime minister, I will reward you. Biruitorul 19:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You'll first need to learn to better express your thoughts in romanian...Anonimu 21:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Deja fac asta destul de bine. Oricum, nici Băsescu nu stă prea bine cu limba - ba chiar Tăriceanu nu foloseşte cuvântul "pe". Deci vezi că elocvenţa nu este obligatorie ca să conduci ţara. Biruitorul 23:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The facts, as well as history texts, clearly indicate that there was a 14-year occupation. You never answered my comparison to the Jews, so I am correct in claiming that.

What facts? As i've already said, this is a matter fo international law, not the opinions of some russophobic historians. Now you also read minds?Anonimu 20:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Here, Anonimu once again implies that Romanians are incapable of writing their own history, instead dismissing the works of scholarly authors as those of "some russophobic historians".

And there certainly was a genocide against the Romanian people. First, there's actually a book by a former political prisoner, Gheorghe Boldur-Lăţescu, called Genocidul Comunist în România.

What could you expect from a detainee. Every murderer or thief now claims he was a political prisoner.Anonimu 20:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Anonimu, I challenge you to go up to Mr. Boldur-Lăţescu, who spent 1949-1951 in prison for helping the mountain resistance fighters, and call him a "murderer or thief". Shame on you for besmirching the memory of hundreds of thousands of such individuals.

Have a phone number?Anonimu 12:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

He might actually be dead. But you can call his grandson Daniel Teodorescu in the United States. Tell him what you said here, and ask him if his grandfather is still alive. Biruitorul 19:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

i don't want to spend money on him. You could call him and tell him to read what I've wrote here.Anonimu 21:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You're just afraid to back up your slanderous accusations. Biruitorul 23:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Until 24 august Romania was at war with the Soviet Union. So the soviets had the right to kill Romanian soldiers. Also we're not talking about the Romanian constituting nowadays less than 5% of the Moldovan population, and anyway there no proof of d) or e).Anonimu 20:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Here, Anonimu claims that "the soviets had the right to kill Romanian soldiers". He also admits that genocide took place (as only one condition is needed for that), so I commend him for that. But then he peddles the most outrageous of lies: that Romanians form only 2.2% of the population of the Republic of Moldova, as determined by the Communist-sponsored 2005 census. I remind Anonimu that Bessarabia was inhabited by Romanians until 1940, and remains inhabited by them, regardless of the efforts of Communist propagandists to invent a "Moldovan" people. In the same way that "Macedonians", "Montenegrins", "Bosniaks", and ⅔ of Croats are Serbs, and only call themselves by other names because Tito, an atheist communist, wanted to weaken the influence of monarchist Orthodox Serbs, so too are "Moldovans" actually Romanians, regardless of what Communists may say. Biruitorul 00:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

In war you have the right to kill your enemy. It's ludicrous to claim otherwise.Anonimu 12:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Only if it's a defensive war being fought, as a last resort, to safeguard Christianity. All other wars, including the Soviet aggression into Romania, are immoral and illegitimate. Biruitorul 19:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Romanian agreed to the Soviet ultimatum of 1940. So actually Romania was the aggressor, and not the Soviet Union.Anonimu 21:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The USSR made the ultimatum which was totally against international law. They were the aggressors. Antonescu was just defending Orthodoxy. As he said, "Să cinstiţi prin vitejia voastră amintirea lui Mihai Voda şi a lui Ştefan cel Mare, a martirilor şi eroilor căzuţi în pământul veşniciei noastre cu gândul ţintă la Dumnezeu." Biruitorul 23:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not spread the debate on the Moldovenism to the page where this does not belong. There is no doubt that the majority of the Moldova population is Moldovans. Whether those Moldovans are "basically just Romanians" has been discussed to death and if you want to add to this flood, go to the talk:Moldovans, talk:Moldovan language and a couple of other narrower pages. Do not spread this debate to every page where the word Moldova is mentioned. --Irpen 06:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I will adress these outrageous statements of propaganda, because they are relevant to the discussion. The majority of people in the Republic of Moldova are Romanians who have been manipulated into calling themselves Moldovans, just as, if Transylvania had been under Soviet occupation and de-nationalisation for 50 years, a majority of the inhabitants of Transylvania would be Romanians manipulated into calling themselves Transylvanians. Biruitorul 19:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

people in moldova are not stupid. you should accept their decision not to identify as romanians instead of bringing those lame excuses..Anonimu

They have been brainwashed by decades propaganda, and they are confusing "moldovean" as a regional identifier (which they are) with "moldovean" as an ethnicity (which is fake). Biruitorul 23:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course Moldovans are a majority in Moldova. But Moldovans are a creation of the Soviet era. I.e., there were none in Bessarabia and Bukovine prior to the Soviet ultimatum and invasion of 1940. BTW, under international law, Romania had all rights to attack the Soviet Union in 1941, because Bessarabia was only ceded (de jure) in 1947 (Peace Treaties of Paris). The real guilt of Romania is that it crossed the Dniestr under the lead of yet another megalomaniac. Dpotop 07:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The Imperial Russian census counted "Romanian and Moldavians", leaving people the choice to self-identify. However, we know that even Ukrainians were counted in interbellum as "Romanians who forgot their language"... would we expect for the 1930 census to respect the self identification of moldavians?Anonimu 12:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

How do "we know" such nonsense?? The 1930 census counted 4.7% Ukrainians. That's a lot of people. Moldovans were, are, always have been and always will be Romanians, so you're just spouting sophistries. Biruitorul 19:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Oleksandr Derhachov (editor), "Ukrainian Statehood in the Twentieth Century: Historical and Political Analysis", Chapter: "Ukraine in Romanian concepts of the foreign policy", 1996, Kiev ISBN 966-543-040-8. By denying the right of self-identification of those citizens of Moldova you show that you're an (philofascist, as we've seen above) ultra-nationalist .Anonimu 21:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

That's Ukrainist propaganda, and anyway the Hutsuls are Romanians who forgot their language. Again, 4.7% - lots of people. 28% minorities - lots of people. The results could have been doctored, but weren't. I know, you know, they know, we all know that Moldovans are Romanians and any denial of this just reiterates Bolshevist propaganda. I reject your accusations of being a philo-fascist ultranationalist. They are groundless. Biruitorul 23:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The guilt issue aside, please keep the "Creation of the Soviet era" thingy to the articles related to the Moldovenism issue and do not spread it all over talk pages. I have my own view of this and I do not spread it where it does not belong. --Irpen 08:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The "Creation of the Soviet era" is a factual remark, and you failed to argue against it (I hope you noted that I do not challenge your statement about today's Moldovans). As concerns guilt, it is guilt according to international law, a pretty well-defined concept, as opposed to the more religious interpretation of "guilt" as "hubris". Dpotop 08:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It is absolutely factual, and the 2004 communist-invented census results are irrelevant. Some 80% of inhabitants of the Republic of Moldova (Transnistria doesn't count) are, in fact, Romanians. Biruitorul 19:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Soviet invention or not, after several generations it is a state of affairs very difficult to revert. If you start reading the history too literally, you will fall into all kinds of strange ideas, like Bulgarians are no Slavs, Romanian nobility are not Romanians, etc. Mukadderat 01:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but we're not there yet. Romanians born in Bessarabia in the Kingdom of Romania are still thriving, and the memory of their Romanian-ness, as well as their language and religion, is still very strong among their children and grandchildren, even if they are living in a Sovietised twilight zone that precludes the expression of their full national aspirations. Slowly but inexorably, though, the underpinnings of that lie are giving way to truth and Unity among Romanians on both sides of the Prut. Biruitorul 05:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts of adding context

Since some here persistently remove my attempt to add a correct context to the events thus undoing hours of my work and making this look like Soviets just came and "occupied", I am adding the "POV" tag to the content, not only to the title, as well. I am not to revert war with you here based on which side has more POV-pushers to outrevert the other.

I hope no one will continue these reverts of my edits with reverts of my tag until we come to an agreement on how the context is to be included. --Irpen 08:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for not opening an edit war.

Why did I revert your text? Because you were trying to present the Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovine as justified.

Now, the Soviets indeed just came and occupied Bessarabia and Northern Bukovine. This is explained in June_1940_Soviet_Ultimatum and Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina. I remind you:

1. Northern Bukovine was never a part of Russia/Soviet Union before 1940. In this case, it was a simple territorial rapt.

By your logic, so was the annexation of Transylvania by Romania in 1918. Anonimu 12:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Anonimu, you completely missed the point here: The problem is that the annexation was illegal by existing international law. It was a clear-cut casus belli, and Romania entering the war against the USSR was a logical consequence. Until the crossing of the Dniestr, the war was a liberating one. Dpotop 14:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Bessarabia was ensured self-determination by Lenin's ideology, but the Soviet Union never accepted the decision of the Bessarabian councils to unite with Romania. It's funny to see that no nationality/ethnicity was actually recognized self-determination until the Perestroika. Because, of course, what counts is not the talk, but the facts. Coming back to Bessarabia, it was a part of Romania by self-decision, so that it's occupation amounts to a rapt, too.

That was the decision of an unrepresentative self-proclaimed council, which overrepresented the Romanian population (70% in the council, but less than 50% in Bessarabia) and totally ignored the will of Ukrainians and Russians (more than 1/4 of Bessarabia's population).Anonimu 12:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you know how a representative democracy works? For instance, do you know that a simple majority (or even big minority)at local level can lead to a huge majority in the French Senate? Since the Soviets were organized in a similar two-tier election, I presume that it's representative enough. :) You should read more at Sfatul Ţării. Dpotop 14:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The legalization of the Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Bukovine occurred only in 1947. Dpotop 08:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Northern Group of Forces

Perhaps some editors would like to comment on the issues at the article which I created in the aftermath of the above discussion; interestingly the issues raised there have some relevance to that article (and may give you some ideas how to expand this article).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, this looks good! I'm jealous. I was just thinking this morning about where to even start getting info on how many Soviet troops exactly there were in Romania during the period in question, who led them, where were they garrisoned, what was their equipment, etc, but that sounds very difficult to obtain (though I got a lead, am working on it). In the meantime, Northern Group of Forces looks like too formidable a challenge to compete with! Turgidson 21:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

According to article Southern Group of Forces, it was most likely the Soviet 10th Mechanised Army aka Special Mechanized Army. I still find it puzzling that the SGF would disband in 1947, while NGF or WGF lasted from the end of WWII to 1990s (CGF has an interesting history, being created in 1968, see Central Group of Forces).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

But in the corresponding article you say that the SGF was based in Hungary. Dpotop 06:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Liberation of Romania by the glorious Soviet Union"

A couple of days ago, after User:Petri Krohn claimed 7,900 Google hits for "liberation of Romania" (!), I pointed out that there were, in fact, only 98 of them, of which many are sort of like, ... "the liberation of Romania from Nicolai Ceausescu, the crushing defeat of communism in Poland and Czechoslovakia", "the "liberation of Romania by the glorious Soviet Union" was dropped from the preamble to the Constitution", and, well, you get the picture. I guess impervious to the irony in that last quote, said user proceeded to put it in the lead of the article. Now, I don't know about you guys, but to me that sounds straight out of Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan. But I don't want to provide any more ideas, next thing I know, this will get into the lead, too!

Joke aside, I have strong reservations for using that terminology in the lead for the article -- not just because it's a perfect example of what the French call la langue de bois (translated as wooden language) -- but also because it's simply not true. As evidence, I present the testimony of Dumitru Dămăceanu before an official Party commission, about 20 years after the August, 1944 events. Note that Colonel (later Brigadier-General) Dămăceanu was Chief of Staff of the Capital Military Command in 1944, one of the architects of the August 23, 1944 coup led by King Michael against the government of Ion Antonescu, one of the four plenipotentiary signatories (in Moscow) of the Armistice Agreement between Romania and the Soviet Union on September 12, 2004 (the other three being Lucreţiu Pătrăşcanu, Barbu Ştirbey, and Ghiţă Popp), and one of the four Romanian signatories of the Paris Peace Treaties, 1947 (the other three being Gheorghe Tătărescu, Lucreţiu Pătrăşcanu, and Ştefan Voitec). In short, a first-order primary source in understanding and explaining what happened at the time when the Soviet Union occupied Romania. So here is what Dămăceanu had to say in front of that Romanian Communist Party commission, according to the article "Armata Roşie ocupă Bucureştiul":

«Ce este cu aceasta manifestare?» si raspunsul lui a fost ca se sarbatoreste «ocuparea Bucurestiului»." Prin aceasta punere in scena sovieticii au incercat sa demonstreze ca Bucurestiul a fost ocupat si eliberat de catre Armata Rosie, desi rezistenta germana din oras fusese lichidata cu mult inainte de patrunderea trupelor sovietice. Punctul de vedere subliniat cu spectacole de artificii va fi insa adoptat oficial de ministrul de Externe sovietic, Viaceslav Molotov, in timpul negocierii armistitiului.

So basically, what Dumitru Dămăceanu says (I'm translating loosely into English, with my own explanation) is that German resistance in Bucharest was eliminated (by the Romanian troops, who else?) much before the arrival of Soviet troops, who then proceeded to stage the kind of photo-op that you now so helpfully see at the top of the article. OK, fine, but why then call this a glorious liberation or some such, when Bucharest was already liberated from Nazi troops by Dumitru Dămăceanu and others, following King Michael's orders? Also, yes, by all means, let's show Soviet T-34 tanks (one of the best ever, for sure) rolling around, but why in such a staged manner? I much prefer the pic from the Jurnalul article, with the three tanks moving realistically (through the Bărăgan Plain?) Turgidson 04:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice information you provided here. Maybe we can create an article "Soviet Liberation of Bucharest" saying it was staged by the Soviets to pretend they did it. Dpotop 06:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

What about the rest of Romania? Where did the Soviets actually fought Germans after Aug 23, 1944. Otherwie said, what exactly amounts to real liberation? Dpotop 06:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest perhaps that information regarding the Nazi retreat as regards to Romania be detailed someplace appropriate (not here), then here we would have a short paragraph on "Soviet liberation of Romania from the Nazis" which would indicate the Soviet claim/portrayal and the documented (Romanians already did it) reality.

     BTW, I've attributed the photo as per its source. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 17:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

     On second thought, that's a bit sarcastic or POV depending on which side you're on, something neutral like "Nazis defeated" ("Nazi defeat" implies they were the ones defeated, but I've always found that syntax a bit ambiguous). —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 17:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Some of that information I guess could go in Battle of Romania (1944). But what we really (badly) need is a separate article on the events of August 23, 1944. This was a singular event in the history of Romania -- I would argue the most important single event between the Union of Transylvania with Romania on December 1, 1918 and the Romanian Revolution of 1989. Yet all we have on it is Romania during World War II#The royal coup. Is this enough for an event that so radically changed the course of Romanian history (and, which, by the way, used to be the National holiday of Romania from sometimes the late 40s to about Christmas Day, 1989)? I would think that such "rupture" events need to be treated separately, even if they occured in the middle of a wider conflict, or group of events. Maybe this issue has been debated in depth previously, and I'm missing something, but I would welcome a (renewed) discussion if anyone wants to engage in a dialogue -- or even better, just do it. But then, how would we call the article? "23 Augus', Libertate ne'a Adus"? Oh, boy -- the ensuing discussion would make the one here seem like a picnic! Turgidson 17:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, some of the points we've been debating here were already debated at the Paris Peace Conference in 1946-1947. Here is an explanation, together with interesting pictures (can anyone identify those people marked with a question mark?):

One [issue] was to establish the point at which it entered the war. Was it August 24, 1944, when King Michael aligned himself with Romania’s natural allies, or was it as proposed by others on September 12, 1944, at the moment when an armistice was signed in Moscow. It was successfully argued by the Romanian delegation that no less than 15 divisions and up to 18 totaling 385,000 men plus an air corps were engaged against Germany and its Hungarian-Horthyst allies during this interim period. From the 23rd of August to May 10, 1945, a period of 260 days, 12 divisions moved 1000 km into enemy territory. The earlier date was agreed to thereby giving Romania vital leverage in making post-war claims.

Sounds to me like the Romanian troops did some serious fighting against German and Hungarian troops during those weeks when "others" (wonder who?) claimed they were just sitting on their thumbs, waiting to be liberated. Turgidson 00:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It has been argued in this discussion earlier, that as the Allies treated Romania as "belligerent" in the armistice and the Paris Peace Treaties, the Soviet "invasion" must have been hostile. This may have been the Allied view, but as you just pointed out, this was not the Romanian view. The Romanians greeted the Sovets as welcome allies. (I wonder if it was the Soviets or the Western Allies that insisted on treating Romania as belligerent?)

Now, if there was no hostile invasion, one of the essential premises for "occupation" is missing! -- Petri Krohn 01:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the circumstances at the time the Soviets entered Bucharest, the armistice confirmed the Romanians as the losers, the Soviets (duly appointed representatives of the U.S. and U.K. in absentia) as victors, and Soviets as the occupying force. The terms of the armistice are sufficient premise. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The invasion was hostile. Oroian gives the following account for those events:

• Nov. 15, 1944 - Romanian General Staff (Marele Stat Major) received from gen. Ivan I. Vorobiev an order from marshall Rodion I. Malinovsky, the commander of Ukrainian 2nd Front, that by December 1, 1944, the following spaces should be prepared for the quarterage of three Russian divisions: one near Ploieşti, one near Bucharest, the last one having its regiments in Petroşani, Deva and Arad. No details on the duration or on the purpose were given.
• Nov. 19, 1944 - the Chief of General Staff, gen. Nicolae Rădescu, filed a report showing that the installation of important Soviet military units on Romanian territory without a solid military justification is not covered by Article 3 from the Armistice Convention.
• Nov. 22, 1944 - the Prime Minister, gen. Constantin Sănătescu, asked gen. V. P. Vinogradov, the representative of the Allied Commission (mainly ran by Soviet high ranked officers), justifications for installating the three Soviet divisions in Romania and the unspecified duration of stationing. He also expressed his hope it's only a temporary situation because a lengthy stationing will be against the aformentioned Article 3.
• Dec. 1, 1944 - in a report filed by General Staff to a Romanian Comission for Armistice, it were expressed concerns about the high economical expenses in case the Soviet divisions will stay a long time on Romanian territory asking at the same time more for more interventions at the Allied Commission to resolve the situation. The concern was amplified because the largest part of the Romanian army was disbanded, most intervention forces were reduced to symbolic numbers, smaller than they would be in peace time. Having Romania disarmed and under Soviet occupation was regarded "against the spirit and the letter" of the Armistice Convention and hindering the common effort against Germany and Hungary.
• Dec. 9, 1944 - Nicolae Rădescu requested in a note the evacuation of Soviet units considering the stationing illegitimate in the terms of the Armistice Convention.
• Dec. 12, 1944 - Vinogradov answered the Romanian government that the Convention gives them the right to act as they see fit if they consider it necessary and also requested in future no more interventions from Romanian side on this issue.

In short, the Romanian side asked the Allied (Soviet) Commission to remove their armed force lacking any terms for their occupations, the Soviet side refused.

• June 2, 1945 - As the WWII ended the Romanian Comission for Armistice addressed the Allied Comission to evacuate the Soviet divisions. The answer was in the middle of the same month when the Allied Comission ordered Romanian General Staff to prepare spaces for stationing of more Soviet troops, spaces grouped in four large areas: a) Oradea, Arad, Alba Iulia, Dej b) Timişoara, Turnu Severin, Slatina, Caracal, Deva c) Giurgiu, Târgovişte, Piteşti d) Braşov, Ploieşti, Bârlad, Focşani. In the same manner, the purpose and duration of the occupation were unknown. It was only said the Romanian garrisons shoulud evacuate the named areas by June 30. We can go forward and address the abuses happening beside these official requests. What other epithet than "hostile" do you think fit for such an occupation? Daizus 12:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This sound more like your mother-in-law staying over for Christmas. This is not a hostile invasion. The correct term would be "overstaying one's welcome". -- Petri Krohn 14:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

What "one's welcome"? Can you show how the Romanian authorities welcomed the three Soviet divisions in November 1944 or the ~500,000 army which occupied Romania since June 1945? Since the occupation was immediately denounced by Romanian authorities (the Prime Minister, the Chief of General Staff, the Romanian Commission for Armistice), it cannot be otherwise than hostile. Daizus 14:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This chronology is very helpful. I was just thinking we need something like this in the article. Note also the sheer size of troops we're talking about here. We don't have the numbers (yet) from the period 1944 -- early 1945, but I assume they were in the hundreds of thousands, at least for part of the period. Note that by VE Day they were still relatively small (80,000), surely because most Soviet troops were up at the front line then. But by November 1, 1945 they had surged to 500,000, and by March 1, 1946 to 615,000! That's a huge amount of troops, by any measure, to occupy a country of relatively small size and population, which was at peace with the Soviet Union, both de jure and de facto (except for some small pockets of resistance, there was no effective resistance to the communization process that I know of). Even from a purely economic point of view, just garrisoning, feeding, and transporting those troops around must have put a huge strain on the economy of Romania. At any rate, yes, having over half a million troops in a country at peace, without any other apparent reason except to impose the occupying country's political and economic system on the host country, and with deep reservations expressed by the host governement (and by the people it represented, let's not forget that!) can reasonably be viewed as a hostile occupation. Turgidson 13:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Additional source

In case this is worth incorporating, from Istoria României în date, Editura Enciclopedică, Bucureşti 2003, ISBN 973-45-0432-0

p. 553. Iunie-iulie 1958. Trupele sovietice staţionate, din 1944 fără intrerupere, pe teritoriul României sunt retrase în urma tratativelor lui Gh. Gheorghiu-Dej cu N. S. Hruşciov, prin intermediul lui Emil Bodnăraş, fostul agent sovietic care se bucura de mare încredere la Moscova. Retragerea trupelor sovietice înseamnă încetarea ocupării militare directe a ţării, care a durat 14 ani. A fost cea mai îndelungată a unor trupe ruseşti în teritoriile româneşti, începând cu 1711. Hruşciov a consimţit la retragerea trupelor sovietice din România, întrucât dorea reluarea politicii de destindere cu (p 554) Occidentul, care fusese blocată de intervenţia armată împotriva revoluţiei anticomuniste din Ungaria.

While we're all here, let me also propose opening a new debate at Talk:Fântâna Albă incident. The proper title of the article should, of course, be "Fântâna Albă massacre", but it was moved with the following explanation: "Please! What's the point of strong words in the titles? The text, rather than titles should convey the message". That might be convincing, except 200 killed is not an "incident", especially when the the Orangeburg massacre killed 3, and the Boston Massacre killed 5, as did the Greensboro massacre and the Jonesboro massacre. Please take the discussion there, and prepare for a new round of debate. Biruitorul 23:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead paragraph

Irpen: I object to the paragraph that you again are trying to insert into the lead. But instead of engaging in sterile revert games, let me try to reason, again. First of all, this breaks all conventions about leads -- that long-winded explanation just doesn't belong there (why not recap all history since the conquest of Dacia, while at it, before getting to the point?) Second, sure, let's put some context, but, as I said many times, not there -- rather, in the body of the article, say, before the "founding documents". Why don't you try that, instead? And third, if we are to put some history, why start with Operation Barbarossa? How about we start with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, the June 1940 Soviet Ultimatum, and the Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina? Also, why say "In 1941 Romania allied with Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union"? I thought Germany was the main driving force behind this invasion, and Romania just tagged along -- correct me if I'm wrong, please do. Also, why "Soviet forces crossed into Romania (August 1944) and continued to advance westward reaching the capital Bucharest on August 31, while the Romanian King Michael I launched the coup d'état overthrowing the pro-Nazi government of Ion Antonescu"? I thought the coup, and the ensuing liberation of Bucharest occured on August 23-24, way before the Soviets arrived in Bucharest on August 31, by which time all German troops there had been either been killed or captured by Romanian forces, or had fled northward. Just read the article, or references therein (there will be more on that when I get a chance to put it in.) At any rate, please do think about this, and let's see if we can all improve the article, in a spirit of amiable cooperation, even though we may hold different views about what happened in those long bygone days. Turgidson 05:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Turgidson, I also hate edit wars. The article is devoted to the Soviet military presence in post-war Romania. I disagree that an "occupation" is a neutral term for it but I am too tired for another naming dispute and this was addressed with {{POV-title}} that you removed. But let's now concentrate on the content itself. Soviet military entered Romania in the course of the war that started by the Axis alliance of which Romania was not only a member but provided the second largest invasion force after Germany, the alliance leader. The article should be very clear on that. It is one thing when Soviet invade a country and occupy it militarily, like they did in Agfanistan, or when Soviets get invaded, recuperate and then come back to defeat the enemy. The lead paragraph should clearly point out that the Soviet military entered Romania in the course of war and what happened in that war rather than make it look like Soviets just invaded on the whim. This is not about fairness and world justice of who is the rightful owner of Bukovina and Bessarabia. This is about a narrower issue, the Soviet-Romanian military conflict in course of which Soviets in the end of the day won and took the Romanian territory under their control. If you think I added too much info to be all in the lead, fine, move it to the text, but do not delete it and make sure the lead spells out the essentials: the war, the aggressor, the outcome.

Finally, while you objected to too much detail in my version of the lead, you tolerated the old one saying:

"During this period parts of the country had been transferred to the Soviet Union to form the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic, 9 raions of Odessa Oblast in the Ukrainian SSR, and Chernivtsi Oblast, also in the Ukrainian SSR."

This info is about the event of the general historic significance. What were they doing in this article about Soviet military in Romania? And note, that they were in the lead rather than "not there -- rather, in the body of the article".

I hope we can hammer our some compromise of the lead but the previous version was unacceptable. I could take it as a temporary solution once the article was tagged indicating the disagreement but I saw it unacceptable if the tag was removed. --Irpen 06:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your edit, Irpen. First, what you've wrote there is not a lead, eventually could be a subsection. Second, the text is ignoring (out of convenience or ignorance) the occupation from 1940 by Soviets (in your terms, the essentials: war, agressor, outcome - before war those territories were part of Romania, right?), the causality of events (the coup happened before not while the Soviet invasion), it also suggests false causalities in the "context of these events", possibly qualifying as OR (any scholars to support those hypotheses?). If you claim the previous version was flawed, it means the current version keeps the same flaw but from a different POV. Which makes me believe you didn't want the flaw corrected, just to put a POV in the article. Correct me if I'm wrong (preferably with decent edits in the main article). Daizus 08:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

In the context of WWII, "liberation of X" and "Allied occupation of X" are always two facets of the same thing. As it stands, the article is a POV fork, trying to push one POV while ignoring or censoring the other. -- Petri Krohn 13:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

As it was shown, current scholarship promotes "occupation" and not "liberation". To claim it's a POV/POV fork, it means to engage in OR. I failed to find in this page a reliable historiography suggesting the Soviet Union eliberated anything in Romania. Can you provide it? Daizus 13:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I would mention that under chronology, the first section would be the "Allied (Soviet) occupation of Romania under the armistice." It is what the Soviets did with the occupation that makes it good or bad, not that Romania was occupied. There is not a scintilla of doubt Romania was occupied.

     Petri, your predictable POV is that the Soviets liberated everyone everywhere they went--and you then ever so conveniently ignore the carnage and suppression that followed. (And it's only Cold War propaganda and post-Soviet über-nationalist xeno-Russophobia that has colluded to smear the Soviets' reputation.)

     I don't disagree that there are two sides to every "issue." However, your protrayal of the "other side" would be better served by scholarship on what the Soviets reported, not on insisting that what they reported is valid as compared to current (or contemporaneous but opposing) scholarship on the undisputed facts. After all, the Soviets blamed the Katyn massacre on the Nazis for half a century. Oops, an honest mistake?

     At some point I would like to understand the moral foundation for your staunch defense of the Soviet legacy as heroic, up to and including parroting the current Russian position: Soviet = anti-Fascist heroes, ergo anti-Soviet = anti-(anti-fascist) = pro-Nazi. If your (laudable) goal is to combat neo-fascism, your energies are tragically misdirected. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shortened

I shortened the paragraph, and kept there only the contentious 3 paragraphs. The remaining text became the first section. Dpotop 14:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Occupation

Soviet troops did not enter Romania. They occupied it (most of it) before September 12, when the first juridical instrument was signed: The Moscow Armistice convention. As for "liberation", only Soviet propagandists could imagine that liberating a people from its leaders qualifies as "liberation" (for those of you who refuse thinking, Romania was never occupied by German forces). Dpotop 19:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Since Dpotop's version again totally ommitts that the event took place in the course of the war in which Romania attacked the Soviet Union, the intro now again implies that Soviets just out of the blue, you know, "occupied" Romania and the war is irrelevant. I am tired of edit warring and won't revert only to be reverted again. We were inching towards the compromise and now we are back to were we started. As per this, I am restoring the POV tag. --Irpen 19:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The info you look for is in "background" section. I am not sure about what compromise you talk, both me and Turgidson heavily opposed your version. Daizus 20:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The lead, the most read part of the article, is misleding now. My version bay be improved but the current one is unacceptable. No matter what is said in the aritlce, the lead cannot present the occupation as whimsical. Unless my objections are shown as bad-faith or overruled by a clear consensus, you cannot remove the tag. --Irpen 20:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to be a brief, not to give POVs, histories or whatever you believe it should contain. In our case the lead should be a brief of the Soviet occupation ('44-'58'), not of the history before it. Please read WP:LS and stop penalizing this article simply because does not favor your POV. I can remove the tag, given the fact you fail to make a case. You have first to argue for the existence of the tag. You cannot disrupt Wikipedia articles with these tags, only because you disagree with the content!

NO, You are totally wrong on this point! Placing tags is a civilized way of expressing disagreement with the content. -- Petri Krohn 22:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so if you believe Holocaust didn't happen and thus disagree the content of that article, you'll just place a POV tag or tag asking for factual accuracy in that article, right? Daizus 22:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I do believe that the Holocaust did happen. However, some of the Romanian editors seem to think it did not. Or, that "Stalin and the Soviets were as bad", another form of Holocaust denial. -- Petri Krohn 22:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

And Stalin being evil is denying the Holocaust exactly how? Let's have it. Your contention here and in numerous other places that anyone who equates Stalin with evil is a neo-Nazi Holocaust denying Hitler lover is ludicrous and insulting.

"Some of the Romanian editors seem to think it did not"???

I'm confused. You do good work and then you spout this drivel. Why do you persist in these baseless and hateful accusations? —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Finlandization had something to do with the Stockholm syndrome? I am at a loss. Turgidson 02:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

If Stalin/the Soviets killed 20-66 million people (a reasonable estimate), and Hitler killed 11-20 million (also reasonable), then how in the world is equating them (or saying Stalin was many times as bad, which, by the numbers, he was) "another form of Holocaust denial"? I don't follow the logic. Biruitorul 03:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

In equating the Holocaust/Hitler with other purported crimes, you deny the unique nature of the Holocaust. This is a form of Holocaust denial. You can say, that Stalin was bad. You cannot say that "Stalin was as bad as Hitler". (Well on Wikipedia you can, but if you do, I reserve the right to call you a Holocaust denialist.) -- Petri Krohn 03:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I emphatically disagree. I consider all human life to be equally valuable. I accept that the Holocaust happened and that Hitler and the Nazis were chiefly responsible for it. However, because Stalin and the Soviets killed more - and that is reason enough - they are even worse. Murder is murder, and I condemn your wholly unjustified accusation of "Holocaust denialism" against me for having made this elementary claim. In fact I reserve the right to call you a "Stalin apologist" for not condemning him even more severely than you do Hitler. (Moreover, in its own way, the Holodomor was as unique as the Holocaust, except that its victims died more painful deaths.) Biruitorul 05:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust is comparable. If it's not comparable, then it's not scientific, actually worse, it's not knowledgeable. It may happen that some Holocaust deniers believe Stalin killed more people than Hitler therefore he did more wrong than him. However, Holocaust Denial doesn't mean that. The Holocaust doesn't include absurds beliefs like Holocaust is the greatest massacre or like Hitler is the evilest character out there, does it?

To give you (and this time is not a generic you ;)) a cheesy analogy if some Holocaust deniers like Lorrain or almonds and I do too, it doesn't make me a Holocaust denier. A similar flaw was commited when people appreciating Nietzsche or Wagner were taken for Nazis (nota bene: pro-Nazi and Holocaust denial though they go together sometimes, they are not bound to each other; you can be one without being the other). Daizus 04:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

C'mon, guys, why waste time arguing with someone who cannot follow basic syllogisms? Another gem Pēters was pointing out is "Soviet = anti-Fascist heroes, ergo anti-Soviet = anti-(anti-fascist) = pro-Nazi". Man, this is deep! I say, better keep concentrating on adding useful info to this article (as several of us have been doing, despite assorted disruptions), and ignore these logical fallacies, and the incessant appeal to the Hitler card. Turgidson 05:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Straw men. Daizus 22:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You have to show (using reliable sources, of course), how Romanian reoccupation of Bessarabia is vital in understanding and defining the Soviet occupation described in this article, why a lead should necessarily contain a mention of it. If you cannot, then you have absolutely no point. Moreover, placing it in the lead, you commit WP:OR (as you promote your own inferences upon the importance of some events, inferences which are not straightforward from the content of the article). Daizus 20:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This is my last word on this here... No one wins in a comparison of evils. Petri, I would urge you to consider the following: that while Holocaust awareness curricula and programs are largely standard fare in U.S. schools, for example, there is no Kolyma awareness curriculum. The unique nature of the Holocaust which you defend is its manner, and not its result. The true Holocaust denier is the one that would put the pain and genocide of one people above all others because in doing so he denies the lesson that all human life is equally sacred. You dishonor the lessons of the Holocaust when you call someone who observes Stalin murdered more people than Hitler a Holocaust denier because in making that accusation you say the lives Stalin took were worth less than the lives Hitler took: "I don't care about your pain and suffering and death, I only care about the Holocaust."

• If that is what you are saying, then I have no respect for you or for your blatantly hypocritical defense of morality and the value of human life.
• If that is not what you are saying, then you need to take your vigorous defense of the Holocaust where it is still needed. But that place is not here. Of all peoples, the Eastern Europeans can identify—at least in knowing the anguish of loss—with the Holocaust because of their own genocidal experiences at the hands of Stalin. To insist the Eastern Europeans are neo-Nazis because they are anti-Soviet is just so wrong on so many factual and moral levels that it defies comprehension. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disruptive tagging

There are sources both linked in the article and on this page defining quite clearly the coordinates of Soviet occupation, the context, everything. The article is yet incomplete but we have already some materials to start with.

However I do not understand why the article gets tagged for POVs and POV title but the editors doing so do not bring at least one reliable source to support their claims. It was not an occupation, but a liberation? Scholarship, please. The Soviet occupation is mainly caused by Romanian reoccupation of Bessarabia? Scholarship, please. Remember, the burden of proof lies always on the one making the claim. Those who claimed it was a Soviet occupation brought their reliable sources. If the others do not have any, it's time for them to concede and to move along. Please. Daizus 22:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I admit Romanian editors have provided more references. This is no excuse for producing a pro-Nazi POV fork of established history. -- Petri Krohn 22:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Not more references, the only references. And what you call a pro-Nazi fork is your opinion, original research and an insult addressed to me (as I support such an "occupation" view). And still you bring no source to support your position. Daizus 22:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Funny how the POV-tag pushers (almost) never add real content to the body of the article -- at most just pile on random stuff in the lead, contrary to wiki conventions on how a lead should like. Ah, well, chacun à son goût. And, when out of arguments, Petri Krohn resorts to his usual "you're all Nazis" insults. My inclination is to just ignore such chaff, build up the case brick by brick, and then the whole story should become blindingly clear (at least to those who want to see), and the lead will just write itself, as a stand-alone summary of the article, as it should. (Metaphor alert!) Jus' Keep On Truckin'. Turgidson 22:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, could you pleas be a little more specific on who "never adds real content to the body of the articles"? Before responding, please make sure you check mainspace contributions of any user who you are going to put the finger at. And in the future, avoid saying such offensive nonsense. --Irpen 02:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you took it personally -- I was not referring to you specifically (we had a reasonably productive cooperation this morning, after all, even if we did not agree on much), but rather, to the incessant tagging and sterile reverts that occured thoughout the day, which, when coupled with some some nasty comments (just take a look), I found to be really disruptive. As I said, I much prefer adding content that playing such games. Turgidson 03:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Frank Wisner

While researching the subject, I came about an angle that I find rather interesting -- let me share it here, see if what other people think. In August, 1944 Frank G. Wisner became the Office of Strategic Services station chief in Romania. His first action was to set up the evacuation of 1700 American POWs hels in Romania, with the approval and help of King Michael. This was all done on August 29, just days before the Red Army arrived in Bucharest. Here is a quote from Patricia Louise Wadley, "Even One Is Too Many", Ph.D. thesis, Texas Christian University, 1993:

The removal of the prisoners by air and the intelligence operation were probably ambiguous enterprises as far as the Soviets were concerned. Donovan was most expedient in sharing with the Russians the wealth of information gleaned from the intelligence operations. However, the insertion of an intelligence team into a prisoner repatriation/rescue operation could not help but raise the suspicion in the minds of the Soviets that future repatriation teams would also be composed of intelligence agents, whether OSS or military. The rescue of the prisoners was to be a singular event, for the Soviets would not cooperate in such an enterprise again. They had not really had much say in the Romanian operation and thus were unable to stop it. In future operations, however, they would exercise considerable control.

At the very least, this shows that, in late August, Romania still had quite a bit of autonomy, and was not yet under Soviet control. Also, note that Frank Wisner was a really first-hand witness to the subsequent Soviet occupation of Romania. As quoted by David F. Rudgers, "The origins of covert action", Journal of Contemporary History, vol. 35 , no. 2 (2000), 249–262: "Wisner (who had, as an OSS officer, witnessed the brutal Soviet occupation of Romania)". If this is not a first-rate quote backing up the title of this article, I don't know what is.

While at it, note also the following quote from Peter Grose, "Operation Rollback: America's Secret War Behind the Iron Curtain", Mariner Books ISBN 0618154582 excerpt:

Late in 1944, OSS station chief in Romania, Frank G. Wisner, reported from Romania that the advancing Red Army had deliberately let two Nazi divisions out of a trap, freeing them to fight the British and Americans in the Ardennes campaign on the western front.

Hmmmm.... Anyone knows more about this? It kind of gives a different take on things than the usual "glorious" propaganda. At any rate, it's in a published book, looks perfectly quotable, what do you think? Turgidson 05:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the first excerpt. Well, it shows that Romanians in Bucharest still could do what they wanted to before the Red Army occupied Bucharest. :) Remember, until the 12th, the Soviets consideres us enemies. Davai ceas. Dpotop 08:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It also shows that, on August 23, 1944, Romania didn't simply switch sides to the "Allied (Soviet)" side, but really to the whole Allied side, which prominently included the United States and Great Britain. In fact, one of the first official acts of the King post-August 23 was to approve the release of American POWs in Romania. Is this something well-known? I could not find the info anywhere on the Romania-related pages, and it was not even on Wisner's page before (!) At the very least, I think this shows, once again, the need for a separate article for the Royal coup of August 23, 1944. There were simply too many things happening, both before and after, connecting to too many strands, to be able to describe it the way it should in a paragraph or two in a non-dedicated article. Turgidson 12:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

On second thoughts, this reference should be cited, to show that Romania was already cooperating with the Western Allies during the period Aug 23 - Sep 12, and that trust problems already appeared between the Allies. Dpotop 12:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, Turgidson, seems we edited at the same time. I got a conflict. :) Dpotop 12:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I found another (independent) account of the release of the American airmen following the August 23 coup: William R. Cubbins, "Letters from Georgescu". This, quite gripping, first-hand account gives lots of details. In particular, that the order for release of the POWs was given by General Constantin Sănătescu. Speaking of which, I think we should say in the article that the Romanian troops did get Allied support in kicking out the German troops from Bucharest in the immediate aftermath of the coup, but coming from the South and South-West, not the North-East:

My associates had gone out at 5 o'clock to try to find Turcanu, my radio man. He was ready at 6.45 and available to start his transmission to Cairo. He remembered the code and we were thus able to alert Cairo of the urgency of bombing the Băneasa and Otopeni airfields. The next day we gave them the co-ordinates of the locations and on behalf of the King and the country, requested them to destroy those two German-held bases as soon as possible as they made life impossible to live in Bucharest. The King had already left for his country place and was not available. I do not know what happened in Cairo or at the U.S. Air Force HQ in Italy, but on the morning of 26 August I was delighted to see the American bombers coming in over Bucharest and bombing the hell our of Băneasa and Otopeni. There were 10,000 Germans dead and we had no further bombing in Bucharest from those airfields.

V.C. Georgescu goes on to say (in his letter to Colonel Cubbins):

Some of the flyers were not in Bucharest whilst others had been hospitalised and were unable to move. I insisted that the return of the flyers should take place as soon as possible on account of the advancing Soviet Army, and for that purpose I called in Colonel Dombrovsky, Mayor of Bucharest, and told him to requisition all the buses in Bucharest so that they could be at the disposal of the American flyers. Some of the buses had to be driven out as far as Sinaia, Predeal, Timiş and possibly Braşov to collect those prisoners who were not in Bucharest. Those who were in Bucharest were driven to Popesti-Leordeni to await the return of the buses from the country. It is important for you to know that as the return flights were taking place at Popesti-Leordeni, Soviet ground troops were entering Baneasa and Otopeni, the main Bucharest airports. However they had no idea at that time of the existence of a third airfield near Bucharest which was for the use of the Romanian fighter pilots (Popeşti-Leordeni). I was later given to understand that the Soviet High Command had looked with displeasure at my action to be responsible for returning the American flyers so promptly to Italy.

I bet this story didn't make it into the communist propaganda version of the "liberation of Romania by the glorious Soviet Union". But maybe there is place for it in wikipedia -- just a bit for here, with more details elsewhere? And, by the way, don't we need a page for Mayor Victor Dombrovski? Turgidson 17:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A note on local initiatives

Maybe for many of us it's obvious, but I thought there will be people wishing such a statement to be clearly formulated. There were initatives of Romanians contributing to the situation (asking for Soviet military counseling for instance), even though ultimately they were caused by Soviet occupation. Beside the point I've suggested in the main article, another case is the meeting of PMR's CC's secretariate from June 29, 1948 where Bodnăraş et al. discussed and proposed a project on the reformation of the Romanian army which was submitted to USSR. Daizus 13:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what to say -- if you think that's important, go ahead and restore that sentence. To me it sounded kind of bland and I didn't quite see the point of it. Maybe it can be developed and put into context -- eg, as a transition to the eventual withdrawal of Soviet forces, and the adoption of a (relatively) more independent role? My other concern is not to make that section disproportionately longer as compared to the other ones; maybe once we have a better sense of how much material is to put, and how things are to be organized, it will become more apparent what should stay and what should go. Eg, I'd be more interested in putting more on the cooperation of the Soviet Union with Romania in supressing the Hungarian Revolution -- I think this may be more interesting to a wider audience, and also give more internal coherence to the article. If we are to insist on treating in detail the whole period from 1944 to 1958, that's the key event that justifies it into my mind. Otherwise, it's sort like a prolongation of the occupation, at a much lower level of troops (kind of a long-drawn process): relevant, and to be mentioned, to be sure, but not that interesting, thus arguing for shortening. On the other hand, both from a historical point of view, and from the "interesting" point of view, the October-November 1956 period is the one to highlight (out of the 1950-1958 period). There is quite a bit of material on that in Verona's book -- eg, about Khruschev's (secret) visit to Bucharest in October 1956 to talk things over with Dej on how to plan the invasion -- looks like he asked Romania to join in militarily, but eventually those plans were abandoned, and it was settled on just logistic support (still, crucial for the military operation). As an aside, I read there that Bodnaras was switched at the time to Transport/Communications Minister, and been tasked with supervising the coordination with Soviet troops. Also, he played a crucial role in negotiating the Soviet troop withdrawal with Mr. K. in 1958. Any ideas on where is best to put such info, and in how much detail? Turgidson 13:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't find it important because I find it obvious. Anyway, I will suggest to keep that comment, in case anyone will raise an objection which can be appeased by integrating that information somewhere in the article. As for Hungarian Revolution and Bodnăraş I remember I had two sources on it - The final report of the Commission and an article (probably some Dosarele Istoriei article), but I eventually drawed my sketchy presentation in EB article from the Comission. In the final report, the text is at pages 77-79. Here are the parts from which I believe we can squeeze something for this article:

Revoluţia maghiară a început cu o demonstraţie de masă la Budapesta, pe data de 23 octombrie 1956. Conducerea de partid din România, inclusiv Gheorghiu-Dej, se afla în acel moment în Iugoslavia şi s-a întors la Bucureşti pe 28 octombrie. Până la revenirea lor, şedinţele Biroului Politic au fost prezidate de Gheorghe Apostol, iar singurele măsuri substanţiale luate au constat în întărirea controlului graniţelor României cu Ungaria şi în trimiterea unor activişti importanţi în judeţele din Transilvania. După întoarcerea lui Gheorghiu-Dej din Iugoslavia, s-a format un comandament – condus de viceprim-ministrul Emil Bodnăraş, din care făceau parte ministrul de interne, Alexandru Drăghici, ministrul forţelor armate, Leontin Sălăjan, şi secretarul Comitetului Central, Nicolae Ceauşescu – care a fost autorizat să ia toate măsurile necesare şi care putea ordona trupelor de securitate să deschidă focul dacă era cazul.

La graniţa româno-maghiară au fost masate trupe sovietice pregătite pentru o acţiune poliţienească. Conducerea română nu se temea de iredentism teritorial, ci de marxismul revizionist al noii conduceri de la Budapesta (De fapt, guvernul revoluţionar de la Budapesta nu a făcut declaraţii iredentiste; vezi Paul E. Zinner, National Communism and Popular Revolt. A Selection of Documents on Events in Poland and Hungary, February – November, 1956, New York, Columbia University Press, 1956, pp. 398-484). Pentru Gheorghiu-Dej, pericolul principal consta în efectul contagios al experimentului pluralist iniţiat de reformiştii de la Budapesta. Dând dovadă de un oportunism cinic, regimul lui Gheorghiu-Dej a stabilit iniţial contacte cu guvernul legal al lui Imre Nagy, dar apoi, la începutul lui noiembrie, după a doua intervenţie a Moscovei la Budapesta, şi-a proclamat solidaritatea cu guvernul marionetă al lui János Kádár.

[...]

După ce revolta a fost reprimată de trupele sovietice, staliniştii români au sprijinit folosirea terorii de către forţele de securitate sovietice şi maghiare împotriva revoluţionarilor. Pe data de 21 noiembrie 1956, o delegaţie la cel mai înalt nivel, condusă de Gheorghiu-Dej şi de Bodnăraş, s-a deplasat la Budapesta pentru a discuta cu Kádár despre ce trebuia făcut pentru a reprima complet revoluţia maghiară.

On B. and this topic, here are two another interesting excerpts from that report:

• on page 43, note 32:

Asemănarea dintre numirea lui Bodnăraş ca Ministru al Apărării în România (un afront adus Armatei Române) şi impunerea mareşalului sovietic Konstantin Rokossovsky ca ministru al Apărării în Polonia îndeamnă la reflecţie. Se pare însă că Bodnăraş a jucat un rol cheie în influenţarea lui Hruşciov pentru ca acesta să retragă trupele sovietice din România în iunie 1958, pregătind astfel terenul pentru politica de autonomie a lui Dej.

• on page 205 (the paragraph is about something else):

... după retragerea trupelor sovietice, în iulie 1958, inspirată lui Hruşciov de Emil Bodnăraş. (Oricum, trupele staţionau aici ilegal, ca şi în celelalte ţări ale lagărului sovietic; legal, trebuiau să plece după 10 februarie 1947, când a fost semnat Tratatul de Pace; pretextul menţinerii lor era nevoia unui coridor de legătură cu zona sovietică din Austria; în 1955 sovieticii au părăsit Austria, dar au continuat să rămână în România şi Ungaria). Când, pe neaşteptate, Armata Roşie s-a retras, comuniştii români erau cei mai fideli aliaţi ai Moscovei ...

In the last paragraph I believe, comparing the other sources we had here, they are mistaken about the legal character of the occupation after 1947. See article 21, paragraph 1 from the Peace Treaty. Daizus 14:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I forgot: The other international aspect that we certainly need to mention is the Soviet justification for their prolonged occupation of Romania (more than a decade after the Peace Treaty) was their corridor for troops to occupy Austria. There is plenty of material on that, it just needs to be added, though it's not so easy to put it in. Note though that the Soviets left Austria in 1955, but stayed on in Romania for 3 more years, with even that figleaf of a flimsy justification gone. But the explanation is not too hard to find (it's all referenced): Khruschev strated thinking of withdrawing from Romania in 1955 (more or less at the same time as from Austria). But then this got meshed with the Yugoslav situation (remember, Soviet troops in Romania were also kept poised for a possible invasion of Yugoslavia, and also as conduit to Bulgaria), and things got delayed, until the Hungarian Revolution erupted, which put the kibosh on any plans for withdrawal, at least for a couple of years. At any rate, all these international aspects I think should be useful for putting things into a more global perspective -- they probably played the determinant role in prolonging the Soviet occupation (the purely "domestic" task of imposing communism in Romania had been already achived by the end of 1947, after all). So that's why I'm pushing for that angle to better explain and conceptualize the latter stages of the occupation: Romania as a plaque tournante for the Soviets to project power in South-Eastern Europe during 1948-1958. In practical terms for the article, though, what we first need are some good section titles for all this. I'm not sure whether this should be done chronologically (as in, say, 1948-1958 period?), or by topic (International aspects?) BTW, let's also not forget about a chronology at some point (perhaps at the end of the article?), to summarize the timeline of events. I think this could be useful. Turgidson 14:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] August 23 and the lead

The lead is getting too long, once again. Sorry, Irpen, for criticizing you at some point on this -- I now realize it's a general tendency for people editing this article (including myself at times, I must confess). Part of the reason, I think, is due to the complexity of the subject, one that straddles different eras (from 1944 to 1958), with lots of twists and turns, especially in the beginning. But the other reason is more technical -- as I've been saying now for a while (and a few others have joined in) -- we do not have a separate article on the August 23, 1944 coup -- which is the pivotal event when Romania switched sides in WWII, with the Soviet occupation starting shortly after. Unless we're careful, those events can easily overtake the lead, which is not right: as has been said here many times, as per wikipedia guidelines, the lead should reflect as much as possible the contents of the article, be a summary of it, if you wish (plus a bit of background, to be sure). So I think a detailed discussion of the coup (together with historical setup, various maneuvings that preceded it, eg, negotiations in Cairo, inflitration of Bodnăraş and others, arrest and detention of Antonescu, military operations in and around Bucharest between Aug 23 and Aug 31, freeing of American POWs, legacy of the coup, national holiday for many years, various interpretations over the years, etc, etc), belongs in that yet-to-be-written article (with a summary of what's relevant here, of course). Any thoughts? Turgidson 00:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Press clippings

If anyone needs some:
The Times (London):
Bucharest Freed - Another broadcast by Bucharest radio stated: "To-day after a mass bombardment by Stuka dive-bombers German troops attempted to capture the Baneasa airfield (near Bucharest), but all their attacks were repelled by Royal Guards regiments with very heavy losses to the Germans. Big German guns and vehicles are littering the roads leading from Baneasa to Bucharest. At 11 am Baneasa village and airfield fell into our hands. The capital was thus completely liberated from the German formations, many of which were completely wiped out. According to the latest news, the last German strong-points in the country are giving in. Whole groups of German soldiers are laying down their arms and surrendering to our troops." Published Aug 26, 1944; pg. 4; broadcast the previous night.

Arrival Scenes in Bucharest - Rumanians Assured. After a day of sharp fighting in the maize fields north of Bucharest, the tanks of Lieutenant-General Kravchenk, commander of the IV Guards Corps, entered Bucharest from the north-east by the Buzau road. The tanks, which had covered 250 miles in 12 days, were being driven during most of Wednesday [Aug 30] with headlamps on, so thick were the dust clouds that trailed behind the thousands of vehicles streaming towards the city. ... This was no parade; the army swept through the city in search of further battles. But the Rumanians were given an opportunity of seeing the material strength, efficiency, and martial bearing of the Red Army. Like the Poles, the Rumanians appear to have been staggered by the quality and amount of Russian equipment. Filed from Moscow, Sept. 1; Published Sept. 2, 1944, pg. 4.

The New York Times
Most of Rumania Freed From Nazis - 2 German Garrisons Still Keep Up Resistance - Nation Put Under State of Siege. The military government of Rumania under Marshal [sic] Constantin Senatescu, which assumed this morning after King Michael's proclamation announcing capitulation to the United Nations, has consolidated its position throughout most of the country, according to a broadcast from Bucharest tonight. With the exception of two important German garrisons, one at Buzau, less than 100 miles northeast of Bucharest, and the other at Ploesti, all large-scale German resistance in the country is believed to be under control. Late reports from Rumanian sources, partly confirmed by Hungary, even added that the Germans at Buzau were falling back into Transylvania, the frontiers of which were attacked by small Rumanian forces at several points at dawn. ... Bucharest, which has been placed under an 8 pm to 5 am curfew pending clarification of the military situation, was reported calm. Filed from Berne, Aug. 24; Published Aug. 25, 1944, pg. 6.

Ally Fights Reich - Nazis' Bombers Attack Bucharest - City Held Cleared of Germans - Fighting Continues. The new Rumanian government, after having denounced German perfidy tonight, openly declared war on the Reich, thereby fulfilling a Russian prerequisite for acceptance of the Rumanian offer to change to the Allied side. ... The Rumanian declaration of war came after the Nazis, according to a proclamation broadcast by the Bucharest radio, had bombed the capital heavily and German units had attacked Rumanian forces and machine-gunned civilians of Bucharest and other places. Filed from London, Aug. 25; Published Aug. 26, 1944, pg. 1.

Balkan Link Snaps - Last Stronghold of the Enemy in Rumania Are Giving In - US Liberators Attack Foe Near Bucharest, Hit Nazi Airfields. In Rumania the German position was reported today to be deteriorating rapidly. The last German strongpoints in the country were said to be giving in and groups of German soldiers surrendering. Meanwhile the Russians have shifted their attack on the Rumanian front to the Galati Gap for a thrust into the Danubian lowlands. ... [Moscow radio] also revealed that the Rumanian capital was now firmly held by Premier Sanatescu's government and that Rumanian forces were barring the way of the German retreat through the Carpathian passes and that Horia Sima, the former Iron Guard leader, had been chosen by Hitler to head the new puppet "Rumanian National Government". Filed from London, Aug. 26; Published Aug. 27, 1944, pg. 1.

Ex-Axis City Taken - Red Army Enters Capital of Rumania in March for Other Prizes. Soviet troops entered Bucharest, the capital of Rumania, yesterday after defeating the enemy grouping south of the Ploesti oil fields. It was the first former enemy capital taken by the Red Army. For several days it had been in the hands of Rumanian forces loyal to the new Government, which decided to abandon the former regime's pro-Hitlerite policy and join the United Nations forces. Filed from Moscow, Sept. 1; Published Sept. 1, 1944, pg. 1.

The Washington Post
Russians Seize 200 More Towns In Swift Drive For Bucharest. The Red Army captured the city of Ploesti and all its rich surrounding petroleum fields today and raced on less than 17 miles from Bucharest in the lightning campaign to annihilate the Germans in Romania. Fall of Ploesti, long the greatest single source of oil for the German armies, was hailed as the most significant day's victory of the entire invasion of Romania. More than 200 other towns were taken around Ploesti and northeast of Bucharest, where the Romanians have announced they already have freed their capital of the Germans since shifting from the Axis to the Allied side a week ago. The nearest announced Soviet approach to Bucharest was the capture of Meriuta, 17 miles northeast. Eastward, in cleaning out the big wedge of land between the Danube and the Black Sea, the Russians announced the capture of another 100 towns. Filed from London, Aug. 30; Published Aug. 31, 1944, pg. 1. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Biruitorul (talk • contribs) 02:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

The last clipping seems to indicate, that the capital Bucharest was in the hands of the new government, but the rest of Romania still needed "liberating" by the Red Army. -- Petri Krohn 10:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you reading them or just exhausting the patience of others?

"Most of Rumania Freed From Nazis - 2 German Garrisons Still Keep Up Resistance - Nation Put Under State of Siege. The military government of Rumania under Marshal [sic] Constantin Senatescu, which assumed this morning after King Michael's proclamation announcing capitulation to the United Nations, has consolidated its position throughout most of the country, according to a broadcast from Bucharest tonight."

The only certain liberation of Red Army given by those sources is Ploieşti (and some 200 other towns (sic!) - check a map - around it). Feel free to write the "Soviet liberation of Ploieşti" article. Daizus 11:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is something interesting from the Ministry of National Defense (Romania) website:

The offensive for liberating the north-eastern part of Romania started on October 9th, 1944, the military actions being part of the “Debrecen” offensive operation, which was also meant to free the eastern parts of Hungary (up to the Tisza River). The operation was planned and carried out by the Soviet High Command. The offensive actions extended over three stages. The first lasted from 9 to 13 October 1944, when the Romanian troops broke through the enemy defence on the contact line, advanced to the Somesul Mic Valley, and conquered the highlands west of the river. The Romanian big units carried on the offensive together with the Soviet 104th Army Corps, thus helping liberate the city of Cluj. [6]

-- Petri Krohn 12:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of Second Vienna Award? Daizus 12:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Some more:

In September 1944 as the Russian forces were coming to liberate Romania and Hungary from the Nazi forces, the 126 Jews of the small village of Sarmas were marched into a field, forced to dig their own graves and shot. [7]

Shouldn't King Michael's coup have "liberated" Sarmas by then? ...or was it too in "Northern Transylvania"? -- Petri Krohn 12:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

How do you dare to argue on Romanian history without knowing basics like geography and main historical events and without bothering to perform a routine check on what you don't know before launching in such speculations (i.e. the Soviet liberated "the rest" of Romania)? I'll remove your POV-title tag, as you're blindly (and unsuccesfully I might add) hunting for sources. Daizus 13:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Note that this is a modern Western source that uses the word "liberate" when refering to the Soviet forces. -- Petri Krohn 13:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, boy.

* Your source is a web log.

* It speaks of Northern Transylvania (check where Sărmaş massacre happened)

* Please figure out how much of the country was still under German control and what was the Soviet overall role in pushing them over the borders. They had a role, no doubt, but not for "the rest of Romania" (and technically Northern Transylvania was not in Romania at the date of these events).

* With all that, the substance of this article concerns the Soviet occupation between September (some may argue November, since seemingly Soviet Union started to mass troops in Romania, though there were no other "needs of liberation") 1944 and 1958, since there is a legal basis to argue for or against a Soviet military presence with units not participating in the fights from August-September 1944 but were brought here for other purposes and even with other motivations from the Soviet side (or sometimes even refusing to provide them) Daizus 14:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Occupation type 1, 2, & 3

(continuing thread after new subtitle)

Now we are getting somewhere!

What you are saying, is that the "occupation", and thus the focus of this article, only started in September or November, after the occupation/invasion/liberation phase was over, and the Nazis driven out of Romania. I agree that we could limit the scope of the article, provided we have a separate article for the preceding "liberation" phase. The article however now states (in the very begining of the intro) that Soviet troops occupied Romania between May and August.

It seems that there are three uses of the word "occopation":

1. Occupation (invasion) - an action - where hostile troops move into new territory
2. Occupation (authority) - a permanent state - territory is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
3. Occupation (immunity) - a permanent state - foreign troops are present, but do not replace the authority of the local government. Although this case in not "occupation" in the eyes of international law, it is still sometimes called occupation, especially if the troops have immunity from prosecution and/or dominate the politics of the hosting nation.

When discussing terminology, we should be more precise on which one of these meanings we use. It seems, that in most cases the word has been used in sense #3. If I understand correctly, you would agree, if sense #1 (May - September) was moved to an other article. -- Petri Krohn 14:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying something else. That in August-September Romania was "liberated" (if you like this term) from German control. Most of the effort was performed by Romanian troops, but also the Soviet army participated in eliminating some pockets of German resistence, as well. It's a different topic concerning this change of sides Romania did in August 1944.

Beside this, the military presence of Soviets between 1944 and 1958 is largely viewed as hostile. They were hostile in fighting Romanians in August 1944 (treating them as enemy/Axis), they were hostile in ravaging the country, they were hostile being there when they came(!!) unsummoned by Romanian authorities and their presence was questioned also, they were hostile in being there and enforcing a certain direction of Romania under Soviet influence in the next years, with or without the contribution of the Romanian Communists (which in turn they were infiltrated by Soviet agents), which is to address your definition, an undermining of the local authority. The control the Soviet Union had over the Eastern Europe (with all the nuances for each country) it is largely recognized. I still fail to understand your case.

And please stop tagging the article each time you think you have a point. Stop disrupting the article just because you believe something is true or not. And most important, bring scholarship. The lead summarizes this article's title is enforced by a significant portion of the current scholarship. What reliable sources can you summon for your position? Daizus 15:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Split proposal

I have proposed splitting the article into two articles. The new article could be named liberation of Romania. The Royal Coup could also be included in this article.

The cut-off day could be the Romanian Armed Forces Day, October 25 (1944). The new article could then discuss the relative merits of the Romanian and Soviet forces in the liberation. Also, it would be much easier to discuss the Soviet-Romanian cooperation (or the lack of it) under a title different from "Soviet occupation of...".

A new intro for this article could start:

After the liberation of Romania in 1944 by Romanian and Soviet forces, the Red Army stayed on as an occupying force...

-- Petri Krohn 15:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure. But I still don't understand why it should affect this article? Because it gives some brief information (which most of it probably would have been mentioned anyway) in the lead and the background section?

You should rather argue for splits (or better at this moment only supplementary details/sections) in articles like Battle of Romania (1944) or Romania during World War II#The Royal Coup. Daizus 15:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced - this article still needs to get bigger before a split should be considered. By the way, may I point out that Petri Krohn has created a "Category:Holocaust in Romania"? I question the need for this, particularly as some of the entries are of a dubious nature - the Kolozsvár Ghetto was not "in Romania", but rather in Hungary; the Dorohoi Pogrom wasn't really part of the Holocaust, etc. Biruitorul 16:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The motivation for splitting in not the length of this article, but the impossible POV. This article now squeezes Liberation of Romania and Soviet occupation of Romania into one article. At the same time it creates a WP:POVFORK of Liberation of Romania by covering the Soviet participation, while leaving out the Romanian involvement.

(On the other issue: you can take it to WP:CFD) -- Petri Krohn 16:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

"Liberation of Romania" is not squeezed in this article any more than it is squeezed in any other article I've linked, actually less. You keep flagging this article based on some brief information present in its lead and the section dedicated to the historical background, while the topic of this article is different. The article is not about how Romanians (or Soviets or any other Allies) fought against Germans, but about how Soviet army was installed in Romania, to what extent, for what purposes (the general drive of Soviet army against the German forces is covered in other articles, including in Battle of Romania (1944)), to what consequences, etc.. If you create a new article, perhaps no content (or perhaps very little) from this article will be moved there, that's why the split proposal tagging along with a POV-title shows to be unnecessarily emphasized with tags in this article. To claim a POV problem and a split based on few phrases (uncovered in other Wiki pages) from a several pages, 12 sections long article cannot be somehow else than disruptive! (that not to mention you reverted 4 times today the article to put your POV-title tag!!). Daizus 17:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I am all for having a separate article about the August 23 coup, with events leading up to it, and events in the immediate aftermath. How would such an article be named, I do not want to prejudge -- I guess this would involve quite a debate, the "Liberation of Romania" being just one of a range of possibilities (note: I am not discounting it, I just say it needs debate and context and narrowing down of scope before one can say with certainty). Right now, I do not have the time or the energy to engage in such a debate, but let me just say one thing: The Liberation of Romania from Nazi Germany was not just done by Romanian and Soviet forces (though these of course were the most important ones, certainly on the ground). A non-negligible role was played by the other Allies, specifically, the United States of America, To wit, at the request of the Romanian government, the United States Air Force bombed the German air facilities at Băneasa and Otopeni on August 26 -- some 10,000 German troops were killed in those raids, and the German Air Force, which could have greatly disrupted the liberation of Bucharest, was knocked out of the air. (See references and quotes provided up on this page.) So, before getting carried away too much, let's keep in mind the role, small as it was, played by the US Air Force in the Liberation of Bucharest, at least. Thank you. Turgidson 16:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Which reminds me -- today is the 63rd anniversary of the Bombing of Bucharest in World War II. In that article, there is a section at the end about the air raids on Bucharest carried out by the Luftwaffe on Aug 24-25, but only a half-sentence about the Anglo-American bombing the next day (with only a mention of Otopeni, not Băneasa; I'm not sure whether British forces were involved -- they may have). I think this warrants expansion. Turgidson 17:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree it is a good idea Petri. - Francis Tyers · 17:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a thing I don't understand, though. If a split is proposed, what is the content (from the current version of the article, the one which triggered the proposal in the first place) which will be moved (not copied, not copied and further developed, but moved). Daizus 19:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

All forms of battle and invasion/occupation/libration between the Romanian Government/Soviets & Americans/Germans should be moved to the new article. (The non-government resistance/terrorism after 1944 can be covered in this article.)

The new article should cover the events between the August 23 coup and the October 25 "liberation" of Carei, and any secret negotiations before August 23. -- Petri Krohn 19:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

More specifically, what should be moved is the intro, the Background and beginning of the occupation and the images. -- Petri Krohn 19:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

No, they should not. They were added in this article to provide a relevant context for the Soviet occupation. There are not details, just brief summaries. Besides, the coup of 23 August has already a section in another article. I already told you that earlier today but you chose to ignore it. The way I see it, if your interest is genuine you should work from that section (develop it and then request a split, when it's the case) and not disturb this article and its editors.

As for images, the first one shows the Red Army entering Bucharest. Please ... For the second image, I agree. But to move it in the section we already have, develop it, and when it's ready make an article out of it. Daizus 19:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This article does not seem to be developing. We now have 300kB of discussion and maybe 30kB of article. Besides, you are wrong on the context: The Soviet occupation was a result of the totality of events of the liberation of Romania, not some unilateral tank-cruise to Bucharest. -- Petri Krohn 19:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You are right. But a large part of this discussion is debating with you, debating upon alleged POVs of this article. I (and probably others) want this issue cleared and I unfortunately I see no end to it.

With a straw man I have no mood to fight right now. I simply told you that the first image is related to the content of this article and should not be moved. Daizus 20:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

(reindented) The current introduction covers salient points, but perhaps in a bit too much detail which is not focused on the primary topic--but which would be useful as a lead-in paragraph, perhaps simply titled "Context." I would propose we give the article a chance to develop and put a moratorium on POV combat. Let's spend some more collective time gathering facts to tell the story--and let the facts speak for themselves. I would disagree on a need to split--as proposed it would remove crucial context. If we develop enough material, the events leading to the armistice can certainly be expanded into their own article(s). —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)