Talk:Communist Romania

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Romania This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Romania, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Romania-related topics. Please visit the the Wikipedia:WikiProject Romania if you would like to get involved. Happy editing!
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
edit · history · watch · refresh To-do list for Communist Romania:

No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former Countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of now-defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. (FAQ).Add comments
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

I suggest having Securitate in italics within the text to make it differentiate from names of people. Right now it is a bit confusing for people who skip right to the - say - last paragraph from the Downfall section.

Contents

[edit] "Experts said"

Recent edition to the article: "Experts said that this policy was akin to economic ploicies followed by Kim Il-sung's North Korean regime." What the heck kind of citation is "Experts said..."? What experts are claimed here to have said looks neither obviously true nor obviously false to me, but if someone has not actually cited one or more of these "experts" within a week, I am liable to delete. -- Jmabel 03:50, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

A week has gone by, no citation, I'm deleting. -- Jmabel 23:06, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] again the December 1989 episode

the protest of hungarian protestant priest Laszlo Tokes didn't spread across the country in a general uprising

no protest outside Timisoara until the Flight of Ceausescu following the 21 December 1989 meeting in Bucharest that represented the turning point. -- criztu

Let's not try to have the same discussion on two talk pages. Can we keep the discussion on Talk:History of Romania since 1989, since that's where we've both written most, and assume that whatever is resolved on that talk page can be propagated to all relevant articles? --

[edit] Downfall of communism

In consequence, when the wave of revolution in 1989 hit Romania, it did so with an unmatched fury

this should be reformulated. the "unmatched fury" has deeper causes (the Transylvania matter, the independence of Romania within Communist Block, Gorbaciov and Bush meeting at Malta, the Foreign Secret Services media/ electronic/ terorist warfare, etc.) that need to be explained

After cutting short a 2-day trip to Iran, Ceauşescu on December 21 addressed a hand-picked crowd of 100,000 in the center of Bucharest. Even here, the crowd began shouting against him

this should be reformulated. 100 000 can't be handpicked, they were simply workers, and they didn't begin to shout agains Ceausescu, but went bezirk after a series of sounds resembling that of bombs and gunfire

Securitate opened fire, but the military, under Secretary of Defense Vasile Milea generally refused to join them

this should be reformulated. it should be explained the involving of Foreign Secret Services, the Transylvania matter, simulated electronic warfare, the allegiance of the army to its Commander(in this case Ceausescu) there for it can't be neutral, nor turn into an enemy.

Milea's execution turned the army from a neutral into an enemy.

this should be reformulated. no Tribunal/Martial Court trialed any "executioner" of Milea. -- criztu

i removed the following statements:

  • In consequence, when the wave of revolution in 1989 hit Romania, it did so with an unmatched fury.
please reformulate -- Criztu 14:52, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • The issue was over the regime's planned arrest of Protestant minister Laszlo Tokes, who was an outspoken opponent of Ceauşescu. The first protesters were ethnic Hungarians, but within days they had been joined and outnumbered by ethnic Romanians.
this is a POV version of the events taking place in Timisoara. please provide reference to the Trials regarding the Events in Timisoara in december 1989 that suggest a foreign secret services intervention -- Criztu 14:26, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Even here, the crowd began shouting against him. Securitate opened fire, but the military, under Secretary of Defense Vasile Milea generally refused to join them.
please provide a reference to Trials regarding the Events in december 1989 that suggest the intervention of foreign secret services -- Criztu 14:26, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Milea's execution turned the army from a neutral into an enemy. They and the Securitate fought street battles in Bucharest, and hundreds, perhaps thousands, were killed in the crossfire.
please provide referenece to the Trial regarding the Events in december 1989 that suggest an electronic war waged by foreign secret services -- Criztu 14:26, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Their lives might have been spared if the Securitate had been willing to lay down their arms; as it was, they were subjected to a rapid and dubious trial, and shot on December 25. With their deaths, the Securitate began to surrender and soon dissolved itself, and the violence came to an end.
please provide reference to the Trial regarding the Events in december 1989 that suggests Securitate through its general Iulian Vlad colaborated with the Revolution . there were not fighting from securitate since 22 december, only confuse fighting due to "terorist intervention" desinformation -- Criztu 14:26, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ceausescu's regime

In the 1980s, he went even further: compulsory gynecological examinations sought to identify women who were dodging their patriotic responsibility to breed; the tax structure was revised to penalize the single and the childless

I don't know of such thing, does anyone knows of such thing, and if so, could you provide a reference to where was such thing stipulated ? what law ? -- (Criztu 22:08, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC))

Anyway, the years of Ceauşescu were favourable to Gypsies, because of his demographic policy

Ethnic Hungarians were pressured to give their children traditionally Romanian names

can you provide any substantial data on this thing ? Criztu 22:23, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Criztu, I'm with you on this one, I think someone was confused with policies that existed in Bulgaria. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:59, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Jews and Germans fared relatively better: they were useful bargaining chips with the West German and Israeli governments

please reformulate in a NPOV way Criztu 22:23, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes, probably all of this needs to be reworded, but would you agree that ethnic Hungarians generally had a bad time of it under Ceauşescu and that Hungarian culture was generally suppressed? And that (West) Germany and Israel managed to gain advantage (and, ultimately, to buy departure) for many of those they considered their co-nationals? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:59, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

In the 1980s, Ceauşescu became simultaneously obsessed with repaying Western loans and with building himself a palace of unprecedented proportions, along with an equally grandiose neighborhood, the Centru Civic, to accompany it. There was also a revival of the doomed effort to build a Danube-Black Sea Canal.These led to an unprecedented level of poverty for the average Romanian. There was no meat to be had, because it was all being exported for foreign exchange. There was no marble to be had for tombstones, because it was all going to build the palace and the Centru Civi

Romania massively exported everything, from apples to furniture, people in Romania had money, but not too much to buy with them. so the unprecedented level of poverty doesn't fit it. Criztu 22:23, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you have money but nothing to buy with them, then the money have no value or there is a hidden (high) inflation. MihaiC 21:14, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Exactly. Having paper in your pocket is meaningless. I see nothing wrong in this passage and would like to restore it. I suppose the sentence "These led to an unprecedented level of poverty for the average Romanian" isn't crucial, if we keep the examples about meat and marble. Criztu, are you objecting just to that sentence (it's your only stated objection) or is there more of this you are contesting? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:02, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
it wasn't nothing to buy but having to enlist in order to buy - like buying a color TV, or a Car, or Refrigerator, you had to enlist and wait for sometime. this doesn' mean unprecedented level of poverty. People had to wait for days for cheese, eggs, milk, meat to become available in the stores(Alimentara), but when the products arrived, they were bought by people with money with value. other situation were the rations: Sunflower Oil and Sugar were distributed on rations. also exotic goods were only imported on New Years Hollydays and so on. so it is shortage of available goods that were massively exported -- Criztu 04:04, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I removed the following:

  • In the 1980s, he went even further: compulsory gynecological examinations sought to identify women who were dodging their patriotic responsibility to breed; the tax structure was revised to penalize the single and the childless.
please provide reference to this information -- Criztu 14:04, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Here is a US gov't country study with the claim about taxes and (much to my surprise, actually) about the gynecological thing too. Do you have any problem with that as a citation? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:50, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
do you agree that compulsory gynecological examinations sought to identify women who were dodging their patriotic responsibility to breed is provocative and at least POV ? as for the countrystudies.us: it should provide excerpt from laws, or provide reference to the law in discussion, if it is a study, otherwise it might be propaganda. I don't have information on this, so let have the name of the Law first, like this: Legea Avortului(Law on Abortion) - Decret-lege nr. 1/1989 (in romanian) http://www.avocatura.com/modules.php?name=Spete&mod=viz&pid=44&pg=1-- Criztu 01:37, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree that the wording (not mine, BTW, I don't know who wrote it) was provocative, but it appears that the substance was correct. Either of us could try further research; still, while I am no fan of the US gov't on most fronts, in my experience the country studies tend to be very well researched and rarely mistaken on facts (although they may be slanted in emphasis). -- Jmabel | Talk 02:38, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
a study provides reference, countrystudies.us uses U.S. Library of Congress as source, well, Library of Congress contains many things, at least reference to the Romanian Law on Abortion issued 1980 should be provided here. Ceausescu prohibited abortion, I don't deny that, but compulsory gynecological examinations to identify women is POV 100 % ... any young man is gynecologicaly examined before going to army, any young married couple is medicaly(gynecologicaly) examined before making a baby, this is normal standardd in W Europe too -- Criztu 03:47, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, actually, no, by definition a man is not gynecologically examined. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:12, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
you right gineceus means female organ, but men's intimate parts are medicaly examined before being accepted in the army -- Criztu 11:01, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Where Gheorghiu-Dej's attitude toward the Hungarian minority had been two-faced, Ceauşescu's was simply oppressive. Hungarian-language schools, publishing houses, and cultural institutions were largely shut. Ethnic Hungarians were pressured to give their children traditionally Romanian names. The treatment of the Gypsies was comparably bad. Anyway, the years of Ceauşescu were favourable to Gypsies, because of his demographic policy. Jews and Germans fared relatively better: they were useful bargaining chips with the West German and Israeli governments.
please provide reference to these informations -- Criztu 14:04, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes, probably all of this needs to be reworded, and as remarked above I think the thing about names is wrong, but would you agree that ethnic Hungarians generally had a bad time of it under Ceauşescu and that Hungarian culture was generally suppressed? I believe the statement "Hungarian-language schools, publishing houses, and cultural institutions were largely shut" is simply true. Are you actually doubting this, or just making an arbitrary request for citation? And do you doubt that (West) Germany and Israel managed to gain advantage (and, ultimately, to buy departure) for many of those they considered their co-nationals? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:13, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
we could say Germany prefered to bring in romanians than to bring in africans. i don't know how this "trade" between Germany and Romania should be regarded, i consider both did an illegal thing. as for hungarians culture being supressed: i think there were hungarian programs on romanian national radio station. as for TV, you know that it became a 2 hours program presenting Ceausescu's visits and speeches. It all might be an image achieved by hungarian loby, this "ethnic hungarians having a bad time under Ceausescu".. unless you back this with solid reference, it might be considered propaganda. any romanian "had a bad time" under Ceausescu -- Criztu 01:25, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'll certainly agree with the last sentence. Do you believe that Hungarians weren't singled out for particular ill treatment, or do you just think it needs stronger citation? Similarly, do you think ethnic Germans and Jews were not helped out by the respective involvement of West Germany and Israel, or do you just think it needs stronger citation? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:48, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
Between Israel and Federal Germany on one side, and Romania on the other side a secret "trade" of romanian citizens with certified jewsh or saxon ancestry going from ROmania to Israel and Germany took place seems NPOV to me while "jews and saxons were used as bargaining chips" is 100% POV... why did Israel and Germany care only for those romanians of jewish/saxon pedigree(certificate) and not the rest of romanians ? you know this is a delicate matter for all Israel, Germany and Romania as well, we can't present it as Romania's fault. by staying in Romania, no jew or saxon was jeopardised more than any other romanian . N. Ardeal(that was taken by Hungary in the beginning of WW2 and recovered at the end of it had Autonomous status for couple of years after. I think Ceausescu ended this teritorial autonomy(i don't know the date), this certainly can be regarded as a step back from hungarians former status, but hungarian Publishing Houses being shut-down... what about Mircea Dinescu, a romanian(and a few others like him) that wasn't even allowed to publish his poetry ? if Ceausescu was opressive towards hungarians more than towards romanians, it has to be substantiated by showing how the hungarians were treated worse than romanians (refference to a Law/Act/Decree that prohibited hungarian culture, names of hungarian Publishing houses being closed by guvernamental decree, anything oficial, a UN/Haga protest from Hungary(not american congressmen, please) or other evidence, yes, this is what i'd ask for -- Criztu 03:38, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Demolished areas in Bucharest

  • Entire towns and, ultimately, a large portion of the capital, Bucharest, were torn down and either replaced by bland concrete buildings or (when money ran low) by nothing at all.
please provide reference to what towns were torns down entirely -- Criztu 14:04, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Not towns for sure. Villages. For sure it was a village that was completly destroyed and inhabitants moved to town. Unfortunatelly I don't remember the name. MihaiC 20:04, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
yes, let's find that village and insert it in the article. being more specific, A large portion of Bucharest was indeed torn down to make way for the Centru Civic, but the Revolution left the complex unfinished, buildings like National Library and Natinal History Museum left unfinished to this day -- Criztu 23:35, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, here's from a US gov't country study, which we usually consider citable: "Some villages on the outskirts of Bucharest were destroyed, ostensibly to make way for projects such as the Bucharest-Danube Canal and airport expansion. Meanwhile about eight square kilometers in the heart of Bucharest were destroyed, leveling some of the nation's finest architectural heritage." Admittedly, this does not actually name a village, either. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:15, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
    yeah, but this happens in Germany or Netherlands too, we don't see presidents of Netherlands flooded entires villages to make way for their water sytems do we ? -- Criztu 00:27, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    Well, as much of a stink has been made about dam projects in India and China. As for the Netherlands, I think the existence of a clear system of judicial review and compensation makes it a different matter. There was clearly nothing og the sort in Communist-era Romania. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:35, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
there were compensations following judicial system. 1947 and the spoliation of former ruling class was far from 1980es communist Romania, when there were no more "chiaburi" that could have been ripped off illegaly -- Criztu 00:45, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • [1] (from a US congressman) suggests that right at the end of the Communist era there was reason to at least anticipate mass razing of villages, and strongly suggests that Hungary was very concerned. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:30, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
hmmm... an US Congressman is not GOD, he is an interface between Groups of Interest and the Decisional Apparatus of US, his report in march 1989 fits the last days of Communism in E. Europe, when everybody was rushing to bring Ceausescu down by any means, asap... which was a good thing if you ask me. BUT -- Criztu 03:00, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • This document on the UN's site also makes the assertion about villages, but again does not name names. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:35, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
quote from unpan1.un.org: the unorganized stret rioters who had contributed decisively to the end of the regime. do you agree that the decisif contributors to the end of the regime weren't the rioters but the heads of the army and securitate ? aka the kangoroo court that decisively executed him and his wife ? social engineering policies were carried out [...] the distruction of villages under the slogan of systematization in the late 1980's is a general formulation. I (user:criztu) can testify that Ceausescu's policy compromised entire villages by unrealistic industrialisation and urbanisation, the young generations abandoning their villages and heading to towns, but how many villages(or even towns) in US didn't suffered from similar shifting in population's employment in industry ? -- Criztu 03:00, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
from what i know, entire saxon villages were deserted, due to that secret trade between Romania and Federal Germany, by wich the lattest "bought" romanian citisens proving saxon ancestry. these saxon villages might have been used by Hungary as a utensil. I point you the Jugoslavia and Ceskoslovenska, other neighbour states in wich Hungary had interest, that desintegrated during the '90es. the Targu Mures chapter in 1991 and Timisoara chapter in 1989 can be regarded as similar Pattern according to wich parts of Romania would have aquire status similar to Voivodina -- Criztu 00:41, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • [2] looks to me to be a solidly researched academic paper (it also has a lot of info on Laszlo Tokes, and at the very least should be mined for that). Again, though, no specific claims of villages actually razed, just of impending intent to do so.
  • Based on all of this, I'm perfectly willing to let go of the claim that any villages were actually razed, at least pending that someone can provide specific place names. On the other hand, I assume we are basically agreed on what was done to Bucharest, having seen it with our on eyes. Are you willing to let the article talk about the systematization plans to raze villages having been in place at the time of Ceausescu's downfall, or do you consider even that to be dubious? And if documents like the above don't count as documentation of that, what sort of documentation would you consider acceptable? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:46, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
Communist Romania article should present the impact of the Communist Doctrine, not the natural modernisation process of a country, by which villages are buldozed to make way for Strategic National Projects; perhaps you know that Casa Poporului is more then a Palace, it is an equivalent to Pentagon, an underground complex of Fortresses -- Criztu 00:53, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No, this is not simply an article about "the impact of the Communist Doctrine", it's an article in the History of Romania series. It is our primary article covering a period of Romanian history. And you really didn't answer my question here, you went off on a tangent. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:06, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
if you mention the buldozing of villages in order to make way for Strategic National Projetcts it is ok to me, but please also add info on the fact that Romania was becoming the second largest exporter of Tulipes(flowers) after Netherlands, developing a National System of Agricultural Irrigations and GreenHouses matching the Westerners, oh, and also VItification Industry(wines) and Furniture, and that Romania had the biggest number of Houses(apartments) per capita in East Europe -- Criztu 01:11, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Now it's my turn to ask you: do you have documentation on the tulips, etc.? Wouldn't surprise me, I saw a lot of tulips and lilies in Romanian markets, but since you are being such a stickler for everyone else's documentation, I think you should be documenting your own prospective additions. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:18, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
no, I don't have available documentation to sustain this, that's why I don't add such info. do you agree that presenting the Modernization of Romania under Ceausescu as a series of "entire towns razed" suggesting Ceausescu was demolishing Romania can be considered as bringing prejudice to Romania's image, while not presenting it's achievments, like Portile De Fier on Danube, the Metro in Bucharest, the Hidraulic Power stations and Dams or Nuclear Plant at Cernavoda, that were meant to secure Romania's energetic independence from Russia is also POV ? Romania securing its energetic independence was the reason why USSR was so concerned for romanians future, not the romanians didn't have meat available at any time of day :) -- Criztu 01:53, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • There was no meat to be had, because it was all being exported for foreign exchange. In the era of glasnost, this was increasingly unacceptable to both the Soviet Union and the Western alliance.
please provide reference to this information -- Criztu 14:04, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"In the era of glasnost, this was increasingly unacceptable to both the Soviet Union and the Western alliance" strikes me as so obvious that I can't even think how one would cite for it. What are you contesting here, Criztu? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:05, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
you mean Gorbachiov was concerned for the faith of the romanians, and that they didn't have meat available at any time of day ? -- Criztu 01:17, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The statement may have been ill-placed (again, I didn't write it), but I think that it is safe to say that Ceauşescu had torn down some of the most historic sections of Bucharest, was intending to raze villages, was cracking down on individual and ethnic-community liberties to an extent rivalled in Europe only by Albania, and that this sort of conduct which might at one time have been tolerated or even embraced by Moscow was anathema to Gorbachev, who had stood by and let regimes to which he was actively allied topple for less. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:45, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
i hope you understand i don't take sides here. Ceausescu was not good, but neither was he evil. some of the most historic sections of Bucharest weren't torn down at all, the Tremour in 1977 had torn many interbelic(betwen the world wars) buildings down causing many deaths, as a result a reconsideration of all unfit buildings in Bucharest, and consequent buldozing of them. others, like Lipscani, an historic area in Bucharest were preserved, altho' neglected. Historic buildings like CEC, Old Museum of History, Magheru Boulevard, etc.etc. where preserved, only the unfit, and miriads of tiny ramshackled orthodox churches were buldozed(some of them displaced to other locations), the only area of Bucharest that i know of to have been healthy and being buldozed was the area that gave way to Casa Poporului and Centru Civic... but remember, Dealul Mitropoliei(HQ of Orthodox Church) was left untouched, right in the path of Unirii Blvd. and Casa Poporului. Again, URSS and US had their business and treated E Europe as assets. the Energetic and Financial Independence of Romania were far heavyer arguments for replacing Ceausescu then ethnic minorities being neglected -- Criztu 03:19, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I would certainly agree that Lipscani and the area a bit east toward the CEC were merely neglected. On the other hand, much of the historic Jewish neighborhood just west of Lipscani -- and not only that which was embraced by the Centru Civic -- was targeted. Yes, definitely Dealul Mitropoliei was spared, and in some places the juxtaposition is strange. For that matter, Antim monastery was also spared. Yes, certainly the most blatant destruction was for the Centru Civic and and Casa Poporului. Still, the contrast to other central and eastern capitals is illustrative: Prague and Budapest painstakingly restored many historic buildings; Budapest not only restored but often recontstructed historic buildings (e.g. much of Castle Hill). Ceauşescu's attitude on this clearly contrasted even to those of other communist rulers, and while I'm not sure exactly how, that has somehow got to find its way into the article. His contempt for his own capital seems to have been unique. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:23, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
well, Bucharest never had the architectural status of Prague or Budapest(capitals of Habsburg Empire)... the only historic castel in Bucharest that i know of was Vlad the Impaler's castel, a ruin. while Peles Castle in Sinaia, for example, was kept in excelent condition by communists, altho' it was King Carol's heritage. actually in Bucharest mainly slums were buldozed, for example, the northern part of Bucharest wich suffered a "systematisation" during Kingdom of Romania, was preserved intact by the communists, being to this day the most beautiful part of Bucharest. I hope you know of Arcul de Triumf area -- Criztu 10:56, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes, beats hell out of what is now growing up slightly farther north. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:21, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
The Dealul Mitropoliei was to be bulldozed. Only very strong opposition of Patriarch Teoctist spared the area. In the original plans, the hill was to be part of the new HQ of the police (you may consult the plans - contact the union of architects in Bucharest). So was the Lipscani area in 1990-1991. And one of the most beautiful areas in Bucharest wasn't to be spared - the Stefan Furtuna, Lipovei, Piata Virgiliu, Stirbei Voda, up to Cismigiu Parc was also to be bulldozed. Part of it were already done, on Stirbei Voda, from Eroilor to Virgiliu. The lipovei area, near Gara de Nord, and Gara de Nord itself was to be demolished in late 91 early 92. Lipovei street already received a red number (orders for eviction for May '90). I lived in the neighbourhood and know what I am talking about. The block next to mine was to be torn down as well and it was built in 1961. Some houses in the area still have the eviction markings on them (a red X over IAL numbers). And interbellum Bucharest DID have the status of Prague or Budapest. Do you really want interbellum pictures Criztu??? I have some, made in colour, in the '30's. Just look at the Ambasador Building on Magheru, or the Royal Palace or the beautiful building of "Palatul CFR" or the tens or hundreds of Bauhaus blocks of the 1930's and so on... User:xanthar
Stefan Furtuna, Gara de Nord area, Stirbei Voda were low density residential areas with little architectural value (certainly not one of the most beautiful areas in Bucharest), these areas would have been buldozed by a capitalist regime too - in order to upgrade them, so we can't claim it was "the evil Ceausescu intending to destroy something beautiful", but rather "a low density residential area was upgraded to a medium density residential area". YES, i want links to interbellum pictures, can you show how did the Magheru area looked like before being buldozed to make way for the Ambasador Building on Magheru, or the Royal Palace or the beautiful building of "Palatul CFR" or the tens or hundreds of Bauhaus blocks of the 1930's and so on... ? :) ... can you explain why didn't Ceausescu demolished the Ambasador Building on Magheru, or the Royal Palace or the beautiful building of "Palatul CFR" or the tens or hundreds of Bauhaus blocks of the 1930's and so on... that still stand today right where they were built in the 1930's ? Criztu 20:56, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Towards Bucharest there were two policies, one of demolishing all that could be demolished (even monuments of historical significance or architectural masterpieces) such as Văcăreşti Monastery, Sfânta Vineri Monastery, The Palace of Justice – built by Romania's foremost architect, Ion Mincu –(scheduled for demolition in early 1990 according to the systematisation papers), the other of abandoning and neglecting the buildings that could not be demolished and bring them into such a state that they would require tearing down. Even the Gara de Nord, one of the most beautiful train stations in the world, listed among The Romanian Architectural Heritage List, was scheduled to be torn down and replaced by a new one in early 1992. Either systematic neglect or outright demolition affected 70% of historic Bucharest, including areas such as Magheru-Universitate (the heart of Bucharest), Lipscani, Halelor, Domenii, St. John's Cathedral, Grivitei, and the Gara de Nord, systematization being halted only by the Revolution in 1989.

please reformulate in a NPOV way :

Towards Bucharest there were two policies - what about the other policies towards Bucharest ? the ones aiming to upgrade Bucharest by designing award winning projects like the Drumul Taberei quarter/district (inm place of a historic slum district of Bucharest, or the aim of aquiring an underground transport sistem for Bucharest, or the creation of a presumably benefic Bucuresti-Dunare channel that would have boosted the status of Bucharest, connecting it to the riveran cities of Europe ?

demolishing all that could be demolished - this sentence is pure journalism

abandoning and neglecting the buildings that could not be demolished - what do you mean by bulidings that could not be demolished ???

Even the Gara de Nord [...] was scheduled to be torn down and replaced by a new one in early 1992 - so this was scheduled to be done because Ceausescu wanted to obliterate the past, or because the railway terminal wasn't fit for the railway traffic and in itself generated further car traffic problems ? perhaps you know the problems generated by Gara de Nord still need solutions, one solution as of our days beeing the abandoning of Gara de Nord and moving the terminal at Basarab, creating a highway at Basarab in order to close the Bucharest inner circle of auto routes, and creating an underground parking in Gara de Nord area to solve the immense problems generated by the obsolete Gara de Nord station, solutions supported by Traian Basescu - elected president of Romania, former minister of Transportation. the 1989 Revolution perhaps "saved" Gara de Nord from this "scheduled for 1992 tearing down", but it also prolonged the "inferno" in which the city-dwellers from Gara de Nord area live in.

systematic neglect or outright demolition affected 70% of historic Bucharest - do you have a refference to where this percent is sustained by an advised authority ? does historic Bucharest means "buildings that should never be demolished even if there's a need for higher density zones or the buildings were simply slums" ?

please reformulate in a NPOV way, i don't support Ceausescu's megalomania, the Casa Poporului i consider it aestethically monstruous, but during his "rule" the Dambovita river was sistematizated, and now we have a relatively cute looking river instead of an ugly stinking "historic Dambovita river" Criztu 00:35, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Answer : No city begins to bulldoze if there is a need for higher density structures. Changing the landscape in a civilized environment happens gradually, as people buy -> demolish -> build. And that area is mid-density, in no way low density, and is designed to be as such. People build big in the outskirts, see Warsaw and Prague, for successful urban planning (even in the dark communist days). The Gara de Nord area was a way of dealing away with the past. Railway traffic in Bucharest is a problem, due to the "terminus" situation of Gara de Nord. But the new train station, that would have been in Orhideelor area (carrefour), would have also been a terminus (16 tracks instead of 14), not bringing substantial benefits, nor permitting the construction of a ring (the closing down of Grozavesti Road was a sign to that) - and traffic was no issue in 1989. Basescu suggests building ANOTHER station, to partially take off the load, and allow for pass-through services for Bucharest (and will probably be positioned on the outskirts of Bucharest), while maintaining the current one as a intercity station and a railway museum (that Romania needs). I agree with the idea of building dormitory neighbourhoods and suburbs (most were built not over slums, but rather over former villages or mahalale, outside the city), Drumul Taberei is the case. Some of them were particularly successful (basically the first ones built) : Drumul Taberei, Militari, 1 Mai while others (especially those later built) are terrible : Ferentari, parts of Rahova, etc. I was speaking about re-shaping the city center, and demolishing historic Bucharest, to clean it of its history, that is the area comprising the center of the city, where there are no slums (only derelict buildings due to the policy of neglect). The 70% figure is based on a study by the Union of Architects. Oh and the townships first demolished were : Otopeni, 48 hours notice, Scornicesti, 24 hours notice, half of Ciolpani, 3 days notice. There were others too, but I do not know their name. Big cities "systematised" : Targoviste (center demolished, most of the city rebuilt), Pitesti. --Xanthar 6 July 2005 04:24 (UTC)

[edit] Chronology

Was Romania the first country to do away with communism? I think it might have been, but I shouldn't be too sure of it. [[User:NazismIsntCool|Nazism isn't cool]] 12:44, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) PS: Nicolae Ceaucescu - oops, Ceausescu - was such an idiot back in his time. Was he the first Romanian to go to Hell, apart from some of his colleagues?

  • Ignoring the silly follow-on question: No, Romania was actually among the last Eastern European countries to oust its Communist regime (although Yugoslavia and, I believe, Albania were later). And of course the Soviet Union lasted another year-and-a-half. But, other than the Soviet Union, it all happened very fast, a matter of months altogether. See 1989 for chronology on the bulk of them. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:02, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Romanian Jews...

The Romanian Jews had initially helped Communism as a reaction to the anti-Semitism of Fascists.

That is an unneeded generalization. It is true that many of the leading members of the Communist Party in the 1940s and 1950s were Jews (Maurer, Pauker, Brucan, etc), but not all the Jews supported the Communists, like this phrase might suggest. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 13:16, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

As I said in the comment, I'm ok with revisiting the text, and obviously not all Jews supported Communists, just like not all Romanians supported the Iron Guard. However, there has been relatively large support for Communism among the larger Jewish communities, as far as I know. While today this might look like an anti-Semitic statement in retrospect, because we know what Communists ended up doing, at the time many Jews simply opted for the lesser evil, I don't know why this is such a big deal. --Gutza 14:20, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
I've changed this to "most", which is certainly true, but we could still use citations. I've been looking for (and so far not finding) a good book on Moses Rosen; most of what's out there is almost hagiography. A well-researched book on Rosen would probably be the key thing in terms of the situation of Jews in Communist Romania. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:03, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
Just for the record, I'm ok with the new version. If objective proof comes to light (and, with all due respect, I'm not sure if a good book on Moses Rosen can be called objective, given the intrinsic topic, but anyway), I can even be ok with "many" instead of "most" (although I strongly feel towards "most"). --Gutza 20:34, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
P.S. I'm not sure if we'll ever find a reasonable amount of truth about the good and the bad regarding Romania's Jews. They were discriminated against since just before WWII (at least), until 1989 -- and we know how good communists were at destroying evidence. Unfortunately the destroyed evidence contains both atrocious acts and good deeds, therefore neither the worst nor the best case scenario regarding Romanian Jews can be accepted. Truth is somewhere in the middle, but we'll probably never know where in the middle... --Gutza 20:41, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
From what I understood, the discrimination became more severe around the late fifties. Jewish apparatchiks were replaced, even after the purge against Moscowists like Pauker. --Error 00:38, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Jmabel has deleted my addition about the Ioanid gang. Actually, the whole "Romanian Jews" paragraph was just to allow me to link to the gang. About the reason behind the robbery (supposing there was an actual one), the Wikipedia article says:

The reason of robbery is still unknown: there were rumours that they intended to donate the money to Zionist organizations that would send Romanian Jews to Israel.

From one of the Securitate men interviewed in The Great Communist Bank Robbery, I understood that one of the hypothesis were that they wanted to pay somebody to fly away from Romania (one of them was a aeronautic engineer). Another hypothesis was that Israel had sent them to extract Romanian Jews and the money would fund such activities. It may not make a lot of sense, but the robbery itself does not make sense.

So, can we have a link to the gang somewhere in the article? --Error 00:38, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Given that this is at the level of a 42-year history of a country, and there is no other discussion of crimes (except those of the regime), and only about two paragraphs on the rather complicated situation of Romanian Jews in this period, I have to question the appropriateness of including one of the few notorious crimes committed by Jews in Romania. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:42, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
I found that the gang article lacked inlinks and this article seemed the best place. There is no discussion of crimes because, as a police state, Romania had little crime, I understand. It's probably the biggest bank robbery in a Communist country and it was made by Communist Jews, and it was reconstructed with the original authors. All that makes it noteworthy to me. The angle of "Jewish gangsters" is not very remarkable but their Jewishness is important to try to understand the reasons and the consequences.
If you want to include this bit of trivia (which may or may not be appropriate in the article, I'm neutral on that), then do convey the sense of the respective Wikipedia article, that is the Ioanid Gang allegedly committed this crime (the third paragraph in the Ioanid Gang article says "The unusual aspects and the disrespect for truth of Romanian bureaucrats has led some [...] to doubt that the robbery took place.") --Gutza 12:35, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
I added that sentence. --Error 23:58, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that even the facts are in doubt (hey, I live halfway around the world from Romania), and I still think it doesn't belong in the article, but, yes, if it's to be restored we should not be stating only one side of a controversial matter. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:28, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
From TGCBR, the son of one of the executed (whose name I forgot, but who lives now in London) checked the files of Securitate and was not convinced. I don't know how widespread is the doubt. Actually, it seems that the Romanians of today have forgotten about this. The problem is that the side from the gang is not known, so we are left with the Securitate files and speculation. --Error 23:58, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Xanthar's recent additions...

...are mostly great. I've toned down POV a little (let the facts speak for themselves) did some copy edits (probably a little more of this to do). I have one question and one remark:

  • "Life expectancy became the lowest in Europe…": lower even than Albania? I'd like to see a citation on that.
  • Just in general, this could use some citations. From everything I know, the general picture is correct, but there are a lot of specific facts here (ratios of overbuilding, specific rations of food, etc.) All of these things could use citations. -- Jmabel | Talk July 7, 2005 05:11 (UTC)

For life expectancy I've used the National Statistics Institute Report for 1989 (published May 1990), that gave 65.8 (male) and 72.4 (female) at birth. For Albania, according to http://unstats.un.org/unsd/cdbdemo/cdb_years_on_top.asp?srID=14830&crID=8&yrID=1988 (Un Statistics) the numbers were 69.6 male and 75.5 female. The closest to Romania was the Soviet Union with 65.4 and 74.6. There was no data regarding Romania on the site. After doing the math (using gender repartition given by the World Bank) Romania scored worse (69.3 vs. 70.01). Regarding infant mortality, there were no official data before July 1990. For rationing data, I've used a set of unused January 1990 ration coupons that I still have (the 1990 coupons were given in november). I tried to scan them, but, because they are red colored on light red paper, the scan gives poor results, and these coupons were only locally valid as most counties did not issue such coupons, but rather lists in shops (each person was assigned a shop), where all persons were written down, with their ID card numbes. Rations for each year was given in a governmental decree (I think they were called "Decret al Consiliului de Ministri privind Alimentatia Rationala", but I'm not sure), but were not fixed, as many counties had fixed export quotas, and imposed even stricter rations, in order to fulfill the export quota or to provide for the more profitable black market. Laws regarding electricity (searching the net) : Decret nr.310 din 11 octombrie 1988, DECRET NR. 259 DIN 3 SEPTEMBRIE 1988 (regarding how to approve new rations and transmit them down the line) DECRET nr.259 din 3 septembrie 1988, ORDIN nr.5 din 11 ianuarie 1988, regarding approving the means to implement new gas ration cards. The law regarding rationing was HOTARARE 5/2.07.1984 privind aprobarea programului de alimentatie stiintifica a populatiei, whereas DECRET NUMAR: 98 DIN 28/03/83 reglemented the ownership of typewriters (it was harder to own such a machine than it is to own a gun in most of the US - it required government checkups and approval, followed by yearly checkups by the militie). There were many others, but they're not available on the net, such as the law regarding emigration and paying back for schooling and medical assistance, in foreign currency while you were not allowed to own foreign currency - thus creating a vicious circle, and the such. --Xanthar 7 July 2005 18:35 (UTC)

I would definitely like a picture of a food queue in Ceausescu's Romania. Prefferably free and in colors, in order to add it on this page. --Xanthar 7 July 2005 21:43 (UTC)

Just to let you know that Albania's life expectancy has never been much of a problem - it's around 74 years at the moment. Romania's is also now not that bad. Russia, Ukraine, Moldova currently hold the record for the lowest life expectancy in Europe and it was probably that way during Communism too (though Russia's record on this matter did become worse after 1990). Ronline 08:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rename suggested to the "People's Republic of Romania"

Similar to how the People's Republic of Poland, Ukrainian SSR, Moldavian SSR articles are now called (rather than Communist PL, Soviet UA or Soviet MD, respectively) I suggest to rename this article accordingly to reflect the country's name rather then an informal name with a more limited use. I would like to informally suggest this idea here first before submitting it to WP:RM. Regards, --Irpen 21:16, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the name "People's Republic of Romania" only lasted until the late 1960s, when it was changed to "Socialist Republic of Romania". "Communist Romania" is encompassing both periods. bogdan | Talk 21:27, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Makes sense. Should then the article itself reflect the name change somewhere in the text? Currently it olny speaks about the creation of People's Republic. --Irpen 21:36, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Mikkalai has now moved this, against the consensus here. I am moving it back, for exactly the reason Bogdan gives above. - Jmabel | Talk 06:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Sorry, I didn't notice this talk (I even didn't know that there were two names; I took the one bolded in the intro). Since the title refers to several names, these must be prominently stated in the intro. Please add the appropriate Romanian names and dates. Also, the "intro"/summary part is unfinished (I'd also say, too detailed, but this is probably the matter of taste). mikka (t) 10:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fertility restrictions

I am a bit unsure about the neutrality of characterizing restrictions on abortion and contraception as "human rights abuses." I am not a defender of Ceauşescu and I am sure that he restricted the prior actions only with the most cynical of motivations (although, from what I have heard, the natality rate of Romanian women HAD fallen dangerously low and there was a serious possibility of impending population crisis), but from the standpoint of many anti-abortion activists, failure to prosecute one who procured an abortion would be the human rights abuse.

The bottom line: I think it is at least a matter of debate whether abortion qualifies as a legitimate "human right" and so the article's language should not blithely assume that it is. Thoughts?--TheMcManusBro 02:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I guess that it was labelled as "human rights abuses" because it was an administrative decision, without concerning about the moral part of the situation. The natality rate of Romanian women had indeed fallen, but it was because of poor economy. That was very clear because after a very high natality registered in that year and in the following one, the natality drooped back to the previous rate.MihaiC 07:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I see your point. Thank you for the input.--TheMcManusBro 01:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Iron Guard after WWII

This recent edit ("No Iron Guard ministers after WWII") makes exactly the change its summary suggests (thanks!). I know that the Iron Guard weren't yet totally out of the picture at that time, because they played a role in the 1946 elections. Does anyone know more about this? Our article Iron Guard ends with their unsuccessful January 1941 uprising and its suppression. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline

THe article needs a timeline of major events: Mihai abdication, formal pronouncement People's Republic, of Socialist Republiec, etc. mikka (t) 19:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

If someone wants to do a timeline, you can see History of New York City (near the bottom) for a good example of how to do it. - Jmabel | Talk 18:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

Justinian Marina, the new chosen Patriarch of the Romanian Orthodox Church with the help of the Communist government disbanded the Romanian Greek-Catholic Uniate Church and merged it with the Orthodox Church. sounds like the patriarch urged the communist gvt to disband the Greek-catholic church, and the comm gvt decided to comply with his wish. maybe Justinian Marina is the one to blaim for the dissolution of the Greek-catholic church in ukraine and in other areas controlled by the soviets too. Anonimu 00:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph that begins "Romania was proclaimed a communist state under the direct military and economic control of the USSR" is also rather POV. I don't necessarily disagree with what it says, but it strikes me as polemical rather than encyclopedic. - Jmabel | Talk 00:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

yes, this is my formulation, i mean by it "romania was transformed in a comunist state by USSR" and "it became de facto a state under military control of the uSSr (which kept an army on the teritory of RO) and under the economic control of USSR (through the famous sovroms, and i am not sure how they were called, economic directives from USSR by which USSR dictated like "how much steel, or grain, or wood, romania needs". It is evaluated today that those sovroms "exporting" raw materials and goods to USSR actualy were robbing ROmania, acting in the sense of "additional war compensations of romania to Ussr" . the sentence could be formulated better i agree, in that mention of Sovroms robbing romania and soviet army occupying romania should be given Criztu 07:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
If you can work out a way to rewrite this NPOV - citing for the opinions - fine. Otherwise, I think it should be removed. - Jmabel | Talk 04:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Newly added link

Someone recently added a link as Fascinating escape story from Communist Romania. I'm not sure this should be here. For starters, "fascinating"? A bit POV, no? I followed the link. It looks like the site is pretty full of copyvio pictures and is written for about a 12-year-old reading level. I'm not going to remove it unilaterally, but I am weighing in against it, and would appreciate if others would follow it up & chime in. - Jmabel | Talk 03:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poorly sourced and weasel words

I don't doubt most of the facts in this article, and most of it is well-written. But it is very poorly sourced and uses some weasel words rather than backing up its facts. Are there folks interested in a major clean-up of this article? Thankfully, there are a lot of good sources available online to back up facts on the history of Communist Romania, including in the Open Society archives of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, accessible through Central European University at http://archivum.wsNYDCSP 17:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and then we'll begin to source US history with the archives of Radio Moscow... Anonimu 19:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Before you judge the sources, I recommend you read through them. There are hundreds of background reports produced by researchers of significant events that were monitored in Romania, or from Romanian news reports in print, radio and television. These reports were produced and circulated to staff at RFE/RL for their reference about what was taking place, and in many cases they contain a treasure trove of first-hand information on who spoke at party conferences and government meetings, what key officials said in public speeches and published reports, what the official or party-controlled news agencies were saying about world events, or about neighboring countries, or fraternal socialist organizations in the Eastern bloc or the communist world. If Radio Moscow did the same, and had all of its material available in a similar open archive, then absolutely yes I would say they'd be a great resource too. (I doubt they did.) I recommend you read the material before judging it.NYDCSP 10:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mess of a paragraph

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. Also a large number of people (estimates vary from 137 [3] to tens of thousands [1]) were imprisoned for political, economical or other reasons. There were a large number of abuses, deaths and incidents of torture against a large range of people, but mainly political opponents [2].

The first sentence seems fine. I'm putting the latter part of this here inside a so you can see the markup and footnote as well: <blockquote><nowiki>Also a large number of people (estimates vary from 137 [http://www.asianresearch.org/articles/1555.html] to tens of thousands <ref>"[http://www.procesulcomunismului.com/marturii/fonduri/gcaraza/aiud/docs/cap4.htm]", in the prison of Aiud alone there were 625 political prisoners who were starved to death from 1945 to 1964 </ref>) were imprisoned for political, economical or other reasons. There were a large number of abuses, deaths and incidents of torture against a large range of people, but mainly political opponents <ref>"[http://www.procesulcomunismului.com/marturii/fonduri/mart45_64/default.asp.htm]", testimonies from 1945 to 1964</ref>.

I made one edit here myself (it used to say "hungered to death", which made no sense, and which I presume had to mean "starved to death"). But:

  • There first citation is a blind URL, the other two use cite.php (Yea!), but the citation itself is just a blind URL in quotation marks. Notes should include an indication of the language of the source document (not to mention, oh, its title and authorship).
  • There is no clear indication which different estimates come from where (not just in terms of our source, but whether they are original research by that source or they are citing someone else).
  • It is not clear whether the extensive passage inside the second citation is a quotation from that source, an abstract of the source, or what. Similar issues for the third citation.
  • "Economical" is almost certainly wrong; "imprisoned for economical reasons" would mean "imprisoned to save money". I would guess "imprisoned for economic reasons", but I can't work out what that would mean in this context. What does it mean to say that someone was imprisoned for economic, as against political, reasons?

There might even be more at issue here; this was enough that I thought I'd bring it here to point this out. - Jmabel | Talk 18:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oddly cut

The following was cut some time in the last few months: 'Seduced by Ceauşescu's "independent" foreign policy, Western leaders were slow to turn against a regime that, by the late 1970s, had become increasingly harsh, arbitrary, and capricious.' I'd say that is precisely true, and shouldn't be hard to cite for. - Jmabel | Talk 18:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Similarly, with reference to 1946, the present wording "opposition parties claimed electoral fraud" is incredibly mild. As far as I can remember, everything I've ever seen from a non-Communist source (not just opposition parties) says this was one of the most fraudulent elections in world history. Surely we can find something citable to say this. I previously had the following from the Rough Guide to Romania: "Virtually every device ever used to rig an election was put into play." I agree that the Rough Guide is a weak source here—I put this in when the article was still a very rough draft—but I would think it should be replaced by something solid to the same effect, not removed.

I'm not going to go on listing item by item, but it seems to me that between late December 2006 and late February 2007 there were a series of edits to this article most of which amount to a whitewash. I'm probably not the best one to plunge into this, but I think someone should, and I'm calling this to people's attention. - Jmabel | Talk 18:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relations with the West post-'68

I've found a good citation for most (though not all) of what the article says about good relations with the West based on independent foreign policy: Robert Bidelux and Ian Jeffries, A History of Eastern Europe: Crisis and Change, Routledge, 1998. ISBN 0-415-1611-8, p. 552:

This... courageous stand [over the invasion of Czechoslovakia]... considerably enhanced Ceausescu's domestic and international reputation in the immediate aftermath of 1968 There was also a temoporary relaxation of the censorship of books, films and plays, an upsurge in the screening of Western films and a more enduring rehabilitation of non-communist literary classics. Consequently, Ceausescu was courted not merely but China and Israel, but also by the West, which for a time mistook his nationalism for liberalism and regarded him as a useful thorn in the Soviet Union's side. All the while, however, Romania remained essentially a hard-line Stalinist regime in terms of its domestic policies and priorities.

They go on (same page) to refer to "a particularly venal, inbred and incompetent 'socialism in one family'". - Jmabel | Talk 00:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move proposal

We should move this article to Socialist Republic Romania. Most of the information about the 1945-1990 period of Eastern European countries are under the official name of their country during the period. See People's Republic of Poland, People's Republic of Hungary, Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Czechoslovak Socialist Republic. In the case of the first three, "Communist X-country" redirects to these articles, while in the case of the forth, it links nowhere. Moreover Romania never declared itself a communist country, "Communist Romania" being just a colloquial name. It's not a problem that the country used two official names. The one used longer gets priority, see the cases of Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia.Anonimu 20:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

This is debatable. One problem with the proposal is that "Socialist Republic Romania" gets only 35 Google hits, whereas "Communist Romania" gets 60,200. One can surely try all sorts of variations and get all sorts of numbers, but basically, "Socialist Republic Romania" never quite caught up, at least not outside official speeches by Nicolae Ceauşescu and such. In the West, the most common usage was still "People's Republic" for many years after the official switch: e.g., Romania +"People's Republic" will yield 2,160,000 Google hits, even more that Communist Romania (with no quotes), which yields 1,850,000. Basically, at least in the West, it was either "People's Republic of Romania" ("Romanian People's Republic", which is the ad-literam translation in the article, was much less common) up to the mid 60s, or plain "Romania" after that. "Communist Romania" seems a good way to capture all this in a short title, instantly understandable to almost anyone reading WP. I would have to analyze more carefully the relevant literature to give a more complete answer, but based just on my understanding of usage, and the above considerations, I would advise against such a switch. Turgidson 21:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
If we use Google Books (which notes usage in the scientific world, not on forums, blogs, personal pages etc), both "Socialist Republic of Romania" and "Socialist Republic of Rumania" get more results than "Communist Romania" -"pre-communist" -"precommunist" -"post-communist" -"postcommunist" and its variant using Rumania.Anonimu 22:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
That sure is interesting. In my search, "people's republic of Romania" gives 1,700 results (942 with "Rumania"), "socialist republic of Romania" gives 2,296 (955 with "Rumania"). "Communist Rumania" and "Communist Romania" (which should be considered together) give, respectively, 3,410 and 3,348. Both searches have a lot of marshy terrain between them (yes, "communist" and "Romania" gives ambiguous results, but so do the other). Dahn 00:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
You should note i eliminated 'pre(-)communist' and 'post(-)communist' from my search. Especially the latter gives a lot of false results.Anonimu 09:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, and not for any grand ideological reason, but because RPR existed for about 20 years and RSR for about 22, so the article would be inaccurate for just about half the existence of Communist Romania, whereas it now applies to the whole time period. True, RSR & RPR might be more commonly used by scholars, but the pure Google test can be useful as well because it indicates popular usage (which does matter). Finally, are you willing to fix 500+ redirects? Biruitorul 22:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
About 20, that is 17 years of RPR... about 2/3 of 24 of RSR (and not 22... it seems that idealism an maths don't match). Look at Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia... they had no problem with it. Oh, and just yesterday the same thing happened with Albania. Also "History of Communist Bulgaria" was moved to "History of the People's Republic of Bulgaria" by an user unrelated to me. [4]. We should have a kind of uniformity... and Romania is now the only one that doesn't fit the pattern.Anonimu 09:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
it seems that idealism an maths don't match : please comment on content, not users. Personal attack noted. I thought the change came 1968, because that's when the judeţe were restored. You could have pointed that out without slandering me. Regardless, the RPR lasted for 6444 days; the RSR for 8889. That's a 42-58 split. There's no need to spike the first 42% when we already have a fairly suitable title covering 100%.
What personal attack? Yet the current title is inaccurate and different from the similar articles about other Eastern European countriesAnonimu 17:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Such dissimulations fool no one; I pointed out the personal attack right above. Biruitorul 06:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. What we would have with that is two articles with insufficient context. Whatever was "different" about the People's Republic can be easily handled in one paragraph, whereas the continuity is instantly obvious. Let's spare ourselves the clutter and pointless changes in millions of articles over an artifice. Dahn 23:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't propose a split.Anonimu 09:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Wait up. If the proposed change is to move this to "Socialist Republic of Romania" (not, erm, "Socialist Republic Romania"), and not to create split articles, though I would definitely prefer "Communist Romania", I guess I couldn't possibly care that much about it - we won't get clutter, and the redirects won't need to be changed. Dahn 00:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I still prefer the status quo -- something is to be said for inertia. For one thing, "Communist Romania" can be used as such in the text, with no redirects -- who would use "Socialist Republic of Romania" with a straight face when referring to Romania at that time, except in some kind of oficialese (and perhaps some nostalgics of the good ole days)? And, as I said, if anyone in the West actually used something besides Romania/Rumania/Roumania in every day speech, it was "the People's Republic", which I think kind of caught on to some degree in the 50s, though I have no direct experience or reference for that, just circumstantial evidence from talking to various people. Finally, here is a title talk that argues for maintaining the current title. Anyone can find a talk given by an academic after, say, the year 2000, where "Socialist Republic of Romania" is used in the title, instead of "Communist Romania"? Turgidson 00:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
We have the precedents of all other East European states. Note that the current title is inaccurate( Romania never said it's communist, and, according to the Marxist criteria -cause who knows better the meaning of a word that the ones who invented it-, it never was in the modern era) and also offensive to non-pro-Soviet communists. Anonimu 09:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Not offending "non-pro-Soviet communists" isn't exactly a priority of mine, or of Wikipedia's. It was Communist in the sense that the Communist party held a monopoly on political power, which is an accepted academic definition of a communist state. Biruitorul 16:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The point remains: we have some articles only dealing with 1968-89 events, but lots deal with 1947-68 or '47-89 or different combinations (like Ceauşescu, who after all ruled the RPR for three years and the RSR for almost a further 22). Why create confusion where none exists? Let's find more productive things to do. In any case, as this is controversial, if you decide to pursue the matter, please use WP:RM. Biruitorul 04:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

RM is used usually when the page is protected or there's already an article at the proposed destination. Basically, it's a discussion, exactly what we're doing, just a bit more official.Anonimu 09:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I oppose this move. "History of communist X-country" rolls off the tongue. It's simple, concise, descriptive and at the same time general (i.e. you can use it on countries who had multiple official names during communist rule). NikoSilver 22:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Only 137 people imprisoned in Communist Romania?

The article contains the following assertion (right there, in the lead): "Also a large number of people (estimates vary from 137 [3] to tens of thousands [1]) were imprisoned for political, economical or other reasons." I view the lower estimate as patently absurd: just at the Danube-Black Sea Canal there were tens of thousands of prisoners working at hard labor at any single time in the early 1950s. How about Sighet, Piteşti, Gherla, Jilava, Aiud, etc, etc? Just 137 prisoners in all? OK, so let's look at what the quoted source [3] actually says: "The scale of executions proved quite similar in the other East European countries: 178 in Czechoslovakia between October 1948 and the end of 1952, 137 in Romania from 1945 to 1964, and 20 in Poland between 1950 and 1953." Ah, executions, not imprisonments. Even there, that's an extremely low, unrealistic figure, even if we're only talking about the number of deaths in custody -- maybe it refers only to judicial executions, by firing squad? But that's not how the vast majority of prisoners died at the Canal, at Sighet, at Piteşti, etc -- rather, through beatings, exposure, starvation, lack of medical care, etc.

At any rate, I think what we need here (or perhaps even better, in a companion article, only summarized here) is to have more careful definitions, and much more precise figures, backed by a variety of reliable sources, carefully reported and put in context. (The Black Book of Communism comes to mind, and of course, the report of the Presidential Commission for the Study of the Communist Dictatorship in Romania -- how come this is never mentioned, except as a "see also" at the bottom?). Take as an example Great Purge#Victim toll of how things can be done (and are being done) in other articles. Note that the figure of 681,692 of people shot by the NKVD during the Great Purge in the Soviet Union is matched both in the WP article and in reference [3] here -- but all agree that's just shootings. (Though, as the article notes, Robert Conquest suggests that the actual figure is 2.5 times higher, as the Soviet secret police was covering its tracks regarding the actual number of executions.) For comparison, the total number of Great Purge victims is "950,000 to 1.2 million, which includes deaths in detention and those who died shortly after being released from the Gulag as a result of their treatment in it." I'd say we should seek to emulate the standards at the Great Purge article, and show the same kind of historical accuracy here.

Finally, the next sentence in the lead reads: "There were a large number of abuses, deaths and incidents of torture against a large range of people, but mainly political opponents"[2]. Ah, I love that "but". What is it supposed to do there -- whitewash abuses, torture and death as somehow justified, because "they got what was coming to them," as counter-revolutionaries? At any rate, the source given here is just a list of 6 books at "Procesul Comunismului" -- how does that support the inescapable conclusion that that "but" conveys? Turgidson 03:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

After waiting for a few weeks, to see if anyone had better numbers to put in the article, I went ahead and edited that sentence, making it clear(er) that low-ball estimate of 137 refers to just those people executed during the Communist regime in Romania -- the total number who died in custody is orders of magnitude higher. For lack of a better estimate, I just used the one from the source already in place, who talks about "hundreds of thousands of people killed". User:Anonimu replaced that with 650, with the charming edit summary: "that's the only thing that article written by a fascist could support". I don't know where he gets that 650 number from, but I know that his edit comment is (yet another) clear violation of WP:NPA. I ask him for a retraction of the attack, and an apology for such a grievous breach of civility. Turgidson (talk) 14:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unwise move

Out of the blue, and with no preliminary discussion on this talk page, someone moved the article from Communist Romania to Socialist Republic of Romania. This is not right, since the article covers both Romanian People's Republic (Republica Populară Romînă) and the Socialist Republic of Romania (Republica Socialistă România), as has been explained and debated at length in previous discussions on this talk page. Furthermore, the article title is linked to in dozens or perhaps hundreds of pages, where SRR instead of CR would create either a huge problem with timing (if it refers to RPR), or to grammar, or to both. So I think the move should be speedily reverted. Turgidson (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)