Talk:Soviet occupation of Romania

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives
  1. 12/11/05 - 04/05/2007


Contents

[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)

May I point out that the relatad article Allied Occupation Zones in Germany is completely void of salient points. It starts from where the occupation/liberation ends. -- Petri Krohn 01:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea what the above comment means, and what does it have to do with anything. Turgidson 02:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I've re-read the article, and the pre-occupation events mentioned are there mainly as essential context, I don't see that there are two separate topics here needing to be split into separate articles. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 06:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I concur. Perhaps the time has come to revisit this article, and bring it to the next level (hopefully, without having sterile revert wars in the process)? By the way, how come the article has no rating? I'd say it's way beyond stub level, and of quite high importance among Romania-related articles. I'll put a WPRA template at the top, maybe someone wants to assess the quality and importance of the article so far. Turgidson 11:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What liberation?

I'm sorry, but what liberation are you talking about?

  • If it's about Soviet forces liberating parts of Romania from the Germans, it can only apply after the armistice convention (Sep. 12), and for direct fights between the Soviets and the Germans on Romanian soil after this date. Were there many? BTW, don't count here fights in Northern Transylvania, which was not Romanian at the time. So, I presume, no liberation.
  • Soviet propaganda (in cluding the RPR constitution) also talks about liberating the "Romanian people" from the evil bourgeois plutocrats. If this is your "liberation of Romania", then it's funny, nothing more.

Dpotop 12:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course, we can always make an article saying that the Liberation of Romania is a Soviet propaganda stunt meant to present Soviet forces as liberating their first capital of a German ally of... the Germans. :) Dpotop 12:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Indeed. As the evidence amply demonstrates, Romanians largely liberated themselves (with help from the USAF) and had no need of the Red Army.
  • Funny but also tragic, given what followed.
  • That's a good idea - it does have notability, given its use in propaganda for years, and its verifiability. Biruitorul 06:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move proposal

Would someone (Anonimu, Irpen, Petri Krohn, etc) like to actually propose a move? If not, why should the POV tag stay? I think I've called your bluff, and if there's no poll soon, I'll consider myself justified in removing the tag. Biruitorul 06:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

We don't need another pool so that you can call your lackeys here. Either the subject of this article will be limited to 1944-1947 or the title will be changed, not by voting, but with rational arguments (per meta:Polls are evil and Wikipedia is not a democracy)Anonimu 08:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Anonimu: Who exactly are you calling "lackeys"? Other editors who have actually created content for this article (and others in the vicinity), instead of slapping tags, and engaging in random reverts? I found the term both offensive and reeking of Soviet propaganda terminology. No surprise there, it's what I've come to expect. But I am waiting for an explanation of your use of words: Who exactly among the wikipedia editors who contributed to this article are you asserting are "lackeys" of another editor? Words have meaning in English, remember. Turgidson 12:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
How about a factual argument? "Rational" unfortunately means interpretation of events according to your POV. At a minimum, the Allied (Soviet) presence was a formal occupation under the armistice and while the Soviets ostensibly extended their stay to execute Allied duties (open-ended occupation continues) until their evacuation of Austria (however, the post-armistice occupation is no longer "Allied," the peace treaty only mentions continued Soviet presence).
     Your reliable academic sources which describe only the occupation under the armistice as an occupation and subsequent presence of Soviet troops as a non-occupation are?
     And please don't say you don't need to produce sources to counter our (let me get this out of the way) "cherry-picked" facts, that you only need your "rational" argument. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Given the lack of a move proposal, the copious citations adduced to support the notion that Romania was occupied through 1958, and the lack of opposing citations, the tags have been removed. Biruitorul 19:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The "Lack of opposing citation" thing is the weakest argument i've heard. Typical for nationlists. There isn't still a move proposal because some of us still hope the article will be split in a "Soviet occupation of Romania"(1944-1947) and a "Soviet military presence in Romania"(1947-1958) to reflect the realityAnonimu 19:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Please confine your comments to content, not editors - "Typical for nationlists" has nothing to do with the topic at hand. And no, I make a very persuasive case: my argument has plenty of citations; you have adduced none to the contrary, despite the fact that this debate has been going on since March 26. The split proposal is absurd, but why don't you launch a formal debate on that? I'm determined not to have us be stalemated in trench warfare for months. One way or another, I intend to force the issue.
I will leave the split tag to give you time to try and initiate a split process. I will remove the disputed tag, as the other side has manifestly failed to show reliable academic sources which describe only the occupation under the armistice as an occupation and subsequent presence of Soviet troops as a non-occupation. Biruitorul 20:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion Summary: keep the current name.

  • User:Anonimu, Cease the personal attacks immediately.
No personal attacks, sorry...Anonimu 11:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I acknowledge that the current name could have negative connotations for some parties involved.
  • However, per WP:NCON, the most usual name of the subject of the article takes precedence. A quick google shows that the title of this article is used frequently as a name for the period described in this article.
A quick google search for soviet occupation Romania "1944-1958" -site:wikipedia.org shows very few entries, and if you remove the title of the book -"Military Occupation and Diplomacy: Soviet Troops", you'll get no related result. Anonimu 11:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
You have a voluminous footnote with scholarly references about the Soviet Occupation of Romania 1944-1958 right in the main article (some of them you may find with Google Books: e.g. [1]). You have provided no scholarship for any other view, as such your tagging lacks justification. Maintaining it in such circumstances is disrupting behavior. Daizus 11:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
It's ludicrous to ask sources that deny something. And anyway just 6 of those references support occupation during "1944-1958" (5 of them written by Romanians)Anonimu 11:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Most scholarship related to History of Romania is written by Romanians. So what's the problem here?
You should know by now....Anonimu 12:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
WP:OR, WP:POINT Daizus 12:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree, your generalizaton is OR.Anonimu 12:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
WP:OR applies only if it affects the content of the articles. WP:POINT again. Daizus 13:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
If you can't provide scholarly support for any other view, then it means this view has unanimous support. Consequently the tags should be removed. Daizus 12:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Somethig wrong with your logic?Anonimu 12:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF Daizus 12:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 ?!?Anonimu 12:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • "If the common name conflicts with the official name, use the common name [..]"
  • It is awkward to call a time period (44-58) a "liberation". The specific moment that the Germans left Romania could be called a liberation.
Nobody wants that, anywayAnonimu 11:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Another quote from NCON:
“ "Bear in mind that Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. We cannot declare what a name should be, only what it is." ”

--User:Krator (t c) 22:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Krator, for your very sensible opinion. This is yet another reason for the tags to go. (And, for the record, I have never even heard of Krator before, so make of that what you will.) Biruitorul 23:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree, User:Krator made some very good comments -- this "third opinion" is very much welcome. Pity that this opinion has been made hard to read by Anonimu, who took the liberty of interspersing non-sequiturs in the middle of the tightly reasoned argument made by Krator. Could we follow from now on at least some minimal rules on these talk pages, and leave opinions such as this one intact? Thank you. I also agree with Daizus' explanations. Trouble is, they rely on basic syllogisms and Cartesian logic — and those are hard to communicate to the other side, apparently. I simply do not know what to do in such a situation. Looks like a filibuster to me. Turgidson 12:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation proposal

(Before I make these remarks, let me note there is a new article, King Michael Coup; we should decide how that fits into our scheme and whether the split is still necessary (it never was for me.))

Now that we've had a lengthy discussion and a third opinion given, the next step appears to me to be Mediation. Anonimu, if you do not stop disrupting the process, one of us will have to file such a request. Are you prepared to go that far? Biruitorul 16:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not? Note i'm not the only user wanting the title changed, so you should probably ask the others too. BTW, you should teach your servants to respect men. Imagine, they had the insolence to address me.Anonimu 17:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Anonimu: This is not the first time you use such derogatory words with respect to other editors: before, it was "lackeys", now it's "servants". (And I also noted the use of "groupie" in a similar context.) You must understand these terms are not part of civil discourse, and are offensive to other editors -- who, let me say that to you for at least the third or fourth time, actually add content to the Wikipedia, instead of just putting POV tags and engaging in repeated reverts. And I will ask you one more time: Who exactly among the editors here are you calling "servant" or "lackey"? I am waiting for an answer. Turgidson 18:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Why not? I'll tell you why not. Because such moves sap energy that is better spent doing more productive things than disputing communist aggression with avowed communists. But I'll gladly do it. And in response to your "it takes two to tango" comment: if you have something on me, bring it on! Biruitorul 19:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
You did it, so you're responsible for losing the time an energy of other editors. Cum vrei sa luptam? o.b.-uri, chiloti, sau ciorapi sa'ncercam?Anonimu 19:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not the one who's responsible for an utterly pointless 19-day debate. Biruitorul 22:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I've filed the request; you can go sign here. Biruitorul 19:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I find puzzling those flagging the page didn't even bother to sign the mediation request. That is the ultimate proof they do not search a solution, just to push a POV and disrupt others' work. Prove me wrong by signing there. Daizus 08:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Occupation denialism

I have started an article on Soviet occupation denialism, and currently list the three Baltic states as main victims of the denial. However, Romania was also once occupied by the Soviet Union. Alas, I am not sure if there are notable denialist ideas regarding that. If there is, it should probably also be covered. Digwuren 13:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I put a "see also" link in the article you mentioned to this article on the Soviet occupation of Romania. Turgidson 14:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time to remove the tags

If no-one objects, I will remove the tags concerning the inane suggestion about "Liberation" and the POV tag. Icar

Disagree. I think the idea has merit. - Francis Tyers · 14:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Disagree. -- Petri Krohn 00:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
What about King Michael Coup? What about being constructive? And producing those elusive reliable sources showing Romania was not occupied for a full 14 years? Biruitorul 03:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Those tags are silly, devoid of logic, and serve no purpose whatsoever. They've been there far too long. Time to get back to improving the article, and adding content. Turgidson 14:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I think it is is a good proposal. To split out part of this article (the part that covers the liberation) into a separate article. Leaving the main article to cover the part that covers the "occupation". - Francis Tyers · 14:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I love those scare quotes -- you took them from Reuters' style manual? In truth, the Soviet occupation of Romania was a real occupation (no need for scare quotes, you know). As for the ""liberation of Romania by the glorious Soviet Union", care to give quotations from non-Soviet (or puppet regime) propaganda sources that call it that way? This question has been raised many times on this talk page, with no satisfcatory answer given. That's why the silly tag must go. Turgidson 15:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Agree. --R O A M A T A A | msg  15:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Since when wikipedia accepts only capitalist propaganda?Anonimu 15:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, c'mon. We're talking scholarly works, by notable authors, in reputable publishing outlets. Let's cut the Comintern jargon, shall we? This is the 21st century, after all -- and Communism is on the asheap of history, where it belongs. Turgidson 16:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Just capitalist propaganda: a book by an american spy, a propaganda book against the Warsaw pact, a book by a renegade, who had to pay his american citizenship with bashing of communism, and other books published by those forts of capitalism called US universities.Anonimu 16:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm now re-reading God Emperor of Dune, and this soviet propaganda you push reminds me of the Museum Fremens. Anonimu, if you're a real Communist, how about founding propaganda into actual reality, by taking into account historical findings? For instance, Romania did not really benefit from the Soviet occupation, but formerly Communist countries did benefit from the spread of literacy. Dpotop 17:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I've actually used the literacy thing in one of my french papers on communism ;) (BTW, no Soviet occupation (1945-1947) => no communist regime (the reaction would have surely forged the elections again to prevent a communist victory)=> no widespread literacy)Anonimu 18:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I won't try to argue with Anonimu -- it's useless -- but let me take (gentle!) issue with Dpotop's statement. Not that it's factually wrong -- yes, there was an increase in literacy in countries such as Romania in the aftermath of WWII. Maybe I missed something, but let's be careful with the logic here: is the implication that such an increase would not have occcured unless the Soviet Union had imposed a Communist regime on Romania in 1944-1947? Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the elections of 1946 had not been rigged, and Romania somehow had managed to stay out of the Soviet orbit, had accepted the generous offer of the Marshall Plan, and somehow had been integrated in the structures of the European Union much before January 1, 2007. Without engaging in extravagant flights of fancy and alternate history theories, I think a reasonable case can be made that the same kind of increase in literacy rates, decrease in mortality rates, etc, would have occured naturally as a result of moving to a modern economy and a democratic system of government, without the horrors of the Canal, the Piteşti experiment, Sighet prison, Jilava, Gherla, Aiud, etc, etc. I'm almost sure that's not what was meant by that statement, but let's try to be 100% clear about it. Turgidson 19:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Can you give me one example of a country that was not developed before WWII and managed to attain a 90% literacy rate after WWII while having a capitalist regime (note I only ask for 90%, not 95 or 98)? The single third world **democratic** country I remember right now that managed to remain so and somehow develop is India. And I don't envy India, even though they made a lot of laudable progress. There's much to discuss on the democracy side, too. Dpotop 00:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Note that I don't defend the regime by negating its crimes (as Anonimu does). However, a blind anti-communist stance is as bad as Anonimu's blind anti-capitalist one. Both of them try very hard to ignore/minimize chosen historic facts. Dpotop 00:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't need to give examples of other countries. What I'm saying is that it is a logical fallacy to say that a country like Romania would have had a stagnant literacy rate after WWII were is not for the miracle of "scientific socialism", or "the liberating Soviet people", or whatever to show the light to the people. Democracy, a sound economic system, and better integration in European structures could have done pretty much the same thing, at a fraction of the human cost inherent in a totalitarian communist system, with all its camps and mass incarcerations of political prisoners and forced labor. After all, it's not rocket science to establish a 12-year mandatory school system in a reasonably well-run country, without having to run a police state. This has nothing to do with "blind anti-communism" or whatever -- it's just a matter of common sense and basic logic. Finally, I fail to see what's "much to discuss on the democracy side", especially in the context we are debating, namely, the Soviet occupation of Romania following WWII. Turgidson 06:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
keep dreaming... the brucan's 20 years are expiring and... hope tariceanu's 2040 will workAnonimu 08:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe this may have worked for czechs... but in romania... 1.5 decades after the coup, 20,000 pupils abandon school every year in bucharest only. as for the marshall plan... hey, just think of what happened this year with the money from EU. the communists won the 1946 elections anyway. the result were only slightly modified (no more than 10% percent) to force the king to name a communist prime-ministerAnonimu 20:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
The Czechs don't count here. They are the only country in Central/Eastern Europe where the Communists came to power in a legal democratic way. They can't complain about Communism being illegitimate. Dpotop 00:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I assume you're referring to pre-Prague Spring? It was pretty damn illegitimate after that. K. Lásztocska 01:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Romanian elections aren't a legal democratic way too? (ok, judging only by the pre-ww2 ones, they're not, but...)Anonimu 08:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: that people can still, in 2007, deny that the Soviet Union did indeed OCCUPY countries in the Eastern Bloc and not be immediately and roundly denounced as anyone denying the Holocaust would be, never ceases to amaze and sadden me. K. Lásztocska 21:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

There have been no arguments regarding "POV in title" or "the article should be split" above besides WP:ILIKEIT and its negative brother. Thus, the corresponding tags do not belong to the article. Repeated inclusion of meritless tag constitutes tag abuse. Digwuren 06:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The people pushing those tags have no valid argument that I can discern, and, by and large (with perhaps one exception), they have not contributed anything to the substance of the article. It's a sad spectacle to see those silly tags being slapped, just like that, for the sport of it. What is the purpose -- besides disrupting the article? Any of these people cares to explain what is the reason for their actions, and what (if anything) are they trying to achieve? Turgidson 06:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I just cannot believe that after all the pages writen, someone could just suggest that the Red Army eliberated the countries in the Eastern Bloc. It was a very clear occupation, in Romania and the Eastern Bloc. This denial stance don't bring to anything. --R O A M A T A A | msg  06:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Recently, a lot of guano has been deposited on this page (mostly by Anonimu), and like Hercules with the Augean stables, I feel it my duty to wash it away with the cleansing water of truth. Here goes:
Since when wikipedia accepts only capitalist propaganda?
Passing over the poor grammar: what's this supposed to mean? Of course material written by Romanian Communists, especially on this key event that helped install their regime, is biased - and is itself propaganda? Of course it's not a reliable source. Of course we shouldn't, except in the most sardonic of tones, refer to it as a "glorious liberation". Communism is dead. There are still Communists - one right here - but the ideology itself is dead, and we are under no obligation to feature its propaganda here. And no, the cited sources are not "capitalist propaganda", just the type of reliable sources found in similar articles.
Just capitalist propaganda: a book by an american spy, a propaganda book against the Warsaw pact, a book by a renegade, who had to pay his american citizenship with bashing of communism, and other books published by those forts of capitalism called US universities*".
Again, spouting Leninist jargon does not lend your argument any credibility. The Library of Congress does not employ spies, it employs professional researchers. The Foreign Minister of Romania is not in the business of writing propaganda, but good on him for writing an anti-Warsaw Pact book - how on earth can the WP be defended?? Could you substantiate your libel against Tismăneanu? He's quite bold for having gone against everything his misguided parents stood for, and denounced it very publicly.
I've actually used the literacy thing in one of my french papers on communism ;) (BTW, no Soviet occupation (1945-1947) => no communist regime (the reaction would have surely forged the elections again to prevent a communist victory)=> no widespread literacy)
This is rich. First: the PNŢ, PNL and PSDR were no angels, but they were decent democrats, broadly committed to the democratic, capitalist values that had served Romania quite well in the interwar. They were far and away better people than the gang of illiterate thugs who took power from them. Slandering them as "the reaction" is a sign of desperation: like a hyena picking at an elephant carcass, the Reds could only try to denigrate their enemies by throwing mud at them, but even if some mud stuck, their own lips and hands were covered in something far more damning - blood. Second: no, Communist terror is not needed to raise literacy levels, and in any case an illiterate peasantry is vastly preferable to an uprooted, starved and slaughtered one. Third: no matter how much you lie about it, the PNŢ won the 1946 elections, and the Reds won well under a majority.
Can you give me one example of a country that was not developed before WWII and managed to attain a 90% literacy rate after WWII while having a capitalist regime
You said "capitalist", not "democratic" (though some were democratic all along), so here are some guesses: South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Guyana, Costa Rica, Paraguay, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Malta, Greece, Ireland, the Philippines, Singapore, Cyprus, Indonesia, Uruguay, Argentina, Chile, Mexico, Brunei, Israel, Colombia, Venezuela.
keep dreaming... the brucan's 20 years are expiring and... hope tariceanu's 2040 will work
Whatever. I do know Romania has a 97.3% literacy rate - and most of the illiterate belong to an ethnic minority that does not place much value on education, and fails to send its children to school.
Maybe this may have worked for czechs... but in romania... 1.5 decades after the coup, 20,000 pupils abandon school every year in bucharest only. as for the marshall plan... hey, just think of what happened this year with the money from EU. the communists won the 1946 elections anyway. the result were only slightly modified (no more than 10% percent) to force the king to name a communist prime-minister
Sorry, I cannot allow you to denigrate the Revolution as a mere "coup" without commenting. Yes, a coup did happen, but so did a popular Revolution led by the Romanian people themselves, and I will do my part to ensure their sacrifice is not tarnished by your invective. Do you have any evidence of pupils abandoning schools? It's a logical fallacy to just create an impression that Marshall Aid and EU aid are linked. The fact is, had Romania said yes to Marshall, it would have been tremendously better off, like those who did accept help. No, no, and no, the Communists did not win the 1946 election; there was massive fraud and intimidation that boosted its score by at least 20% and more likely far, far more. Groza, a fellow-traveller of the Communists, had been prime minister since March 6, 1945 and would remain so until 1952, so I don't know what you're talking about, since the elections happened on November 19, 1946.
The Czechs don't count here. They are the only country in Central/Eastern Europe where the Communists came to power in a legal democratic way. They can't complain about Communism being illegitimate.
Ooh, yes they can! True, in the 1946 election, in the Czech lands, they took 40% of the vote (assuming a fair result, which can't necessarily be assumed, especially considering the Beneš Decrees and massive Red Army presence). However: a) non-Communist parties took a majority in the Czech lands, and a strong majority (69%) in the Czechoslovak parliament. b) As Communist support rapidly drained away, they took power by force. There was a coup. In no way was Czechoslovak Communist rule, 1948-1989, legitimate: it was as illegal as everywhere else.
Romanian elections aren't a legal democratic way too? (ok, judging only by the pre-ww2 ones, they're not, but...)
Not if they're blatantly falsified like in 1946. Compared to those, the pre-WWII elections were models of democratic competitiveness. 1928? 1932? Those were real elections, not '46.
*This deserves its own section as it shows how out of your depth you are in this discussion. Say what you will, but American universities are not "forts of capitalism". First, they contain many reliable historians whose work is liberally cited on Wikipedia. Do you suggest we ban US-university-generated sources here as "capitalist propaganda"? That's one idea headed nowhere fast. Second, if they are "forts of capitalism", they must be very insecure forts indeed. What, after all, is Michael Perelman doing in one? What about Fred Moseley? Harry Cleaver? Douglas Kellner? Michael Schwarz? Fredric Jameson? One could go on and on, but you get the idea. You'll meet plenty of fellow Marxists in those places. Biruitorul 03:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, as for the US-universities-as-forts-of-capitalism thing--ever heard of Noam Chomsky, for crying out loud? K. Lásztocska 03:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Next thing we'll hear is that Hollywood is full of laughing-hyena-running-dogs-of-capitalism. Are we in a time warp, or what? Turgidson 04:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, your average Hollywood heartthrob does make obscenely huge amounts of money...."laughing-hyena-running-dogs-of-capitalism" is conjuring up a very odd-looking canine monstrosity in my mind, btw...K. Lásztocska 04:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Another favorite epithet of this user is "lackey" (as in "capitalist running-dog lackey", I guess). Oh, well. Turgidson 04:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The Reaction is doing its job. Too bad it's composed mostly of fascist-admirers and has no credibility.Anonimu 05:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
You know what, comrade, none of us are fascists. I myself once even had a brief flirtation with communism (when I was fourteen years old and every bit as stupid), but quickly renounced it for obvious reasons. Incidentally, I hope you don't think you can get away with calling us all fascist-admirers, lackeys and Holocaust deniers for ever. You have been nothing but rude and disruptive for as long as I've known you and someday you'll have to either shape up or answer for it. K. Lásztocska 13:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. I think Anonimu's comment speaks for itself, so no further reply is needed. Biruitorul 22:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts

User:Petri_Krohn is engaging in a sequence of reverts, 1, 2, 3, 4, all in less than 24 hours. Isn't this a clear violation of WP:3RR? Note also that in revert #2 he accuses User:Digwuren of being a stalker; I don't know what's the reason for such an accusation, but on the face of it, it appears to be a breach of civility towards a fellow editor. Is there something that can be done about this? Turgidson 03:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It should be reported on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Digwuren 04:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Disputed"

In another context, Dahn recently made a very apposite edit summary: 'something does not become "disputed" when it is disputed by a buch of wikipedians'. Indeed: one needs reliable sources to indicate that a dispute exists. So can the obstructionist parties come up with such sources (which, you will recall, have been requested since March 26), or are they keeping up the tags merely because they don't like the word "occupation" (not in itself a valid reason for tagging)? Biruitorul 02:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That's an excellent point and I can't believe I never thought of it. To that end, I would like to invite all parties who wish to tag this article as "disputed" to kindly show us information from respectable and reliable sources to prove that there is in fact an academic, serious, off-wiki debate as to whether or not Romania was occupied. (Statements of the Communist Party or from official Soviet/Communist Romanian documents should not count, due to conflict of interest.) K. Lásztocska 02:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
There's BSE and some pre-coup romanian ones.Anonimu 05:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
When I hear BSE, I think mad cow disease, so please explain that one. And no, "pre-coup romanian" (ie Communist propaganda) sources are not to be accorded much weight, per our WP:RS policy. Biruitorul 21:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point, indeed. To get the ball rolling, here is a blurb for one of the books quoted in the article. Since the article is currently blocked from editing, let me put the whole text here:

The Red Army in Romania (Constantin Hlihor and Ioan Scurtu, ISBN 9789739839259)
This book, written by two well-known specialists in twentieth century Romanian history, is the first comprehensive study of the Red Army's occupation of Romanian territory in 1940-1941, and its occupation of the country at the end of World War II, which lasted until the withdrawal of Soviet troops from the country in 1958. Based on previously unavailable archival sources, it will be of interest not only to students of contemporary Romanian history, but also to anyone interested in the occupation policies of the Red Army and Soviet policy in Eastern Europe at the end of World War II. The authors discuss the geopolitical and historical conditions that allowed the Red Army to occupy Romania, the consequences of the occupation on the country, particularly on political life, as it directly led to the establishment of a totalitarian communist regime in Romania. An important part of the book also deals with the consequences of Red Army's stationing on Romanian territory, its impact on the evolution of social relations in the country, and the opposition of Romanian society to the Russian occupation. Much attention is paid to the economic aspects of the occupation, where a detailed account of the costs and losses to the Romanian economy as consequence of the Red Army's abuses and its illegal confiscation of Romanian goods and materials and their export to the Soviet Union is presented. The circumstances surrounding the Red Army's withdrawal from Romania in 1958 is also discussed in detail. The appendixes include translations of many relevant documents referring to the Soviet occupation of Romania, making it a valuable book for students and researchers alike.

What part of "Soviet occupation of Romania" (from 1944 to 1958) is not clear to the people insisting on those tags? Turgidson 03:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course all of us thought about what Dahn said (you need to have sources to have a disagreement). Now, there are 2 problems here:

  1. Anonimu's position is not rational, nor compliant with wikipedia rules. At some point we will have to ask for some form of arbitration or admin intervention, because we entered the realm of vandalism. Dpotop 08:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
The Arbitration committee already refused to intervene, thus acknowledging i was acting according to wkirules. ;)Anonimu 09:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Where? Dpotop 09:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
There was an arbitration case, but arbitrators (who did not review every piece of evidence with a microscope) merely decided this was a content dispute, not that you had been "acting according to wkirules". The level of disruption that obstructionist parties have created here is indeed vandal-like. Biruitorul 21:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  1. If Dahn were *completely* right, then the world would be a better place. In practice, law (including wikipedia rules) is always open to interpretation. This is why legal precedents are so important in real life. Now, Dahn *is* right in saying that you have to found your argument on reliable sources (which Anonimu does not), but the same reliable sources can usually be interpreted in many ways. Dpotop 08:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Anonimu, recall that we are not bound here by some form of truth, but by NPOV, which is the reflection of existing theories according to their perceived weight. The commie theory of the "liberation" is already presented according to its perceived weight (which is low). Dpotop 08:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Political delirium"

As an aside, here is a fragment from the editorial "Political delirium", by George Damian, Ziua, June 6, 2007:

Despite the armistice convention signed in Moscow at that time, the Soviet troops continued to take Romanian soldiers on the way hostage. The Soviet occupation didn't make Romanians happy. [...] Even the communist leaders understood the idea that "Russian troops in Romania is no guarantee for the future". In 1958, the respective leaders managed to make Hruschev withdraw the Soviet troops. [...] Minister Meleşcanu's message - "Let the Russians come!" - is hallucinating as far as history is concerned. In 2008 there will be 40 years since Russian troops last walked on Romanian territory.

Is the calculation mistake in original, or were there Russian soldiers in Romania even in 1968? Digwuren 13:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
This is a mistake, surely in 1968 there were no more Soviet troops in Romania. That was the year when the Ceausescu regime risked another Soviet invasion, for criticizing the Soviet's crushing of the Prague Spring. Icar 13:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I asked myself the same question. Apparently, Damian is thinking of 1968, and the invasion of Czechoslovakia, not 1958 (as I would, too), when making that calculation: "The Czech experience in 1968 - occupied by the "allies" in the Warsaw Treaty - was well interpreted in Bucharest. After 1968 Romania refused troop participation in the Warsaw Treaty operations and it also refused to shelter "allied" troops on its territory." Turgidson 14:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

As Karl Marx said in The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon: "Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce." Turgidson 11:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you not a bit ideologic here (as opposed to factual)? :) Dpotop 13:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
This is just my personal comment about a current event (somewhat related to the subject at hand) on a talk page -- no pretensions of being factual, or anything. While at it, let me also remind everyone the words of George Santayana: "Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them." Turgidson 14:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why is the title POV?

I mean, what sources are you using to state that title is POV? Because you need to have sources to do so. In the absence of such sources, I will refer the article to dispute resolution. Dpotop 10:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a number of people, popularly referred to as Stalinists, who unreasonably oppose any classification of Soviet occupation as "occupation", sometimes claiming to do so would be "hate speech".[2] (Take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Occupation of Latvia.) As is a usual practice of denialists, the first step towards denying an emotionally unpleasant topic is throwing around a lot of unreasonable doubt, trying to create an appearance of controversy. In Wikipedia, this is done by throwing around useless POV tags. Digwuren 11:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Good analysis, Digwuren—this is a texbook case of "Soviet occupation denialism". Turgidson 13:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW, can someone point me to the previous (failed) arbitration request? Dpotop 10:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It was delisted at [3]. Digwuren 11:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

One more time, let me address this question to those putting the "POV" tag, containing the assertion: "The neutrality of this article's title and/or subject matter is disputed... Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page." On what basis is any information in the article, or its title, or the subject matter thereof, being disputed? I don't see any rational, cogent argument on this talk page disputing either the title or the subject matter, despite the advertisement in the tag. What I see is a tag being slapped ad nauseam, with no justification whatsoever. It's a sad spectacle. Turgidson 16:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

There aren't any {{IDONTLIKEIT}} tags ... Digwuren 17:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
A similar process is currently going on at Occupation of Latvia 1940–1945. Perhaps, it's desirable to hold an WP:RFC on the topic of How disruptive is baseless adding of POV tags?. An official declaration of such as a form of vandalism might curb the practice somewhat. Digwuren 17:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] to the commie

[4] I am Russian, dude. Colchicum 13:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW, Anonimu has just broken 3RR. Colchicum 13:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
and pigs really fly —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonimu (talk • contribs) 2007-06-16T16:59:56
Technically, it takes four reverts to break 3RR. Anonimu only has made three. Digwuren 14:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Even some commies changed their tune in the 1960s, see here:

The first period of the communist regime in Romania, 1944-1958 is defined by Stefan Fisher Galati as the loss of national identity by the destruction of the "bourgeois nationalist" legacy and the diminution of Romania's national sovereignty under a virtual Soviet occupation #8. [...] The regime still based its rule on Soviet support. And the role of the Red Army in bringing communism in Romania was emphasised by the RCP leader Gheorgiu Dej as late as May 1961, when he was still referring to the "glorious freedom bringing Soviet Army" and was originally acknowledged in the 1952 Constitution #11, according to which the Romanian People's Republic had come into being "as a result of the historic victory of the Soviet Union over German fascism and of Romania's liberation by the glorious Soviet Army" #12;. The turning point of this policy is generally considered the Romanian reaction at Valev plan for division of labour within the CMEA, which designed Romania development as to focus mainly on agricultural supply for the most communist industrial countries. The famous declaration of the RCP from April the 23rd 1964, published in Scanteia, the official newspaper of the party, stated that: "There does not and cannot exist a 'parent' party and a 'son' party or 'superior' party and 'subordinate' parties...No party has, or can have, a privileged place, or can impose its line and opinions on other parties." #13

But I guess there are still some for which the clock stopped on March 5, 1953, when Uncle Joe died. Oh, well... Turgidson 18:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The "POV" tag was added again, this time by User:Petri_Krohn. Despite what the tag promises, namely "Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page", I do not see any reasoning offered by User:Petri_Krohn for his action. Isn't it fair to infer that, indeed, he has no reason for putting the tag? — Turgidson 23:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia requires that reasons for the tag are presented on the talk page. The tagger hasn't given any reasons, hence I'm removing the tag. Martintg 12:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
see the archive (and people say there's no baltic waff..)Anonimu 12:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Baltic waffles are tasty! You should try the ones available in Canada, with yummy maple syrup.
Now back to the topic at hand, you have still not presented any reasons to keep the {{POV}} tag. Digwuren 13:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I had in mind to put the arguments here again, but since i see you people have no desire to discuss and ony want to push your POV, i won't do it.Anonimu 17:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
What about your POV? Biruitorul 18:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
It's called truth ;) Anonimu 18:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, the Party's claims to holding the absolute truth of things were long ago debunked. Biruitorul 19:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
What party? I'm a supporter of a party-free political system. So your blue+yellow sophistry doesn't work with meAnonimu 19:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
1. Blue + yellow = green. Personal attack noted. 2. The Communist Party: you are an avowed Communist, are you not? Biruitorul 19:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
1.paranoia 2. Communist party != CommunismAnonimu 20:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
1. Again, more personal attacks. 2. Then how else will Communism come about, except with a vanguard party? Biruitorul 04:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

1. you have some problems man. 2. Revolution! Anonimu 06:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

1. No, and I urge you to cease your personal attacks. 2. Good luck with that. Biruitorul 22:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
1.No personal attacks (from me at least) 2. Thanks.Anonimu 22:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Reasonably interpreted, they were. as I'm sure the community will decide at some future date. Biruitorul 23:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
An aside: what is meant by "blue+yellow" sophistry? All I can think of is the flag of Bosnia-Herzegovina...K. Lásztocska 04:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Blue + yellow = green = Iron Guard (greenshirts). Biruitorul 05:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah green like in . (maybe i'm too subtle for you)Anonimu 06:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
No, you were caught in another personal attack and are now desperately backpedalling, like with "holodeni". This is neither the place for personal attacks nor for cute "subtlety", but rather for hashing out any issues there may exist with the article called "Soviet occupation of Romania". Got it? Biruitorul 22:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Let's suppose you're right (which you aren't BTW), how could you prove that?Anonimu 22:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't do so beyond any doubt, but I could do so beyond a reasonable doubt. I'll save my energy for now (having already gone through responding to your risible claims) for a later date, though. Biruitorul 23:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Ahh! The truth. You mean, this one, or this other one? For me, it's the first, but I wouldn't POV-push it. Moreover, you must understand that wikipedia does not care about the truth, whatever it may be but about reliable sources. Dpotop 19:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
No, I mean something like zis. Yeah and i guess books by spies an traitors are really reliable.Anonimu 20:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
This sounds like a time warp conversation. As I was quoting above, even the Communist Party of Romania changed its tune circa 1964, and backpedalled on calling the Soviet occupation of Romania the "liberation of Romania by the glorious Soviet Union". Only die-hard jejune admirers of Tătuca Stalin still use that agitprop phrase, with its sycophantic undertones. The point is, reputable scholars (like the ones we quote at length in the article, following established WP guidelines) refer to the "Soviet occupation of Romania". All the rest is sophistry and a smoke screen for a discredited ideology that should comfortably rest on the ash heap of history, as predicted by President Ronald Reagan in his June 8, 1982 address to the members of the British Parliament — Turgidson 21:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Point 1: Let's all calm down and enjoy our plates of Baltic waffles like a nice happy wikifamily...yummy. Can someone please pass the kisel?
Point 2: I'm about to go request that this article be protected again, since you guys seem incapable of resolving this dispute, and I don't want to see everyone wasting their energy on a pointless edit war.
Point 3: Does anyone else think Anonimu and Biru need professional help in resolving their feud? K. Lásztocska 01:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
My two cents:
1) Of course, waff was the not-so-subtle insinuation by Anonimu that any editor who doesn't share his POV is a Waffen-SS. I would hope such personal attacks against fellow editors should not be tolerated at WP, but apparently, they are.
2) What dispute? A dispute presupposes some kind of reasoned argument between two parties. As far as I can tell (please do correct me if I'm wrong), the other side has no argument, but just slaps "POV" tags, with depressing monotonicity, and with not even an attempt at an argument on the talk page. Also, the only improvements to the article come from editors who agree with the preponderance of scholarly literature (which recognizes that Soviet troops occupied Romania from 1944 to 1958), and add content accordingly. The other side has very little to contribute, for there are no works they can cite to the contrary, just stale Communist propaganda, circa 1952. But if they can find something that's backed by the literature, go ahead, let's see what they got. If not, perhaps it's better to let the article develop in peace and quiet?
3) As a start, maybe someone can break the news to Anonimu that Communism mercifully rests on the asheap of history? Maybe we can all get back to being more productive editors if we settle on that simple observation, and just move on? Turgidson 03:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. (I know what he meant by "waff", btw, just thought the Baltic-waffle joke was funny.) K. Lásztocska 03:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

welcome back.Anonimu 06:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I did miss this sort of trench warfare....incidentally, either don't make stupid comments that can easily be interpreted as personal attacks, or be man enough to at least admit to insulting someone. Oh, and get that ridiculous cartoon off your userpage please. K. Lásztocska 18:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
it's not my fault some editors (maybe unintentionally, but most probably consciously) misunderstand my words. why?Anonimu 18:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
No, but you could at least make an effort to say less rude/controversial/potentially offensive things...it's just common courtesy. K. Lásztocska 19:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Every word i say can be potentially offensive if people assume bad faith. Anonimu 19:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, c'mon, Anonimu, stop impugning the motives of other editors. When you slap one of your usual "POV" tags, with the summary, "defending the truth against the baltic waffen", what's left to interpretation? Even assuming all the good faith in the world, tell me how the editors who were at the receiving end of your personal attack are supposed to view it, except for what it was, clear as day? (And, by the way, I (pronoun) is written in English as I, not i.) — Turgidson 23:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think we shouldn't care much about this tag. It is as devalued as it is abused. The more these guys add it all over Wikipedia, the less it means. As of now, it means more or less nothing. Colchicum 09:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

True, but it does needlessly deface the article. Biruitorul 22:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm forced to make the observation that there's nothing "wrong" with being a Waffen SS... they were organized (illegally conscripted) throughout Eastern Europe to fight against the Red Army, after the Nazis had already inflicted the Holocaust. The only thing the Waffen SS units were "guilty" of was fighting was the Soviets. And the Latvian Waffen SS, at least, wore the Latvian flag under their uniforms, hoping--ultimately in vain--for the time they might be able to free their homeland from both Nazis and the Red Army, both of whom they despised. (This information has been cited in similar past discussions.) —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anonimu's latest tagging

The last comment I seem to see in talk is something along the lines of "Yeah and i guess books by spies an traitors are really reliable. Anonimu". And books by a government (Soviet) that explicitly declared the purpose of history is to serve politics are more reliable? Tagging an article as "POV title" with a comment that is less than informative is nothing but vandalism. You think the title should be changed? Present your reputable sources and discuss. POV tagging with NO SOURCES is not positive editorial behavior. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Imposing a POV title by making a synthese of a limited number of sources and quotes taken out of context is against wiki policies. (per WP:SYNTH)Anonimu 19:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that Anonimu requested full page protection immediately after reintroducing the tag, and claiming "full scale revert war" (which he himself had initiated) as the basis for the protection. Funnily, his protection request specifically states there's "no discussion on talk page", yet his tag says "see the relevant discussion on the talk page". If that's not gaming the system, what is? Digwuren 19:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I rechecked the history, and it's Petri Krohn, not Anonimu, as I erroneously stated above, who started this particular war. Digwuren 16:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Yet another thread of Anonimu bashing (as evident from the title). It's clear you want to hide the fact that the article title violates one of wiki's three main policies by starting another campaign against me. As a note, i made the request after an edit by a suspected sock of User:Bonaparte, who eventually got banned.Anonimu 19:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Reputable sources confirm the appropriateness of the title, there is no "synthesis." Can you specify a specific source you disagree with, why, and what reputable source you have that indicates otherwise? I'm not bashing you, I'm discussing your latest tagging which has led to a sequence of events requiring complete edit protection of the article. That is a significant enough event to merit its own subtitle, which only reflects your action which began this sequence of events. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Right — "POV tagging with NO SOURCES is not positive editorial behavior". But, as everyone knows, this is Anonimu's standard modus operandi — an M.O. which is allowed to continue ad infinitum. At any rate, as has been pointed out ad nauseam on this talk page, the vast majority of reliable sources (just look them up in the article) refer to the Soviet occupation of Romania, an event that indisputably occured. Does anyone seriously dispute the fact that Soviet troops occupied Romania starting in 1944 and were stationed there up to 1958? If so, let's see even a single reliable source that denies this historical fact. If no such source can be adduced, the whole silly charade with the "POV title" tag should cease once and for all. Turgidson 02:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
While is an undisputed fact that Romania was under an allied occupation between 1944 and 1947 (soviet army being just the insrument), it's just a pov original synthesis of reliable sources to unclude the 1947-1958 period under "occupation". We don't speak about the continual presence of US troops in Germany since ww2 as an occupation. You may keep the current title (or better name it Allied occupation of Romania), but stop at 1947, according to the international law, or split the article, and create a new one about the soviet troops in Romania (I think other east european countries have such articles).Anonimu 13:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Since the article cannot be edited now (thanks to Anonimu's intervention), let me adduce one more title here: Alexandre Cretzianu and Romulus Boila, Captive Rumania; A Decade Of Soviet Rule, Praeger, New York, 1956, xvi+424pp OCLC 1868458. The book can be accessed here, and is reviewed by Andrew Gyorgy, American Slavic and East European Review, Vol. 17, No. 2 (Apr., 1958), pp. 249-250 doi:10.2307/3004180. Is there any doubt about what the title of this book refers to? Turgidson 03:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Another example of OR.Anonimu 13:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Your comparison of U.S. presence in Europe under NATO and Soviet presence in Romania is WP:OR. Romania was specifically under Soviet occupation (the occupation agreement having terms specifically between the Soviets and Romanians, not "Allies" and Romanians). Reliable sources confirm the characterization of subsequent Soviet troop presence in Romania after the war as occupation. Again, your reliable sources in opposition? What you contend we speak of or don't speak of is your WP:OR. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Nop. It was the same: allied troops on a the territory of a former axis country (just that Allied administration lasted longer in Germany), and then presence of a military block troops on the territory of it member (incidentally or not, Germany joined NATO i the same year Romania joined the Warsaw pact). What occupation agreement between the soviet Union and Romania? Do you have knowledge of such documents? Then why did you keep quiet all this time? We could have ended the discussion months ago if you brought that document. The current refs are synthetized in a tendentious OR manner.Anonimu 14:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
By the way, since you're so fond of quoting Dahn of late, I'm sure he won't mind my repeating something he wrote on my talk page: "the way in which Anonimu cited me is tendentious. One of the prerequisites of my 'dissertation' was that there is at least another reputable source saying and explaining that it was not — while in the [Ceauşescu] article one will easily find jurists arguing that the [trial] wasn't a legal mess (not very convincing, imho), I have yet to find one single material outside of the biased ones saying that the occupation was not an occupation (just ones not bothering to call it anything, for reasons that cannot be and should not be inferred)." That's quite right. In order to justify that absurd tag, you need to bring reliable sources -- ie, not Communist propaganda -- demonstrating scholarly disagreement on whether Romania was occupied by the USSR from 1944 to 1958. The clock has been ticking since March 26... Biruitorul 22:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The other part of the message was equally relevant, but you didn't copied it here, or even linked to it... A lot of sources speaking about the events use "presence" or synonims. Of course, thye don't say "Romania was not occupied", because no official ever claimed so (as opposed to the occupation of Baltics, or the trial of Ceausescu). So this is actually an unexistent dispute, "occupation" being just a term used by particularly anti-russian or anti-communist authors adopted by users with similar views here. As Khruschev put it: "imperialist circles, in order to serve their anti-Soviet propaganda and to slander the Romanian People's Republic, make large use of the fact that Soviet troops are still stationed on your country's territory"Anonimu 20:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
No, it was not equally relevant, but if you want to copy whatever you were referring to, go ahead. I don't care what terms others use. We need a single title, and given the term is common enough, that will do for a title, unless you want to produce contrary reliable citations. Citing Khrushchev will not bolster your case, and neither will claims of Russophobia or anti-Communism (anyway, any sane person would be anti-Communist, for as Whitaker Chambers wrote: "I see in Communism the focus of the concentrated evil of our time.") Please stop trying to impose this demented ideology on a scholarly project by invoking some of its most evil practitioners in your defence. Biruitorul 23:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Merely incantating the acronym "OR" doesn't cut the mustard, Anonimu. I note that you still have not brought up a single reliable source that denies Romania was occupied by Soviet troops between 1944 and 1958. I, on the other hand, have in my hand the book by Sergiu Verona, "Military Occupation and Diplomacy: Soviet Troops in Romania, 1944-1958", Duke University Press, Durham, NC, 1992, ISBN 0822311712, which I used as a source for a sizable portion of the article. You can jump up and down all day long saying OR! POV! OR! POV! Facts are facts, and they trump such tendentious interpretations. Turgidson 18:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
It's OR, because all those quotes have an ambiguous formulations and synthetized (uneuphemistically: manipulated) in an original way to impose a certain POV. You want me to show you a source saying: "Romania was not occupied between 1944 and 1958"? We both know that's impossible to find. Real historians write about thing that happened, only fiction writers find the need to emphasize that something didn't happen. I proposed a compromise, that would be in line with international law and with WP:NPOV, but it seems you only want to impose a certain pov supported by an original synthesis of reputable or not so reputable sources. BTW, could you copy the first sentence of the third pharagraph on page 148 of that book. I'm sure Mr. Verona won't mind. It's a pretty short sentence.Anonimu 20:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
What's "original research" in quoting well-established scholars talking about the Soviet military occupation in the very title of their work, published by a prestigious academic press such as Duke University Press? What's to manipulate or synthesize or whatnot when something clearly occured, and that's what the title of the article says? This conversation is getting to be surrealistic. Maybe we should talk about how many angels can dance on the point of a needle, instead? Sounds more real than denying that the Soviet Army stayed on in Romania till 1958. As for that paragraph from Verona's book, you can transcribe it as well -- it can be found on Google books. But essentially it says the Communist regime in Romania got tougher in 1958, just after the Soviet troops withdrew -- eg, it imposed the death penalty for Romanians who had contacts with "foreigners". Aahhh, le charme discret du communisme. OK, so how does this affect the title of this article, one way or the other? Turgidson 22:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The title is usually the least reliable part of a book/article etc. Content doesn't alwats reflect the title (I suppose you know the story behind "Enigma Otiliei"). So no, a title is not reliable source, and it's original research to use the title (which is actually ambiguos, and someone could very well understand that a period of the presence was occupation, while another was due to diplomacy) without knowing the exact content of the book. So you don't actually have the book in your hand, you just have a small portion (about half of it) which is available on google books. Probably Biru should cite here the relevant part of Dahn's message to him.20:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

     Let's see if I have Anonimu's logic right. We all "know" there are no sources contrary to the position that Romania was occupied for the period specified (1944-1958). That is because every historian who has written on this topic saying the Soviet presence in Romania was an occupation from 1944-1958 is a liar (a less euphemistic way of describing "fiction writer"). The only problem is, if they are all liars, then it should be simple to produce reputable sources/evidence to the contrary—not impossible.
     When all is said and done, Anonimu's position is simply this: "I can't prove it's a lie, therefore it's a lie." —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
P.S. If you read the agreements, they specified "Allies (Soviets)" meaning the U.S.S.R. specifically as opposed to simply "Allies" meaning all of them. And as I already mentioned quite some time ago..."(however, the post-armistice occupation is no longer "Allied," the peace treaty only mentions continued Soviet presence)".

[edit] end this "debate."

Unless someone can produce ANY respectable source which claims that Romania was NOT occupied by the Soviet Union, this "debate" can rightly be considered a non-issue. As it stands right now, it appears to be "all published sources, common parlance, and nearly everyone taking part in this "dispute", vs. Anonimu." Please, Anonimu, enough with the pointless edit warring and try doing something that might bring the end in sight: finding a source to back up your claims! K. Lásztocska 12:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you bring a source that says belgium did not occupy Mongolia? The lack of source explicitely denying this make it less untrue? No. Nope, it's actually "an original tendentious synthesis of published material, common parlance of K. & friends, and a lot of anti-Russian baltics" vs. "fighters against western propaganda". I already proposed two reasonable NPOV soltions in line with soem of the sources already present, but they were both refused.Anonimu 14:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Your Belgium-Mongolia example is ridiculous and a complete non-sequitur. The point is, once again: all published sources we have found refer to the Soviet presence in Romania as an "occupation." You, on the other hand, do not call it an occupation, for whatever political reasons of your own. You have produced no evidence to support your claims and have evaded all our questions and challenges. You're going to have to do better than than if you want to be taken any more seriously than a common troll. K. Lásztocska 16:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The current title is clearly the result of confirmation bias. I only want a NPOV title in accord with international law, that doesn't overemphasize one POV (even the "virtual" weasel in one of the citation shows that the "occupation" is only a POV).Anonimu 16:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but unfortunately what you consider "POV" is actually a historical fact. Just out of curiosity, what title would you prefer? K. Lásztocska 16:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
A fact not supported by any official document (as opposed to the case of the Baltics where, even if politicaly motivated, such documents exist) and even contradicted by international treaties. I already proposed two solution before some user's vile attacks.Anonimu 16:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
We're arguing with you, we're not attacking you! Grow a thicker skin already and stop taking criticism of your political opinions as attacks against your very being! K. Lásztocska 16:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall! Dahn 02:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I doubt he reads wikipedia, but good luck. ;)Anonimu 14:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a Monty Python sketch! Digwuren 13:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
OMG I love that sketch! :) The part at the end where the policeman walks in and arrests them all under provision of the Strange Sketch Act is definitely one of my favorite Python moments. :) K. Lásztocska 17:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that even is needed. If they are sources that declare Soviets occupied Romania(which as far as I can see is correct description), then having a source denying this is only going to be worhty of a sentence or two, explaining that opposite view alongside reasons for it.--Molobo 14:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

     BTW, regarding Anonimu's suggestion some time ago of "Soviet military 'presence' in Romania (1947-1958)" there is the problem of 160,000 Romanians deported to the Soviet Union over the period of 1945/52. The deportations of Romanians, non-repatriation of Romanian POWs, the illegal buildup of the Romanian army (by the Soviets), institution of military training for Romanian school-children, etc. are all still areas requiring coverage in the article.
     I should note that while that (deportations, military buildup, militarization of school-children) certainly sounds like an occupation to me (personally), it's not about what I or anyone else thinks, it's about what reputable sources say. My opinions and interpretations, no matter how well-grounded (or not)--and everyone else's--are WP:OR. If there are no reputable sources in opposition to "occupation", there is no debate. Since no one has produced such opposition sources, there is no debate. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 05:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
What? You mean the deportation of German ethnics tacitly aproved by the Western Allies? That happened before 1947. The POW's? Most of them returned before 1947. The ones who didn't were actually Bessarabians who returned to their soviet homes. What buildup? If you mean the western offensive, it was initiated by the forces who prepared the 1947 coup. What military training for school children? If you mean teens in military high schools, they still have military preparation even 17s year after the fall of the communist regimes. There's no debate indeed, because the story of "soviet occupation 1947-1989" was adopted only by a minority of historians, anti-russian nationalists and anti-communist propagandists. The OR synthesis of cherry picked sources doesn't make the current title a valid one.Anonimu 14:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The debate is about wheather the Soviets liberated (the Allied view) or occupied (the Nazi view) Romania. As long as this article covers the liberation of Romania, calling it "occupation" is not only POV, but seen by many as Nazi hate speech. -- Petri Krohn 09:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Yada, yada, yada. Same old, same old, Petri Krohn. How about trying a different tack, once in a while? The "it's all a Vast Right-Wing Nazi Conspiracy" shtick is getting kind of tired. Turgidson 10:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Petri, YET AGAIN, then it is up to you to produce a reputable source, and not Soviet era "tales" of history--as we have Soviet authorities stating history serves politics and there is a long documented record of rewriting history to serve the latest whim of Soviet leadership. There is a "debate" only if you produce credible sources. "Seen by many as Nazi hate speech?" Please show scholarly sources. Russia's official position that the Soviet Union didn't occupy anyone is always noted (anywhere in the Baltic and Eastern European articles). People are free to choose to believe Soviet historiography, just as they are free to believe the Earth is flat or the moon is made of cheese; some choose to continue to believe the Soviet accounting of history. That too can be/is noted. That does not constitute "debate." Your contention that calling the Soviet Union (a despotic power which is dead) to proper account for its actions is Nazi hate speech is not editorial debate, it is, frankly, completely unsourced, and a quite vile contention which denies the subjugation of 100,000,000 Eastern Europeans for half a century. YET AGAIN, perhaps someday you will share with us the basis for this personal opinion of yours, given the quality of your other contributions to Wikipedia. I tire of you bringing up the Nazi argument every time you find fresh meat, sorry, new moderator/mediator. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Common sense

For those who do not know it, my position is that it does not matter how one decides to call this, since all that is negative or positive about the Soviet presence does not need to be read in the title, and can be referenced from reliable sources. At one point, I proposed that we use "military presence" or something, so that we get to move on and actually get this article somewhere.

Nevertheless, the discussions on this page convince me that the "no occupation" side relies on nothing but personal POV, sophistry, and ridiculously outdated sources. Reasons have been given in favor of "occupation", no reason has been given in favor of dropping it other than some arguments concocted by users on wiki.

There is another issue I want to bring up. Not only are the sources using the term many, they are also diverse, and, most certain of all, only a minuscule number of them are Nazi (and, if any, those who are count only for the editors interested in a reductio ad Hitlerum). From the references you have at the moment, we see it used by leftist liberals such as Mircea Răceanu and possibly right-leaning researchers such as Dragoş Zamfirescu. To them, one could add the final report of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Communist Dictatorship in Romania (here, p.20; the section rendered there also quotes historian Stephen Fischer-Galati), essayists and civil society activists such as the politologist Alina Mungiu-Pippidi (in András Bozóki, Intellectuals and Politics in Central Europe, p.76) and Victor Frunză (Istoria stalinismului în România, passim), the historian and National Liberal politician Adrian Cioroianu (Pe umerii lui Marx, p.325-326) and, unless I'm mistaken, the Marxist historian Ghiţă Ionescu. I have not been able to find out if Vladimir Tismăneanu, a formerly Marxist historian and sociologist (who is also a vocal critic of any form of far right) makes use of the actual term, but he writes at length about politicial and military control exercised by the Soviets. And I could go on, but do I need to? Dahn 18:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, we can only have a meaningful discussion (and hopefully come to a conclusion!) once the other side actually presents a coherent case. Since that hasn't happened yet, the only "reason" for changing the title at this point is essentially that certain people don't like it. That is no reason and nothing we can even have a serious discussion about. K. Lásztocska 18:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Verifiability doesn't override neutralityAnonimu 18:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Quite true. Now can you please actually back up your position with something neutral and verifiable so we can stop going around in these stupid circles? K. Lásztocska 18:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Both my solutions were neutral, supported by some of the present sources and an uncountable number of other equally reliable sources (even more, if we consider the Basescu-Volodea report reliable). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonimu (talk • contribs) 19:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Aide from that, and neutrality refers to there being two versions of the events, both taken from outside wikipedia (two equally respectable versions, one would have to add, but you are still to find and reference a real second voice). Dahn 19:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree there are reliable sources that consider the prolonged Soviet military presence in Romania an occupation. That is however not the issue here. My objection is, that the Red Army entered Romania as liberators, not as occupiers, as the article and its title now suggests. -- Petri Krohn 03:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they entered as liberators, the same way as they did in Hungary. But then, also like in Hungary, they never really got around to leaving. Thus the liberators became the new occupiers. K. Lásztocska 03:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, no. There was no German occupation in Romania, and no puppet regime. Soviets entered Romania while fighting the Romanian army and the Romanian government. Like in Germany. After 1/4 of Romania was thus conquered, Romania changed sides. But the Soviets did not acknowledged the side change, and continued to treat Romanians as enemies until most of the territory (including Bucharest) was fully occupied. During this period they took huge numbers of POWs. So, the Soviets did occupy Romania. The only question is: how long did the occupation last. And here, Western and Romanian scholarship agree in saying it lasted until the retreat of the Red Army. Dpotop 06:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
It's funny: On one side, Soviets say they "liberated" Romania. OTOH, it is today accepted that Romania has an independent responsibility in the Holocaust. But the two are contradictory: If Romania was liberated from the Germans, then it's the Germans that were in charge. :):) Anonimu and Petri Krohn, are you hidden Holocaust deniers? :):):) Dpotop 06:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
There are even western sources that talk about German occupation of Romania during ww2. A original synthesis similar to the one in the present article could be created. Consider that the Time magazine considered Romania a german depency already in 1939.Anonimu 09:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
1. Please, indent your posts correctly. Dpotop 09:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
2. As usual, you are mixing (war-time) propaganda with scholarship. Given that 50 years have passed, we can assume scholarship is less biased. Moreover, from an NPOV viewpoint, we are interested in current oppinions, not outdated ones. Because the NPOV is bound to change in time. And wikipedia is interested in the current POV, especially when reputable resources are largely available. Dpotop 09:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I could bring you a book published in the west in 2001 that talks about German occupation of Romania in 1940. And NPOV doesn't change in time; the facts are the same, only their politicized interpretation changes. wikipedia policies require a neutral presentation of facts, with the different interpretations rightly attributed. The current title is just another political interpretation, thus it must change. And BTW, it's a fallacy to say that an opinion expressed today is less biased than one expressed some years ago. Bias is not a time function.Anonimu 10:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
If you can bring it to me, then you can give me its author(s), title, and maybe ISBN. Then, I can search it myself. Dpotop 12:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Petri, if the Romanians had already expelled the Nazis, as I recall, exactly what and who was being liberated? What freedoms, documented in reputable sources, did the Red Army restore to the Romanians that they had lost under the Nazis, to substantiate the description "liberation"? Once again, the existence of a debate or dispute must be supported by genuine differences in interpretation of the same set of facts as documented in reputable scholarly sources. If you simply object based on your personal credos, that is, for an encyclopedic article, immaterial, just as my personal beliefs are immaterial. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. As I showed somewhere months ago using period reports (I can dig them out if anyone wishes): Romania changed sides on August 23. The Soviets did not enter for at least another week. Even if we consider the Antonescu government to have been a German puppet (debatable), that government was dead and buried by August 30. Thus, I ask, from whom were the Soviets liberating Romania(ns)? Biruitorul 22:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of reliable sources, here is what Dennis Deletant, Professor of Romanian Studies at University College London says in "New Evidence on Romania and the Warsaw Pact, 1955-1989", e-dossier no. 6 in the Cold War International History Project Series published by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars:

Soviet military occupation in September 1944 brought Romania firmly within the orbit of the USSR and provided the underpinning for the imposition of Communist rule there. Under the terms of the Peace Treaty of February 1947 between Romania and the Allies, the right was recognized of the Soviet Union 'to keep on Romanian 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'.[4] That justification for the continued presence of Soviet troops on Romanian soil was removed by the conclusion of the Austrian peace treaty on 15 May 1955; Austria undertook not to join any military alliance, nor to permit the establishment by any foreign power of bases on her territory. The Soviet Union, in return, committed herself to the evacuation of her zone of occupation by 31 December 1955.
However, the presence of Soviet troops in Romania - and Hungary - buttressed the Communist parties there against any internal challenge to their rule. It was therefore in the Soviet Union's interest to find another mechanism for 'legalizing' a Soviet military presence in these two countries. The creation of the Warsaw Pact in May 1955 provided that mechanism. As a riposte to the establishment of the Western European Union in October 1954, the Soviet Union convened a meeting of its satellites in Warsaw on 11 May and four days later the Warsaw Treaty was signed. Under article 5 a unified command of the armed forces of the member states was created and the Soviet Marshal Koniev was appointed commander-in-chief. The Warsaw Treaty thus provided a legal framework for the continued presence of Soviet troops in Romania and Hungary.

There is more to it, but let me stop here. Sounds pretty clear-cut to me. Is there a dispute as to what Deletant says? Turgidson 12:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Pretty clear. It doesn't support the present title however. BTW, i find his claim about Soviet troops "buttressing commies against intrenal challenge to their rule" a bit strange, considering the post 1958 developments.Anonimu 12:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Did you read the passage? It speaks of "military occupation"! And no, his claims are not strange. Of course Soviet troops helped suppress internal opposition during that period. Once they left, the PCR was obliged to change course and seek an alternate basis of power centered around "national communism" - the seeds of which were actually planted during 1956, not long before the Soviets left.
By the way, what new title would you like? And why don't you propose a WP:RM? Biruitorul 14:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
This happens when instead of reading other's proposals you attack them.Anonimu 14:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but where was the "attack" in any of that exchange? Your tactic of (oft-baselessly) accusing your antagonists of personal attacks every time you run out of thing to say to support your side of the argument is wearing very thin. K. Lásztocska 15:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Navbox

{{editprotected}} I have prepared the navbox of {{Soviet occupation}} but am unable to attach it to the article as it is protected. Please add the navbox to this article. Digwuren 16:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Note:The current title and its relation to the scope of the article is disputed. The box Digwuren propose would only add a supplementary POV. The discussion is already progressing very hard, so please think for a moment before taking a decision.Anonimu 16:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Very sensible proposal, Digwuren. By the way, I note we're missing a "Soviet occupation of Hungary" article, which we certainly should have, at least in stub form for now. Biruitorul 16:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

We also lack, to my surprise, Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia. However, the Czech Republic has a very nice website ([5]) with detailed overview, which I used in preparing Soviet occupation, and plan to further use in developing Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia. Digwuren 16:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I have created stubs of both Soviet occupation of Hungary and Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia and updated the template accordingly. Digwuren 16:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Excellent. Thank you, and I look forward to further expansion, to which I too may contribute. It's very important for us to expose the important role the presence of these occupying forces had on political developments in those long-suffering countries. Biruitorul 17:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be unanimous support for this edit. Please resolve the dispute and ask for the page to be unprotected at WP:RFPP, rather than requesting admins to edit the page while it's protected. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal views versus referenced reliable sources

Since I reference this talk page, I have cross-posted the following from "Occupations of Latvia" talk (similarly protected with contents under "dispute"), link here:

...besides asking him in more than one Eastern European discussion, I Emailed Petri (quite some time ago) asking him the basis of his charges of Nazism, hate speech, Holocaust denial,... more than most I certainly understand that the personal experiences of family and friends influences one's view of the world—experiences which may not be not congruous with general historical realities. If Latvians have wronged him in any way, I most sincerely apologize—and certainly don't insult him. Everyone would like to hold their own personal views sacrosanct. But this is an encyclopedia, a compendium of verified information based on prior existing reputable scholarly sources, not a compendium of everyone's personal views equally presented as valid encyclopedic accountings on topics and issues.
     But here, one side brings no reputable sources at all, none whatsoever. Take for example this classic (recent) comment on another Eastern European page: "You want me to show you a source saying: 'Romania was not occupied between 1944 and 1958'? We both know that's impossible to find. Real historians write about thing that happened, only fiction writers find the need to emphasize that something didn't happen."[6] On Transnistria, I debated over sources with an editor eventually banned for sockpuppetry and, by all accounts, being a paid mouthpiece for the regime currently in power there. His POV was blatant. But as long as he produced sources, I could debate him on the validity of his interpretations (quoting obscure sources out of context and drawing unsupported conclusions was his specialty). I have yet to be given the luxury—no, the right as an editor—to debate or discuss a source brought forward by the opposition here [Occupations of Latvia].
     The conflict here [Occupations of Latvia] and elsewhere in Wikipedia regarding Soviet power in the Baltics and Eastern Europe is demonstrably not about achieving a consensus on a balanced portrayal of information from reputable sources. It is about attaining a specific goal, in this case, renaming the article in order to scrub the words "occupation" and "invasion" from the Wiki-headlines (titles) where it comes to relating factual accountings of acts of the former Soviet Union. It is a place where personal quests for truth in the portrayal of the past are denounced as inflammatory, see Grafikm_fr's accusations against me [7] and my response [8]. And here, thankfully, an uninvolved editor makes a point of defending my edits, countering Irpen's charges against my editorialship (contending who am I to make powerful conclusions based on "simply ridiculous" assertions).
     An encyclopedia must be based on reputable, verifiable sources. Titles should reflect the topic of their article, not be renamed or inappropriately morphed into something else in order to bury historical truths. Wikipedia does not exist to serve and defend the fictional aspects of Soviet legacy—of which there are many—against Baltic and Eastern European barbarians[9] at the Wiki-gate. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
       ...The age of unsourced WP:IDONTLIKEIT being indulged to run rampant attacking reputable sources and editors who have taken on the mantle to verifiably and objectively debunk Soviet fiction must come to an end. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

End of cross-posting. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 13:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Update of weblink requested

{{editprotected}} To any Administrator: please, update the weblink of reference #1 to this new current address of the quoted article: http://www.curierulnational.ro/Specializat/2004-08-07/“Dictatura+a+luat+sfarsit+si+cu+ea+inceteaza+toate+asupririle” Thank you! Lil' mouse 17:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 16:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I was wrong

Some historians feel the need to emphasize that something never happened: "However, the Soviets, who had not occupied Romania at the end of the war, also apparently threatened direct intervention on several occasions", page 218 in Antony Best &Co 's International History of the Twentieth Century, ISBN 0415207401, published at Routledge in 2004. I must renounce my infallibility this time, but hey, errare humanum est.Anonimu 23:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Ooh boy. Here we go again...K. Lásztocska 00:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

First, we can do without the mock humility/gotcha antics, since it's way too early to claim victory in this battle. Second, the claim is, to be sure, interesting, and it does fit my requirement for a reliable source. However, this proves nothing definitive. Many conflicts or episodes in history are known by various names; it is our policy to use the most common name. Thus, while we can have a sentence saying "Eastern Bloc sources generally disavow the notion that an occupation took place, as does at least one Western work[1]", that alone is not cause to move the article. (Similar examples, by the way, are the American Revolution, generally called the American War of Independence in Britain, and the American Civil War, sometimes called the War of Northern Aggression in the American South. We use neither of those titles.) However, I have e-mailed one of the co-authors for a clarification, so maybe we'll gain more insight into this. Biruitorul 02:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This does raise an interesting issue though--what do we do when equally reliable sources directly contradict each other? K. Lásztocska 04:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
If there's an even more reliable source, we use that, and point out the contradiction, as appropriate under WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. If not, we declare that the issue is unclear, and report on both. 泥紅蓮凸凹箱 04:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
If you have equally reliable sources on a matter, then you have to present both with due weight. More precisely, if 99% of western historians call the presence of the Soviets "occupation", and 1% "not occupation", then 99% of the article (including the title) is "occupation" and 1% (the explanation line proposed by Biruitorul, I think) says "not occupation". Dpotop 08:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
If you had agreed to my NPOV proposal some time ago, now the article could be developed. And it's actually: some guys (generally post-coup romanians & american spies) who call it occupation, some guys(communists and hardline antifascists) who call it liberation, some guys (one cited until now) who need to emphasize that there was no occupation, and the rest who neutrally call it "presence", or don't call it anything at all. Anonimu 10:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Nope, it's occupation. As for your "hardline antifascists", I fail to see who they are. Maybe the same Western Communist Party leaders that were praising Stalin after WWII? Still, Stalin is still a bloody dictator here on wikipedia, whether you like it or not. It's a historical fact, well represented in the current reliable sources. The same in our case: 99% of reliable sources call it an occupation. Of course you will find some Communist crackpots and "original thinkers" that form the remaining 1%, but it's OK. After all, to follow your "antifascist" line of thinking, you still have negationist writers, but the mainstream is non-negationist. Dpotop 12:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
They are the guys who know that everything is preferable to a fascist romania. who cares about stalin? he didn't force the romanian gvt to join the axis. For 99%, you would have to prove that every source that talks about the period calls it "occupation". And we both know that most don't use that word. The negationists here are the ones who call it occupation, thus denying the legality of the presence of Soviet troops. International law is clear enough.Anonimu 12:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Off topic

If you'll pardon me a brief side-comment...Stalin was responsible for the intense suffering and death of approximately a hundred million people in the gulags, in the Holodomor, and at the hands of his political assassins, and his reign of terror did untold damage to Soviet civil and cultural life, strangling the many peoples of the Soviet Union in an iron grip the effects of which they are still feeling. So please forgive me that I recoil at the phrase "who cares about Stalin." The hundred million ghosts of Kolyma certainly do. K. Lásztocska 12:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
why do you always have to write off-topic comments? it's just a question, btw.Anonimu 13:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
It's just the way my twisted mind works. K. Lásztocska 13:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
To KL: Not just you. :) Dpotop 15:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
To Anonimu: I do understand you being a Communist. But I do not understand you not acknowledging the crimes of Stalinism. There are 2 aspects here:
  • I understand you resenting anti-Communist propaganda that mixes Stalinism and Communism, and I never pretended that Communism as a whole is bad, but
  • My feeling is that there is no relation whatsoever between the generous ideas of Communism lauded by many and many of the aspects of the Soviet society, especially in its Stalinist flavor, and especially in what concerns sattelite countries and former elites.
So: I think there's no cause for you to defend here. If you really care about your ideology, do not hide crimes under the carpet like a cat, but present the positive aspects of Communism: social mobility, literacy, etc. There's also something good to be written about Dej and Ceausescu. I see you writing nothing on these (I did, some time ago), so I presume you are just a nay-sayer, not a Communist. Dpotop 15:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The nonexistence of an occupation is a matter of international law, not of ideology, albeit nationalists (fascist and ceasca-nationalist included) and capitalist (spies & pigs) try to make it look like one.Anonimu 15:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anonimu's source is in error

I have confirmed with one of the authors that the paragraph:

(page 218/The First Cold War)
In contrast to Bulgaria, the Romanian communists had an extremely weak organization at the end of the war; by most accounts its membership was under 1,000 in August 1944. As a result, the Communist Party of Romania worked slowly to increase its standing with the help of growing Soviet influence. The latter was in part a result of Soviet demands for reparations, which allowed the USSR virtual control over Romania's shipping and its oil and timber industries. However, the Soviets, who had not occupied Romania at the end of the war, also apparently threatened direct intervention on several occasions and by doing so empowered their Romanian allies to enact land reform that amounted to virtual nationalization in 1945-46. Meanwhile, the civil service was purged and non-Communist party leaders were gaoled. The final outcome was thus clear well before King Michael abdicated in late 1947.

in Anonimu's source is, in fact, in error with regards to Romania. The author has responded, and I quote:

Thank you very much for your note and pointing out the problem in chapter 9.
Rest assured that the mistake regarding Romania has been rectified in the new
edition of the textbook which will appear next year.

It's not about POV. It's not a contest about votes in sources regarding POV. It's about resolving discrepancies in sources constructively. I considered the possibilities:

  1. based on legal post-war occupation by the Soviets (treaty, not POV), the source is in error stating no occupation after the war
  2. Anonimu misinterpreted the source
  3. Anonimu misrepresented the source

On the assumption of good faith, I retrieved the entire text dealing with the topic -- in this case, the single paragraph above. That confirmed that Anonimu correctly represented his source. Based on historical facts, I contacted one of the authors, who confirmed the error and that it will be corrected. I'm not going to hold myself up as a shining example of how Wikipedia contributes to academia, but I will make the point that there's a right way to resolve discrepancies (get to the root cause) and a wrong way (it's not wrong, finally, I found a vote supporting my POV).
   We should stick to discussing sources, not unsourced POVs, more often. PētersV 19:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said in another place, you should ask the editor who replied to you to send an e-mail to wikipedia's OTRS explaining that.Anonimu 19:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Or you could just assume good faith and trust Pēters, admit that there really are no reliable sources upholding your POV, and move on. Would that be too difficult? Biruitorul 21:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Even if I assuume good faith, i'll have to distrust a reliable source, and that would be against wiki's referencing system. If he is truthful, I don't see the problem.Anonimu 21:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, you know errare humanum est, even at the most reputable and reliable sources. For example, newspapers such as The New York Times publish corrections on a regular basis. In this case, it seems pretty clear to me, looking at the context, that "who had not occupied" was meant as "who had occupied" — I mean, let's get real, 99.9% this is just a simple typo. Look at it this way: they will fix the little typo which messes up the meaning of the sentence, thanks to dilligent work by you and Pēters, and that's that. Why not just get the kudos for finding the obvious incongruity in that text, congratulate Pēters on a job well done reporting it to the publisher, and move on, like Biru recommends? Turgidson 21:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to ignore one of wikipedia's procedures. BTW, where's "the further development of this article" you were so eager to carry out?Anonimu 21:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
See WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_bureaucracy, WP:AGF and WP:IAR. Biruitorul 22:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I already intruded once on a university professor who was gracious enough to even respond. It is, I'm sad to say, a rarity to even receive a response to such Emails, even rarer to not wait weeks. He (professor Hanhimäki) acknowledged the error, indicated it will be corrected in the next release, and thanked me for my time and interest. OTRS is completely NOT for resolving errors in sources, I looked. All that resolution requires is good faith.
   We have a response from an extraordinarily busy university professor--who has dedicated his life to educating people who are interested in learning. I have an answer. I am not contacting him again as a favor to Anonimu, who has proven he is not interested in learning, only in pushing his unsourced unsupported POV.
   Finally to Anonimu: If you were an editor with integrity, you would have welcomed that I did NOT accuse you of willful misrepresentation of a source (assuming it could not be in error and referred to occupation in some other context). If you were an editor with integrity, you would have graciously observed that you were back to no sources--of course, that you were contending something without sources in the first place already rather makes a statement regarding editorial integrity. If you were an editor with integrity, you would not request me to jump through inappropriate hoops and to impose needlessly upon a professor who has better things to do than to dance to your music. If you were an editor with integrity who was the subject of a RfC and had any desire to turn over a new leaf, you have had plenty of opportunities to take the high road. You have ignored every opportunity.
   If I'm being "truthful" there should be "no problem?" I am not here to dance to your music or to your innuendo. If you are accusing me of lying, please state so clearly and we can continue at your RfC. Otherwise, we are done. PētersV 00:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact is I can't trust an anonymous user (even if your username is your real name, you're still practically anonymous) over a written book. It's not about good or bad faith, is about our stance towards written sources. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proofs, and your claim isn't an ordinary one. We have two options: either ask that editor to send a message to wiki, or wait for the new edition of the book. See you next year.Anonimu 10:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Three phases of post-WWII relationships between Romania and the Soviet Union

Please read my compromise proposal here. --Richard 07:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

I was randomly asking people about Romanian history. And I fell on one interesting topic. One person said that during the war Romania "transferred some national treasures to Russia for safekeeping" during the war. Now Romania is asking those treasures back, but Russia doesn't comply. Can anyone clarify the claim. What's it all about? Thank you. Suva Чего? 08:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That was 30 year before the subject of this article.Anonimu 10:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Suva. Do you have more information on that statement? I'm not sure if Anonimu meant that was WWI. PētersV 01:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, the Romanian government shipped the Pietroasele treasure to Russia during World War I, never to see it back (except for a few pieces). Why, oh why? Turgidson 02:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
There is more on the history on this treasure-grab at Romanian Treasure (by the way, shouldn't these two pages be merged?) Turgidson 02:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Official position of the Romanian presidency: The Soviets occupied Romania from 1944 to 1958

The official position of the Romanian government may be of interest here, given that such an oppinion exists.

It is clearly stated in the report of the Presidential Commission for the Study of the Communist Dictatorship in Romania. This document has been adopted by the Romanian parliament, so it represents the official position of Romania. You can find it here (in Romanian only).

The clear position, repeated at many places in the text, is that the Soviet troops were an occupation army from 1944 to 1958. Dpotop 12:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

See why the above claim is false at Talk:Soviet_occupations#Official_position_of_the_Romanian_president:_The_Soviets_occupied_Romania_from_1944_to_1958.Anonimu 13:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
No, you are wrong. The main ideas stand. It's just not the Government, but the Presidency, which is better, because international representation is mostly a Presidency task. Dpotop 13:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Anonimu, what is the falsehood here?
  • commission is not official?
  • the report did not describe the period as occupation?
  • the "findings" are not official?
  • the findings were not adopted by the Romanian parliament?
Aside from your lack of clarity about where you have a problem (the link does not help), your contention that a statement by a president (based on a 685 page report) is not official is not good faith editorial choice. Should you ever make a valid point it will be lost because of these sorts of empty time-wasting contentions. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 21:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
So why is this page still blocked from editing? Because of non sequiturs such as the one above, by Anonimu? Is there any logical reason for stopping the further development of this article? Turgidson 13:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I didn't realize it was still protected. The rationale probably is that as soon as protection is lifted, the mass edit-warring will restart immediately, especially given that no "consensus" has been reached on the talk page (I know, it's everybody else against one or two diehard communists with no reliable sources, but that's all it takes to start a huge edit war.) K. Lásztocska 15:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

According to the recent Digwuren arbitration decision, all warring editing in Eastern European topics will be frowned upon. I suggest that all "contentions" come reputably sourced and represent their source faithfully--and we move forward. PētersV 02:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Amen to that. To start with, who exactly objects to this article being further edited, and why? If there is a reasoned objection, let's hear it; if not, I'd say let's move on. Turgidson 02:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to unprotect the article. Aside from the general injunction against edit warring, I would advise that, on this specific topic, you write that the President of Romania considered the Soviets to be an occupation force until 1958. If anyone can find a reliable source that says otherwise, I recommend that you add that also (NB: also, not instead). If edit warring resumes, protection may not be the only sanction that follows. --Richard 03:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A-class review

This article has been put on A-class review on the Military history WikiProject. For the sake of the article and process, any editors involved in past conflicts, are kindly asked to maintain their calm and think twice before making edits which could become disruptive. Thanks and best regards, Eurocopter tigre 18:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Didn't notice later edit on watchlist

To Turgidson, it does seem we're still on the current version, whew. PētersV 00:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty amazing. At any rate, I took advantage of a lull, and tried to address some of the points raised in the A-class review; still ways to go. Also, a new bit developed — I found this article by David R. Stone on "The 1945 Ethridge Mission to Bulgaria and Romania and the Origins of the Cold War in the Balkans", which gives quite a bit of detail on the beginnings of SoR, as viewed by a newspaperman on a diplomatic mission to the region at the time. I put a couple of things in here -- either or both could be developed (and more from that article could be added). They are:
  • The pro-monarchy demonstration from Nov. 8, 1945 (on St. Michael's Day), which ended up with troops firing on civilians, and dozens killed or wounded. This is a pretty well-known event that I've meant to write about before. At any rate, it turns out that the Soviet troops actually put a stop to the bloodbath (Stone refers for this and other details to some contemporaneous New York Times articles, plus some US diplomatic cables, etc). Whaddayaknow... (I think the story merits developing, I may start an article on it at some point...)
  • A (brief) comparison between the Soviet occupation of Romania and that of Bulgaria. Right now this is a mere stub, but perhaps one could develop this angle, and add related stuff about the Soviet occupation of Hungary (this was also asked for at the review, and of course it's something is really needed here), and who knows, about other Eastern Bloc countries, to put things in better perspective. (This depends, at least in part, on how the Soviet occupations article develops.)
That's it for now. Any feedback (in addition to the one from the review, which was quite useful, I think), would be welcome. (I started writing this before the latest edits to this page, I don't know what happened, I got disconnected.) Turgidson 02:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Militarization of Romania

The countdown of Soviet forces is only one half of the equation. The other is the militarization of Romania's population, including first an obligatory paramilitary sport organization for all youth, leading to eventual compulsory training and instruction for all 10-14 year olds. PētersV 01:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry about that "anonymous" edit, that was me. I signed in but something went awry. PētersV 01:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to structure that. By the way, there is also the matter of the Romanian anti-communist resistance movement, which lasted till the early 60s. This was basically an internal affair, and was put down by Romanian troops (mainly from the Securitate). I just don't know what role (if any) the Soviet troops played in this, though of course the armament the Romanian troops were using was by and large of Soviet origin. (Actually, this angle also needs to be clarified.)
The most important from a strategic point of view, though, was the intense exploitation by the Soviets of the uranimum ore mines, in Bihor County, from where the material was shipped directly to Sillamäe for processing. This angle is explored in the article on SovRoms, but it needs to be expanded upon here, too. I'll do that. Turgidson 02:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deportations

Where do we put figures of... 420,000 deported in 1941 160,000 deported in 1945-1952 180,000 prisoners of war unrepatriated from the Soviet Union? Seems a large omission... PētersV 02:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

There is something about that in Deportation of Romanians in the Soviet Union, Romanian POW in the Soviet Union, and Flight and expulsion of Germans from Romania during and after World War II. But all this information (though a good start), could be analyzed more in-depth, and also be better organized and linked together... Turgidson 03:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latest deletion of sources

To Anonimu's about "not supporting to 1958 as in the lead": the lead says some say through 1958 and title does not say "-1958" so all sources re: occupation are valid. Please stop deleting 100% valid references. If the source inside says not occupation despite the title, perhaps it meant "so-called occupation", please cite specific contents, otherwise stop deleting. —PētersV (talk 16:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, those source don't call that period an occupation (the 1944-1958 is the only option presented in the lead!). You may put the somewhere else, but the fact is that they don't support the text they're supposed to source. So they're 100% not valid and i'll undo such a misrepresentation that goes against the word and spirit of wikipedia (it's quite strange how you changed your views about fair presentation of sources in just a week)Anonimu 16:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm always glad to discuss sources. Let's take this reference which you deleted:
"Soviet occupation forces in Romania [allowed for] unlimited interference in Romanian political life." Verona, p. 31."
And, what source is that from? It's from "Military Occupation and Diplomacy: Soviet Troops in Romania, 1944-1958". Just as in your not technically violating 3RR (because your reverts spanned more than 24 hours), you argue technically in your favor to delete a source which it turns out is quite explicit about 1944-1958. However, since the title of the book does not appear following the quote from the book (hence, the term "1944-1958" does not appear), you therefore simply delete the reference.
   A more constructive editorial contribution would be to suggest that the title of the source cited be included as well, since it supports 1944-1958 period. Instead, you delete the reference, just as you delete the Soviet occupation template along with it. PētersV 21:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
P.S. If you had left the Soviet occupation template and just deleted a source which you discussed/confirmed before-hand as nowhere in it contending that 1944-1958 was a period of occupation, I could give your contention of seeking to improve WP's credibility the benefit of the "assume good faith" doubt. But you deleted a number of references (including the example above). Moreover, you deleted the Soviet occupation template even though plenty of occupation references remained after your deletion.
   Therefore, I do not believe you are now pitching in to improve the article as an olive branch to the same editors you have taunted over lack of progress on the article. PētersV 21:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of those taunts, the article is slowly expanding, and hopefully getting better in the process. The latest addition is based on the following source (about as official as it gets), which says:

A peace treaty, signed in Paris on February 10, 1947, confirmed the Soviet annexation of Bessarabia and northern Bukovina, but restored the part of northern Transylvania granted to Hungary in 1940 by Hitler. The treaty also required massive war reparations by Romania to the Soviet Union, whose occupying forces left in 1958.

I hope this will help clear up things a bit -- if they were not crystal clear a long time ago to just about everyone. -- Turgidson (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Being an official comment of a gvt doesn't make it accurate, on the contrary...-- Anonimu (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
So, then when the Soviet ambassador to Romania announced in Bucharest in 1958 that the Soviet army was finally leaving, then his official government comment is to be viewed with skepticism as well? Really, Anonimu, don't you tire of denouncing sources only on your personal say-so? I for one am no longer indulging your endless requests for references supporting editorial viewpoints opposing yours as you never accept those references anyway.
There's a huge difference between a statement of an action and a comment, but you seem to keep oversimplifying things just to manipulate.Anonimu (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
   Come to think of it, it's a rather odd way of going about supporting your editorial viewpoint, having your editorial opposition dig up more and more references in their favor (as you are never satisfied). PētersV (talk) 00:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
You should actually thank me then.Anonimu (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Oversimplifying to manipulate--Perhaps you mistake me for someone pushing a personal agenda.
Like you aren't...Anonimu (talk) 12:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Nope. Consider that there are so many sources saying occupation because (besides the treaty explicitly making it an occupation), Soviets in Romania really was an occupation. Whereas you make excuses for why reputable scholars don't produce sources supporting your personal POV. BTW, I see you haven't responded on the RfA, I thought you would be more eager as your edit comment deleting the notice on your user talk page was "yupie". PētersV (talk) 05:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The Treaty says Romania was under occupation until 1947, thus the sources who say it lasted until 1958 lie. How should I call your support for misrepresentation of half of the sources then? As for the RfA, I answered all charges in my RfC.. i'm not going to defend myself against any personal beef those editors may have against me. Also, it's funny to note that all mentioned this is not related to my political opinion... in romanian we have a saying : "a se simţi cu musca pe căciulă". You may ask Turgidson to translate it, because i have no idea how to do it without losing the meaning.Anonimu (talk) 09:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Not the place to debate content. But briefly, the (post-war) treaty was written so that the Soviets could stay as long as they needed to support their activities in Austria, so that already puts us at 1955. There are really only 3 years in alleged dispute, to 1958, at which point even the Soviets made a show of their finally leaving. This has all been discussed. At least you confirm your personal POV that all sources that say occupation to 1958 "lie" (your word, no need for my "oversimplification" of your contentions). PētersV (talk) 13:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry occupation was only until 1947. After that it was a treaty-stipulated presence, with no influence on the internal life of the country, and after 1955 was just the presence of the troop of a military block on the territory of one of its members, similar to the presence of NATO troops in Western Europe in that period, and in Eastern Europe today. No occupation after 1947, so, according to international law, those sources don't tell the truth or don't have the property of their terms. So either they lie, or they use tropes unacceptable in neutral historical research. As for your comment on the RfA, i didn't say i won't participate, just that i'll add my comments only if an ArbCom member wants a clarification of my position or one of my replies on the RfC. I see no other reasons to contribute to that discussion, since i'm not guilty of any chargesAnonimu (talk) 20:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanking you--Alas, if only the editorial time and effort spent here had gone into Wikipedia articles. PētersV (talk) 04:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
That's lame. You must assume your choices.Anonimu (talk) 12:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
No, it's true. Users such as Anonimu who basically spend their time at WP disrupting the productive efforts of editors such as PētersV are simply a drain on their time and energy. As such, they do not contribute at all to the development of WP — to the contrary, they hinder it. Just a thought. Turgidson (talk) 13:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
If contributing to its development means putting words in the sources' mouths like you do, I preffer not to.Anonimu (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
One more time: refrain from spreading lies. Your statement just above is a clear violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Turgidson (talk) 13:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Truth hurts, isn't it?Anonimu (talk) 14:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Why so much erasing of sources?Cezarika f. (talk) 13:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] re: "Sorry occupation was only until 1947. After that..."

About (above): Sorry occupation was only until 1947. After that it was a treaty-stipulated presence, with no influence on the internal life of the country, and after 1955 was just the presence of the troop of a military block on the territory of one of its members, similar to the presence of NATO troops in Western Europe in that period, and in Eastern Europe today. No occupation after 1947, so, according to international law, those sources don't tell the truth or don't have the property of their terms. So either they lie, or they use tropes unacceptable in neutral historical research. ... Anonimu (talk) 20:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Anonimu, perhaps if you gathered your thoughts and your position you could conduct constructive dialog. (You'd have to do something about the name-calling too, but we'll leave that for RfC/RfAr.)
   For your position to be tenable (supporting sources aside), it requires the Soviets observed both letter and spirit of the law. Unfortunately, your contentions of a "treaty-stipulated [Soviet] presence [after 1947], with no influence on the internal life of the country" and that post-1955 Soviet troops in Warsaw Pact countries is "similar" [meaning functionally and influence wise] to NATO forces in Western Europe do not stand up to scrutiny in reputable sources--which are what an article requires.


   You can certainly indicate what the ideal world should have been regarding Soviet conduct--that is reporting what is contained in documents. That does not mean the ideal world is what actually took place, that is your WP:SYNTH based on a piece of paper. Again, bring reputable supporting sources and their conclusions to the table, not your personal contentions. (Elsewhere I noticed your contention in an edit summary that an annexation can't last 50 years. Sorry, quite possible.)

There were some revolts of the kulaks in the late 40s and early 50s but Soviet troops did not interevene. There were some agitation between the student in 1956, but they didn't intervene. If they were really occupying the country, they should have protected their rule, but they didn't even if some of the kulak revolts had an openly anti-russian, i.e. anti-soviet (because romanian peasants were indoctrinated until 1944 that soviets=russians) nature. How did they intervene in Romania's internal life then? This + international law => inexistent occupation. Anonimu (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

As for your participation/non-participation going forward in dispute resolution, I only indicated what I read. PētersV (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite strange that until now you wildly paraphrased me, but in that moment you decided to take my statement overrestrictively.Anonimu (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
No, you (Anonimu) confirmed my earlier "oversimplification" (sources "lie") and have been backing off ever since making that blanket statement, also allowing for incompetence and for paid propagandists. As for the RfAr, I am scrupulous in representing your statement at its word, complete with diffs to insure that it's not me just saying you said something, and now that's a problem?
The problem are your double standards.Anonimu (talk) 18:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
   I'm sorry, but you might consider saying what you mean (personally, I think you do, and then wind up having to backtrack, but not my place to make that judgement) or at least consider not saying something that you don't want quoted later. PētersV (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
everytime I meant what i said... maybe sometime i didn't fully explain my position because i thought every adult with common sense would understand it without a problem... i never think at the ones who'll twist my words for their personal gain.18:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. It would be helpful if you made up your mind. When I said you said you don't need sources and that sources lie, you indicated I was misrepresenting through oversimplification. Then you did, in fact, say sources lie. Now that I repeated your contention that sources lie, you say sources lie or at least use questionable methods. Consider sticking to once source at a time, bringing your own reputable sources in support or opposition, and refraining from blanket statements. PētersV (talk) 01:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Half of the sources don't call 1947-1958 an occupation, so you're misrepresenting them. The others lie (they were paid to do it) or don't know what they're talking about.Anonimu (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Let me quote from what Anonimu said somewhere above:
"Sorry occupation was only until 1947. After that it was a treaty-stipulated presence, with no influence on the internal life of the country, and after 1955 was just the presence of the troop of a military block on the territory of one of its members, similar to the presence of NATO troops in Western Europe in that period, and in Eastern Europe today."
Hmmm... Really? Here is a passage from the article:
One of these companies was Sovromcuarţ, which started operating in 1950 at the mine in Băiţa in Bihor County, under a name which was meant to hide its main activity. The workforce initially consisted of 15,000 political prisoners; after most of them died of radiation poisoning, they were replaced by local villagers, who did not know what they were mining. In secrecy, Romania delivered 17,288 tons of uranium ore to the Soviet Union between 1952 and 1960, which was used, at least partly, in the Soviet atomic bomb project. Uranium mining continued until 1961. All ore was shipped outside Romania for processing, initially to Sillamäe in Estonia; the uranium concentrate was then used exclusively by the Soviet Union.
By the way, the bit I just added about political prisoners being used for labor in the uranium mines (with most dying as a result) comes from Khrushchev's memoirs. At any rate, how does this gibe with Anonimu's assertion that the Soviets had "no influence on the internal life of the country" after 1947? Tell it to those poor souls who died of radiation poisoning. Turgidson (talk) 02:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
If the Romanian government wanted to put former exploiters in some uranium mines, is prewar Romania's problem. The fact that the uranium was sold to the SU it's logical: it couldn't use that uranium herself (the first commercial nuclear reactors were opened in the west only in the late 50s) and it couldn't sell it to imperialists. Also there were no soviet troops in Romania in 1958-1960, so this makes your contention even more invalid.Anonimu (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
It's not my "contention," it's what a reliable source says. And it says explicitly this was done "initially" (just after the mines were opened in 1950), not in 1960, so that puts it right smack in the middle of the Soviet occupation -- let's not bring in red herrings in this. As for justifying forced labor and radiation poisoning of thousands of people on account of them being "former exploiters" — well, I'll let you live with that kind of mentality, it's not something I wish to comment on, it speaks for itself. Turgidson (talk) 16:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
When you find a resource you exploit it, and if this means to sell it to your ally, you do it (especially if you're a mainly agricultural country and you don't have any prospect of using that resource on the middle term). Your contention is a as valid as the claim that Romania began to comercially exploit oil because of the implication in its internal life of its Ottoman suzerain.Anonimu (talk) 17:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

To Anonimu's: "If the Romanian government wanted to put former exploiters in some uranium mines, is prewar Romania's problem." That is, of course, the Romanian government existing at the behest of the Soviets. I thank Anonimu for confirming that his purpose here is to wreak some sort of Wiki-vengeance on inter-war Romania as "exploiters" whom he has in his mind convicted and is here to impose his personal Wiki-sentence. Ah, perhaps it's another one of my alleged oversimplifications.

Nop it was the gvt appointed by the parliament elected by the Romania's working people. I have no other purpose than to present historical truths in a neutral way. And no, that not an oversimplification, but an outright personal attack.Anonimu (talk) 18:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

As for "Half of the sources don't call 1947-1958 an occupation, so you're misrepresenting them. The others lie (they were paid to do it) or don't know what they're talking about." I think the article is quite clear that 1947-1958 is the period the Soviet occupation forces remained in the country. Again, if you contend sources lie or are simply the products of paid or inept shills, please bring your reputable sources which indicate something to the contrary.
   If I denounce Soviet propaganda as the product of paid shills, I need to bring reputable sources to the table to back my contentions. The same applies to you (Anonimu) if you're contending you're denouncing what you consider to be Romanian propaganda. PētersV (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Nop it says that period was a period of occupation. There are numerous sources: the Peace Treaty with Romania, Raceanu's verdict and Tismaneanu's payslip (which it's not publicly available, but its existence is not denied by anybody).Anonimu (talk) 18:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I didn't mean denouncing Soviet propaganda here, I meant elsewhere (for example, the Baltics)--that is if I'm saying something isn't true, I need reputable sources. Whether it's my opinion or not that something is propaganda or (to cite your example) that something is undocumented common knowledge, is completely immaterial.
   As far as "double standard" I don't always come out on the "nationalist" side when sticking to sources. I certainly think the article can be improved and clarified, but that's not possible when editors come along simply deleting material. PētersV (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but The peace treaty is freely available on the internet. The fact that it didn't explicitly say "occupation stops when the Allied Comission disolves" doesn't mean that this isn't the meaning (everyone with a grasp of international law would have understood exactly that). So you accept that you search for the nationalist side, your contributions being affected by selection bias. Sorry, if those sources would have been presented fairly, I wouldn't have deleted them... Anonimu (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, then if confirm you have no other issue with the references, I suggest the following with regard to the first sentence, at least as a temporary fix:

The Soviet occupation of Romania [split/insert references stating occupation here] refers to the period from August 1944 to August 1958 [split/insert references specifically supporting 1958 date here], during which the Soviet Union maintained a significant military presence in Romania.

Seems a easier than deleting otherwise acceptable references. PētersV (talk) 22:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like an eminently reasonable compromise to me. Maybe Anonimu will chose to do something constructive for a change, instead of disrupting the article, and deleting valid references, as he's been doing consistently for almost a year now? Turgidson (talk) 22:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I neither disrupted the article, nor deleted references that were presented fairly. Moreover, i had proposed numerous compromises, but nobody replyed to them, prefering to revert or just ignore my arguments. If that's not bad faith, then nothing is.Anonimu (talk) 23:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
This doesn't mean that the ref who say 1947-1958 aren't wrong, just that it's wronger to join them with the ones who fairly present the facts, and then say that they support that lie. Your solution is definitely not a good one, since it presents the opinion of only half the sources, while attributing it to all of them. (i.e. the reader won't know that the good sources refer to a diferent period).

We should have something along the lines:

"SOoR refers to the period at the end of ww2 when romania was under formal allied (de facto soviet) administration. [here go the good reefs]. Some authors use the term to refer also to the presence of Soviet troops on Romania's territory after the Allied comission dissolved, until August 1958 [here go the refs that lie/use metaphors]."
I know the prose sounds like crap at the moment, but it's quite late in EET (cause i do live in Romania) and I had a busy day (as every proletarian). Tommorow I'll make it more readable, if you accept. Or you could even propose a similar one yourself.Anonimu (talk) 22:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speaking of deletions

Among others, again, "Soviet occupation forces in Romania [allowed for] unlimited interference in Romanian political life." Verona (Military Occupation and Diplomacy: Soviet Troops in Romania, 1944-1958), p. 31. -- Deleted yet again. Let's take this as an example. Please explain how this source is misrepresented.

The quote says nothing about the period 1947-1958 being an ocupation, while the title is too ambiguos to be used as a ref (i.e. it doesn't explicitely say the occupation ended in 1958, it can very well imply that the presence of Soviet troops was a combination of Occupation (1944-1947) and Diplomacy (1947-1958)).Anonimu (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


   Your contention that "The fact that it didn't explicitly say "occupation stops when the Allied Comission disolves" doesn't mean that this isn't the meaning (everyone with a grasp of international law would have understood exactly that)." is again, your WP:SYNTH that occupation ended punctually when it was supposed to on paper. I grasp that completely.

The post occupation status of the Soviet troops on Romanian soil was provided by the treaty. When Allieds (represented mainly by Soviets) ceassed to have any control on Romania's internal matters (i.e. when the Allied Comission dissolved), Romania became a sovereign, non-occupied country.Anonimu (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


   If there were only one source that said occupation ended when the troops left in 1958 versus twenty that said occupation technically ended with Romania's entry into the Warsaw Pact although troops actually only left in 1958; Romanians consider the occupation ending only when the last troops withdrew, that's what we as editors write. Plain and simple. But it's a bit difficult to make progress on the article when you keep deleting and disrupting.

A lot of Romanians consider that if you don't have a candle next to you when you die, you come back and haunt you relatives. Plain and simple. Should we write this as a fact?22:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


   You're free to believe I'm part of some nationalist cabal. If you believe there are reputable sources that are omitted, please bring them up. If you believe sources are misrepresented, indicate specifics on how they are not fairly and accurately represented. Deleting references and contending they don't apply in your edit summary is not sufficient. PētersV (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I've indicated numerous times why they are misrepresented, but you seem to have a mental block that prevents you from seeing my explanations. BTW, judging by the fact you make a new header of each of my comment, i'll have to publish a book of Maxims and thoughtsAnonimu (talk) 22:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it's just to split these discussions so that my browser doesn't croak from the size while editing. :-) PētersV (talk) 22:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bonaparte?

I'm sorry, but I find the latest edits by A CT Romania and Anonimu din Constanta not in keeping with what I would regard as Bonaparte's position. Of course I could be grossly mistaken and thinking of some other Bonaparte. What's the best way to have the IP's checked? PētersV (talk) 02:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)