Talk:Soviet occupation of Romania

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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

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)

A-class review[edit]

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)

Didn't notice later edit on watchlist[edit]

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)

Militarization of Romania[edit]

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)


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)

Latest deletion of sources[edit]

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)

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

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)

Speaking of deletions[edit]

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)


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)

Totally POV total and introduction[edit]

I have added the POV tag to this article, and have seen discussions on this talk page, but as far as I can see, the POV is somehow justified by this in the notes:

The term "occupation" is widely used by Western and post-Revolutionary Romanian historians.

Just how is the opinion of those evil red commies and the pre-revolutionary Romanian historians present in this article? Or is this just another totally WP:NPOV anti-Soviet (and by default it seems anti-Russian) articles which are written from the POV of editors, and not from a balanced perspective from both side of the equation? A new title and much of the lead needs to be changed to balance out the POV. --Россавиа Диалог 13:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't see any references to evil red commies et al. The occupation is what it is, there's no controversy as in the Baltics where Russia argues the Soviets were "invited" in. There was an official occupation by the Allies with the Soviet Union as sole executor, followed by massive reparations which drained Romania, followed by illegal militarization of Romania (in violation of treaty), not to mention the annexation of Bessarabia. If you feel the article is not NPOV, please come up with something more substantive than deriding this is as yet another "evil red commies" article. —PētersV (talk) 00:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)