Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Ceausescu

POST REPLY
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 989
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Jul 2004, 01:47
Komsomol
Post 06 Apr 2008, 20:42
Can anyone direct me to good books or articles that they have come across about Nicolae Ceausescu and his reign in Romania? I'd like to learn more about that period in history. Much obliged for any help.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 280
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Oct 2007, 23:49
Ideology: Social Democracy
Komsomol
Post 19 Dec 2008, 13:18
He's a Revisionist for the most part imho.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 1533
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Oct 2007, 15:55
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Party Member
Post 19 Dec 2008, 18:23
You can find his trial and execution on Youtube. I don't think there'd be any books that support his reign. He seems like a watered down Saparmurat Niyazov.
We have beaten you to the moon, but you have beaten us in sausage making.- Nikita Khrushchev
Soviet cogitations: 59
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Oct 2008, 06:42
Pioneer
Post 04 Jan 2009, 16:59
Actually this guy doesnt deserve his lack of popularity.
Nicoale Ceausescu in a nutshell :
He was a good example of a leadership centered around people , not ideology.
His skillful diplomatic games between world powers , enabled a fast development and industrialization of the country.
In the mid 70`s Romania was a thriving country. With a decent standard of life ( everyone could afford a car for example) , a socialist approach of wages ( depending on his shifts, a coal miner could have a higher wage than the manager), a relatively free speach and so on. (free apartments for everyone , automatically getting a job after graduation etc goes without saying)
There is nothing like Saparmurat Niyazov or other fruitcakes. And comparing to other more famous leaders, Hohxa `s Albania was in medieval ages comparing to Romania`s development.

Probably the reason he is so unknown now and considered a mad dictator is his foolish and fatal addiction to the North Korea ideology, starting in the 70s. Which , (surprise, surprise !) bankrupt Romania and made her a copy of DPRK.
Oh the irony , if he would live now and still maintain the same shit hole that Romania becamed in 80`s, he would not be considered a mad dictator on the forums , but an anti-imperialist socialist hero like Kim Jong Il .
Unfortunately for Ceasusescu, Romanians, unlike the Koreans, could not grasp the idea of singing songs of appreciation for the Beloved Leader while their stomachs ran low on fuel , so they blow his brains out.
End of story.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4510
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 04 Jan 2009, 17:35
I hadn't heard about the DPRK obsession before altfest. I thought what hurt the country economically through the late 1970s and 1980s was the debt crisis, which Romania turned out to be heavily affected by due to their reliance upon Western loans and IMF advice (which came out of their desire to reduce Soviet influence). I've read that what was "tragic" about the events of the late 1980s was the fact that the country had just finished paying off its debts, which through the 1980s meant poor living conditions for ordinary Romanians.

Even comparing Romania of the 1980s with the DPRK is unfair I think (if anyone indeed does make that comparison). The DPRK was considerably less affected by international economic crises in the 1980s because of the Juche ideology, and while Juche teaches self-reliance as far as possible, that didn't mean Kim slandered the USSR and opposed Soviet foreign policy on every front, as Ceausescu did.
"The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG
Soviet cogitations: 59
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Oct 2008, 06:42
Pioneer
Post 04 Jan 2009, 23:02
soviet78 wrote:
I hadn't heard about the DPRK obsession before altfest


Oh yes , the famous "July Thesis", dont remember exactly, somewhere between `72-75, right after he turns back from his visit from North Korea.
Self-reliance, the dear leader , cult of personality, megalomania, the whole people single heartly around the party ( bye bye free speech) etc etc
Also a lot of Juche books are published in that period.

Quote:
I thought what hurt the country economically through the late 1970s and 1980s was the debt crisis, which Romania turned out to be heavily affected by due to their reliance upon Western loans and IMF advice (which came out of their desire to reduce Soviet influence). I've read that what was "tragic" about the events of the late 1980s was the fact that the country had just finished paying off its debts, which through the 1980s meant poor living conditions for ordinary Romanians.


There was never a crisis of debt. Romania was a big exporter with both sides of the iron curtain.
For example, i still find some time ago on the net, Canadian car fans, showing their Dacia 1310 imported from Romania

Or another example : a big part of Irak and other arab countries oil installations were made by Romanian engineers. Even now , Irak has a 2 billion $ debt to Romania since 80`s.
But there is a truth here tho. An important part of Romania`s poverty was created by his desire to pay ALL of his debts. Not becouse there were too high, but because he wanted to be self-reliant

Quote:
that didn't mean Kim slandered the USSR and opposed Soviet foreign policy on every front, as Ceausescu did.

Of course they dont , for them self-reliance = soviet cornucopia.

The only real slander of Ceausescu was in case of Czechoslovakia`s soviet invasion. Obviously the guy wasn't an internationalist, , but he had a real obsession for promoting peace between countries.
In 1968 he was so pissed off, that he called for large anti-invasion popular demonstrations in all country.

In the rest, it was just a diplomatic game. He remained obedient to Moscow, but succeed to form the image of a "liberal" to the West.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4510
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 05 Jan 2009, 02:41
That's interesting about the DPRK obsession, thanks. About the debt crisis though -I'm still sure that it had some pretty highly negative effects in the Eastern Bloc, particularly on the countries with very high debts and associating themselves with with the IMF and the World Bank, including Poland, Hungary and Romania. Imagine that the interest rates on your debt quadruples in a short time, and that you end up paying the principle off two, three or four times while still owing money. That's what happened to those countries in Latin America, Africa, Asia, and those countries in Eastern Europe, including Romania, which bought into the West's cheap loans to try to improve their economic capabilities. Personally I think the debt crisis was a very negative coincidental factor which speeded up the collapse of the communist governments in the Eastern Bloc, and in the case of Poland and Romania particularly was key in leading to shortages and rationing which resulted in unrest.
"The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG
Soviet cogitations: 59
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Oct 2008, 06:42
Pioneer
Post 05 Jan 2009, 10:22
I dont think we cant consider Romania affected by the crisis, in the same way we cant consider a torn nail a pain for someone in deep coma.

Romania was already under the banner of self-reliance , with all people fighting single heartly around the Dear Leader fighting for communism and anti-imperialism ( food is optional)

The self reliance madness had as main effects , some might sound familiar....

1) The already discussed wish of paying ALL debts. And i`m not talking about struggling to keep up with high interests like in Poland, but basically exporting all your production. In the 80`s Romania was still a big agrarian and industrial producer, but everything that wasn't broken or rotten was send to export. The small number of rebuttals were keep in country.
IF it were just the crises he could stop it since in 85`-`86 the biggest part of the loans were payed already.

2) the balanced industry its fraged up, when for the self reliance, important parts are neglected ( and other are without any use exaggerated (he build oil refineries with capacities 10 time bigger than the amount of oil Romania had access while other vital parts of an industry were stopped)

3)isolationism (surprise, surprise) - because you cant be really self-reliant if your connected to the world commerce, isnt it ?
He doesnt care about his diplomacy anymore. He lost the good imagine he had in the west and keeps pissing of the soviets.
Inside the country, the borders are closing, and the free movement dissappears.


Nicolae Ceausescu was a good example of how any true socialist states must avoid Eternal presidents, no matter how good they are. Because in the end, they are just humans like us.
He was a great ruler who constructed modern Romania and a cunning diplomat.
But when he lost it there was no mechanism to stop him to destroy his own creation.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.