WorldWar2.ro Forum [Powered by Invision Power Board]

Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format

WorldWar2.ro Forum > The post-WW2 and recent military > RPR vsRSR

Posted by: Greg Collins February 16, 2009 03:00 pm

I'm new to this forum, and my Romanian collection exclusively Cold War. My question is why the transition from the Romanian Peoples' Republic to the Romanian Socialist Republic? What may have motivated the change; what was gained (or lost) through the change? I realize that, pound for pound, my RPR ODM's are worth more than my RSR ODM's, but I'd like to have some explanation of the decision involved in what seems to be an unnecessary political move.

Posted by: Dénes February 16, 2009 06:13 pm

Shortly put, that was a step for the society towards achieving the final goal: Communism.

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: MMM February 16, 2009 08:00 pm

They "evolved"...
I'll keep you posted!

Posted by: Greg Collins February 17, 2009 01:21 pm

Seems to me that both titles would work equally in the push toward Communism; however, from what I've seen of the Ceausescu era, it would appear the attempt was more toward monarchy- a cult of personality much like Stalin, which wasn't Communism either.

Posted by: MMM February 17, 2009 01:33 pm

You spoke true words, Grasshopper

However, the change was needed by Nicolae Ceauşescu to distance himself and his not-so-new and not-really-different regime from the regime of Gheorghiu-Dej. This is (still) a very common practice among the politicians - to blame the former gov't. for the situationin the present and thus to justify the lacks of any kind: you don't have bread not because of me, but because of hte former ruler (Gheorghiu-Dej blamed the former king, Ceauşescu blamed Gh.-D., Iliescu blamed Ceauşescu etc. ad nauseam). The differences began showing themselves from 1964, from the so-called "declaration of independence from Moscow", and the period of "de-freezing" lasted roughly from 1964 to 1971. 1965 is no more, no less than the year of Ceauşescu's access to the throne

although only in 1977 did he receive the sceptre as the first president of Romania.
Plus: Socialist Republic was a title held at that time only by USSR's republics, the other communist states being mostly Popular or Democrat or Popular-Democrat Republics - so we showed off a little by naming ourselves Socialist Republic.

Posted by: Greg Collins February 17, 2009 05:46 pm

Ah hah! Now I understand the dynamics surrounding the name change. One wonders what the name would be today if Ceauşescu had had a successor. Thanks for the help!

Posted by: MMM February 17, 2009 06:02 pm

Maybe the communist republic already?

Posted by: Victor February 17, 2009 07:07 pm

QUOTE (Greg Collins @ February 17, 2009 07:46 pm)

Ah hah! Now I understand the dynamics surrounding the name change. One wonders what the name would be today if Ceauşescu had had a successor. Thanks for the help!

Ceausescu had a successor. He is called Ion Iliescu and the country took the name of Romania.

Posted by: MMM February 17, 2009 08:10 pm

Yep. And it seems the communist party came back to life from his not-so-burnt ashes aka parties that emerged from him.
On a more original note, the National Salvation Front (FSN) of december 1989 clearly shows the originality of the revolution and the non-intervention of the foreign secret services (agenturili): does anyone remember how it was called the russian party supposed to save the country after the coup in august 1991?
Same as the above: National Salvation Front (I also used copy/paste)!
What now?

Posted by: Radub February 17, 2009 09:08 pm

QUOTE (MMM @ February 17, 2009 01:33 pm)

Plus: Socialist Republic was a title held at that time only by USSR's republic, the other communist states being Popular or Democrat or Popular-Democrat Republics - so we showed off a little by naming ourselves Socialist Republic.

"Socialist republics" were very fashionable in the 60s.
Czechoslovakia was called a "Socialist Republic" in 1960. Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia was renamed The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1963.
This was seen as a necessary step on the path to "Victory of Socialism" (a concept established by Lenin). Ceausescu had a fixation with the Victory of Socialism and he referred to "Victoria Socialismului" a lot. That may explain why when he came to power he changed the name from "People's Republic" to "Socialist Republic" of Romania.
Radu

Posted by: guina February 17, 2009 09:41 pm

The russian "party" was called "Gosudarstvenii Komitet po Cerezviciainaomu Polojeniu " (State comity for Emergency Situation ) and unlike FSN had no roots in russian society.Subsequently it failed.

Posted by: Greg Collins February 18, 2009 02:54 am

OK, so I guess my next question is "is there a Communist Party in Romania today"?

Posted by: Dénes February 18, 2009 06:22 am

QUOTE (Greg Collins @ February 18, 2009 08:54 am)

OK, so I guess my next question is "is there a Communist Party in Romania today"?

Yes, there is. For a while it was officially banned, but AFAIK they won in court and now they are legal (and insignificant).

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: dragos February 18, 2009 08:15 am

http://www.pasro.ro/

Posted by: MMM February 18, 2009 09:37 am

QUOTE

Victoria Socialismului

There were rumours ante-1989 that the main boulevard of Bucharest should be renamed "The victory of socialism against the Romanian people". Anyway, the number of "Socialist" republics was much smaller than the popular or popular democrat ones - not including the African states.

QUOTE

Gosudarstvenii Komitet po Cerezviciainaomu Polojeniu

Where did u find that, guina? I remembered something else, but I was much younger then and a lot of time had passed - but I still remember my shock at the similarity of the names! Neither did the FSN have roots in the Romanian society, other than its members seeking power, I guess.

Posted by: Dénes February 18, 2009 11:13 am

How about Partidului Muncitoresc Roman?
www4.pmb.ro/wwwt/wwwcs/electorale/se_PMR_7.pdf

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: MMM February 18, 2009 11:56 am

Why, oh, why do people just don't understand there is no such thing as communism? Did any of the so-called enthusiasts ever read the things Marx wrote? And even him, in the last years of his life, renegated some of his early writings! BTW, did you know that one of the last "titans", Raul Castro, was a close colaborator of the KGB in the 60's? THIS is the communism?
It is highly irrelevant whether a party asserts itself to be communist/socialist/whatever, when its members are of some other convictions (if any).

Posted by: guina February 18, 2009 01:32 pm

Hi Triple M,

The Moscow events of august 1991 are quite common knolege ,and if you chek the Net you'll find lots of material.There is no resemblence betwen GKCP and FSN as the first was an anti Gorbaciov reaction and the second a pro Gorbaciov movement.The only thing in common was the crucial involvment of respective security apparatuses.
As for roots in romanian society, I beg to desagree.
Yes,there were people interested in power,lots and lots of them,and most of them,those in FSN had a comon background-PCR.Not that in other parties lacked ex PCR members.
FSN enjoyed a very strong popular suport,fact proven in may elections,which were mildly fair.I voted myself ( Ratiu ) and dont remember anything incorect.
You'll say manipulations,yes plenty of them,but the main factor remained the paternalistic factor specific to our society ( and russian ,too ) which produced the frase " Ce se da aici ",hate of anybody that gets rich through their own work (the others they tend to admire-G.Becali ) and generaly,the expectation to be taken care of.
Unfortunately these roots are still strong as shown by the results of the last elections. Take care.

Posted by: MMM February 18, 2009 02:19 pm

Quite true, quina

The results of the elections in 2008 had not so much things to do with the doctrines, but with the people involved at various level in the leadership of all the parties. How else would you explain, for example, the disappearence of Romania Mare Party?
And I don't see the connection between paternalism (which exists even today) and the appetite for profit sooooo specific for Roma's... oh, Romanians, I meant.

Unfortunately, I also agree w/ the "hate the rich" part, more precisely "hate the one who's richer than ME". I guess that's yet another reminiscence of the communist way of thinking, at least the perverted form which haunted (and still does) our Eastern-European post-sovietic society. BLA

Posted by: guina February 18, 2009 02:42 pm

Well,it seems the agreement is general !
As for RMP,you are right,its downfall was brought by personalities i.e.CV Tudor who totaly disgraced himself.Interesting enough,a similar russian party,LDPR,with a similar leader,Jirinovski,is stil going strong.Its an encouraging sign for our people !

Greed,ah,greed is everywhere,the problem is that in our country moral values desapeared complectly.Funy thing is ,that when asked 99 % declared themselvs christians,cristians that,probably never read an Evangelie and for whom the 10 comandment are just recomandations.
take care,

Posted by: Dénes February 18, 2009 03:51 pm

Sorry, but what has this to do with the topic (RPR vs. RSR)?

Gen. Dénes

Posted by: MMM February 18, 2009 04:54 pm

Nothing really, but we were just exemplifying (I guess...) how the communists and their kind still exist in today's Romania (not Socialist, nor Popular, but Republic nevertheless).

Posted by: guina February 18, 2009 05:59 pm

Subscribe.

Posted by: guina February 18, 2009 08:30 pm

And,cmmon General, be lenient,everybody likes to divagate.

Posted by: MMM February 19, 2009 01:53 pm

To conclude (I guess) with the topic: the main difference came from 1964 rather than 1965, but the idea was to mark a discontinuity between Ceauşescu's regime and the one of Gheorghiu Dej - who, btw, did all the hard work of communising the country, killing, imprisoning, expropriating etc. - hence the "de-frosting" between 1964-1971.
Guina, what's encouraging in the still-existence of Jirinovski? I don't understand...

Posted by: guina February 19, 2009 02:50 pm

Triple M,you are provoking me in divagation ? Carefull, those guys carry a big stick!

So the subject seems closed.
Amin

Posted by: MMM March 16, 2009 01:12 pm

Looool - I've just seen a documentary on Realitatea TV (the "Bucureşti strict secret" series) about the death of Gh.-Gh. Dej which stated that the "de-frosting", the change of policy and the liberation of the political convicts from 1964 were due to the fact that he knew he was ill with cancer, thus he wanted to repent some of his sins. Knowing a little more about the ruthlessness of the character, this assertion is (to me, at least) hillarious!
Here's the address:
http://www.realitatea.net/emisiuni/bucuresti--strict-secret_24247_69307.html

Posted by: Radub March 17, 2009 10:03 am

QUOTE (MMM @ March 16, 2009 01:12 pm)

That is a very interesting documentary. I see no reason to disbelieve anything said or shown in it. As for the allegedly "hilarious" bit, I see not reason to disbelieve that Dej had an epiphany when faced with impending death. It happens to many.
Radu

Posted by: MMM March 17, 2009 12:25 pm

A cold-blooded killer? I have my doubts, as right now I cannot find a similar case. Do you know one?

Posted by: Radub March 17, 2009 01:11 pm

QUOTE (MMM @ March 17, 2009 12:25 pm)

A cold-blooded killer? I have my doubts, as right now I cnannot find a similar case. Do you know one?

You will be surprised how many people all of a sudden "find God" when close to "meeting their maker"

To paraphrase Samuel Johnson, "Prayer is the last refuge of the scoundrel."
Radu

Posted by: MMM March 17, 2009 01:45 pm

That may be, but in the communist system, God was forbidden - and I still don't remember a similar case of repentance, by such facts as liberating thousands of surviving prisoners. I like more the explanation that it wasn't needed anymore to keep them in, as no other opposition movements existed.

Posted by: Radub March 17, 2009 06:24 pm

Watch the documentary again. It describes (in quite some detail) how Gheorghe Gheorghiu Dej repented and confessed to the Patriarch of the Romanian Church. It looks like his release of prisoners was an act of contrition after all.

God was not forbidden in communist Romania.
Members of the Communist Party could not attend church, but many chose not to join the Communist Party in order to keep their faith. During communist times, children were baptised, marriages were celebrated in church, funerals took place in consecrated grounds with priests in attendance and many people held private commemorative masses in their homes. Further proof that the church was not forbidden is the ongoing suspicion that the priests colluded with the Securitate and shared with the Securitate the private information given in confession. Surely, that would not be the case if those people had not gone to confession in the first place.

Radu

Posted by: MMM March 17, 2009 07:04 pm

This is (in a twisted way) logical! In USSR it was much worse, but let's keep in mind that Justinian Marina (the Patriarch of that time) owed his ascension to Dej and there still are many suspicions about him and his behaviour and leadership of the Romanian Orthodox Church! And the documentary does NOT supply detailed information (as it would be against the beliefs of the Church) about the confession.