Support for August, 1944?

[Carol I]

QUOTE

Try http://www.ziua.net. There was a whole page in today's paper on the subject, including interviews with Neagu Djuvara and Adrian Cioroianu. It should also be in the electronic version. Just another \"circus\" arranged by the government. At the beginning of the month they had another one at Putna at the 500th anniversary of Stephen the Great's death. The general elections areclosing in.  :roll:

Thanks Victor for the answer. The news appeared indeed in the on-line version of Ziua but not "on the front page".

Leaving aside the electoral agenda, do you think that 23 August 1944 should be celebrated? This year or every year?

And a question for the Romanian members of the forum, could the date of 23 August ever be dissociated from the "compulsory shows" of the communist period? Personally, I doubt this will happen sooner than a change of generations.

[Victor]

I don't think it should be celebrated, simply because there is nothing to be celebrated. It was something neccessary, but it was the recognition of a defeat. You don't celebrate a defeat, do you?

[Carol I]

QUOTE

I don't think it should be celebrated, simply because there is nothing to be celebrated. It was something neccessary, but it was the recognition of a defeat. You don't celebrate a defeat, do you?

Maybe my choice of words has not been that good. Probably I should have asked: "Do you think that 23 August 1944 should be celebrated or commemorated?". You do commemorate tragic events, don't you?

While I acknowledge Victor's point of view, the question remains. Is there something in the event that should be marked in any way? If it is, do you find it a celebration or a commemoration? Should it be marked officially (as the authorities now intend to do) or not?

Is your opinion on the event determined by the fact that it was the Soviets who occupied Romania afterwards? I mean, would you consider the event otherwise if the Americans or the British were in the shoes of the Soviets?

[mabadesc]

QUOTE

Do you think that 23 August 1944 should be celebrated or commemorated?

I certainly think it should be commemorated and acknowledged. However, this raises a thorny issue. Once you decide to commemorate it, you have to ask yourself, how should it be commemorated? What connotation should it have?

That day certainly brought a lot of bad things: the arrival of communism, the acknowledgment of defeat in the war, and lots more soldier casualties on the Western Front.

On the other hand, it did set the ground for recovering Transylvania, and eventually for bringing peace.

Hard to say...

[C-2]

If someone want's to celebrate the ocupation and subjugation of Romanian to the bolsevics,he may do it :evil: :evil: :evil: Wer'e a free country now.
I'M NOT :blbl: :blbl:
Ther's, in my opinion ,nothing to celebrate about this war.It didn't brought nothing good to this counry.
Exept this forum o/c.

[Carol I]

QUOTE

If someone want's to celebrate the ocupation and subjugation of Romanian to the bolsevics,he may do it :evil:  :evil:  :evil: Wer'e a free country now. I'M NOT :blbl:  :blbl:

I am just curious, would you have said the same thing if it were for the Americans or the British instead of the Soviets? I mean, would you have made the statement below?

QUOTE

If someone want's to celebrate the ocupation and subjugation of Romanian to the Americans/British,he may do it :evil:  :evil:  :evil: Wer'e a free country now. I'M NOT :blbl:  :blbl:

QUOTE

Ther's, in my opinion ,nothing to celebrate about this war.It didn't brought nothing good to this counry.   Exept this forum o/c.

On this I agree completely. WWII brought sadness and destruction to Romania and to many other countries and therefore one should refer to it as to a tragedy.

[Victor]

QUOTE

That day certainly brought a lot of bad things:  the arrival of communism, the acknowledgment of defeat in the war, and lots more soldier casualties on the Western Front.

The arrival of Communism (6 March 1945) and 23 August 1944 are not actually related. They are not in a cause-effect relation.

As I said, my opnion is that this should not be turned into an official holliday. Sure, finance historical debates/seminars about it, publish materials, but don't turn it into "circus". Especially since our Independence Day is not celebrated as it should.

[Dénes]

The latest verbal "pearl" of President Iliescu: "Celebrating 23 August is a patriotic duty for everyone".
(Source: Mediafax)

[mabadesc]

QUOTE

The arrival of Communism (6 March 1945) and 23 August 1944 are not actually related. They are not in a cause-effect relation.

Victor, I think you're diving too much in semantics with your statement. There was no direct cause-effect relation, but there is causality. 23 August brought the Soviets in the country, and you know very well that they tend to "stick around" and make themselves at home anywhere they're invited. :wink:

Look at the converse situation: Had there been no Soviet troops in Romania, there is no way a communist government would have come to power on March 6, 1945.

Therefore, there is a strong, albeit indirect cause-effect relation between 23 August and communism in Romania.

P.S. With regards to my previous post, in case I didn't make myself clear, let me just say for the record that I don't think 23 August should be celebrated.....it was a sad day which changed our lives up to the present.

[Victor]

QUOTE

Victor, I think you're diving too much in semantics with your statement.  There was no direct cause-effect relation, but there is causality.  23 August brought the Soviets in the country, and you know very well that they tend to \"stick around\" and make themselves at home anywhere they're invited.  :wink:

The Soviets were already in Romania before 23 August and to claim that the act itself brought them in is, with all due respect, childish. They brought themselves in and there was nothing we could do to stop them except maybe invent the atom bomb. :roll:

[mabadesc]

QUOTE

The Soviets were already in Romania before 23 August and to claim that the act itself brought them in is, with all due respect, childish.

Obviously the Soviets would have invaded Romania in the next few days or weeks, with or without the August 23 coup.

The fact remains, however, that August 23 is a historical reference date (un punct reper), a turning point from which a series of events were triggered (communism being one of them).

If there had been no coup on August 23, it is very likely that the same series of events would have been triggered once the Soviet invasion would have been complete by military force (I don't know, pick a date in September 1944...).

So now we would have the same discussion, only we would be talking about September X, 1944, instead of August 23, 1944.

Regardless of whether this particular date had been brought about by military force through invasion, or whether, as it really happened, was brought by a political coup (the arrest of Antonescu, joining the UN/Soviet side), this date would still be considered the key point which gave birth to all the effects we are familiar with today.

[C-2]

Carol I,before the war,the Americans WERE in Romania.
A great part of the oil rafineries were built by Americans.Workers and ingeniers were traveling to the US in order to specialaize in the oil production(and they didn,t emigrate).
Ford had a cars factory in Bucharest,and 60% of the cars were American production.
There's a big diference between the Bolsevics and the Americans.
See West Germany and East Germany :!:
We were drag into this war,and unfortuntly we were transformed from a hight income country to a third world one :cry:

[Carol I]

QUOTE

There's a big diference between the Bolsevics and the Americans.

This is precisely the reason why I have asked you if your attitude towards 23 August 1944 is determined by the Soviets. I only wanted a confirmation that if other Allies were in the shoes of the Soviets you would have considered 23 August as an event that was worth celebrating, even though (as it was already said by Victor and Mabadesc) it was in fact a recognition of defeat. Did I eventually understand you right?

My whole intention was to start a discussion where both sides of the medal should be discussed. On one hand should have been objective comments on the 23 August event as the cessation of the alliance with Germany and what it meant: defeat or cessation of an unpopular war (the first meaning said that 23.08 was not worth celebrating, while the second said that it probably was). On the other hand should have been a subjective analysis of the situation where the Soviets, already in full offensive on Romanian soil, would have played the important role.

[Carol I]

QUOTE

We were drag into this war,and unfortuntly we were transformed from a hight income country to a third world one :cry:

I have to disagree with the statement regarding the situation of Romanian economy. Please note that I do not deny the fact that Romania has reached the highest level of development in its history in the years before WWII. It seems however that it was still behind the economies of other European countries.

Examples of 1938 Gross National Income per capita (in 1938 dollars):
Great Britain 378
Germany 337
France 236
Austria 176
Poland 104
Greece 80
Romania 76
Bulgaria 68

Mechanised production per capita (US dollars):
Great Britain 140
Germany 132
France 76
Poland 21
Romania 12

Labour productivity industry/agriculture (in 1938 dollars):
Germany 790/290
France 580/280
Poland 400/130
Bulgaria 300/110
Romania 290/80

The source for my data has been: Agrigoroaiei et al Istoria Românilor - România întregită (1918-1940) published by Editura Enciclopedică in 2003. For this data in particular it quotes one Romanian source from 1997 and two European sources from 1949 and 1954.

[C-2]

I don't think any situation as 23/8 schould be a reason for celebrations.
Any soldiers who invade a coutry ,be they ggod or bad,they stil are invaders.No reason to celebrate.
About the data you wrote it's not realistic from a lots of points.
You couldn't make such a statistic in any Balcanic country today...more in 1938 :roll:
Romania was then an agricultural country,and most of the financial operations between peasants(that were 65% of the population,were made in goods not in money,and even when made with many,were not registrated(like today).
I cannot belive that Greace and Bulgaria were over Romania those days :loool: :loool:
We had industry,and they had olive oil and cucumbers.
And to try to explain you another think;
I have two cousins(brothers) in the US,one lives in New York,earns almost double than his brother in Huston,but the cost of living is much higher in NY,that his brother in Huston lives with less money much beter than him.