Romanian post war resistance movements

Babana is not quite close to the areea they acted(Domnesti-Nucsoara-Albesti...). My grands are from there. The popularity of the groups decreased gradually, whilst people realised there are no hopes for victory and change of regime, the securitate threat, and some not such orthodox deeds of the partisans(desperation for lack of food, and securitate fear, made them to act, sometimes, like robbers, and punishers over ones they suspected as traitors. There were, is and will be not angels army, nowhere)

It was probably so as you say, Valium, and this could also explain the facts... But still, even if I put my finger on the wound, the fear, hand in hand with cowardice, made many act like this and did not support the partisans! I admit that I, in their situation, I might have acted the same ...
Respect for those who have risen us, through their courage and sacrifice -the partisans!

Personally, I would avoid the usage of the word Partisan, as - in my mind - this word is linked to Communism.
Better say resistance, freedom fighters, etc.

Gen. Dénes

Of course, you're right! I didn't say they were not real heroes, I said they were not perfect. We couldn't blame, either, the usual people, who, in a way or other, suffered because of the partisans, and wished this suffering to stop.

Of course, like in all the movements that implies guerrilas and gouvernamental troops (Securitate in this case), there were many civilians who blame the partisans for the reprisals of Securitate. Their logic was if there weren't the partisans, the reprisals were not existed. A fake logic, the reprisals and the Securitate's actions were everywhere, even partisans existed or no in the region. Because the goal of the Cominists was to crush any kind of resistance, freedom fighters or the ones who didn't obey the new rule. Any kind of resistance was quikly crushed. If you don't pay your "cote" (taxes in products for peasants) that were very high ones, you became a "saboteur" and you ended in prison.

I personally met many years ago a former Militia mayor, who was not a freedom fighter, but a relevant example of comunist mind control upon romanian citisens. He told me that in early 1950's, in one day he met an oficial delegation traveling in I dont know what kind of western made car. He was looking with admiration to the car and asked himself loud "when the russian cars that we use now will be so well built as this car". In very short time he was fired from Militie and put to jail for some years. He was told the reason: "The Great Soviet Union is ALREADY building cars very well"!

About CIA aid in Romanian armed resistance against comunism, and the treason:

http://www.cristiannegrea.ro/istoria-necun...ogoranu-si-cia/

The article said:
"Avionul ales era de tip KC-135 (medelul militar al lui Boeing 707) si a decolat din Italia, de la Aviano, langa Roma. Acest model de avion greu de transport a fost ales pentru faptul ca avea un plafon maxim (altitudinea maxima atinsa) de 16.000 metri, in timp ce un MIG-15 se putea ridica numai pana la vreo 15.000 de metri."

There is no way, no how, no chance that this could be true. EC 135 was a tanker for in-flight refuelling. It had absolutely no facility to drop payload (no ramp, no cargo compartment) it was never used for air-drops. It was too valuable to risk on such low-value missions. Aviano is nowhere near Rome.

Maybe the intention was to say C-130, but that plane could not go to 16.000 metres, so...

In any case, a lot of this article just does not make sense. Why would CIA bother to risk valuable personnel and harware to drop groceries (medicine, clothes and food) and weapons in the mountains? To achieve what? How many weapons would be needed to successfully defeat the army and the Securitate. And then what?
Sounds like the kind of pulp espionage fiction that was very popular in Communist Romania. In those books, the "partisans in the mountains" were always thwarted and the "foreign agents" were just ineffective despite all their fancy gear.

Radu

This post has been edited by Radub on June 22, 2013 03:57 pm

Radu, you must understand that it was war, the Cold War. And any effort to weak the enemy was perfect justifiable, like in France during ww2 or other countries.

Yes, I understand.

I see no similarity with the French resistance.

Radu

Yesterday I wrote from my mobile phone, but here is the full reply:

I understand that in a war, underground movements with external support can be a destabilising force. So, by that standard THE ONLY such organisation that matches this description are the "partisans" of the "illegal Communist Party".

The "resistance in the mountains" bears abslutely NO similarity to the French Resistance. The French Resistance helped downed airmen return to the UK, they provided information about German movements in France and even weather reports to aid the air forces. The "resistance in the mountains" did nothing like that. The French Resistance paved the way for the D-Day invasion. No such thing happened in the case of the "resistrance in the mountains".

The resistance in the mountains are just a symbol of fighting for an ideal. As such, they are more alike the "occupy" movement.

But the return to the story linked above, in as far as I can see, nothing happened and the main protagonist died of old age in his own bed after the fall of communism, having done nothing measurable against the regime. So, the article is actually a non-description of a non-event. And it is full of errors. Cui prodest?

Radu

That might have been true for the pre-23 august period, but after 30.12.1947 it is ludicrous... Plus, we're talking another war, a "cold" one...

Re: similarities: here's one: they were both waiting the Americans to free them. Here's another one: both movements did NOT acknowledge the present "occupation" regime.
We may go on...

Re: article: indeed, it is so full of mistakes it might be a Radio Erevan joke, but such things have happened.

Well, I was not talking about other stories, I was talking about this particular story in the link.

You misunderstood what I said about the Romanian communists! Read it again. If you read slowly rather than just react before reading, you will soon discover that by using the words "illegal Communist party" I was referring to the communist party that was ... illegal (in ilegalitate). I was referring strictly to wartime. The "illegalists" were the only organisation in Romania who were supplied/supported by a foreign power (in this case Russia), they provided this foreign power with various forms of assistance and eventually joined this foreign power in successfully overthrowing the existing government. For these reasons they were just like the French Resistance.

And for precisely THESE reasons, the "resistance in the mountains" was nothing like the French Resistance.

This is neither admiration for the "illegalists" nor disdain for the "resistance in the mountains". It is just objective assessment of facts.

Radu

This post has been edited by Radub on June 24, 2013 06:12 pm

...and that's why I didn't react at first... another quarrel with you is not on my "to-do-list" right now. I wanted to react, but I thought "it's not worth it"; yet when I see the mis-matchings (you are so fond of, btw) regarding an article which had more than enough mistakes on its own... well, THEN I reacted. OK, why bringing into discussion the war-time "illegalists"? What's the relevance of this towards the topic?
RE: "the only organisation in Romania"... does the name Ivor Porter tell anything to you? Some guys in the PNŢ back then were quite active in collaborating with the SOE, weren't they?
Your turn...

You know what? I do not want a quarrel with you either. I never do.

Please try to be less emotional abot this. It is evident that you are not reading the whole of what I am saying.
Please leave this for a while, return in a couple of days and read again what I wrote and maybe it will make sense.

My response was to Contras's statement that "rezistenta din munti" was like the "French resistance". My point is that these two have nothing in common and they are not alike, not in amount of support, not in scope, not in actions, not in outcome. They cannot be more different.

The only "similarity" is the word "resistance" and in that sense it can also be similar to any other secretive organisation that argues with authority such as the Wikileaks, hackers, mafia or "Haiducii lui Sapte Cai".

In my opinion, "rezistenta din munti" was heroic enough without any need to resort to embellishments or dilluting comparisons with someone else. Why can they not just be unique?

Radu

[edited by admin]