20 years after....

You can be sure that after their terrible experience in Afghanistan the Soviet leaders wouldn't be too eager to enter another protracted guerilla war, especially when their whole world was collapsing around them. The events in Chechnya in mid-1990s lated showed very well how ill prepared for guerilla war they were.

if the whole perestroika thing was a soviet conspiracy to get out of the arm race then it doesn't explain the infightings in the leadership of the CPSU in 1985, nor the Andropow and Chernenko choice and not to speak about the communist attempt of a coup d'etat in 1991.

then how comes, the same trick didn't work in Lithuania, Estonia or Letonia?
or the Ukraine, which was much more important, given the Sevastopol naval base to say the least, than the poor moldova rep.?

if the army was't much of a deterrent, what makes you think a bunch of factory workers out of training, poorly equipped would compensate anything? the "patriotic" guard was even less in position to offer any usefull resistence than the army.
yes i see legions of married men hiding in the woods with an AK-47 at best, while their wives and children are at the red army's mercy.
that's just like the romanian saying, getting drunk with clear water.
Tg. Mures was comrade Ilici's justification why the securitate is still badly needed and the "mineriade" showed 2 things: the abysmal lack of political culture of the overwhelming majority of the population and the methods comrade Ilici was ready to use to secure his regime.
it capitalized on 2 things. the respective animosity of the szekely and romanian population and the hostility of the "worker and peasant" towards the intellectual. now if that's not class struggle! the entire bunch of reds composing the "communist internationale" of the 1920ies would've been proud.

To use another romanian saying, i think in some points you dont see the forest because of some tree.
1- Andropov (from KGB) was the one who set the course for "perestroika", took Gorbaciov as the second of him. Cernenko died soon, not say was assasinated or so, but it was clear that he cant stay for too on power and next will be Gorbaciov (another chief in KGB). The attempt of coupe d' etat of the comunists was an attempt to remain at power of some of them, and to keep if is possible the SU union too, SU who was crambled around them at that point. But the fact that at the end no one from the army or KGB supported them is clear that the plan was go on.

2- i am not sure i understand what you said with that trick. In Romania things was changed quickly after the Revolution, the only thing who was go well for soviets (if we go with this hypothesis) was the change of Ceausescu. They almost imediatly lost pretty much any control here, if they really haved a significant one. Sevastopol is still the base of russian fleet, and ukrainians i dont see them able to do too much about that. They still have a significant influence in Ukraine, and unfortunately in Basarabia too (well, more in Transnistria). They didnt manage to keep USSR (fortunately) even if still have a big influence in many former republics, but it was the only way for them to comes out from the cold war without to happen even worse for them.

3- about the army, i didnt said it wasnt a detterent at all, and in 2 days will be destroyed. I said it will be used for slow down an invasion until reserves AND patriotic guards will be mobilized to reinforce it (i hope is more clear now). About guerrila war, you know, it wasnt the first time when was planned, and fighted, all over the world, so i dont think your simplistic view is near to real stuff. Guerrila warfare can be fight in cities, cities can be evacuated, peoples from unoccupied areas can go in those cities as well, others can use mountains and forrest as cover and base (see the anticomunist fighters who resisted there until 60's). Contrary to propaganda, the simple soviet soldier wasnt on too high training level then our ones (and an soviet paratrooper wasnt i think as well at a too high diference then our ones, or a mountain hunter in mountain areas). Just couple years after this they pretty much lost the first chechen war, against much smaller chechen partisan force. They haved succes in Hungary in 1956, a small country with a weak army, or in Cechoslovakia in 1968, who had a well equiped army, but not very big, not prepared for war, and disorientated and with a low morale. Quite contrary, here since 1968 the defense was prepared against such an invasion.

4- about "mineriade" i pretty much agree, i didnt said they wasnt a kind of comunists just that quickly comes out from soviet influence for the reasons i said previously, but about Tg. Mures just partialy. It was definately a provocation too there, and i remember was the same disinformation even in the foreign media, as the one with 60.000 (or thousand, or 4000 if you wish) from Timisoara or Romania. Remember Mihaila Cofariu, presented in foreign media as a hungarian ethnic linched by romanians, who want to make a ethnic cleansing blablabla?

This post has been edited by udar on January 06, 2010 09:58 pm

You can be sure that after their terrible experience in Afghanistan the Soviet leaders wouldn't be too eager to enter another protracted guerilla war, especially when their whole world was collapsing around them. The events in Chechnya in mid-1990s lated showed very well how ill prepared for guerilla war they were.

Correct. Just imagine from where soviet will enter in Romania, with how many troops? How much will take to defeat the romanian army at frontier, then how to control the main cities who will become like a wasp hives full of all kind of peoples armed (imagine the Revolution chaos x 10 probably)? How this ocupation will be maintained (probably they will was able to ocupy just a part of the teritory) and for how long? What they will can achieve with that? They simply was prepared for a quick intervention in case that romanian army will stay passive, as chekoslovakians or hungarians before. And because that was clearly it will not happen, they didnt enter. But the radio-electronic and psychological warfare was a prouve that such idea wasnt stranger for them. Ceausescu fell anyway (with probably some of foreign "help"), so we'll know about real stuff probably after some 40-50 years, when all archives will be opened.

This post has been edited by udar on January 06, 2010 09:56 pm

A short, but hopefully consistent intervention...
Because I had the chance to speak with come peoople, very well-informed people, I can speak to the point about the possibility of a soviet invasion in december 1989!
The only possible soviet troops ready for intervention were the airborne units from the Division stationed in Southern Bessarabia and surely some aviation and naval units... but no mechanised infantry or armored units close to our borders... Surely no! But seriousely no soviet general thought about such a thing -the spetsnaz units could do a better job anyway. And there were generals, romanian generals, like Militaru, Pancea and others who do it better here... for Soviet Union, more than dozen of soviet generals with their troops... don't you think?

Interesting and informative discussion to kick off 2010!

2 more names, please: Gorbachev. Reagan.

IMO, it's hard to imagine Gorby green lighting an invasion of Romania, (or anywhere else) in 1989, although I imagine there were plenty of Russian (Romanian?) diehards who wished he would!

Don't forget he had already dropped the Brezhnev Doctrine, and stated his intention to allow countries to go their own ways. (it's been said that In it's place he initiated the Sinatra Doctrine"..... " I Did it My Way"?......)

For him to then tell Reagan that, sorry, the detente romance was over seems unlikely.

I think many historians see that as the final crack in the wall.

Of course that no way explains why Romania was the only shooting revolution in 1989, which I guess is partly what we are discussing.

Happy New Year!

Andropow and Chernenko were both Brezhnyew style hardliners. both had zero to do with glasnost and perestroika. so, the "glasnost and perestroika was a pre-planned manouver to get out of the cold war" is for me yet another conspiracy theory, on par with the whole iluminati, MJ12, freemasons and whatnot.

This post has been edited by dead-cat on January 07, 2010 01:07 pm

James Baker, the former Secretary of State in 1989, said at an interwiew at TV, "Meeting with Press" at NBC, in 24 December 1989, that US will not object if Warsaw Pact will intervenent in Romania.
Coroborated with US invasion of Panama, the day before, it could be a contrabalance. A new doctrine could apear, both parts could intervene in their sphere of influence. But soviets refused the offer.

I resumed from Michael R. Beschloss and Strobe Talbot, "At highest levels", translated in Romanian, La cele mai inalte nivele, (1994).

You're absolutely right contras,
so things stood than, but I still believe that the meaning of the statements to the US State Secretary were related to the conflict images seen on TV about Romania, not an an encouragement for USSR to send troops here... At least I hope so...

In same book, it says that initially, soviets were suspicios at american proposal. They believed it was a provocation, if they intervened in Romania with troops, american can acuse them about it, and demonstrate the whole world that they come back at Brejnev doctrine.
But James Baker asked Matloc to make some researches about soviets atitude about Romania. But Shevarnadze said to Matloc that he think about this intervention is "a stupid ideea".
In same book, it says that some Romanian leaders who dethroned Ceausescu asked for help from Soviets.

And I do believe what says that book, it's about 3 years of diplomacy, 1989-1992, and one of it's author, Strobe Talbot, worked in Departament of Seretary of State in republican adminisration. In Bush's last mandate, he was Deputy of Secretary of State.

IMO, soviets don't need to send troops here, they're interests were well represented here by some men who acceded at the peak of power.

I give this exemple for us to remember which was the political context in November -December 1989 in the Moldovan soviet republic... This happen after street clashes with the soviet OMON troops and after the assault of the demonstrators on the Interior Ministry building in Chisinau. The volunteer movement coordinated by the Popular Front of Moldova (unionist political formation) was ready to help in december 1989 the romanian revolution and some of the volunteers demanded weapons to help the fight against Ceausescu... No, no joke, the real situation out there... So, what you think, the SU leaders including the military would take in consideration sending troops to Romania? I personally don't think so! But surely we can talk about the spetsnaz teams ...

In those days (late 89) the Sovient Union was hardly keeping "her pants" up,rather then "helping" another coutry.

Well, say whatever else, isn't it true that Ceausescu at least attempted to play Russian against the rest (U.S., Europe, even Chinese)?

Interesting book you mention; hadn't seen it yet. Bechloss has his critics, but imo he's first class.

Talbott was a Clinton friend since schooldays, and served in Clinton admin. Long time Kremlin watcher, he has credibility, imo.

I believe that Ceausescu wanted to play everything, just to mentain himself to power. IMO.

Actually the Secret Police ( Securitatea ) was the first which adopted a non-combat attitude in those days ...

From the many books I read on this subject, books that, if request is made, I can mention, I strongly believe that the terrorists-diversionary elements, who created the war situation from 22 to 25 december 1989, were in their majority our people (I mean here not soviets, hungarian, french, iugoslav, etc.), which does not exclude the participation of others (soviets,... see above)! My theory goes on that:
http://www.portalulrevolutiei.ro/documente...roristilor.html
I had a college professor who was a former prosecutor (in 1989 and few years after) who investigated the terrorist problem immediately after the Revolution! I had the opportunity to be close to him and to speak on other topics (not strictly the material he teach us) and, as I have heard that he handled the cases of terrorist from our town, I asked him about that! He said sadly that the terrorists were not foreigners, but our own people, and they acted on orders received from the center (I remember he said exactly that), so that is why they were released immediately after the "victory of revolution"! As I insist asking him about that he said that they (terrorist) were not part of the Securitate but from some military-type structures, officially unknown, and lead only from the center. That center he said was not Ceausescu, but somebody close to him! That is all he said about this!

This post has been edited by ANDREAS on January 05, 2012 06:27 pm