20 years after....

IoanTM,
I also believe that several terrorist groups have operated (from inside or outside Romania) before and after December 22, 1989, and I think that the "foreigners" acted violently before December 22, but remained only as careful observers after December 22 (I do not deny the possibility of isolated violent actions from them after December 22), with the "autochthonous" acting violently especially after December 22. What I'm not clear even today is the so-called radioelectronic diversion that targeted the military aviation and antiaircraft defense troops, that seems to overcome the technical possibilities of the "autochthonous" (as I see it)! This creates a collaboration scenario, between the "autochthonous" and some of the "foreigners", which seems less plausible to me! As I say I don't understand that! The radioelectronic diversion is the key problem that puts so many questions I can't answer... Some believe that the fire simulators were also placed by the "foreigners" but, for me, the "autochthonous" could have the technology and it's more plausible that they put them in place! What is your theory about these two issues?

At the 1989 events, the army shoot in the air. The Militia shoot in the air. The Securitatea shoot in the air. And the revolutionaries took a deep breath

There is no such personal attack.

IoanTM
Your entire post is a personal attack and you are unecessarily aggressive in your posts.
You paint me in a certain light that has no bearing on reality, all developed and blown out of proportion due to one single word that you think is not clear enough.

You said that I "think from the beginning that 'terrorists' are a fantasy" (never said or even implied that), that I create alternative theories" (no, I did not, you did) and that I "discredit in pasing" (never did, in fact you are the one who derided me and associated me with Iliescu.)
Then you said that I " play the victim". Well, you kept challenging me in a quite aggressive manner.

I only said one sentence and from that you created a whole world of conspiracy, judged me on that fabricated "evidence", found me "guilty". That is simply uncalled for. Is it not possible to just say something on this forum without judgement?

Radu

Ok - I get your point.

The only thing which I'd apologize is the reference to Iliescu ( initial ) theory about "civilian deaths after 22 of December" - this could be seen as offensive ... and probably almost nobody believed it from beginning anyway. But ... damn !, maybe due to a poor communication, this idea was the one transmitted by your reply

Anyway - no need to further go back and for ..

I think this is the most probable situation. Multiple groups supporting different agendas.

1- USSR and its allies, supported by NATO as well, who acted for a removal of Ceausescu from power, and replacing of him with a more compliant regime, and even a partial destructuration of the country

2- a group of Romanians (all or most of them with ties with USSR or its supporters, but with less importance on power structure at the time) to be pushed on power.

3- elements of the Army (most of the Army actualy, and representing the strongest armed part of this events) who doesnt know whats about (except few), and acted more instinctualy, to prevent an attack from the outside, and to repell (at first) the inside problems, but imediatly taking part of the "Revolution", trying to defend the people

4- Securitatea, many of them know or was about to understand whats what happen. Some tried to fight for the Ceausescu regime, but soon they back up, in a kind of neutrality, or some even fighting "for the people"

5- foreign "terrorists" send by those from the point 1 to help those from the point 2. Their mission was to create chaos and push the things toward the fall of Ceausescu, as well to make the Army as much as inoperable possible (in cooperation with their own armies that used electronic and psichological warfare against us).
They was needed to set the ground for pushing "their peoples" on power, and even to force the things for a disintegration of the country (at least partial) or civil war between Army, Securitate and peoples

6- cover elements of national defence system, that hidden "partisans" or "Resistance" activated in case of "war of the entire people" (probably by the Army elements who know the foreign plans and involvement and considered them dangerous).

7- ordinary citizens, who go out in streets in such number and acted in a manner way beyond the expectations of foreign elements and their "proteges". Thats why up to today was acted on every possible level (mass psichology, psycjologic war, deculturalisation etc. etc) to avoid this in the future. It was tried (and succeseded in most part) a destructuration of national, social and civic spirit of the population, because of the huge problems caused by peoples then.

All this elements involved had/have their own agendas, more or less, some was allied, some direct enemies, and even among the "allies" apeared problems at some point.
All of them acting in the same time caused the chaos back then. All had unexpected surprises from the others, and the fight didnt stop in 1989, but continued with "smaller" episodes in 1990 and even later. USSR lost any realistic support because of war in Moldova, in 1991, it was suicidal for any politician to have ties with USSR back then, even if before that Iliescu tried to do exactly this.

Despite American or French advices and agreements, URSS didnt intervened military, knowing much better the situation here and the fact that they dont controll the Army, and the intervention will result in a actual war, and an impossible to control course of events.

Things appear to be settled down somehow, behind the curtain, and we have now a new breed of "phanariots", but at least the destructuration of the country (kinda impossible however, due to ethnic makover) was rejected.
Almost any other things was unfortunatelly put down or reduced

@udar

Because you talked about the possible disintegration of the country desired by some in 1989, and hearing and reading some testimony in this regard, I wonder who these forces were and why would thy wanted this?
1. USSR - Here I've heard the theory of several groups that acted together, but with different objectives - one wanted to install a team to lead Romania that serve the soviet interests; other wanted to remove the danger latent but already present for the soviet Bassarabia by disintegrating Romania especially Transylvania.
2. Hungary - although watching with great interest the situation in the country and especially in Transylvania, and also think that if conditions were conducive to military intervention, wouldn't have refused to do it, I am convinced that the teams acting in the field were coordinated by the soviets!
3. Yougoslavia - surely very present especially in Banat with an unclear agenda for me, it's possible that thay were interested the same as hungarians were, can't bet on that! Maybe they were also coordinated by some other great power, why not USSR as well!
4. France - as I heard often they represented the Western Powers in Romania with an agenda unknown to me! Would they be interested in a desintegration of Romania too, with an independent Transylvania f.i., I don't know...

This is - generally speaking - a good approach !

But before analyzing the ( possible ) externally-sponsored groups let's review the possible internal ones ... like udar tried.

IoanTM, I don't understand!
Are you talking about internal groups of "terrorists" in general or about internal groups of "terrorists" who tried to disintegrate Romania? Because I don't believe in the latter option as viable!

Well ... I don't believe that there was any significant group ( even from foreign nation(s) ) which tried to "disintegrate Romania" in December 1989.

I'd say that this is sort of myth which appeared mainly "after the events" - when the bloddy evolution of events from Yugoslavia emerged ... but these events was triggered IMHO by different forces from the ones whose ignited the 1989-revolutions.
I made this affirmation because even the most consistent/widely accepted theory about a possible foreign-guided intervention - the one which states that USSR accepted/"encouraged" a series of reformists, pro-perestroika governments in Easter Europe to emerge and for this used several "methods" ( outside a direct military intervention ), different from country to country - still should considered that in 1989 the Helsinki treaties was sort of "base platform" for change. And the principle of "no-borders changes" was a fundamental principle of them ...

In 1990 I heard in Ramnicu-Sarat that in the night of 22 December 1989 an anti-aircraft battery located near town opened fire against a formation of planes coming from Soviet Union. If I remember right, they damaged a plane and determined some guys from plane to parachute. They captured one in good shape, and this one did not want to say one word.
The Romanian military guys sent him to Bucharest, and never heard any feedback about it.

Another one: I saw with my own eyes in the night of December 22, 1989, near the Radio Broadcast building (Bucharest), a guy falling from 5th or 6th floor, after being hit by the Romanian military personnel located right near me. So much for the official "there was no terrorist" or "people were shooting each other by mistake". The second quote has a core of truth, also based of what I had seen, but that is another story.

This post has been edited by Florin on January 19, 2012 09:43 pm