Romanian king's remains go home

[Maresal-06]

Maresal-06 - It's incomprehensible to me how you can defend communism, a system based on mass murder and forcing its ideology down the throat of everyone. If Romania had had 50 years of democracy after WWII, instead of Stalinism and Ceausescu, we would have been in a much much better situation right now. I agree 100% with Victor on this subject.

It would be premature to condemn "communism" (it was more socialism) for all the bad things in Romania. We must look objectivly at what did "democrat" politicians in the 30's and even today. Look at the Constantinescu pitifull and shamefull administration. :roll: I read both sides of the medal... To have an opinion, you must base yourself on numerous sources. You can read Nicolae Iorga's biography (were you'll se what kind of "historian" he was and also learn many things about Romania's politicians of the epoch - and nationalism also). The book was wrote by a Hungarian-Romanian Jew - Nicholas Nagy-Talavera, who lived in Transylvania, and had the occasion to study the subject. He met Iorga's family, met his assassin (Traian Boeru), consulted historical documents. He even saw Codreanu... Other interesting memory books are Constantin Argetoianu's Memories, and Petre Pandrea's ones. In all these documents, you'll learn that communism was a little child, and that the democrat politicians prepared the road to communism. You'll also realize that in life we pay for everything and if that communism arrived, that means it musted arrive. You cannot just turn the cards and blame communism for everything. That's what the communists did with the ancient régime, and that's why socialism disapeard. And much more, if the actual regime is failing to see more than the mass murder of the 40's and 50's, he will fall too. History brings justice everywhere.

Recently, I read in "Dosarele Istoriei" that Ceausescu was far from being a monster, and that he fought for the interests of his country. For example, he organized debates with Breznev for the integral recuperation of Romania's treasure at Moscow. And they had other plans too, regarding Basarabia and Bucovina (Paul Niculescu-Mizil). These are all realities who can't be ignored. What did Nastase or Constantinescu for the Romanian treasure? What did Constantinescu with Bucovina and Basarabia, or the Serpent's Island, at Neptun?

Explain me in which way Romania would have been a paradise with capitalism? First of all, this was impossible because history didn't allow it. But let's suppose that the Americans would have invaded the Balkans and "liberated" Romania... Nice subject for a future thread, no?

Best regards,

M-06

[mabadesc]

M-06,

Thanks for the reading list (I'm not being sarcastic). I admit I haven't read a lot of what you mentioned, and I intend to do so. One should be as well informed as possible, although you have to keep in mind that some writings are just opinions of their authors - not all of them are facts.

Regardless, here are a couple of comments addressing your last post.

You have a valid point about Constantinescu not being a success, but you are not putting things in perspective. Whatever democratic leader may be in power now, he is inheriting a country after 50 years of communism and dictatorship, which changes the equation completely. You can't just "jump" over the last 50 years and say "Well, there's democracy now, how come we're not as successful as France or England". Granted, you may not agree that the last 50 years were destructive, but still, this would be just your opinion, so you should still acknowledge that the past 50 years affect the present. How? In too many ways, most of which we'll never know, so it's just useless speculation to try to mention them. What is important to realize is that it had a dramatic effect on the current situation.

About Ceausescu, he certainly was a complex person (albeit an evil one). You are correct, one should look at both sides of the coin, but after looking at both sides he has the right to form his own judgement or opinion. In some cases, the two sides balance each other off. In other cases (for instance, with Ceausescu), the evil side far outweighs the good side. It's perhaps true that he was a nationalist and "fought" for the good of the country in some situations. But he sure had a strange way of showing it....
He also eliminated the free market, effectively outlawed all other political parties, led his people to starvation, executed most of his vocal opponents, imprisoned his minor opponents, created one of the most absurd and humiliating "cult" systems by making the population declare how they "adored" him. He forced a lot of people into professions they did not choose for themselves, he censured all newspapers, TV and radio, he created an environment of fear with people always being afraid that they're being listened to by the police (whether that was real or perceived, it doesn't matter, since people felt that way).........and on, and on, and on, I could go on forever.

About your comment on "Socialism", we should note that the term "socialism" has a different meaning in Romania. Since Ceausescu declared the country as socialist, the term is now being equated with "communism" among most people who lived or live in Romania. Romania was definitely not socialist under his rule. It was a nation led by a egomaniacal, totalitarian, communist-inspired dictator.
Let's put things in perspective: France has been socialist since the 80's. Sweden, Norway, Finland are socialist countries. But it's certainly not the socialism experienced by Romania under Ceausescu. These countries don't operate under a twisted Marxist theory. Their core of values reside in the free market system and in free elections. Both of these values were completed rejected by Ceausescu.

You asked me to explain how Romania would have been a "capitalist paradise" if it remained a capitalist country right after the war. The answer is way too long, and I don't pretend to know how things would have gone or how well, for that matter. All I can say is that I'm sure things would have been BETTER, simply because it's been proven that communism/Marxist socialism does not work in practice. Look around the world.....do you think North Korea is doing so well?

Finally, you said: "But let's suppose that the Americans would have invaded the Balkans and "liberated" Romania... Nice subject for a future thread, no?"

On this one, I agree with you completely. It is a nice subject for a future thread. We should actually consider starting such a thread, just to see all the different theories people have on the subject.

Regards,

Mihai.

[Victor]

Very interesting... Romania had signed a treaty of secret alliance with Austria in 1883... And now Austria was intending to invade his ally? I don't see the logic

The plan belonged to the count Alois Aerenthal, the Foreign Minister of the Empire.
The peasants started to agitate in Flamanzi because Mochi Fleischer refused to sign the land leasing contracts for 1907, thus leaving them without work. Frightened, Fleischer fled to Cernauti. Immediately after that strange characters appeared in the villages that depended on him (for land), buying drinks to everyone and instigating to violence. There were attacks on the mayors, the gendarmes etc. But at the beginning of March, things were generally under control. That is when the agents in the media started their dirty work. The Adevarul newspaper started releasing news about the "great massacres" and about how some peasants got their contracts through violence. Of course this was nonsense, but the real revolt had started to spread. Bands of people lead by imperial agents roamed the countryside pillaging and killing. It is interesting to note that in many cases the villagers defended themselves. The Austrians started to amass troops at Brasov and Cernauti and were preparing to "intervene" and occupy Romania. Carol replaced the government and mobilized 140,000 men by the end of March. The real bloodshed began now and the situation was put under control. Carol I appealed to the Kaiser and to the Austrian Emperor, both of which said that an intervention was not necessary. Thus Aerenthal lost his support and immediately after that the revolt ended, by charm, leaving many confused.
Try to find and read the article.

Since the assassination of Codreanu and other leaders in 1938, the Iron Guard was a dead organization; it was like a potato. Half underground, and half on the surface. So nearly all the good elements were exterminated by Carol II.

Well that means that there were not many good men in the Iron Guard were they if Carol managed to kill all of them?

It had even a branch of it controlled by Soviet agents

Yes, Antonescu mentioned that Communists had infiltrated the Legion. IIRC during the rebellion, the PCR was instructed from Moscow to assist the Legion and agents were parachuted in Dobruja.

10%???????? You must be joking... Maybe 50%

Where were you when I mentioned that 80% were literate in the inter-war period?

It was a geo-political problem. But let it be, you cannot understand this.

Yes, I was not blessed with your superior intelligence.

When talking of people with your mentality, YOU ARE RIGHT!

Excuse me for not seeing all the benefits of Communism. There must be something wrong with me.

But you seem to show me that "You are the smartest and fairest" who never needs any lessons, anywhere.

It is strange that you give me the same impression. However, I really do not need any lessons.

Nationalism cannot blind you if read other authors than Mueller, Djuvara

No comment. Btw, I never mentioned Djuvara.

Nice historical of your family... From what part of Basarabia do you have an origin? The real Basarabia is just the southern part a

The village Budai is near Telenesti. The name comes from a large barrel. It is a wine producing area.
I have been there only once, in 1990. I still have many distant relatives in Rep Moldova, in Chisinau, Balti, Calarasi.
I know that Bessarabia was only the name of the southern part of the territory between the rivers Prut and Dniester. But because I cannot call it Moldova (since it is only half of it) I could not think of another name.

And now, why don't you post some names of foreigners who fought AGAINST Romania?

I will leave that to you. That is if you have the list of names of the entire Red Army, USAAF and RAF. :roll:

Yes, the Americans bombed and killed the Romanian soldiers. The Soviets were not better.

Actually the Americans did by mistake. The Soviets generally did not.

[johnny_bi]

You are right dead-cat... I'm sorry for the misunderstanding ...
I shall clear my post ... This could bring flames ... and it is not the thread...

BI

[johnny_bi]

Now I think that the discussion is far from the original topic ...

BI

[Maresal-06]

mabadesc said:

Thanks for the reading list (I'm not being sarcastic). I admit I haven't read a lot of what you mentioned, and I intend to do so. One should be as well informed as possible, although you have to keep in mind that some writings are just opinions of their authors - not all of them are facts.

Thanks again for the reply. I do not have too much time for the forum these days, so don't expect very fast replies ... I agree with you that the authors have their opinions, but a good research is preferable with 90% sources and 10% opinion. When talking about Nagy-Talavera, I want to mention that this guy surprized me with a lot of sources. Many sources are building facts, etc.

You have a valid point about Constantinescu not being a success, but you are not putting things in perspective. Whatever democratic leader may be in power now, he is inheriting a country after 50 years of communism and dictatorship, which changes the equation completely. You can't just "jump" over the last 50 years and say "Well, there's democracy now, how come we're not as successful as France or England". Granted, you may not agree that the last 50 years were destructive, but still, this would be just your opinion, so you should still acknowledge that the past 50 years affect the present. How? In too many ways, most of which we'll never know, so it's just useless speculation to try to mention them. What is important to realize is that it had a dramatic effect on the current situation.

I understand that it may be "hard" to rebuild a country after 50 years... But listen... The passage from the socialist system to the capitalist one couldn't have been other than a disaster. But what I want to know is in which way the past 50 years were worst than today? In Romania, democracy is far from being real and successful. It's only a question of interests. I remember Bush saying at the eve of the 2000 elections that Iliescu was a bolshevik criminal, or something like this... And now, they are shaking hands! Why? Because of interests. And now, Romania is a real democracy in the eyes of the Bush administration, because she supports the Americans. (I think that we should create a separate thread for this )

About Ceausescu, he certainly was a complex person (albeit an evil one). You are correct, one should look at both sides of the coin, but after looking at both sides he has the right to form his own judgement or opinion. In some cases, the two sides balance each other off. In other cases (for instance, with Ceausescu), the evil side far outweighs the good side. It's perhaps true that he was a nationalist and "fought" for the good of the country in some situations. But he sure had a strange way of showing it....
He also eliminated the free market, effectively outlawed all other political parties, led his people to starvation, executed most of his vocal opponents, imprisoned his minor opponents, created one of the most absurd and humiliating "cult" systems by making the population declare how they "adored" him. He forced a lot of people into professions they did not choose for themselves, he censured all newspapers, TV and radio, he created an environment of fear with people always being afraid that they're being listened to by the police (whether that was real or perceived, it doesn't matter, since people felt that way).........and on, and on, and on, I could go on forever.

I don't admire Ceausescu's personality cult, which was grotesque and exagerated. But actually in Romania, we see daily on TV Americans, Americans, Americans... Or in the 30's, look with what a silly and grotesque phraseology was aclaimed king Carol II; you can purchased the carlist newspaper "Romania", and see the "liberator", "the Sun-king" etc... I bet that his cult would have been worst there was no 1940 events. Antonescu too had a strong personality cult, also pretty justified. Except maybe for the first 2 constitutional monarchs, every Romanian leader had it's cult... If Michael the Brave would be alive and ruling Romania, imagine!!!
Ceausescu had not eliminated the free market. The free market was eliminated earlier, gradually after 1948. Ceausescu inherited a country which was under Soviet influence and which had abolished free market from a long time.
For the starvation thing, this highly justified, but he never really informed the people why... Romania had an external debt of nearly 15 billion $, which Ceausescu was seeking to lichidate, and bring Romania financiarily independent. During the 80's he gradually lichidated the debt, but at a cost: Nearly everything produced was exported, which leaved the people with poor products and in small quantity. From the prosperous 70's, Romania jumped into the dark 80's. Also, the great powers didn't admire Ceausescu, so they tried stop Romania from this process, boycotating her products in some cases. But the régime failed to inform directly the people of what was happening.
For the other stuff, you can find it also in the democratic system. The Press and television are censured in the Western World when touching undesirable subjects. I watched Noam Chomsky being censured on American TV...

About your comment on "Socialism", we should note that the term "socialism" has a different meaning in Romania. Since Ceausescu declared the country as socialist, the term is now being equated with "communism" among most people who lived or live in Romania. Romania was definitely not socialist under his rule. It was a nation led by a egomaniacal, totalitarian, communist-inspired dictator.

Communism is the utopy, the "dream"... Communism as described by Marx is a society without classes where the power belongs to the masses and property is abolished, and everyone does what he wants. Classes were still existing in Romania, the people was NOT governing and the notion of property didn't disapear. In communism, everything belongs to everyone. In socialist Romania, this was reserved to some particular sectors. In reality, communism should not be synonim with dictature or totalitarism, but with democracy. But nationalism has brought it to this. "National-Communism" or "National-Socialism" can be compared. The notion of "national" was added to distinguish it from the motto: "Workers of the World, Unite". So the new motto was: "Workers of Romania, Unite"...

You asked me to explain how Romania would have been a "capitalist paradise" if it remained a capitalist country right after the war. The answer is way too long, and I don't pretend to know how things would have gone or how well, for that matter. All I can say is that I'm sure things would have been BETTER, simply because it's been proven that communism/Marxist socialism does not work in practice. Look around the world.....do you think North Korea is doing so well?

This is what I'm learning in economy: "Socialism does not work"... In North Korea, for example the system functiones but there's a big problem: the country suffers an American and International embargo. That means Korea is suffering just as Romania was in the 80's. But the country is still functiuning, but at a lower capacity. There's also an energy crisis there... National-Socialism in Hitler's Germany worked very well... Germany was able to become a world power with this system... In Nazi Germany, the economy was nearly all in the State's hands.
For the Capitalist paradise, IF THE AMERICANS WERE "LIBERATING" ROMANIA IN 1944, I can show you Mexico... The good Americans are there since WWII and even before... And it's a third world country which is exploited to death. Poverty, misery, pollution etc.

Finally, you said: "But let's suppose that the Americans would have invaded the Balkans and "liberated" Romania... Nice subject for a future thread, no?"

There's the section "WHAT IF" on the forum... I suggest you to create a new thread on this subject, if you wish to continue debating it.

Best regards,

M-06

[mabadesc]

M-06,

I think we've taken this as far as it can go. I do have replies regarding your last post, but I won't mention them since this debate can go on forever. I respect your point of view, and you certainly made some interesting arguments, but I disagree with your opinion regarding Ceausescu and the last 50 years in Romania.

We'll just have to "agree to disagree". Thanks for the lively debate and for your replies to my posts.

Regards,

Mihai.

[MihaiC]

Maresal-06 said:

Dosar my as*. Come on!!! Is this a Doina Cornea's type of joke or what?! You didnt need any "dosar" to go to university and be an engineer... That's propagandistic crap.

My mother parents were considered “chiaburi” – whealty peasants because they have some land (not too much) and a “cazan de tuica” – alchool distiler. They also had 8 childern and they barely managed to take care of them all, but my mother at first was deny entrance at university because she was a chiabur’s children. Only lots of perseverance and a few “gifts” resolved the problem.

Ceausescu could be mercifull with ancient elite because till he came to power those people were already “reeducated” or dead.

I don’t think that is know the location of the Tudor Vladimirescu grave/well. About Nicolae Balcescu I really don’t know – maybe is because there is nobody or too few who make lobby for him.

mabadesc
1 acre = 0,4 ha
1 pogon = 0,5 ha

The romanian population support for Iraq invasion is because of the hope that Romania will benefit economicaly from this. We also have high % of support for entrance in NATO and UE even if most of the people don’t understand exactly that is all about – just that we will be better. Most of the romanian don’t give a damn about iraqis suffering. They are too worried about daily problems.

And to the original topic:
I consider Carol II a bad king, who did much harm for Romania, but remember the expresion “about the deads, only good”. The fact that he is phisically buried in Romania is much less important. We should try to analise the past with less emotion. The same about Antonescu – he should be taken lighty. After all he was a military dictator, not the exponent for a ideology to present danger today.

[Maresal-06]

Maresal-06 said:

Quote:
Dosar my as*. Come on!!! Is this a Doina Cornea's type of joke or what?! You didnt need any "dosar" to go to university and be an engineer... That's propagandistic crap.

MihaiC wrote:
My mother parents were considered “chiaburi” – whealty peasants because they have some land (not too much) and a “cazan de tuica” – alchool distiler. They also had 8 childern and they barely managed to take care of them all, but my mother at first was deny entrance at university because she was a chiabur’s children. Only lots of perseverance and a few “gifts” resolved the problem.

First of all, hello! Secondly, when I wrote about mrs. Cornea, I was referring myself to the Socialist Republic of Romania and not to the early years of Stalinist RPR. Your mother's parents must have lived the years 1948-1958 to be treated as "chiaburi".

Ceausescu could be mercifull with ancient elite because till he came to power those people were already “reeducated” or dead.

Maybe you're meaning that he could be MERCILESS, if they would have been reeducated or dead... But this isn't the point. We are talking of culture and alfabetization during the Ceausescu era. I was saying that the late Dej and Ceausescu regimes did a lot more positive things for Romania (economically) than during the whole monarchic period (1866-1947), when Romania was ruled by foreigners and phanariots.

I don’t think that is know the location of the Tudor Vladimirescu grave/well. About Nicolae Balcescu I really don’t know – maybe is because there is nobody or too few who make lobby for him.

We don't know where they are, but we know were is Carol and his mistress... We bring hom "home" and burry him like a national hero, at the costs of the people! But we don't give a sh*t on great and true Romanians like Balcescu or Vladimirescu... Very sad.

The romanian population support for Iraq invasion is because of the hope that Romania will benefit economicaly from this. We also have high % of support for entrance in NATO and UE even if most of the people don’t understand exactly that is all about – just that we will be better. Most of the romanian don’t give a damn about iraqis suffering. They are too worried about daily problems.

Since the Americans are occupying Romania, did something change? Are you living better out there? Are people in Mexico living better (Mexico is very close to the US)? That's just funny! Dej and some Romanian patriots managed to get ride of the Soviet foreign troops occupying our country in 1958... And now, we manage to bring other imperialists, but without any war or armistice! Just like this! Ok, let's say that these Americans will put pressure on Ukraine to cede us back Insula Serpilor, the Bugeac and Northern Moldavia with Cernauti... Let's just suppose...

And to the original topic:
I consider Carol II a bad king, who did much harm for Romania, but remember the expresion “about the deads, only good”. The fact that he is phisically buried in Romania is much less important. We should try to analise the past with less emotion. The same about Antonescu – he should be taken lighty. After all he was a military dictator, not the exponent for a ideology to present danger today.

The expressions "about deads, only good" is childish. If I were to sustain that kind of affirmation, I'll say to some of you here:

-Why are you continuing to judge Ceausescu - he's dead???
-Why some of you continue to judge Romanian marshal Antonescu - he's dead???
-Why should we judge Stalin - he's dead???

After all he was a military dictator, not the exponent for a ideology to present danger today.

What kind of ideology could present a danger today? Communism? Nationalism? Capitalism? And for whom?

Regards,

M-06

[MihaiC]

Maresal-06 said:
Your mother's parents must have lived the years 1948-1958 to be treated as "chiaburi".

My mother entered to university in 1968

Maybe you're meaning that he could be MERCILESS, if they would have been reeducated or dead... But this isn't the point. We are talking of culture and alfabetization during the Ceausescu era. I was saying that the late Dej and Ceausescu regimes did a lot more positive things for Romania (economically) than during the whole monarchic period (1866-1947), when Romania was ruled by foreigners and phanariots.

Maybe I didn't said it well (and I don't have a dictionary right now), but what I want to say is that Ceausescu could be more soft with disidents because most of those who were stubborn were dead and the majority of the others were "reeducated". About alfabetization - the benefits in this particular area were much smaller that the general price that we had to pay. And I say that knowing that without communism my father wouldn't afford to go to university. And what make you think that if Romania would have remained capitalist after WWII there wouldn't have been alfabetization. If you look at high % of alfabetization in communist countries, let me tell you that I had in my class a few boys who pass the class just because the Party wanted a 100% promotion.

We bring him "home" and burry him like a national hero

Not a hero, a former king.

Since the Americans are occupying Romania, did something change? Are you living better out there?

USA didn't occupy Romania, they just establish a base with accord of romanian government. And yes, we benefit from that - americans repair some streets toward their base and a few hotels in Mamaia were full at a time of a year when usually are empty (now that the seson started, they moved).

The expressions "about deads, only good" is childish. If I were to sustain that kind of affirmation, I'll say to some of you here:

-Why are you continuing to judge Ceausescu - he's dead???
-Why some of you continue to judge Romanian marshal Antonescu - he's dead???
-Why should we judge Stalin - he's dead???

That expression, like the "forgive but never forget" are not to take in an absolute manner. If we let emotion to lead us, we are not objective anymore and therefore we will make mistakes. I can say about a historical personality "he was wrong" without getting mad.

What kind of ideology could present a danger today? Communism? Nationalism? Capitalism? And for whom?

Any kind of extremist ideology is dangerous.
Socialism/Social-democracy is good. The extreme left (communism) is bad.
Nationalism (to be proud to be romanian) is good. Extreme nationalism (romanians are the only good ones) is bad.
Capitalism is the best for the moment. Extreme (wild) capitalism is bad.

[Cezarprimo]

Reading the messages posted here, I stumbled upon some points of view that dazzled me...

First, to my knowledge, the US and Romania were at war between 1941 and 1944. Following, US planes bombed Romanian tragets killing romanians and the romanians fought back killig americans.

Now comes the point of view of Victor:

Maresal-06 wrote:
Yes, the Americans bombed and killed the Romanian soldiers. The Soviets were not better.

Actually the Americans did by mistake. The Soviets generally did not

I don't belive that the americans bombed and killed romanians by mistake I belive they did it very much on purpose. And do the romanians feel better being killed by the americans than by the russians ?

Regards

[Maresal-06]

MihaiC wrote:

but what I want to say is that Ceausescu could be more soft with disidents because most of those who were stubborn were dead and the majority of the others were "reeducated".

Do not exagerate here... The Ceausescu era is not comparable with the Pitesti experiment or Stalinist Romania. Disidents under the Ceausescu regime weren't that much as some people are trying to show us, mainly to build a story of "Romanian opposition" as the communists build the story of the "armed revolt of 23 august 1944 - anti-fascist and anti-imperialistic uprising conceved and lead by the PCR"... For example, Silviu Brucan (real name Saül Bruckner) was so "persecuted" in the 80's that he lived in confort buing food from the Party's shops. Do not forget that this mother***** was one of the top redactors at Scanteia after 1945, doing propaganda in order to sentence to death Antonescu and other top Romanian generals arrested. When he realized that Ceausescu was no more at Moscow's or Washington's orders, he became a "disident"... He also knows very well to persuade Romanians on PROTV that Basarabia and Northern Moldavia (Bucovina) aren't Romanian... Same thing about the "great artist" Mircea Dinescu, who was connected with the CIA during the late 80's (remember his magazine - Plai cu Boi!)...

If you look at high % of alfabetization in communist countries, let me tell you that I had in my class a few boys who pass the class just because the Party wanted a 100% promotion

Actually, communist countries had one of the most performant educational systems in the world ( I'm not jocking). In USA or Canada, some people do not know were is France in the World, or their own country. Here in Québec/Canada, nearly 70% of the students in mathematics are not passing (not having 60%) their year, and they infinetely repeat exams. As for the discipline, it's horrible. Corruption is found also in the Western "prosperity", and maybe even in a greater percentage. But from the moment that the US won the Cold War, it's normal that you see only the propaganda against Ceausescu's regime.

Not a hero, a former king.

For what he had done (and we agree), he shouldn't have been buried as a former king and on the people's cost.

And yes, we benefit from that - americans repair some streets toward their base and a few hotels in Mamaia were full at a time of a year when usually are empty (now that the seson started, they moved).

Aha... So only foreigners can repair our streets (not us). :roll:

That expression, like the "forgive but never forget" are not to take in an absolute manner. If we let emotion to lead us, we are not objective anymore and therefore we will make mistakes. I can say about a historical personality "he was wrong" without getting mad.

The "mistakes" (they are NOT mistakes) of Carol scelled the destiny of an entire nation for some 50 years and even more to come. By "being objective", what are you meaning? From the moment that you judge, you are subjective. Subjectivity is something human, and natural unlike objectivity who doesn't apply to the laws of nature and life.

Any kind of extremist ideology is dangerous.
Socialism/Social-democracy is good. The extreme left (communism) is bad.
Nationalism (to be proud to be romanian) is good. Extreme nationalism (romanians are the only good ones) is bad.
Capitalism is the best for the moment. Extreme (wild) capitalism is bad.

Dangerous for whom?

Best regards,

M-06

[Victor]

I don't belive that the americans bombed and killed romanians by mistake I belive they did it very much on purpose. And do the romanians feel better being killed by the americans than by the russians ?

Regards

Cezarprimo,

Actually the US declared war in 1942, just before the first air raid (Operation Halpro) on Ploesti.

When I said that I meant that the only friendly fire incident with the Americans (with the 4th Paratrooper battalion) was really accidental, unlike many friendly fire incidents with the Soviets

[Victor]

Mihai, you are wasting your breath with Maresal-06. He will never give up his opinion and will ignore any other argument that does not fit his views.

[Maresal-06]

Victor said :

Mihai, you are wasting your breath with Maresal-06. He will never give up his opinion and will ignore any other argument that does not fit his views.

I don't know if you read the books proposed by me some posts earlier... Because you seem to ignore the other side and minimize everything that does not fit YOUR views.

I read the article about the uprising of 1907, and I'll give a good answer in the folowing days... But I also want to find Stoenescu's book volume II of the history of the Romanian coup d'états, were he has precious info on 1907 and 100 times more documented than the phanariot's Caragea article...

I also suggest you another interesting article - P. Turlea - How leaved Carol II the Country (Magazin Istoric - No. 2 February 2003).