OLD MAN WITH A CAMERA
- HOME
- CONTENTS
- PHOTO GALLERY
- COMMENTS /FEEDBACK
- Hong Kong Street Art
- Gravesend, An Indian Princess and Tilbury
- Alcatraz : The Rock
- A Russian Tank in London
- TESTING PAGE
- Hastings Pier
- Postman's Park
- Tolpuddle Martyrs
- Gallery Index
- Gallery Myanmar
- Gallery Ship Canal
- Gallery Zurich
- Gallery San Francisco 01
- Village of Eyam
- John Babbacombe Lee The Man They Couldn't Hang
- Gallery Flatiron Building
- Others Index
- RICE PUDDING AND RADIO
- Romania, Vampires and Whitby
- CITY OF BUCHAREST
- BUCHAREST PARKS
- PELES CASTLE
- BRAN CASTLE
- BRASOV
- WHITBY
- WANCHAI BUILDINGS
- History
- TESTPAGE
- Salem : Witches Beware !
- SALEM ANSWER
- Salem Slide Show
- A Random walk around Toronto Sept 2018
- Stonehenge
- TEST TEST 01
- Sydney : Random Notes
- Freemantle
- PORTMEIRION
- Sydney : Random Notes
- IMAGE FIND PAGE
- PERTH - FLOWER STEALING KANGAROOS AND MORE
- BATH
- KEW GARDENS IN AUTUMN
- PERTH - FLOWER STEALING KANGAROOS AND MORE
- ALCHEMY
- PARIS SIGHTS
- Hobart : explorers, flags, yachts and a zoo!
- Frestonia - A Very British Revolution
- Gallery Template
- SAIGON SIGHTS 01
- EDINBURGH STORIES
- FRESTONIA
- FRESTONIA
HISTORICAL NOTES - ROMANIA
Origins
I read that most Romanians think their culture and national identity was defined by the Roman occupation which lasted 175 years in the first two centuries A.D.
Setting the tone for later events, the local population known as Dacians seem to have mixed freely and comfortably with their “invaders.
Certainly, I did not see any evidence of unrest and, in fact, the Romans left of their own accord when their troops were needed for conflicts elsewhere.
Although there is a small debate of the exact origin if the country’s name, it certainly relates to the Roman connection.
Occupations and Independence
For the next 1000 years or so, the region interacted with many different ambitious nearby nationalities including Hungarians, Slavs, Bulgars etc.
It seems that the native Romanians survived by learning to live with all these "visitors" and making no attempt to resist the diversity their population and the frequent shifting of regional boundaries.
At one time, a feudal society developed with the Romanians under the control of Hungarian noblemen. Next to dominate the area were the Turks of the Ottoman Empire. The Austrians also took control of parts of the region, primarily due to their conquering of Turkey.
Eventually, Romania did gain some level of autonomy in 1877, effectively becoming a constitutional kingdom.
This involved Carol 1st (at that time the “Ruling Prince” of Romania) becoming the first of 4 Kings in a constitutional monarchy which survived until 1947, a relatively long period of structural stability in Romanian history.
Carol 1st was, by training and experience, a military man and he tried to bring a certain organised approach to the Romanian economy and infrastructure.
Although he receives rather mixed reviews from historians, it was during his reign that Romanian became a truly independent nation.
World War 1 : Shifting Alliances
When Hostilities began, Romania conveniently “forgot” about an earlier secret support alliance signed with Austria-Hungary and declared neutrality.
With a second equally elegant side-step, Romania somehow ended the war in conflict with Austria-Hungary.
This was just in time to be part of the winning side and to gain back territory, particularly Transylvania, from the "losers" thus becoming twice it's original size and having a name upgrade to Greater Romania.
Between the Wars
Despite their “victory" after World War 1, Romania experienced a great deal of chaos and bloodshed between the wars, largely due to the erratic Crown Prince, later King Carol II
He was something of a playboy enjoying drinking, womanising and stamp-collecting. Obviously it was this last hobby that could not be tolerated by the people. The most memorable statement said to have been made by this guy was that he preferred "low-born" women because of their "informality, spontaneity, humour and passion" !
Inevitably, even without a tabloid press, his partying, marriages and affairs became well-known.
To make a long story short, a disastrous alliance with Germany at the start of the 2nd World War meant King Carol II was forced to abdicate in 1940 and suffered the embarrassment of having to sell off part of his stamp collection to finance his exile.
World War 2 : Shifting Alliances 2
Romanian started this conflict with a position of neutrality, supported by the King.
(I think I detect the underlying strategy here.... start neutral when things kick off and wait to see who gets off to a good start....)
As the Nazis and their Axis Power allies initially gained territory and influence, Romania thought that their own border integrity would be best upheld by, as usual, joining the side which seemed, at that time, to be winning.
However, they did not know that Germany had already made secret agreements, mainly with the Soviets regarding some of the territory of concern to the Romanians.
When it became clear that Romanian would be unlikely to benefit from their new-found alliance
(in fact, they lost most of the territory gained during the post- World War 1 negotiations),
The population blamed the existing government..and the King)
Ironically, the disappointment of the alliance with Germany led to a unstable situation in Romania which allowed a strong anti-Soviet, therefore pro-Germany faction to take control, thus escalating Roamania's commitment to the war.
In fact, according to some writers, the Romanian military involvement on the side of the European Axis Powers was second only to Germany itself.
However, Romania continued to display a flare for adjusting policy to ensure being on the winning side when, somewhat late, in 1944, as Soviet troops approached their borders, they arrested 53,159 German soldiers stationed in the country and declared war on the Nazis.
It seems the word “opportunistic" is barely enough to describe Romania's foreign policy.
Once again, Romania had exited a major conflict with lost territories restored but this time there was a cost with 670,000 of their military being killed in this war.
Post War
A chaotic period followed in Romania, due in some part to Winston Churchill apparently having engineered two conflicting agreements with the Soviets
Not surprisingly, Stalin decided that he rather preferred the second agreement to the first one!
The result was that, although the Communist Party in Romanian had been very small in 1944, it was able to grow dramatically through Soviet support, violence and general unrest amongst many sections of the Romanian population.
The West did not object seriously to this development because they feared that the Soviets would simply annex Romania if it did not become a communist state.
It was a very unpleasant time for Romania with an unknown number of people killed and even the King apparently being threatened with physical violence.
He abdicated and went to live in Switzerland and, quite frankly, I think I would have made the same decision.
When everything settled, Romania had become a Communist state under the control of Petru Groza.
One thing I noticed when researching Romanian leaders over the years was that most of them were very skilled at presenting different images to different people. Offering liberal ideas such as women’s suffrage and paying attention to International opinion whilst eliminating internal opposition by rigged elections and brutality.
Petru Groza fell neatly into this category and even the Soviets seems unsure of his intentions especially when his first government seems to have only to included a small number of declared communists. The story was that Groza wanted to create an illusion that he was heading a true coalition government. This was probably because there was some doubt as to whether or the the majority of the population was really ready for a highly Sovet-influenced communist state
Nicolae Ceausescu
In many ways, it was the rise to power of Nicolae Ceausescu which brought the Romania nation to the attention of the modern world.
Ceausescu had all the usual characteristics of a dictator. He was vain (as he grew older official portraits still showed him as he was at 40), cunning, economically incompetent and without any care whatsoever for the people under his governance.
He was also intellectually weak having spent a total of only 4 years in school.
His list of atrocities may not have reached the levels of some other despots but people starved as he and his family prospered.
Having said that he was a complex and confusing character.
A dedicated communist, he often went against the Soviets, most noticeably condemning the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968
As he oppressed his people with his own equally brutal version of Mao's Cultural Revolution, he pursued some level of acceptance and approval in the West.
He traveled widely, attempting to make alliances and friendships with many countries, receiving awards from the UK (and to think that some Brits objected to the Beatles getting medals!) and Danish Royal Family.
Meanwhile, Ceausescu was pushing his own people to have large families they couldn't support and mismanaging oil revenues and loan arrangements until the country ( but not his family) was fighting for financial survival.
At one time, he and his wife actually wanted to move into Peles castle (see main blog page) but were discouraged by the "fake news" that the castle was infected with some kind of fungus seriously dangerous to humans.
The 1989 Revolution
Eventually, Ceasusescu suffered the fate of most dictators
A comparatively small protest, concerning persecution of a Hungarian priest, in a place called Timisoara grew into a wider anti-Government movement. This momentum developed further after security forces fired on demonstrators, killing men, women and children.
For some commentators, the point at which Ceausescu became doomed was when, on 21st December 1989 the crowd booed him in Revolution Square, minutes into what was supposed to be a speech covering the "achievements" of his government.
Cameras captured the surprise on Ceausescu's face when the crowd turned against him.
As it is supposed to be a very historically significant moment, I found it on YouTube and you can watch it by clicking here.
The clip is a little long but interesting. It starts with what seems to be a "friendly" crowd well filled out with army personnel and patriotic flags.
Ceausescu is introduced and begins with rather meaningless broad positive comments.
Suddenly, (about 2.40 minutes into the clip)he looks shocked as the crowd turns on him and panic sets in amongst his entourage, including his wife.
What is not visible on this clip, but available elsewhere, is the attempt by the crowd to enter the building from a side door. Ceausescu tries to shout down the crowd and later to try to recover them by offering various new financial policies on minimum wage etc.
4 days later on Xmas Day 1989, he and his wife experienced a short trial and were then shot, leaving behind household items such as diamond-encrusted shoes and pure gold food scales ....
Post Ceausescu
Like other countries, Romania soon discovered that getting rid of a dictator does not bring immediate benefits.
A new government controlled by the newly-formed National Salvation Front and led by Ion lliescu proved to be as corrupt and almost as cruel as the one it replaced.
The following years saw more elections, more tyrants, more disappointments, more broken promises and rigged elections.
In fact, in some ways, life got even harder, especially with the scrapping of food subsidies and financial scandals causing the loss of what meagre savings many Romanians had acquired.
There is an interesting debate online about whether the 1989 revolution was an anti-communist rising or only an anti-Ceausescu event.
Given the fact that communists have remained in prominent positions for the past 29 years or so, there is strong argument in favour of the latter scenario.
I read that about 1/3rd of Romanians younger generation think life was probably better under the communists. This is disturbing and surprising statistic.
Even as I write this page, Romania has just been through a period of protest, debate and anger concerning proposed new legislation to make prosecution of corruption offences more difficult.
For example, video and audio recordings would not be admissible in corruption cases.
I can certainly think of one England National Football Manager and one American President who would support this change.
Fortunately, the new laws have been withdrawn, for the time being, but this matter may not yet be closed.
For balance, it should be mentioned that there has been progress in some areas with the joining of Nato ( North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) in 2004 and membership of the EU ( European Union) in 2007
Maybe surprisingly, Romania is also ranked a respectable 50th out of 147 in the so-termed “Human Development Index” which a United Nations measurement of life expectancy, education and income/capita.
This ranking is above some neighbours such as Bulgaria (56th), Turkey (71st), Serbia ( 66th) and Ukraine (84th) and, interestingly, is only one place below Russia (49th)
Although Romania itself seem to consider corruption as a major barrier to progress, the country is ranked 59th out of 200 territories for transparency, although this does represent a small deterioration compared with the past 5 years.
So, Romania still has some way to go to be a the kind of free, successful and democratic society that most of it's population wanted in 1989.
I read that most Romanians think their culture and national identity was defined by the Roman occupation which lasted 175 years in the first two centuries A.D.
Setting the tone for later events, the local population known as Dacians seem to have mixed freely and comfortably with their “invaders.
Certainly, I did not see any evidence of unrest and, in fact, the Romans left of their own accord when their troops were needed for conflicts elsewhere.
Although there is a small debate of the exact origin if the country’s name, it certainly relates to the Roman connection.
Occupations and Independence
For the next 1000 years or so, the region interacted with many different ambitious nearby nationalities including Hungarians, Slavs, Bulgars etc.
It seems that the native Romanians survived by learning to live with all these "visitors" and making no attempt to resist the diversity their population and the frequent shifting of regional boundaries.
At one time, a feudal society developed with the Romanians under the control of Hungarian noblemen. Next to dominate the area were the Turks of the Ottoman Empire. The Austrians also took control of parts of the region, primarily due to their conquering of Turkey.
Eventually, Romania did gain some level of autonomy in 1877, effectively becoming a constitutional kingdom.
This involved Carol 1st (at that time the “Ruling Prince” of Romania) becoming the first of 4 Kings in a constitutional monarchy which survived until 1947, a relatively long period of structural stability in Romanian history.
Carol 1st was, by training and experience, a military man and he tried to bring a certain organised approach to the Romanian economy and infrastructure.
Although he receives rather mixed reviews from historians, it was during his reign that Romanian became a truly independent nation.
World War 1 : Shifting Alliances
When Hostilities began, Romania conveniently “forgot” about an earlier secret support alliance signed with Austria-Hungary and declared neutrality.
With a second equally elegant side-step, Romania somehow ended the war in conflict with Austria-Hungary.
This was just in time to be part of the winning side and to gain back territory, particularly Transylvania, from the "losers" thus becoming twice it's original size and having a name upgrade to Greater Romania.
Between the Wars
Despite their “victory" after World War 1, Romania experienced a great deal of chaos and bloodshed between the wars, largely due to the erratic Crown Prince, later King Carol II
He was something of a playboy enjoying drinking, womanising and stamp-collecting. Obviously it was this last hobby that could not be tolerated by the people. The most memorable statement said to have been made by this guy was that he preferred "low-born" women because of their "informality, spontaneity, humour and passion" !
Inevitably, even without a tabloid press, his partying, marriages and affairs became well-known.
To make a long story short, a disastrous alliance with Germany at the start of the 2nd World War meant King Carol II was forced to abdicate in 1940 and suffered the embarrassment of having to sell off part of his stamp collection to finance his exile.
World War 2 : Shifting Alliances 2
Romanian started this conflict with a position of neutrality, supported by the King.
(I think I detect the underlying strategy here.... start neutral when things kick off and wait to see who gets off to a good start....)
As the Nazis and their Axis Power allies initially gained territory and influence, Romania thought that their own border integrity would be best upheld by, as usual, joining the side which seemed, at that time, to be winning.
However, they did not know that Germany had already made secret agreements, mainly with the Soviets regarding some of the territory of concern to the Romanians.
When it became clear that Romanian would be unlikely to benefit from their new-found alliance
(in fact, they lost most of the territory gained during the post- World War 1 negotiations),
The population blamed the existing government..and the King)
Ironically, the disappointment of the alliance with Germany led to a unstable situation in Romania which allowed a strong anti-Soviet, therefore pro-Germany faction to take control, thus escalating Roamania's commitment to the war.
In fact, according to some writers, the Romanian military involvement on the side of the European Axis Powers was second only to Germany itself.
However, Romania continued to display a flare for adjusting policy to ensure being on the winning side when, somewhat late, in 1944, as Soviet troops approached their borders, they arrested 53,159 German soldiers stationed in the country and declared war on the Nazis.
It seems the word “opportunistic" is barely enough to describe Romania's foreign policy.
Once again, Romania had exited a major conflict with lost territories restored but this time there was a cost with 670,000 of their military being killed in this war.
Post War
A chaotic period followed in Romania, due in some part to Winston Churchill apparently having engineered two conflicting agreements with the Soviets
- The “Yalta” Agreement which gave the Soviets a kind of over-seeing role in Eastern Europe and promoting the idea of early democratic elections.
- The more secret “Percentage” Agreement which simply declared the “influence” the Soviets would have in certain countries. For Romania this was set at 90%
Not surprisingly, Stalin decided that he rather preferred the second agreement to the first one!
The result was that, although the Communist Party in Romanian had been very small in 1944, it was able to grow dramatically through Soviet support, violence and general unrest amongst many sections of the Romanian population.
The West did not object seriously to this development because they feared that the Soviets would simply annex Romania if it did not become a communist state.
It was a very unpleasant time for Romania with an unknown number of people killed and even the King apparently being threatened with physical violence.
He abdicated and went to live in Switzerland and, quite frankly, I think I would have made the same decision.
When everything settled, Romania had become a Communist state under the control of Petru Groza.
One thing I noticed when researching Romanian leaders over the years was that most of them were very skilled at presenting different images to different people. Offering liberal ideas such as women’s suffrage and paying attention to International opinion whilst eliminating internal opposition by rigged elections and brutality.
Petru Groza fell neatly into this category and even the Soviets seems unsure of his intentions especially when his first government seems to have only to included a small number of declared communists. The story was that Groza wanted to create an illusion that he was heading a true coalition government. This was probably because there was some doubt as to whether or the the majority of the population was really ready for a highly Sovet-influenced communist state
Nicolae Ceausescu
In many ways, it was the rise to power of Nicolae Ceausescu which brought the Romania nation to the attention of the modern world.
Ceausescu had all the usual characteristics of a dictator. He was vain (as he grew older official portraits still showed him as he was at 40), cunning, economically incompetent and without any care whatsoever for the people under his governance.
He was also intellectually weak having spent a total of only 4 years in school.
His list of atrocities may not have reached the levels of some other despots but people starved as he and his family prospered.
Having said that he was a complex and confusing character.
A dedicated communist, he often went against the Soviets, most noticeably condemning the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968
As he oppressed his people with his own equally brutal version of Mao's Cultural Revolution, he pursued some level of acceptance and approval in the West.
He traveled widely, attempting to make alliances and friendships with many countries, receiving awards from the UK (and to think that some Brits objected to the Beatles getting medals!) and Danish Royal Family.
Meanwhile, Ceausescu was pushing his own people to have large families they couldn't support and mismanaging oil revenues and loan arrangements until the country ( but not his family) was fighting for financial survival.
At one time, he and his wife actually wanted to move into Peles castle (see main blog page) but were discouraged by the "fake news" that the castle was infected with some kind of fungus seriously dangerous to humans.
The 1989 Revolution
Eventually, Ceasusescu suffered the fate of most dictators
A comparatively small protest, concerning persecution of a Hungarian priest, in a place called Timisoara grew into a wider anti-Government movement. This momentum developed further after security forces fired on demonstrators, killing men, women and children.
For some commentators, the point at which Ceausescu became doomed was when, on 21st December 1989 the crowd booed him in Revolution Square, minutes into what was supposed to be a speech covering the "achievements" of his government.
Cameras captured the surprise on Ceausescu's face when the crowd turned against him.
As it is supposed to be a very historically significant moment, I found it on YouTube and you can watch it by clicking here.
The clip is a little long but interesting. It starts with what seems to be a "friendly" crowd well filled out with army personnel and patriotic flags.
Ceausescu is introduced and begins with rather meaningless broad positive comments.
Suddenly, (about 2.40 minutes into the clip)he looks shocked as the crowd turns on him and panic sets in amongst his entourage, including his wife.
What is not visible on this clip, but available elsewhere, is the attempt by the crowd to enter the building from a side door. Ceausescu tries to shout down the crowd and later to try to recover them by offering various new financial policies on minimum wage etc.
4 days later on Xmas Day 1989, he and his wife experienced a short trial and were then shot, leaving behind household items such as diamond-encrusted shoes and pure gold food scales ....
Post Ceausescu
Like other countries, Romania soon discovered that getting rid of a dictator does not bring immediate benefits.
A new government controlled by the newly-formed National Salvation Front and led by Ion lliescu proved to be as corrupt and almost as cruel as the one it replaced.
The following years saw more elections, more tyrants, more disappointments, more broken promises and rigged elections.
In fact, in some ways, life got even harder, especially with the scrapping of food subsidies and financial scandals causing the loss of what meagre savings many Romanians had acquired.
There is an interesting debate online about whether the 1989 revolution was an anti-communist rising or only an anti-Ceausescu event.
Given the fact that communists have remained in prominent positions for the past 29 years or so, there is strong argument in favour of the latter scenario.
I read that about 1/3rd of Romanians younger generation think life was probably better under the communists. This is disturbing and surprising statistic.
Even as I write this page, Romania has just been through a period of protest, debate and anger concerning proposed new legislation to make prosecution of corruption offences more difficult.
For example, video and audio recordings would not be admissible in corruption cases.
I can certainly think of one England National Football Manager and one American President who would support this change.
Fortunately, the new laws have been withdrawn, for the time being, but this matter may not yet be closed.
For balance, it should be mentioned that there has been progress in some areas with the joining of Nato ( North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) in 2004 and membership of the EU ( European Union) in 2007
Maybe surprisingly, Romania is also ranked a respectable 50th out of 147 in the so-termed “Human Development Index” which a United Nations measurement of life expectancy, education and income/capita.
This ranking is above some neighbours such as Bulgaria (56th), Turkey (71st), Serbia ( 66th) and Ukraine (84th) and, interestingly, is only one place below Russia (49th)
Although Romania itself seem to consider corruption as a major barrier to progress, the country is ranked 59th out of 200 territories for transparency, although this does represent a small deterioration compared with the past 5 years.
So, Romania still has some way to go to be a the kind of free, successful and democratic society that most of it's population wanted in 1989.
Proudly powered by Weebly