Footage of Ceaușescu's Romania

[Robespierres Neck]

For anyone who is interested, I found 3 hours of footage from Nicolae Ceaușescu's Romania with English subtitles:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h50di3Bc6g

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I have never heard good things about this guy.
I have only heard that a lot of kids were taken away from their parents. Is that true?

[Deicide]

''Ceausescu, happy birthday!'' *chant* * applause*

His personality cult sickens me.

[Robespierres Neck]

I have never heard good things about this guy.
I have only heard that a lot of kids were taken away from their parents. Is that true?

Yes, they were his own little state puppets.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Yes, they were his own little state puppets.

What do you mean?

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

I saw this movie at the Reykjavik International Film Festival last year. It is a kind of a mock-autobiography of Ceausescu. It´s entirely composed of official footage from The Romanian National Television and National Film Archives. It´s in chronological order and is supposed to be telling the story from Ceausescus point of view, which is an important part of it´s ironical character. In some ways it attempts to mimic fictional historical epics. It contains some interesting material and is worth seeing if the topic interests you. It´s ironical character is it´s strongest point though IMO.
IMDB link:www.imdb.com/title/tt1646958/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1646958/)

[Blanquist]

Interesting video.

Let's discuss.

1. Why was Ceausescu the only eastern block leader to eat lead? Is it because he was a brutal tyrant unlike other, much softer leaders, such as Honecker.

2. In connection with the first question; What was life in Romania like compared to other Eastern European countries? I mean here their socio-economic well-being compared with that of Bulgaria, GDR, Yugoslavia, etc.

3. What interesting facts can be brought up

4. Is there a segment of Romania's current population who regrets the way the situation was dealt with?

5. How was he able to maintain his notorious 'maverick' style? How was he able to condemn the crushing of the Prague Spring, while all other leaders endorsed it? How was he able to maintain relations with Israel? etc.

6. How wide spread was the movement to topple him, was it just a small group of ex-loyalists? Who was involved, how widespread was it?

[ridethejetski]

1. Why was Ceausescu the only eastern block leader to eat lead? Is it because he was a brutal tyrant unlike other, much softer leaders, such as Honecker.

I suppose all the other leaders in Eastern Europe were not so dominant, with the party itself being the 'leading power', whereas Ceasusescu had created a much greater personality cult, and portrayed himself as the 'Conductor' of the Romanians, so the regimes power was identified more him. Its worth noting that it was the security forces who first opened fire in Romania in 1989 against protestors, something which largely (or mostly?) the rest of the Eastern Bloc refrained from. Many also suspect that he was executed by the army quickly so that he could not speak out against others who were complicit in his regime. The fact that Romania was one of the last in Eastern Europe to go, i suppose many within the Army and authorities felt the system could not go on, but the personal power and cult of Ceausescu (and it his 12 relatives in high rank position of power) convinced them that he had to be removed before the Communist Power could cede power (and also killing him would save their own butts)


2. In connection with the first question; What was life in Romania like compared to other Eastern European countries? I mean here their socio-economic well-being compared with that of Bulgaria, GDR, Yugoslavia, etc.

Im not entirely sure but from the 1980s many saw increase in poverty and harder living standards as loans had to be paid back from the west, as well as extravagant and pointless policies from the Conductor. The substantial Hungarian minority of Transylvania faced discrimination as Romanian nationalism increased in the 1960s onwards (Romania was originally designated a multiethnic state after WW2, but it then changed itself to a uni-ethnic Romanian state). In 1977 miners went on strike.


3. What interesting facts can be brought up

Many of the Iron Guards after WW2 decided to defect to the Communist controlled security forces.

The Hungarian and Romanian presses both engaged in an open media war over Romania's Hungarian minority.

Romania living within a certain kilometre distance to the Hungarian border were allowed to cross over for the day. For many on the border regions, this become a vital part of maintaining a relatively ok level of subsistence, as they would sell the cheap goods Romania had in excess or what they had stolen from the factory, to the Hungarians and buy some of the nicer Hungarian goods. This was mostly food staples that were absent in Romania but also some luxuries if their money permitted, such as cola (which would be bought out to impress friends) or clothes (to smuggle more of these back into Romania people would wear old clothes on the way to Hungary and then discard them once purchasing nicer clothes in Hungary)

Romania was after WW2, originally or supposed but never implemented (can't remember which), to be called Rominia to minimise the Latin element of Romanian identity.

The Latin identity of Romania meant Ceasescu looked for close relations with other 'Latin' countries like France and Italy (He met De Gaulle in 1968 when protests in France i think? Im not sure on that)

When the Ceausescu's were invited to sleep at Queen of Englands residence, Ceausescu's wife reportedly stole stuff :lol:

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

It's funny that people say that he was a "Stalinist". He was far from a Marxist-Leninist and actually advocated a national road to communism, but to a lesser extent than Tito.

[Stadtsmasher]

I would like to thank you for sharing this great resource! :D

[ridethejetski]

It's funny that people say that he was a "Stalinist". He was far from a Marxist-Leninist and actually advocated a national road to communism, but to a lesser extent than Tito.

You know full well why he is a called a Stalinist (e.g. great overreach and power of secret police and internal security forces, minimal allowance of internal dissent ,large focus on industrialising the single country, focus on single leader). In terms of actual internal policies he had little in common with Tito. In terms of popular usage of the word 'stalinist', which doesn't care for your nerdy little fetish of the archaic theories of Stalin, he fits the word - although i would agree it offers no useful description of the Ceausescu regime.

[Yuppie Grinder]

I expected not to be able to get through it cuz it would be boring, but I had trouble getting through because of how harrowing and anti-social the whole thing is. What a callous, heartless, little coward.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

You know full well why he is a called a Stalinist (e.g. great overreach and power of secret police and internal security forces, minimal allowance of internal dissent ,large focus on industrialising the single country, focus on single leader). In terms of actual internal policies he had little in common with Tito. In terms of popular usage of the word 'stalinist', which doesn't care for your nerdy little fetish of the archaic theories of Stalin, he fits the word - although i would agree it offers no useful description of the Ceausescu regime.

That's cute. I was pointing out fact, I don't care about the fucking popular usage of the word.

[ridethejetski]

You just wanted to show how you're the real Stalinist with Marxism-Leninism burning in your heart.

[Robespierres Neck]

What do you mean?

I mean he literally took women's babies & orphans, and used them as tools of propaganda to praise his personality cult.

Another fun fact is his "Palace of the Parliament" (or ironically nicknamed, 'the People's House'). It's the largest civilian building in the world, among other things:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_of_the_Parliament

Also, apparently the shoots at the end where he's going through the bakery and food stores consisted of plastic props. Food was very scarce, but he wanted to make an impression to outsiders (as he was known as the 'friendly communist against the USSR' to capitalist nations).

[Ocean Seal]

You know full well why he is a called a Stalinist (e.g. great overreach and power of secret police and internal security forces, minimal allowance of internal dissent ,large focus on industrialising the single country, focus on single leader).
And you know full well why some wouldn't call him a Stalinist.
Political repression =/= Stalinism. Calling every state which had a red flag and something you don't like Stalinist makes for shitty analyses.


In terms of actual internal policies he had little in common with Tito. In terms of popular usage of the word 'stalinist', which doesn't care for your nerdy little fetish of the archaic theories of Stalin, he fits the word
You do realize that most people would just call him a communist.


although i would agree it offers no useful description of the Ceausescu regime.
Then why???

[marl]

Also, Romanian pollution.

[Communix]

If Ceausescu was so bad, how come that 41% of Romanian would want him back?
Google because I can't post links.


The most incredible result was registered in a July 2010 IRES (Romanian Institute for Evaluation and Strategy) poll, according to which 41% of the respondents would have voted for Ceausescu, had he run for the position of president.

[Communix]

Also, Romanian pollution.

How was it different from Hungarian or Bulgarian or any other pollution?

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

If Ceausescu was so bad, how come that 41% of Romanian would want him back?
Google because I can't post links.

The most incredible result was registered in a July 2010 IRES (Romanian Institute for Evaluation and Strategy) poll, according to which 41% of the respondents would have voted for Ceausescu, had he run for the position of president.

Too bad being a better leader than some stupid leaders now does not make you a good Marxist-Leninist.

[ridethejetski]

And you know full well why some wouldn't call him a Stalinist.
Political repression =/= Stalinism. Calling every state which had a red flag and something you don't like Stalinist makes for shitty analyses.


You do realize that most people would just call him a communist.


Then why???

The Securitate's repressiveness and intrusion into everyday life stands out in Eastern Europe, being closer to how the secret police operated in the Soviet Union; Caeusecu's personality cult also stood out in Eastern Europe, being more similar to Stalin's personality cult; Romania embarked on a programme of heavy industrialisation, large scale industrial projects, and autarky more so than the rest of Eastern Europe. The regime was the more similar to the Soviet Union in the Stalin era than the rest of Eastern Europe, barring of course Albania. So for people to label him a Stalinist is not so ridiculous, unless of course like Comrade Commisar above, you think someone can not be labelled an heir of Stalin without the benign blessings of Enver Hoxha or whatever. Comrade Commisar attempted to claim that calling him a Stalinist was "funny", because he followed a National Road to Communism and so therefore he was more like Tito. Such a claim is ridiculous, as Romania's domestic policies were relatively close to Stalin's (thankfully mass executions were absent), and massively different to Yugoslavia's.

Of course, calling every state that carries out repression under a red flag 'Stalinist' makes little sense. I wouldn't class Janos Kadar's Hungary, Tito's Yugoslavia, or Zhikov's Bulgaria as similar to Stalin's USSR, despite all donning red flags and having a repressive climate and security apparatus. However to make such a claim towards Ceausescu's Romania is not entirely unfounded when you look at many domestic policies.

[ridethejetski]

If Ceausescu was so bad, how come that 41% of Romanian would want him back?
Google because I can't post links.

The most incredible result was registered in a July 2010 IRES (Romanian Institute for Evaluation and Strategy) poll, according to which 41% of the respondents would have voted for Ceausescu, had he run for the position of president.

Because the situation in Romania is also shitty now. This in now way absolves Ceausescu's regime.

As a side note, how many Hungarians of Transylvania or Germans of Banat were in that 41%?

[Robespierres Neck]

If Ceausescu was so bad, how come that 41% of Romanian would want him back?
Google because I can't post links.

The most incredible result was registered in a July 2010 IRES (Romanian Institute for Evaluation and Strategy) poll, according to which 41% of the respondents would have voted for Ceausescu, had he run for the position of president.

I've read the article. Still doesn't change the fact that he wasn't a Marxist-Leninst, nor a communist. What kind of communist goes to Britain to get granted as an 'Honorary British Knight' by the king & queen, and spends a portion of the state's GDP on building the most expensive and largest mansion in the world for just two people? It seemed like he wanted to live like a king.... while trying to run a socialist country. It's no wonder his people and party turned on him.

[Ismail]

Comrade Commisar attempted to claim that calling him a Stalinist was "funny", because he followed a National Road to Communism and so therefore he was more like Tito. Such a claim is ridiculous, as Romania's domestic policies were relatively close to Stalin's (thankfully mass executions were absent), and massively different to Yugoslavia's.I guess joining the IMF and becoming so indebted to it that super-austerity measures were implemented in the 80's was a "Stalinist" policy.

Also the fact is that Yugoslavia and Romania enjoyed good relations with each other. Romania also enjoyed good relations with the DPRK, China, and until the 1980's the USA. Ceaușescu pursued a relatively liberal economic and foreign policy in the 1960's and 70's.

He was more like Tito. His foreign policy was absolutely opportunist and his domestic policy was inconsistent; his "Stalinist" policies in the 80's were more due to a desire to pay back debt owed to the IMF than anything.

Enver Hoxha in 1971 (from Reflections on China Vol. I, p. 536): "Mao received Ceausescu. Hsinhua reported only that he said to him: 'Rumanian comrades, we should unite to bring down imperialism'. As if Ceausescu and company are to bring down imperialism!! If the world waits for the Ceausescus to do such a thing, imperialism will live for tens of thousands of years. It is the proletariat and the peoples that fight imperialism."

[Robespierres Neck]

Enver Hoxha in 1971 (from Reflections on China Vol. I, p. 536): "Mao received Ceausescu. Hsinhua reported only that he said to him: 'Rumanian comrades, we should unite to bring down imperialism'. As if Ceausescu and company are to bring down imperialism!! If the world waits for the Ceausescus to do such a thing, imperialism will live for tens of thousands of years. It is the proletariat and the peoples that fight imperialism."

Great quote by Hoxha.

[Omsk]

Ceaușescu was not even a proper communist,and he often changed his ideas,for an example,he at one point of his life,thought that Kim Il Sung is the 'greatest mind of our era' and tried to promote Juche in Romania.Works of Kim Il Sung were actually printed in Romania.(Every consistent Marxist-Leninists regards Kim Il Sung as a revisionist and Juche as a revisionist ideology.) Not only that,but he had good relations with Tito,and other revisionists. A "Stalinist" would not support Alexander Dubcek as Nicolae did.Ceaușescu was not a firm figure,he changed his politics,and it's simply false to say that it had any connection to Marxism-Leninism.

Just because wikipedia says Nicolae was a "Stalinist" (The modern day scary word!Oh so shocking!) it does not mean he actually was a Marxist-Leninist.Because,none of his policies actually had something in common with the policies of J.V.Stalin.

But i guess it's much easier to simply shout: "Stalinist!" and avoid any real constructive debate.

[Delenda Carthago]

Its a shame socialism in Rumania is connected with that scumbag while there where truly diamonts like her.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5165/5215263484_53a3a00a8c.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ana_Pauker

[marl]

If Ceausescu was so bad, how come that 41% of Romanian would want him back?
Google because I can't post links.

The most incredible result was registered in a July 2010 IRES (Romanian Institute for Evaluation and Strategy) poll, according to which 41% of the respondents would have voted for Ceausescu, had he run for the position of president.

Because capitalism sucks.


How was it different from Hungarian or Bulgarian or any other pollution?
Romania was pretty infamous for the sheer amount of it compared to Hungary or Bulgaria.



Another legacy of this era was pollution: Ceauşescu's government scored badly on this count even by the standards of the Eastern European communist states. Examples include Copşa Mică (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cop%C5%9Fa_Mic%C4%83) with its infamous Carbon Powder factory (in the 1980s, the whole city could be seen from satellite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite) as covered by a thick black cloud), Hunedoara (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunedoara), or the plan, launched in 1989, to convert the unique Danube Delta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danube_Delta) – a UNESCO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNESCO) World Heritage site (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Heritage_site) – to plain agricultural fields.

On a side note, here's everything you need to know about the man himself.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Nicolae_Ceau%C5%9Fescu_with_Pol_Pot.jpg

[Robespierres Neck]

^ New Desktop wallpaper.

[Ismail]

And of course it's fitting that Pol Pot would meet with Ceaușescu. After all...

"Like our Democratic Cambodia, Yugoslavia is a non-aligned country which has adhered to the position of preserving independence. Friendship between our two countries is therefore based on the same principle. We have always esteemed and respected Comrade President Tito and the friendly Yugoslav people. Comrade President Tito and the Yugoslav people have always supported and helped us. We have sympathy for them and wish to express our thanks to Comrade President Tito and the friendly Yugoslav people."
(Pol Pot, quoted in Journal of Contemporary Asia Vol. 8 No. 3, 1978. p. 413.)

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

And of course it's fitting that Pol Pot would meet with Ceaușescu. After all...

"Like our Democratic Cambodia, Yugoslavia is a non-aligned country which has adhered to the position of preserving independence. Friendship between our two countries is therefore based on the same principle. We have always esteemed and respected Comrade President Tito and the friendly Yugoslav people. Comrade President Tito and the Yugoslav people have always supported and helped us. We have sympathy for them and wish to express our thanks to Comrade President Tito and the friendly Yugoslav people."
(Pol Pot, quoted in Journal of Contemporary Asia Vol. 8 No. 3, 1978. p. 413.)

Too bad he was talking about Tito, not Ceaușescu.

[Robespierres Neck]

Too bad he was talking about Tito, not Ceaușescu.

Nicolae was a good friend to Tito and Yugoslavi, so I believe Ismail is saying it was their common ground.

[kuriousoranj]

How can anyone look at the picture above, or the shit going down in the OP video, and say that has anything to do with the desire to achieve socialism.

[Ismail]

How can anyone look at the picture above, or the shit going down in the OP video, and say that has anything to do with the desire to achieve socialism.Quite simple, refer to points #2 and #11 of this (http://kasamaproject.org/2010/07/28/40-helpful-tips-for-anti-communists/):

2. Remember, any unnatural death that occurs under a ‘Communist’ regime is not only attributable to the leaders of the state, but also Marxism as an ideology. Ignore deaths that occur for the same reason in non-Communist states.

11. Constantly attack ‘Communist’ regimes for actions that occur in capitalist regimes up to this very day.Thus, Romania was a perfect representation of the "evils" of socialism even though its problems were quite capitalist in nature.

[gorillafuck]

1. Why was Ceausescu the only eastern block leader to eat lead? Is it because he was a brutal tyrant unlike other, much softer leaders, such as Honecker.I would guess because Romania was one of the worst economically with brutal austerity, which he was doing while simultaneously furthering the role of the police state while he impoverished people. it doesn't take a brilliant person to realize that that combination will cause hatred.


2. In connection with the first question; What was life in Romania like compared to other Eastern European countries? I mean here their socio-economic well-being compared with that of Bulgaria, GDR, Yugoslavia, etc.bad, very bad. they were among the first to deal with western capitalism and had to implement terrible austerity.


4. Is there a segment of Romania's current population who regrets the way the situation was dealt with?probably, because Romania is still extremely impoverished. it doesn't make the former situation any better.

[Ismail]

I think people forget that what occurred in Romania was also a military coup, since after all Ceaușescu was "tried" in an improvised military court. In other Eastern Bloc countries the army stayed out of the downfall except to observe it. There was a lot of bloodshed in the capital between Ceaușescu loyalists and anti-government forces, and the former obviously lost steam after Ceaușescu himself died.

In the GDR, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, etc. by contrast it was basically just "okay protesters, we have heeded your calls and got rid of the old leadership; it's time for capitalism." Speaking of the year 1990 in Albania, Ramiz Alia said years later that he could have "started another Tienanmen" but refused to do so and instead gradually turned his shade from Marxist-Leninist to social-democrat rather than being deposed from within by liberal elements inside the Party, which in any case regarded him as being too slow in restoring capitalism.

In Yugoslavia the military of course split into opposing forces and participated in war and genocide but didn't really interfere much in the whole "democratization" process in 1990-1991.

[JAM]

I wanna just correct some misinformation given in this thread.

The industrialization process wasn't started by Ceaucescu but rather by his predecessor Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej who ruled Romania from 1948-1965. It's true that the industrialization project was similar to the one that Stalin implemented in USSR, specially regarding the collectivization and the focus on the heavy industry. Dej was a Stalin follower himself. Also similar to Stalin was the success of the process (although in a minor scale due to the limitations of the country): during that period Romania's PIB and PIB per capita more than tripled both.

Ceaucescu was viewed as a reformer opposed to Dej's hardline style. Dej personally disapproved Kruschev's de-stalinization move although he never publicly admitted unlike Hoxha. Some people claimed that Dej was intentionally irradiated during a visit in Moscow because of his hard political stance which wasn't compatible with the new reformist line imposed by Kruschev.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

I wanna just correct some misinformation given in this thread.

The industrialization process wasn't started by Ceaucescu but rather by his predecessor Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej who ruled Romania from 1948-1965. It's true that the industrialization project was similar to the one that Stalin implemented in USSR, specially regarding the collectivization and the focus on the heavy industry. Dej was a Stalin follower himself. Also similar to Stalin was the success of the process (although in a minor scale due to the limitations of the country): during that period Romania's PIB and PIB per capita more than tripled both.

Ceaucescu was viewed as a reformer opposed to Dej's hardline style. Dej personally disapproved Kruschev's de-stalinization move although he never publicly admitted unlike Hoxha. Some people claimed that Dej was intentionally irradiated during a visit in Moscow because of his hard political stance which wasn't compatible with the new reformist line imposed by Kruschev.

Dej was not really a super good Marxist-Leninist either:


Interaction with the West

Post-World War II and into the early years of Gheorghiu-Dej’s rule, Romania’s relations with the West were tense, marked by accusations of United States espionage and Romanian human rights violations. There were also low levels of trade between Romania and the West as Romania tied itself to the Soviet Union and the other satellite nations; in 1950, Romania’s economic plan involved 89% of trade to be solely with the Soviet Bloc.

However, under Gheorghiu-Dej Romania’s willingness to trade with the West became more apparent. For example, 1952 saw the first publication of the journal Romanian Foreign Trade, which offered opportunities to Western traders to buy Romanian goods such as petroleum and grain. Western publications also recognized the potential for Romania to sell its products on the world market; an article from The Times of August 29, 1953, wrote: “[Romania] could, for instance, it is thought, obtain higher prices on the world market for much of what she is forced to export to Russia, foodstuffs included, in return for machinery and aid.” As Gheorghiu-Dej realized, if Romania were able to trade with the West the standard of living would likely rise.

From 1953, the West gradually relaxed their export controls, which had limited the products that the U.S., Great Britain, and France could export to Eastern Europe. Gheorghiu-Dej, eager to establish interaction between Romania and the West, relaxed travel restraints on Western diplomats in Bucharest and allowed Western journalists more access to Romania. In early 1954, Romania also appealed to Great Britain about having talks to resolve Romania’s outstanding claims, to which Great Britain agreed in December of that year.

The foreign policy of Romania towards the West was closely tied to its policy toward the Soviet Union; Romania could only develop trading with the West if it asserted its independence from the intensely anti-West Soviet Union. Gheorghiu-Dej realized this, and thus emphasized Romania’s sovereignty. In the Second Party Congress which opened on December 23, 1955, Gheorghiu-Dej gave a five-hour speech in which he stressed the idea of national communism and Romania’s right to follow its own interests rather than be forced to follow another’s (referring to the Soviet Union). Gheorghiu-Dej also discussed opening up trade with the West. In an attempt to increase the dialogue between Romania and the West, in 1956 Gheorghiu-Dej appointed as the Romanian Minister to the U.S. Silviu Brucan, who in April met with both Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and then with President Dwight D. Eisenhower. As a result of these meetings, the U.S. Department of State expressed interest in increasing the interaction between the two nations, including possibly establishing a library in Bucharest.

Romania’s interaction with the West temporarily decreased, however, with the 1956 Hungarian Revolution and the violent response of the Soviet Union to the uprising. Meanwhile, Gheorghiu-Dej continued strengthening the independence of Romania from the Soviet Union. For example, Romanian schools dropped the Russian language requirement. And Romania endorsed the Moscow Declaration of 1957 which stated that "Socialist countries base their relations on the principles of complete equality, respect for territorial integrity, state independence and sovereignty, and non-interference in one another’s affairs…The socialist states also advocate the general expansion of economic and cultural relations with all other countries…” These statements coincided with Gheorghiu-Dej’s claims to national sovereignty and independence.

In fact, by 1957 Romania had substantially increased its Western trade; in that year trade with the West had increased to 25% of Romania’s total trade, although little of that included the U.S. By the early 1960s, Romania under Gheorghiu-Dej was more industrialized and productive. After World War II 80% of the population had worked in agriculture, but by 1963 only 65% did. And despite the decrease in hands working the land, agricultural productivity had actually increased. Additionally, Gheorghiu-Dej had successfully begun a strong shift in trade towards the West, further separating it from the Soviet Union; Romania imported much of its industrial equipment from West Germany, Great Britain, and France. This trade pattern followed Gheorghiu-Dej’s economic plan, which he made clear to Great Britain and France in 1960, when he sent his head of foreign intelligence to Paris and London in order to clarify Romania’s desire to interact with the West and disregard Comecon orders.

Then by 1964, Gheorghiu-Dej had made a trading agreement with the U.S. that allowed Romania to buy industrial products from them. The agreement came as a result of U.S. businesses’ complaints that they were losing money to Western Europe. During his presidency, President John F. Kennedy, concerned with these businesses’ losses, used his discretionary power to increase trade between the U.S. and Eastern Europe, a policy which President Lyndon B. Johnson also followed.

Throughout this period from the late 1950s to the mid-1960s, Gheorghiu-Dej greatly increased trade with the West, making Romania the first Soviet Bloc country to trade with the West completely independently. Through his policy of national sovereignty, Gheorghiu-Dej increased the popularity of Romania in the West; national U.S. publications moved away from reports in the early 1950s of human rights abuses and oppression, towards articles from the mid-1950s to the early 1960s of Romanian de-satellization. In the early 1960s, The Times also reported often on Gheorghiu-Dej’s and Romania’s increased economic ties with the West. Gheorghiu-Dej’s successful efforts to expand Romania’s foreign relations, especially those with the West, were evident at his March 1965 funeral, at which 33 foreign delegations were present, including a special French envoy sent from General Charles de Gaulle. Gheorghiu-Dej’s policies of Romanian sovereignty and Western economic interaction set the stage for his successor, Nicolae Ceauşescu, to carry Romania’s new course even further.

[Ismail]

Dej was indeed a revisionist and right-winger. Hoxha noted as such and also pointed out in his memoirs that, unlike other East European states, the Romanian CP's hold on power was initially quite weak. The Romanian CP was largely seen as non-Romanian by the country's inhabitants (probably the main reason Stalin advised against Ana Pauker's high position within the Party) who tended to distrust it until the 60's when it became nationalist.

[JAM]

Dej was not really a super good Marxist-Leninist either:

My point was not to evaluate Dej's compromise with Marxism-Leninism but why you say that? Because he distanced himself from Moscow after Stalin's death and increased its trade relations with the West?

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

My point was not to evaluate Dej's compromise with Marxism-Leninism but why you say that? Because he distanced himself from Moscow after Stalin's death and increased its trade relations with the West?

Yes, he was being a lapdog to imperialists. Hoxha did something similar with some trade with Western Europe after the Sino split and Soviet split, but went NO WAY near as far as Dej went.

Edit: What Hoxha did is not even comparable to what Dej did. I don't know why I brought it up. The point is you can't be a Marxist-Leninist and do what Dej did.

[JAM]

Yes, he was being a lapdog to imperialists. Hoxha did something similar with some trade with Western Europe after the Sino split and Soviet split, but went NO WAY near as far as Dej went.

Edit: What Hoxha did is not even comparable to what Dej did. I don't know why I brought it up. The point is you can't be a Marxist-Leninist and do what Dej did.

I'm not a Dej defender (even because I don't know him that well) but I certainly won't blame Dej for having distanced himself from the revisionist Moscow.

Your mention of Hoxha isn't nonsensical at all. Both men disapproved the new reformist line of Kruschev although one of them was hypocritical about it (Dej) by refusing to make it publicly in order to preserve the relations with USSR and the other was more straightforward (Hoxha) by calling publicly Kruschev what he truly was, a revisionist, provoking an end to the Albania-USSR relations.