Ceausescu's Fortune

[Deniz Gezmis]

http://apps.ines.ro/index.html

[Urban Rubble]

What a piece of shit. Do you see this Che Guevara717 (oh wait, didn't you change your name to glorify this bastard) ? This is your "socialist" hero. A man who amassed fortunes while people starved. Fuck that guy and fuck youfor supporting him.

Oh, and Death, I wasn't aware that Stalin ever beat up Lenin's wife. :P Did that kid really say that ?

[Deniz Gezmis]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 29 2003, 12:59 AM
Oh, and Death, I wasn't aware that Stalin ever beat up Lenin's wife. :P Did that kid really say that ?
Yeah he did. Lol.

[Comrade Ceausescu]

What a piece of shit. Do you see this Che Guevara717 (oh wait, didn't you change your name to glorify this bastard) ? This is your "socialist" hero. A man who amassed fortunes while people starved. Fuck that guy and fuck youfor supporting him.

Piss off.I&#39;ll send you some articles on him.You don&#39;t have to attack me. <_<

[SonofRage]

I guess the truth hurts.

[Comrade Ceausescu]

Pff...ignorance is bliss for you.

[Deniz Gezmis]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 29 2003, 01:28 AM
Pff...ignorance is bliss for you.
Educate us then.
I supose the pictures of Romanian childrens homes that flooded out of Romania when Ceausescu was toppled are Western Propaganda. :rolleyes:

[Urban Rubble]

The article you sent me had nothing explaning why he amassed a fortune while people starved in his country. You dodged it like you dodge everything.

"What ? Saddam Hussein slaughtered thousands of communists *puts hands over ears* I can&#39;t hear you dude". You ingore facts and then give shaky reasoning as to why you support these pieces of shit. They do one thing that was "progressive" and you ignore every sick attrocity committed.

[Saint-Just]

Why would cheguevara717 be antagonised by this? I enjoyed looking at this site because it gives us a nice look at some aspects of Ceausescu&#39;s life. Of course Ceausescu had nice homes and clothes etc. He had to conduct the most important affairs of the state. He was a great leader and did much for his people too.

[El Brujo]

I would like anyone here to name one leader of a nation that hasn&#39;t lived in luxury. All of them do because they need it to run the country. As always, idealism brings us nowhere.

[Deniz Gezmis]

Originally posted by El [email protected] 29 2003, 05:50 PM
I would like anyone here to name one leader of a nation that hasn&#39;t lived in luxury. All of them do because they need it to run the country. As always, idealism brings us nowhere.
Why would one need three boats and six cars to run a country?

[Comrade Ceausescu]

The article you sent me had nothing explaning why he amassed a fortune while people starved in his country. You dodged it like you dodge everything.

"What ? Saddam Hussein slaughtered thousands of communists *puts hands over ears* I can&#39;t hear you dude". You ingore facts and then give shaky reasoning as to why you support these pieces of shit. They do one thing that was "progressive" and you ignore every sick attrocity committed.

No one starved.The living standards are much lower now then they were under socialism.just shut up.

[Deniz Gezmis]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 29 2003, 11:22 PM
No one starved.The living standards are much lower now then they were under socialism.just shut up.
Oh yes, Same old fucking argument.

[SonofRage]

In the 1980s, he was trying to pay back a lot of the foreign debt he has accumulated trying to industrialize the nation in the previous decade. To pay off the debt, he exported a lot of Romania&#39;s argricultural and industrial production. This resulted in food shortages, shortages in medical supplies etc. His policies made life difficult for his people and were considered a failure. Keep in mind, Romania was the only Soviet Bloc nation to violently overthrow it&#39;s "Communist" regime itself.

[Urban Rubble]

No one starved.The living standards are much lower now then they were under socialism.just shut up.

Sweet Jesus. Now you are denying that people were starving in Romania ? I don&#39;t care whether the conditions are better now or not, it doesn&#39;t change the fact that people were starving in Romania while this asshole cruised around in &#036;50,000 boats.

I have seen pictures with my own eyes and heard testimony from a woman who lived there for 45 years. I won&#39;t go into the really bad stuff I have heard, of course the CIA must have bribed her to say it all, but I will tell you that she saw many people in her village die of starvation. If you are actually going to tell me that this poor old Romanian woman is lying about the people she watched die then I feel sorry for you. I feel sorry that you could be that cold and ignorant. I am not saying millions up millions of people starved while Ceausescu ate babies in the corner. But there were a singnificant amount of people who were going hungry, and yes, some people died.


Why would cheguevara717 be antagonised by this? I enjoyed looking at this site because it gives us a nice look at some aspects of Ceausescu&#39;s life. Of course Ceausescu had nice homes and clothes etc. He had to conduct the most important affairs of the state. He was a great leader and did much for his people too.

How does a &#036;3000 suit help you run a country ? I know for a fact that if I was in that position where people were starving outside of my window, I would give up my more unnecessary luxuries (like extra boats and cars) and try to save a few people.


I would like anyone here to name one leader of a nation that hasn&#39;t lived in luxury. All of them do because they need it to run the country. As always, idealism brings us nowhere.

Living well and perhaps "better" than most people in the country you are ruling is one thing, but having 6 boats while people starve is another thing entirely. Please explain to me how 6 personal boats are needed to conduct your business.

To all of you who support this man: I ask you, how do you explain the fact that the people overthrew this man ? Is it all just propaganda ? Fuck, if you asked Che717 he&#39;d probably tell you that Ceausescu is still in power and that the coup was an event that the Western media staged to taint the sacred name of Socialism.

I would also like an answer to Death&#39;s question: Why would you need 6 expensive personal boats to run a country ? Especially when people are going hungry ?

[Comrade Ceausescu]

oh wow urban.I have talked to a few Romanian guys,and while they were not communists they said it wasn&#39;t neccasserily a bad place to live.They were not totally against the communist movement.Starvation,maybe,but massive no.what horrible details?


To all of you who support this man: I ask you, how do you explain the fact that the people overthrew this man ? Is it all just propaganda ? Fuck, if you asked Che717 he&#39;d probably tell you that Ceausescu is still in power and that the coup was an event that the Western media staged to taint the sacred name of Socialism.
this is just insulting.This makes me really reluctant to even acknowledge if you send me a pm.It was a coup.It might have been popular at the time.but it certainly isn&#39;t today.

[timbaly]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 29 2003, 11:27 PM

No one starved.The living standards are much lower now then they were under socialism.just shut up.
What I see to be happening here is that Comrade Ceausescu is justifying Ceausescus&#39; rule in Romania as good because it is better than the current situation. It is true that Romania still has many problems today and is very poor. However your comaprison to Ceausecus&#39; rule and todays gov&#39;t and conditions is basically saying that Ceausescus&#39; actions should be excused because todays conditions are worse. It&#39;s as if someone were to say "I shot personX in the leg out of spite, but look at personY he killed someone, therefore I shouldn&#39;t be criticised." Just because something is better than another thing, it doesn&#39;t mean that it is necessarily a good thing.

I also happen to know Romanian immigrants. One of them told me that her parents and husband died do to the food shortage. i don&#39;t think they would lie to me about something like that. Atleast you acknowlege that this did occur.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by Death+Dec 29 2003, 07:52 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Death @ Dec 29 2003, 07:52 PM)
El [email protected] 29 2003, 05:50 PM
I would like anyone here to name one leader of a nation that hasn&#39;t lived in luxury. All of them do because they need it to run the country. As always, idealism brings us nowhere.
Why would one need three boats and six cars to run a country? [/b]
You need a lot more than three boats and six cars to run a country.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 28 2003, 08:15 PM
The article you sent me had nothing explaning why he amassed a fortune while people starved in his country. You dodged it like you dodge everything.

"What ? Saddam Hussein slaughtered thousands of communists *puts hands over ears* I can&#39;t hear you dude". You ingore facts and then give shaky reasoning as to why you support these pieces of shit. They do one thing that was "progressive" and you ignore every sick attrocity committed.
And you call yourselves communists&#33; <_<
Not only you, UR, but all of you reformists and anarchists.

And I was thinking that communism was about not accepting bourgeois lies and about seeing the truth. The truth about the bourgeoisie and its exclusive goal to subjugate the people for the purposes of agglomerating money and power.

I wouldn&#39;t say that he was a great leader, but he was certainly not an exceptionaly bad one. He had sincere intentions, I trust.

And most importantly, how many people do you think would have starved if things had continued as they had before Ceausescu?

[Comrade Ceausescu]

*stands up,applauds and salutes victor commie*

[El Brujo]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 30 2003, 12:27 PM
Living well and perhaps "better" than most people in the country you are ruling is one thing, but having 6 boats while people starve is another thing entirely. Please explain to me how 6 personal boats are needed to conduct your business.

Well, why not? Most of those artifacts were gifts from other leaders and such. What use could he possibly have for them apart from keeping them? They were not an issue in Ceausescu&#39;s attempt to run the country in an efficient fashion and maintaining socialism.

And nobody has bothered to answer my question. Name one leader that dosen&#39;t or hasn&#39;t lived in luxury. Forbes Magazine put out an article some months ago entitled "The World&#39;s Richest Kings, Queens and Despots" (http://www.forbes.com/2003/02/24/0224kings.html) that included Fidel Castro and Yasser Arafat. According to you liberal&#39;s lunacy, we should turn against Yasser Arafat and Fidel because Forbes Magazine (uncompromising western bourgeoisie propaghanda that, of course, ommits the fact that "democratic" leaders such as Bush and Blair have more money than the entire "despotic" government of Cuba) says that they live in amazing luxury while their people starve.

[timbaly]

Originally posted by El [email protected] 1 2004, 01:54 PM
Well, why not? Most of those artifacts were gifts from other leaders and such. What use could he possibly have for them apart from keeping them? They were not an issue in Ceausescu&#39;s attempt to run the country in an efficient fashion and maintaining socialism.

And nobody has bothered to answer my question. Name one leader that dosen&#39;t or hasn&#39;t lived in luxury. Forbes Magazine put out an article some months ago entitled "The World&#39;s Richest Kings, Queens and Despots" (http://www.forbes.com/2003/02/24/0224kings.html) that included Fidel Castro and Yasser Arafat. According to you liberal&#39;s lunacy, we should turn against Yasser Arafat and Fidel because Forbes Magazine (uncompromising western bourgeoisie propaghanda that, of course, ommits the fact that "democratic" leaders such as Bush and Blair have more money than the entire "despotic" government of Cuba) says that they live in amazing luxury while their people starve.
I&#39;m not going to disagree with you. Almost every leader throughout history has lived better than his people. Infact it&#39;s been every leader since the begininng of civilization as far as I know. However those facts still don&#39;t justify owning six personal cars and four personal boats. Even if he didn&#39;t buy them himself, they were still given to him by other politicians of the communist party, who they themselves should have spent better. Since he accepted the gifts he should have kept one and donated the others. perhaps donate it to a seaside community, ewhere it could be used as a leisure item other, which is better than owning six while only being able to use one at a time.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Maybe he should have, but so... ?
And I dissagree with the apathetic stance that it&#39;s okay, because all leaders have lived in extravagance, so this one can too.
But it certainly doesn&#39;t make him a bad leader.

[Urban Rubble]

But it certainly doesn&#39;t make him a bad leader.

No, but driving a &#036;300,000 Aston Martin while his people straved does.

[Ortega]

I posted this in the CC, and I&#39;ll post it in here...
Once again, there is so much more that I could say against Ceausescu...

Nicolae Ceausescu was a Stalinist of the worst type, a murderous despot who starved his own people and spent millions on mansions from which he could hunt. His version of "hunting" was sitting in a hunting stand, and having hogs driven straight to his stand (fences on either side so that they could not escape). He would massacre the hogs, with no sport involved. While this had little effect on anything else, it demonstrates well his mindset...
Mr. Ceausescu was not "loved by the people" as Comrade Ceausescu claims. He was hated, and on the day of his execution there was singing and dancing in the streets. I seem to remember reading that even Nicolae&#39;s private pilot refused to take off and allow Ceausescu to escape, and when Ceausescu put a gun to his head and demanded he take off, the pilot faked engine failure and landed so that Ceausescu could be captured.
Basically, he was hated.



However, Ceausescu refused any liberal reforms. The secret police (Securitate) maintained firm control over free speech and the media, and tolerated no internal opposition. The situation worsened in the 1980s. To pay back the foreign debt accumulated for accelerated industralization in the previous decade, Ceauºescu ordered the export of much of the country&#39;s agricultural and industrial production. The resulting shortage of food, lack of energy, medicines etc, made the everyday life of Romanian citizens a fight for survival. Ceausescu also instituted a North Korean-style personality cult and invested his wife, Elena Ceauºescu , and the members of his family in high posts in the government.

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



All the standard Eastern Bloc dictator actions - brutal repression of free speech and media enforced by secret police who made the LAPD look like a bunch of flower children. Strict adherence to economic principles that had gone beyond failure.
But it doesn&#39;t stop there. After running a massive debt in the 1970s, he exported most of the country&#39;s food production to try and pay it off by 1990. The result was that an estimated 15,000 Romanians died every year due to the shortages which included food and oil for heating. After seven years of this, people chose to face death rather than another winter under his rule. He had about 4,000 demonstrators shot in Timisoara and waged war on his own citizens for the next two weeks. Eventually he was caught while fleeing the country and executed by a military who had turned against him. His government was Stalinist in nature and he got inspiriation from visits to North Korea and China. Nevertheless the USA granted him "most favored nation" status in 1979.

What else? When there were long lines for bread following the beginning of bread rationing - he accused Romanian&#39;s of eating too much and introduced a "Scientific Diet" - or "a lot less food". Production was so poor that even these dismal levels couldn&#39;t be met.

Even after his death he left Romania with a continuing problem. He had promoted excessive population growth by banning contraceptives and abortions for any woman with less than 4 children. Today the streets of Bucharest are teeming with unwanted children, amongst who STDs run rampant and many of whom have suffered sexual and physical abuse at the hands of uncaring relatives.

EDIT: Sorry, lost my link for that one... but it was by a communist who was ranting about what a bad name Ceausescu had given communism. I have read all of those things in several books, and can safely say that the author is not making anything up...

I was very interested in Ceausescu at one time, as I suppose you are now, Comrade Ceausescu, therefore I think that I am qualified to come to the conclusion that Nicolae Ceausescu was a brutal Stalinist tyrant who starved his people so that his own life could be more comfortable. Sure, he was Communist, but what difference does that make when he didn&#39;t even remotely follow Communism&#39;s principles, or for that matter anything about it?

[Ortega]

Ceausescu was also taken out of power by a popular uprising after he opened fire on demonstrators. How can you possibly call him a good leader, or even a Communist?

[Urban Rubble]

Oh Ortega, you know that nobody died in Romania from starvation. The thousands of defectors that have claimed this ? They&#39;re obviously on the CIA&#39;s pay role. The historians that have proven this ? Western propagandists.

I am yet to see one justification for living in such luxury while people starve (unless of course you deny that people starved, then I would have to say you&#39;re living in denial). Just because other leaders do it does not make it alright. Yes, Castro lives in a relatively nice place (not nearly what Ceasescu lived in) but there is a difference, people in Cuba are not starving. In my opinion, Castro deserves to be rewarded for what he did.

[Ortega]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 4 2004, 06:10 PM
Oh Ortega, you know that nobody died in Romania from starvation. The thousands of defectors that have claimed this ? They&#39;re obviously on the CIA&#39;s pay role. The historians that have proven this ? Western propagandists.

I am yet to see one justification for living in such luxury while people starve (unless of course you deny that people starved, then I would have to say you&#39;re living in denial). Just because other leaders do it does not make it alright. Yes, Castro lives in a relatively nice place (not nearly what Ceasescu lived in) but there is a difference, people in Cuba are not starving. In my opinion, Castro deserves to be rewarded for what he did.
I don&#39;t know about the starvation, both sides are so biased and there&#39;s no real middle ground... :unsure:

And Castro, I&#39;ve heard, actually lives in a very modest home, not a palace. He makes a point of not spending too much money on his lifestyle. He&#39;s converted all of Batista&#39;s palaces into museums and public offices. While I believe he has an office in one of the larger palaces, he lives very inexpensively.

[Ortega]

Nevertheless the USA granted him "most favored nation" status in 1979.

http://academiaexchange.net/Kalman/Pictures_Kalman/Ceausescu-Nixon.gif

...Ceausescu and Nixon...

[Comrade Ceausescu]

Big fuckin whoop.Che visited with western leader as well.

[Ortega]

Been doing a bit of research...


Many of the props that aided the enhancement of Ceausescu&#39;s image were sold, including a Buick limousine presented to Ceausescu by the then President Nixon...
http://www.ce-review.org

http://www.gulfinvestigations.net/IMG/pdf/iraq56.pdf

This was written by Nixon after his presidency - just old of good will for an old friend. I love that last paragraph - "Mrs. Nixon joins me in sending our warm personal regards to you and Mrs. Ceausescu."

And, as you&#39;ll see below, he met often with Nixon, Carter, and Queen Elizabeth... Man, you just couldn&#39;t keep him and Nixon apart, they look like real buddies:

EDIT: Wow, Ceausescu was knighted by the queen and given the honorary rank of GBC, Knight Grand Cross of the British Empire... that shocks even me.

[Ortega]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 4 2004, 06:37 PM
Big fuckin whoop.Che visited with western leader as well.
Did Che get limousines from them? Did Che proudly embrace them? Did Che get letters, even after the leaders were no longer in power, wishing him "warm regards"?
No.
And I&#39;ve never read anything about him meeting with Western leaders, at least not after the Revolution...

[Comrade Ceausescu]

Can he help it if someone gives him a gift?Proudly embrace?Its called diplomacy.Do you have the texts of these letters?Even so,is it a huge deal?Should we condem Ceausescu because he got letters from Presidents?Keep in mind Nixon was an ass,but deep down Jimmy Carter is not a bad guy.He was not meant to be President,but he is a genuinely good guy in my opinoin.I like his Habitat for Humanity charity.Che did meet with Kennedy&#39;s head diplomat and talked to him.But I don&#39;t see that as a bad thing.Most of the East Bloc traded with the west.Ceausescu became dissillusioned with the USSR when they invaded Checoslavakia in &#39;68.Naturally since the USSR was our enemy,this got our attention and the US and Romania had diplomatic realations.Ceausescu didn&#39;t ever back down to American leaders.I know for a fact that he always pushed the issue of nuclear dissarmament,of all troops of any country to leave the country they were occupying,and most of all for independence for Palestine.

[Comrade Ceausescu]

You edited your post like four times... <_< Anyway,big whoop.It was a letter about business.So Ceausescu traded with some American light bulb company.Since when have you been some hard liner who advocates 100% isolation from the west?You know Fidel would trade with the U.S. if the embargo was lifted.

[Ortega]

It&#39;s not so much about the trading, all countries do that, but about that last paragraph. And the fact that Nixon was writing that letter quite a few years after his presidency had ended.

[Ortega]

And what&#39;s your response to the fact that Ceausescu was knighted and visited by Queen Lizzie herself?&#33;?&#33;?

Besides, all this stuff about his close friendships with western leaders isn&#39;t Ceausescu&#39;s biggest flaw. He had so many problems, so much worse than just being knighted or loved by Nixon.
He starved his people and lived in such luxury it makes me sick. He had no human compassion of any sort. How can someone without compassion ever be a true Communist??

[Comrade Ceausescu]

You are just repeating what was said above.I mean,why do you care if he was knighted?Anyway she removed it a few days for he was shot.he visited England.He visited a lot of places.I have a toast that castro made to him.They were good friends.He was a very charming person from what I hear.He made friends very easily.Thats why he would make some of these visits.As for his alleged starvation,nonsense.I do not deny that lving standards plummeted during the 80&#39;s but thats because he really had to pay off his debt.Anyway Romania&#39;s general living standards are worse today then they were in the 80&#39;s.What would you have advocated him doing?Not paying off the debt and getting his ass whopped?He had to do it.If it hadn&#39;t been for the coup Romania would have been finished paying off the debt by the early to mid ninties and they&#39;d be much better off today I can say that for a fact.And if it comforts you,he probobly would have been dead by old age today. <_< <_<

[Ortega]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 4 2004, 07:42 PM
You are just repeating what was said above.I mean,why do you care if he was knighted?Anyway she removed it a few days for he was shot.he visited England.He visited a lot of places.I have a toast that castro made to him.They were good friends.He was a very charming person from what I hear.He made friends very easily.Thats why he would make some of these visits.As for his alleged starvation,nonsense.I do not deny that lving standards plummeted during the 80&#39;s but thats because he really had to pay off his debt.Anyway Romania&#39;s general living standards are worse today then they were in the 80&#39;s.What would you have advocated him doing?Not paying off the debt and getting his ass whopped?He had to do it.If it hadn&#39;t been for the coup Romania would have been finished paying off the debt by the early to mid ninties and they&#39;d be much better off today I can say that for a fact.And if it comforts you,he probobly would have been dead by old age today. <_< <_<
I&#39;m not denying that Fidel and Nicolae were not good friends, I&#39;ve read the toast as well. I&#39;m not denying that Nicolae was charismatic and made friends easily. To be a leader you have to be charismatic. About Fidel, however, you must also remember that he was desperate, and still is, for the support and friendship of any "socialist" country that he could find. And I bet Ceausescu and Nixon were at least as close as Ceausescu and Fidel anyway. <_< Did Fidel ever give your beloved Nicolae a limousine?
So whats your point? Living standards plummeted because of Ceausescu&#39;s earlier mistakes. Just because he then attempted to fix his own mistakes doesn&#39;t make him into any sort of a hero. And the keyword there is attempted. He couldn&#39;t even fix his own mistakes. Romania, while still in terrible shape, is recovering from Ceausescu&#39;s rule. The only reason they&#39;re in such terrible shape is because of him.
Nicolae Ceausescu had no compassion of any sort, for anyone. And because of that, he ruined Romania and oppressed his people, with no feelings or compassion for their suffering. It will take Romania decades to recover.
And his death was no government coup, as you have hinted at it being. It was an uprising of the people. Isn&#39;t Communism supposed to be all about the people? I certainly thought so.
Ceausescu tormented his people for years. Finally, the tables were turned and he got what he deserved. The world, and Romania, are far better off without one more bloodthirsty fascist pretending to be a Communist. He was a true wolf in sheep&#39;s clothing.

[Comrade Ceausescu]

I&#39;m not denying that Fidel and Nicolae were not good friends, I&#39;ve read the toast as well. I&#39;m not denying that Nicolae was charismatic and made friends easily. To be a leader you have to be charismatic. About Fidel, however, you must also remember that he was desperate, and still is, for the support and friendship of any "socialist" country that he could find. And I bet Ceausescu and Nixon were at least as close as Ceausescu and Fidel anyway. <_< Did Fidel ever give your beloved Nicolae a limousine?

This is just so trivial in my opinoin.I would not say Fidel was desperate.He just traded with people who had the same ideas as him.Fidel gave him a few gifts,but honestly I forgot what they were.Dosen&#39;t matter though.


So whats your point? Living standards plummeted because of Ceausescu&#39;s earlier mistakes. Just because he then attempted to fix his own mistakes doesn&#39;t make him into any sort of a hero. And the keyword there is attempted. He couldn&#39;t even fix his own mistakes. Romania, while still in terrible shape, is recovering from Ceausescu&#39;s rule. The only reason they&#39;re in such terrible shape is because of him.

You don&#39;t know what your talking about do you?Fact is,I know a lot about Ceausescu and you don&#39;t.Why?Because I like him a lot.Anyway,Ceausescu did not criticise the borrowing of money in the &#39;70&#39;s,he just thought that it really needed to be payed back.It was not a mistake in the first place.Oh,Ceausescu really ruined Romania didn&#39;t he?From the gorgeous Nazi satellite state it was before the communists took over.I think Romania is suffering because of their free market economy personally.If Romanian&#39;s hate Ceausescu so much,how do you explain this?
BUCHAREST, Romania (AP) -- Ten years ago, dictator Nicolae Ceausescu and his widely despised wife, Elena, were executed after being ousted in a popular uprising. Romanians rejoiced.
Today, few Romanians are celebrating the December 1989 revolution -- and many are having second thoughts about the execution of Ceausescu -- who ruled Romania with an iron first for 25 years. He and his wife were shot to death by a firing squad after a summary trial on Dec. 25, 1989.
"The Ceausescus were killed so they couldn&#39;t talk. They should have given him a fair trial,&#39;&#39; said Mihai Borezescu, 55, who was stopped while passing by a monument to the victims of the revolution that spawned democracy.
"He was a human being after all,&#39;&#39; Borezescu said.
That was not the prevailing sentiment 10 years ago, when Romanians hailed the execution of the Ceausescus, who had lived in luxury while most Romanians went hungry and cold.
But today, with a sagging economy, rising unemployment and growing dissatisfaction with the government, Romanians seem more inclined to be forgiving of the oppressive Ceausescu era.
In opinion polls, up to two-thirds of Romanians surveyed say they led better lives under communism. In one recent poll, 20 percent of respondents said they believed Ceausescu was the best leader Romania ever had.
Some Romanians are ashamed that the Ceausescus were killed on a Christian holy day.
"It was a Christmas Day,&#39;&#39; said Cornelia Babes, 50. "It was wrong to kill him ... in principle.&#39;&#39;
The subject of Ceausescu&#39;s execution is considered so delicate that the governments that succeeded him have never discussed it.
However, Valentin Ceausescu, the 51-year-old son of the late dictator, is outspoken about the way his parents were treated.
"I won&#39;t complain,&#39;&#39; he said in an interview with The Associated Press. "But what they did was so blatantly illegal.&#39;&#39;
In downtown Bucharest, oval wreaths of red and white carnations, all from anti-communist groups, have been placed on memorials outside the former Communist Party headquarters. But there are no longer large outpourings of public sentiment.
On Wednesday, for example, only 70 people turned out for a re-enactment of the revolt. On Thursday, passersby did not even turn their heads to look at a marble memorial to the 1,000 people who died in the bloody revolt.
Still, one of the organizers of the Ceausescus&#39; trial said there would have been no revolution had they been allowed to live.
"What made the revolution viable was the death of two people,&#39;&#39; said Gelu Voican Voiculescu, a former ambassador to Tunisia who now runs a publishing house in Bucharest.
"I buried them,&#39;&#39; Voiculescu said, "and I thought I&#39;d buried communism with them.&#39;&#39;


> ROMANIANS LIKED LIFE BETTER UNDER COMMUNISM
> Reuters
> November 21, 1999
> BUCHAREST, Romania -- Ten years after communism&#39;s fall, 4 in 5
Romanians
> are unhappy with the way they live, with 61 percent saying they were
> better off under the late dictator Nicolae Ceausescu, an opinion poll
> reports.
> "This is a very sad picture of Romanian society," political scientist
> Dorel Abraham told a news conference late last week while commenting
on
> the findings of the survey released by the Open Society Foundation.
> The survey also showed a dramatic plunge in popularity ratings for
> President Emil Constantinescu and his centrists, who are now trailing
> far behind the leftists they ousted in polls three years ago.
> "The situation in the country is very tense, the mood is bad and
> pessimism is on the rise," Abraham said.
> Disaster, poverty, chaos, difficulties and disorder were the words
> chosen by most of the 2,019 Romanians polled in late October to best
> describe the country&#39;s situation, as Romania prepares to mark 10 years
> since Eastern Europe&#39;s most violent anti-communist revolution.
> Perhaps not surprisingly, Abraham said, Ceausescu was chosen by most,
or
> 22 percent of those polled, as Romania&#39;s best leader ever

> The poll also showed that 84 percent of Romanians lack confidence in
the
> government after three years of a shrinking economy and widespread
> layoffs. More than 80 percent said they had lost confidence in
> parliament and political parties.
> Failure to meet promises of weeding out corruption, improving living
> standards and speeding up privatization also halved support for
> Constantinescu, now at a record low of 17 percent, down from 38
percent
> last year.
> Leftist rival Ion Iliescu, defeated by Constantinescu in 1996 polls
> after seven years in office, is now credited with 44 percent of
> credibility, up from 28 percent a year ago.
> With support for Constantinescu&#39;s centrists halved from June&#39;s 34
> percent, the survey showed that Iliescu&#39;s Party of Social Democracy
was
> the biggest gainer from what Abraham called "three years of
Ø mismanagement and hesitation."


Romanians long for &#39;good old days of communism&#39;
By Julius Strauss in Bucharest
(Filed: 28/11/2000)
COMMUNISM could be making a return in Romania after more than ten years, but this time by popular demand.
In the gnawing cold of a winter afternoon, Florentina Ionescu stands on the kerb in one of Bucharest&#39;s industrial districts and sells tights and stockings for 25p a pair.
With a profit margin of around 4p on each, the divorced mother of two can make about £20 in a good month if she works long hours. She said: "Of course it was better under communism. Everybody had a job; everybody had a flat. Now I share two rooms with my children and three of my brothers. This isn&#39;t a life."
More than a decade after the dictator Nicolae Ceausescu and his wife, Elena, were hauled in front of a firing squad, a clear majority of Romanians say life was better when he was in charge. It is in this context that hardline nationalists and former communists appear to have trounced the centrists and moderates in Romania&#39;s elections on Sunday.
With more than a third of votes counted, Ion Iliescu, the former apparatchik who led Romania for six years after replacing Ceausescu in the December 1989 revolution, was in first place with 36.5 per cent of the vote.
Mr Iliescu is expected to face the extreme nationalist Corneliu Vadim Tudor, who came second with 29.08 per cent, in a run-off on December 10, as voters showed their disillusionment over the pain of economic reform. In opinion polls, a solid 60 to 65 per cent say they were better off before 1989, even though the Romanian variety of communism was the harshest in eastern Europe.
Mr Iliescu&#39;s Party of Social Democracy (PDSR) won 39.6 per cent in the concurrent parliamentary election, while Mr Tudor&#39;s Greater Romania Party (PRM) took more than 22 per cent.
Mr Iliescu sought to reassure jittery investors, saying: "The PDSR will accept no falling back on the irreversible march towards democracy and the consolidation of state institutions of law and civic liberties." But the result has raised concerns over Romania&#39;s hopes of joining the European Union.
"The last in Europe", ran a headline in the Adevarul daily newspaper. "In November 2000 we are the only case in Central and Eastern Europe where economic reforms have not succeeded, and the ascension of the Greater Romania Party will raise great questions in the West about the success of political reforms."
Nostalgia for the Ceausescu era, which in the early 1990s was the preserve of pensioners and nationalists, has become the norm among working Romanians struggling to survive in a sagging economy.
An election leaflet put out by the Romanian Workers Party shows an early picture of Ceausescu smiling. Alongside are listed what are considered the key achievements of communism: factories, hydro-electric plants, atomic centres, schools, and irrigation for agriculture.
Both the Social Democrats and the Greater Romania Party praise Romania&#39;s communist era for its achievements. The repression and suffering are conveniently airbrushed from view.
Marian, 68, who drives a taxi to make ends meet, said: "We lived better under communism. Everybody could visit the mountains or the seaside at least once a year. Like many others, my family was very poor after the war and communism gave us a chance to make something of our lives."
Underpinning the longing for the past are economic figures that are among the worst in Europe. Successive governments, both Leftist and moderate, have failed to begin meaningful economic reforms and curb corruption.
More than two thirds of the economy is still in state hands. Living standards have dropped by more than a third in the past decade, and 44 per cent of the population survive on less than £3 a day, the poverty standard set by the EU. The national currency, the leu, has fallen from an official rate of 11 to the dollar in 1989, to 25,200 this year.
The consequences for Romanians are brutal, even by Balkan standards. For Arada, an 18-year-old gipsy girl wearing a filthy white coat and four layers of dirty pullovers to keep out the winter chill, the future is little better than hopeless.
She said: "All I want is to go home to my village, to get away from the police and the ones who beat me. I just want to live a normal life." It is a sentiment shared by many Romanians.


And his death was no government coup, as you have hinted at it being. It was an uprising of the people. Isn&#39;t Communism supposed to be all about the people? I certainly thought so.
Ceausescu tormented his people for years. Finally, the tables were turned and he got what he deserved. The world, and Romania, are far better off without one more bloodthirsty fascist pretending to be a Communist. He was a true wolf in sheep&#39;s clothing.

Even many anti-Ceausescu people say it was a coup.It might have been popular among some at the time to due to the fact that the living standards were bad in the 80&#39;s compared to the excellent one&#39;s in the 70&#39;s.Just look at those articles.Seems the Romanian&#39;s that supported that didn&#39;t know what they were getting into.If he is so hated by the Romanian people how come when the workers went on strike in 1999 for higher wages they marched and carried portraits of their good friend Nicolae Ceausescu who made them social heroes and always listened to them.I do not believe I need to say anything to your comments calling him a &#39;fascist&#39;.The way you hippies throw around that word you would thimk it was as common as "the" or something.

[Comrade Ceausescu]

Ignore the anti-communist comments in those articles.Notice those were made by the authors.never by the people of romania.

[SonofRage]

As usual, it never fails to surprise me how the Authoritarian Left will embrace any dictator who calls himself socialist/communist. Maybe Bush should start calling himself a socialist so he can get an endorsement from the Workers World Party :D

[Urban Rubble]

Comrade Ceasusescu, why did you not reply to my last PM ?

Anyway, I have a few quick questions.

1. Do you actually deny that people starved in Romania under Ceasescu ? You acknowledge that he sold off much of his food share to repay his debts, but do you actually deny that people starved ? I can tell you, for sure that people did starve in Romania. Not only do I know a family of 3 defectors,I also know about 10 people who visited there when he was in power.

2.How do you justify the fact that he was overthrown by the very same people he supposedly helped ?

3. Do you really believe that just because things are bad in Romania right now that automatically makes Ceausescu a good leader ? You don&#39;t think things could have been bad at both times ?

[Ortega]

Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 4 2004, 10:45 PM
Comrade Ceasusescu, why did you not reply to my last PM ?

Anyway, I have a few quick questions.

1. Do you actually deny that people starved in Romania under Ceasescu ? You acknowledge that he sold off much of his food share to repay his debts, but do you actually deny that people starved ? I can tell you, for sure that people did starve in Romania. Not only do I know a family of 3 defectors,I also know about 10 people who visited there when he was in power.

2.How do you justify the fact that he was overthrown by the very same people he supposedly helped ?

3. Do you really believe that just because things are bad in Romania right now that automatically makes Ceausescu a good leader ? You don&#39;t think things could have been bad at both times ?
Exactly the things I was going to ask. Got any answers, Comrade Ceasescu, outside of your empty jingoistic propaganda?
And, like UR said, the Romanians want Ceausescu back because life is so bad for them now. Life was worse under Ceausescu, and he is merely being made into a martyr because the Romanians are beginning to forget his terror and they are in desperate need of a hero, an icon.

[Ortega]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2004, 10:38 PM
As usual, it never fails to surprise me how the Authoritarian Left will embrace any dictator who calls himself socialist/communist. Maybe Bush should start calling himself a socialist so he can get an endorsement from the Workers World Party :D
:D haha

[Comrade Ceausescu]

Comrade Ceasusescu, why did you not reply to my last PM ?

I have not had time to type up the long reply needed to it.


1. Do you actually deny that people starved in Romania under Ceasescu ? You acknowledge that he sold off much of his food share to repay his debts, but do you actually deny that people starved ? I can tell you, for sure that people did starve in Romania. Not only do I know a family of 3 defectors,I also know about 10 people who visited there when he was in power.


Thats wonderful.I know a few people who have spent their whole lives in Romania.They are not radically against Ceausescu at all.Anyway,lets take a small piece from Ceausescu&#39;s trial and see what he has to say about the starvation."I will not answer this question. As a simple citizen, I tell you the following: For the first time I guaranteed that every peasant received 200 kilograms of wheat per person, not per family, and that he is entitled to more. It is a lie that I made the peoplestarve. A lie, a lie in my face."



2.How do you justify the fact that he was overthrown by the very same people he supposedly helped ?

He was overthrown in a coup led by Ion Illescu.It might have been popular at the time,but it was a copu none the less.


3. Do you really believe that just because things are bad in Romania right now that automatically makes Ceausescu a good leader ? You don&#39;t think things could have been bad at both times ?

You always say "oh you think you know so much about everything,but there are people wo have studied these things so much more then you".Well I have studied this a lot.There is much anti-Ceausescu propaganda out there.I have read it,and have read stuff defending him and have come to the conclusion I am at today.Things were about to get much better.They were almost done paying off their debt.


Exactly the things I was going to ask. Got any answers, Comrade Ceasescu, outside of your empty jingoistic propaganda?

Did you even read that?Huh?How is that jingoistic?Do you even know what that word means?Those were all from news sources like Reuters and what not,how can they be jingoistic about a country they don&#39;t even live in?

And, like UR said, the Romanians want Ceausescu back because life is so bad for them now. Life was worse under Ceausescu, and he is merely being made into a martyr because the Romanians are beginning to forget his terror and they are in desperate need of a hero, an icon.

What?You insult the people of Romainia to call them so stupid as to forget what life was like under ceausescu?You don&#39;t even know what fascism is.How was Ceausescu a war monger,a racist,an ultra-nationalist?Huh?If he was such a fascist how come he hated war and orderd all countries to dissarm?

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Mmmmm and he told all the other countries to disarm. And the ant told the elephant to fetch.

[Saint-Just]

Mmmmm and he told all the other countries to disarm. And the ant told the elephant to fetch.

This is a brave thing to do. If more countries were to do so perhaps the world would be more peaceful. In Britain, a Labour leader in Britain once had a similar policy, to call for nuclear disarmament.

[El Brujo]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 6 2004, 04:43 AM
They were almost done paying off their debt.
Actually, I think they already had payed off their debt. A guy I know from Romania (who is anti-Ceausescu, btw) said that Romania at the time of Ceausescu&#39;s death was one of the few countries with no debt.

[Ortega]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 04:06 PM
Mmmmm and he told all the other countries to disarm. And the ant told the elephant to fetch.
So true, so true.

Comrade Ceausescu, your sources about how terrible Romania is today may be true but your defense of Mr. Nicolae is nothing but empty propaganda. Yes, I do happen to know what jingoistic means, and also the meaning of fascism.

These people are much older than you, especially Urban Rubble. They have researched more than you, or more than I for that matter.

[Comrade Ceausescu]

You judge me because of the way I look?What kind of person are you?



So true, so true.

You do not believe this?Ridiculous.I will post some of his work talking about it if you like.



Comrade Ceausescu, your sources about how terrible Romania is today may be true but your defense of Mr. Nicolae is nothing but empty propaganda. Yes, I do happen to know what jingoistic means, and also the meaning of fascism.

So you are saying that those stories are falt out not true?Thats absurd.really it is.Others who are arguing against me in this topic say that the stories are true.Your label of them as "propaganda" is ridiculous.

These people are much older than you, especially Urban Rubble. They have researched more than you, or more than I for that matter.

Do you really know this?I would like to compare all the time I have studied Ceausescu vs.Urban.Just because he is older does not mean he has reasearched more.

And you know whats funny, and makes me slightly hypocritical? I&#39;m younger than you, though I sure don&#39;t look as young.

This is so irrelavent it makes me sick.


But at least I know when I&#39;m wrong, and I don&#39;t act so much like a stuck-up 14 year old.

I have backed down like a gentleman and admitted being incorrect in plenty an argument.And if you have not studied Ceausescu much,stop making judgements of him until you have.I would ask that my image and all comments relating to it are removed from this thread,due to the fact that they are extremely irrelavent.

[Ortega]

Hah. Still embarrased about that picture? Its alright, you&#39;ll get over it. And it is relevant that I am your age. My point there is that I can still act somewhat maturely when I know I&#39;m wrong.

I&#39;ve spent plenty of time studying Ceausescu, don&#39;t accuse me of knowing nothing.

And the reason Urban Rubble&#39;s opinions would be more valid than yours is that he, unlike you, or I suppose unlike me, has truly experienced life. Rather than being sheltered in a home, he has been able to see what the world is really like.
Ceausescu may sound exciting and glamorous to you now, but were you living under him I doubt that you would feel such respect for your beloved leader. How long could you go without food, or rights? How would you feel if our President Bushie took the money we needed to keep our money running, spent it on lavish cars and palaces, and left you to starve.

You wouldn&#39;t like it.

[Ortega]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 5 2004, 05:31 PM
You judge me because of the way I look?What kind of person are you?
The point of that was that you look young. Too young to be well-informed about anything.

It was not judging you for how you looked in the sense that you are implying. You are suggesting that I am discriminating against you like many would against blacks or hispanics or asians, or hating you because youre ugly. I&#39;m not judging your looks or ethnicity, I&#39;m just suggesting that you look too young to formulate good opinions of your own&#33;

[Soviet power supreme]

Did any of you actually look at this page?Someone was even talking about Aston Martini.

http://apps.ines.ro/Cars/dacia.jpg

This made me laugh.It is so crappy. :lol:


This car was a gift received by Ceausescu family from the Dacia Automobiles Factory Pitesti and it was the first Romanian designed car ever produced in Romania, therefore, near the engine, there is a brass plaque with respects inscriptions.


http://apps.ines.ro/Cars/vw02.jpg
So did this. :lol:


This car was a gift received by the Ceausescu family for hunting activity.

http://apps.ines.ro/Cars/mb05.jpg
This one is his daughter&#39;s


This car was specially ordered by Ceausescu for Zoe (his daughter), from Germany, in 1969 and it is unique.


http://apps.ines.ro/Cars/bk05.gif
Nixon gave this to him.


- the Ceausescu family received the car as a gift from the ex-President of USA - Richard Nixon, in 1976.

http://apps.ines.ro/Cars/hilman.jpg

This one was a gift too.


This car was a gift received by the Ceausescu family from the REZA PAHLAVI, Former Shah of Iran.


http://apps.ines.ro/Cars/bus.jpg

A gift.


The car is a gift received by the Ceausescu family from the EEL MAN firm, and is an unique execution for VIP use.

5 of 6 were gifts.And the last one was to his daughter.

I wonder why the prices of the boats are not in sight or their origin.

[Ortega]

Originally posted by Soviet power [email protected] 5 2004, 06:48 PM
5 of 6 were gifts.And the last one was to his daughter.

I wonder why the prices of the boats are not in sight or their origin.
Those probably weren&#39;t his only cars...

[Comrade Ceausescu]

Hah. Still embarrased about that picture? Its alright, you&#39;ll get over it. And it is relevant that I am your age. My point there is that I can still act somewhat maturely when I know I&#39;m wrong.

I never said I was embarrassed at all.If I was,why would I have posted it?I just thought it was not relavent in the least bit to the subject.How have I not acted maturely in this subject?I have insulted no one.What kind of point are you trying to make?



I&#39;ve spent plenty of time studying Ceausescu, don&#39;t accuse me of knowing nothing.

I don&#39;t think so.Anyone who would call him a fascist obviously did not study him.I know plenty of anti-Ceausescu people who never said he was a fascist.



And the reason Urban Rubble&#39;s opinions would be more valid than yours is that he, unlike you, or I suppose unlike me, has truly experienced life. Rather than being sheltered in a home, he has been able to see what the world is really like.

yes of course he has.But this has nothing to do with understanding Ceausescu.


Ceausescu may sound exciting and glamorous to you now, but were you living under him I doubt that you would feel such respect for your beloved leader. How long could you go without food, or rights? How would you feel if our President Bushie took the money we needed to keep our money running, spent it on lavish cars and palaces, and left you to starve.

You wouldn&#39;t like it.

He does not sound glamorous or anything to me.He is someone who fought for his people.Did you not look at the posts I have made.Aparently not.


The point of that was that you look young. Too young to be well-informed about anything.

Don&#39;t you ever say that to me again.Ever.You think because I am 14 I can&#39;t know anything?I read 600-700 page biographies,I read Stalin&#39;s books,I read Lenin&#39;s books,I have read some Marx,and I am also reading stuff by Ceausescu.

[Ortega]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 5 2004, 07:27 PM

The point of that was that you look young. Too young to be well-informed about anything.

Don&#39;t you ever say that to me again.Ever.You think because I am 14 I can&#39;t know anything?I read 600-700 page biographies,I read Stalin&#39;s books,I read Lenin&#39;s books,I have read some Marx,and I am also reading stuff by Ceausescu.
As have I, being 14 as well. That point is not an important one.

But I have to go, I&#39;ll get back to this later.

[Urban Rubble]

Ortega, that is fucking lame to post a pic of the kid and then make fun of him for it. That says alot about your debating tactics, I appreciate the compliments you are throwing my way, but you are being a complete asshole to the kid. Make fun of his politics if you wish, but making fun of how he looks is just totally stupid.

I am sure if I posted a picture of myself at 14 we&#39;d all have a good laugh.


Thats wonderful.I know a few people who have spent their whole lives in Romania.They are not radically against Ceausescu at all.Anyway,lets take a small piece from Ceausescu&#39;s trial and see what he has to say about the starvation."I will not answer this question. As a simple citizen, I tell you the following: For the first time I guaranteed that every peasant received 200 kilograms of wheat per person, not per family, and that he is entitled to more. It is a lie that I made the peoplestarve. A lie, a lie in my face."

Dude, you have to understand something, quoting a peice of the man defending himself on trial does not prove a whole lot. Of course he is denying it, Pinochet also called himself an "angel", what does this prove. You still will not answer me, why would this family of Romanians, who I know personally lie about people starving ? Why would they do it ? The fact is, there were people that starved in Romania. Now, we could debate as to how many starved, but that isn&#39;t the poit, the point is that people really did die of hunger while this man lived lavishly. I want a solid answer, why would these people make things up ?


He was overthrown in a coup led by Ion Illescu.It might have been popular at the time,but it was a copu none the less.

Again, what is your point ? The coup was popular, that is a fact. Of course things aren&#39;t great now, but that doesn&#39;t mean it was great then either.


You always say "oh you think you know so much about everything,but there are people wo have studied these things so much more then you".Well I have studied this a lot.There is much anti-Ceausescu propaganda out there.I have read it,and have read stuff defending him and have come to the conclusion I am at today.Things were about to get much better.They were almost done paying off their debt.

When I say that I am talking about people such as Historians, political scientists, do you think you are smarter than these men ? Do you honestly think you have studied more than these types of people ? Face it, you may have studied alot, but there are men who are 5 times your age who have devoted their lives to studying things of this nature, and the vast majority of them would tell you the same things that I am. I am not trying to say he killed millions of people, but he was nothing to be admired.

[Comrade Ceausescu]

Ortega, that is fucking lame to post a pic of the kid and then make fun of him for it. That says alot about your debating tactics, I appreciate the compliments you are throwing my way, but you are being a complete asshole to the kid. Make fun of his politics if you wish, but making fun of how he looks is just totally stupid.

I am sure if I posted a picture of myself at 14 we&#39;d all have a good laugh.

Thank you for your use of logic.


Dude, you have to understand something, quoting a peice of the man defending himself on trial does not prove a whole lot. Of course he is denying it, Pinochet also called himself an "angel", what does this prove. You still will not answer me, why would this family of Romanians, who I know personally lie about people starving ? Why would they do it ? The fact is, there were people that starved in Romania. Now, we could debate as to how many starved, but that isn&#39;t the poit, the point is that people really did die of hunger while this man lived lavishly. I want a solid answer, why would these people make things up ?

Why I particurally believe him is-he already knew he was going to die.He had nothing to lose.What would be the point of lieing before someone shoots you?I said,I am sure there was some starvation in Romania,but I would not call it "mass starvation" as some have. I didn&#39;t say they made things up,but 20-50-100 people starving is a lot different then millions.



Again, what is your point ? The coup was popular, that is a fact. Of course things aren&#39;t great now, but that doesn&#39;t mean it was great then either.

Most people in Romania regret it.The only reason there were limits set on food is so someone with a ton of money did not splurge,buy a large amount,and have everybody starve.Things were really very good in the from 1965 through the 1970&#39;s and around 1982 or 1983 living standards started plummetting as the debt was payed off.But the debt was done,and they were about to move on.Also,as for the coup,a mass rally of Ceausescu supporters came to Bucharest(organized by the party).As they were marching in stroms of students came in and they clashed.There were more students and they booed Ceausescu off.I have heard the speech,if you listen under the booes plenty of people are clapping.Then Illescu knew it was time and made his move to take power.We all know the rest of the story.


When I say that I am talking about people such as Historians, political scientists, do you think you are smarter than these men ? Do you honestly think you have studied more than these types of people ? Face it, you may have studied alot, but there are men who are 5 times your age who have devoted their lives to studying things of this nature, and the vast majority of them would tell you the same things that I am. I am not trying to say he killed millions of people, but he was nothing to be admired.

Sometimes you make it sound like it is people on here you are talking about.You have made yourself clear.Anyway,I think we (me and you) just disagree on this issue,but at least we have come to some understanding on it,and why we disagree.(at least I have).I would like to personally thank you for keeping this debate above the belt.

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2004, 05:22 PM

I wouldn&#39;t keep acting like you know everything when you&#39;re only 14 (and look like this :D) http://pic7.picturetrail.com/VOL192/1545883/2962236/36198303.jpg

Wow, that&#39;s him? I didn&#39;t realize that he was so young. That explains a lot.

[Saint-Just]

His age is not particularly relevent. I know intelligent people in their 30s to their 70s who have the same opinion of Ceausescu (people in the UK who are interested in DPRK).

Those probably weren&#39;t his only cars...

The page that listed these cars was listing his most expensive possessions, I should imagine these cars were all the cars he owned.

Again, what is your point ? The coup was popular, that is a fact. Of course things aren&#39;t great now, but that doesn&#39;t mean it was great then either.

The coup was at a time were socialism was collapsing across Europe and in Russia. Also, the number of people who actually protested was only a few thousand. Ceausescu lost a lot of popularity, however it was only because of Illiescu and those that conspired with him that he was unable to control this situation. Ceausescu was given a very short trial and murdered by Illiescu&#39;s cohort rather hastily away from any public observation.

When I say that I am talking about people such as Historians, political scientists, do you think you are smarter than these men ? Do you honestly think you have studied more than these types of people ? Face it, you may have studied alot, but there are men who are 5 times your age who have devoted their lives to studying things of this nature, and the vast majority of them would tell you the same things that I am.

Historical studies are highly opinionated. All historical works are based upon the views of the author. If you read many bourgeois accounts of Ceausescu of course they will be against him. However, you can also find positive accounts of Ceausescu by people just old who have done as much research. He likely is smarter than some of these men although he has less knowledge then they.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Most 14 year olds I know don&#39;t even understand politics....

[Comrade Ceausescu]

Chairman Mao,could you list some of the pro-Ceausescu books?I would love to read them.

[Ortega]

Getting all of your information from one side, especially a fascist, tyrannic one, can be dangerous.

[Comrade Ceausescu]

I&#39;m not responding to anything else you say in this thread.Long live Ceausescu&#33;

[Ortega]

Wow. Only hearing what you want to hear, eh?

[Comrade Ceausescu]

I wouldn&#39;t be talking.I posted so much Pro-Ceausescu stuff,and you just insulted it,or pretended it didn&#39;t exsist.

[SonofRage]

Yes, long live Ceausescu, the man who was overthrown and executed by his own people. Of course, they did it out of their great love for him. :rolleyes:

[Comrade Ceausescu]

Oh yeah because a coup of a few hundred people is exactly what the people want.If you had read those articles I posted,from reuters and bbc and what not,you would see that he is admired or at least respected by many Romanians.

[SonofRage]

What people miss is the welfare state, nothing more.

[Comrade Ceausescu]

This was the context of the announcement made just before Christmas 1998 of a plan to close non-profitable mines - and hence the miners’ anger. For President Constantinescu and his prime minister, it was a step towards limiting losses in the mining sector, running at &#036;370 million. This restructuring would have been achieved by sacking an additional 6,500 miners after closing about 100 mines and getting rid of 90,000 mining jobs in the course of 1997 - including 20,000 in the Jiu Valley. The plan, which the World Bank described as a "success" because up until that point it had not stirred the miners into action, turned out to be a social disaster. As was, in more general terms, the economic orientation pursued by the Christian Democrats, Democrats, Liberals, and representatives of the Hungarian minority who made up the governing coalition.

It does not take much imagination to envisage the political consequences of this ultra-liberal programme. Not least among the miners. It fed a nostalgia for the old days of Ceausescu. They missed the days of full employment and their status as social heroes. But among the general public too, 51% think they had better lives before 1989 (4).


Look at that part about the workers.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Forgive me for interupting this intelectual debate, but Ortega, did you remove the picture of Comrade Ceausescu when Urban Rubble called you an ass-hole for posting it?
Sheep.

And no, I don&#39;t have anything constructive to add, only that.=D

[Deniz Gezmis]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 9 2004, 01:54 AM
I&#39;m not responding to anything else you say in this thread.Long live Ceausescu&#33;
And his palaces, With many marble and gold plated features.


http://www.truthinmedia.org/images/Ceausescu.jpg
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Travel/Pix/gallery/2001/01/26/ceausescu.jpg

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 9 2004, 12:42 AM

This was the context of the announcement made just before Christmas 1998 of a plan to close non-profitable mines - and hence the miners’ anger. For President Constantinescu and his prime minister, it was a step towards limiting losses in the mining sector, running at &#036;370 million. This restructuring would have been achieved by sacking an additional 6,500 miners after closing about 100 mines and getting rid of 90,000 mining jobs in the course of 1997 - including 20,000 in the Jiu Valley. The plan, which the World Bank described as a "success" because up until that point it had not stirred the miners into action, turned out to be a social disaster. As was, in more general terms, the economic orientation pursued by the Christian Democrats, Democrats, Liberals, and representatives of the Hungarian minority who made up the governing coalition.

It does not take much imagination to envisage the political consequences of this ultra-liberal programme. Not least among the miners. It fed a nostalgia for the old days of Ceausescu. They missed the days of full employment and their status as social heroes. But among the general public too, 51% think they had better lives before 1989 (4).


Look at that part about the workers.
Like I said, they miss the welfare state.

[Saint-Just]

However, they would not clamour for his return if they thought him a brutal and oppressive leader. Furthermore, if they miss the welfare state obviously his "his palaces, With many marble and gold plated features" did not deny a prosperous economy.

[Deniz Gezmis]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 9 2004, 10:21 PM
"his palaces, With many marble and gold plated features" did not deny a prosperous economy.
Saddam also had many of those features in his palaces, I would hardly call the old Iraqi economy "prosperous". As i continue my studies on Ceausescu I do feel a somewhat considerable amount of support for him. Of course, There are many things that do need critisised.

[Comrade Ceausescu]

Death,those are nice pictures.I have them both on my wall.I would reccomend visiting abebooks.com and ordering a book called "Ceausescu of Romania,Champion of Peace".

[Comrade Ceausescu]

Like I said, they miss the welfare state.

A welfare state?How is giving workers rights and massive respect in society a welfare state?

[Comrade Ceausescu]

Death,also about the problem of AIDS in Romania.....Little was known internationally in that time about Aids.In the last few years great advancements have been made in the knowledge we have of Aids. Denying that it in Romania ecsisted was not considerd naive at all at the time. Of course now it is. I would say though it is a sad event, one should not say Ceausescu wanted children to suffer or anything.

[Ortega]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 04:59 PM
Forgive me for interupting this intelectual debate, but Ortega, did you remove the picture of Comrade Ceausescu when Urban Rubble called you an ass-hole for posting it?
Sheep.

And no, I don&#39;t have anything constructive to add, only that.=D
Yes, Victor, I did.
Its not being a sheep, its just that apparently it degraded my argument so I decided that there was no point to keeping it. If even UR thinks its going way too far, it must be...
So basically, I removed it not to be a sheep or follow the crowd, but because it obviously must&#39;ve taken a lot of the credibility of my argument.

[Deniz Gezmis]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 12 2004, 02:49 AM
Death,also about the problem of AIDS in Romania.....Little was known internationally in that time about Aids.In the last few years great advancements have been made in the knowledge we have of Aids. Denying that it in Romania ecsisted was not considerd naive at all at the time. Of course now it is. I would say though it is a sad event, one should not say Ceausescu wanted children to suffer or anything.
Thanks for clearing that up.

[Saint-Just]

They have a very big AIDS problem in Eastern Europe now and they have knowledge of it.

[Soviet power supreme]

Saddam also had many of those features in his palaces, I would hardly call the old Iraqi economy "prosperous".

Iraq was very prosperous before the wars and blockade.

And no Im not a pro-saddam so dont bother.

[Deniz Gezmis]

Originally posted by Soviet power [email protected] 12 2004, 09:06 PM
Iraq was very prosperous before the wars and blockade.
Fair enough.