I’ve seen so much about Ceaucescu but not about him and I couldn’t find too much info so how was, it was good or bad?
I’d say good overall, but this is just my opinion.
Gheorghiu-Dej’s first years were a bit shaky, as he grew distrustful of other influential leaders within the PMR, and a number of them were arrested.
But there were also huge leaps in the development of Romania under his leadership. The national electrification and anti-illiteracy campaigns began, mechanized agriculture became more common, both light and heavy industries were developed (with heavy industries generally being favoured).
Agreements with Yugoslavia were signed regarding the construction of the Iron Gates hydroelectric dam, and you also had the beginnings of a proper tourist industry.
Hmm I see. Do you have any documentation or works about it? Don’t mind if it’s in romanian
Cred că o sursă decentă care cuprinde mult din ce am precizat mai sus ar fi acest manual de istorie contemporană al României din 1983. În acest caz, porțiunea relevantă începe la partea a treia (pg. 142).
Nu este perfect, ignorând practic complet conflictele dintre facțiuniile PMR de la începutul aniilor 50, iar anumite detalii sunt prezentate mai înfrumusețat. Cuprinde totuși multe informații despre dezvoltarea țării (precum planul de electrificare și mecanizarea agriculturii), cât și informații despre organizarea politică a republicii populare.
Mulțumesc mult!
I suppose it depends on what you mean by ‘good’ or ‘bad’, and what you are using as a metric for determining as such.
To elaborate on this a bit more; post war Romanian politics were, after the proclamation of a socialist state, dominated by two factions. One faction was the ‘Pauker’ or ‘Moscow’ faction that was predominantly more ‘moderate’ leaning with some ‘reformist’ influence (within the context of Marxism-Leninism, though there was supposedly ‘Titoist’ influence as well) and the other faction was the ‘Prison Faction’ which tended to be more statist and slightly more strict in their social policy. Gheorghe was a member of the latter.
I would say the metric is similar to how it was the soviet union during Stalin and Lenin. But you could also say why you think it was good.
If you are looking for my opinion, I think it could’ve been better, the Prison Faction were a bit too pragmatic for my taste and their admiration for Stalin didn’t prove to translate into a commitment to socialism (with Romania cozying up to the West after Stalin’s death and hardliners being side-lined in favor of Ceaucescu).
I think Pauker would’ve made a very competent leader to guide Romania on a socialist path, and that Apostol would’ve likely done far better than Ceaucescu. Though all things considered Romania wasn’t terrible, and even with the miscalculations made by Ceaucescu, I believe a majority of Romanians regard the country as worse without communism.
Ive heard an joke on internet that every romanian who lived during ceaucesco did not liked it, but that they still think he was the best goverment romania ever haved.
Hmm I see. Do you have any documentation or works about it?
I did a ton of research around a year ago on it, I’d have to fish around for links and the like.
