| Revision as of 23:00, 25 March 2007 editTurgidson (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users61,469 edits →totallydisputed?← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:13, 25 March 2007 edit undoPetri Krohn (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users37,094 edits →totallydisputed?: No...Next edit → | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| :Also, the events of of 1944 can equally be described as "liberation", as part of the liberation of Europe. The only motivation for the selection of the title seems to be the Nazi-POV that "]s were ]"-- ] 22:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC) | :Also, the events of of 1944 can equally be described as "liberation", as part of the liberation of Europe. The only motivation for the selection of the title seems to be the Nazi-POV that "]s were ]"-- ] 22:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :: "Nazi-POV"?? Are you implying that anyone who opposed the Soviet domination of Eastern Europe after World War II was a Nazi? ] 23:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC) | :: "Nazi-POV"?? Are you implying that anyone who opposed the Soviet domination of Eastern Europe after World War II was a Nazi? ] 23:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :::No, -- but if you start labeling liberators as occupiers, it is very difficult for others to tell you from a true Nazi. -- ] 23:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:13, 25 March 2007
 | Russia Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Like Italy
Didn't the Romania change sides in 1944 during World War II? If so how was Romania under Soviet militay occupation if the Romainan Army was fighting as an Ally? Is not the situation legaly similar to that of Italy during World War II? --Philip Baird Shearer 22:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, Romania was supposed to be an ally, but practically, it was under Russian occupation. As soon as the Soviet Army came in Romania, they took possibly hundreds of thousands of Romanian prisoneers (of which at least 75,000 German ethnics and many other pro-Germans, anti-communists or just people that fought the war against the Soviets) and tooked them to Siberian work-camps, of course without the Romanian government's approval. Romania had nothing to do at the time, as Nazi Germany was on a downfall and the West couldn't care less about the Eastern European countries, especially since Russians were supposed to be the good guys. Eventually, the Soviet Army imposed its own Communist government and forced the King to sign his abdication. bogdan 23:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
If the Romanian Government was in agreement with Soviet forces in their country then legally it was not a belligerent military occupation. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Although there may be disagreement about the exact legal status, the Soviets (as Bogdan pointed out) behaved as de facto occupants. Eugen Ivan 23:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, I don't think Italy had to pay war reparations, whereas Romania did -- just one way in which they were not treated the same. If it is assumed that Romania was a sovereign power, then it should have had control over its own citizens, but, for example, the deportations happened without any legal agreemnent between Romania and the Soviet Union. Eugen Ivan 23:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
totallydisputed?
Why is there a "totallydisputed" tag on this article? I don't see any explanation from the person who put it (on March 3, 2007). Unless there is a sound reason for the tag, I think it should be removed -- I have no idea why it was put in the first place. Turgidson 21:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- The title Soviet occupation of Romania implies that Romania was occupied territory until 1958. Neither the text, not the references provided support this assertion. An Allied Control Commission is not occupation!
- Also, the events of of 1944 can equally be described as "liberation", as part of the liberation of Europe. The only motivation for the selection of the title seems to be the Nazi-POV that "commies were baddies"-- Petri Krohn 22:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- "Nazi-POV"?? Are you implying that anyone who opposed the Soviet domination of Eastern Europe after World War II was a Nazi? Turgidson 23:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- No, -- but if you start labeling liberators as occupiers, it is very difficult for others to tell you from a true Nazi. -- Petri Krohn 23:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- "Nazi-POV"?? Are you implying that anyone who opposed the Soviet domination of Eastern Europe after World War II was a Nazi? Turgidson 23:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)