3 ms·

I wouldn't take the outright killings of the Ceausescus as a sign of the Romanian people being so unusually more violent than elsewhere in Eastern Europe. The d

I wouldn't take the outright killings of the Ceausescus as a sign of the Romanian people being so unusually more violent than elsewhere in Eastern Europe. The decision to kill Ceausescu and his wife was taken by a strata of government officials under him, because they wanted to seize power for themselves. In this sense, the Romanian revolution of 1989 was a coup d'etat and we are just lucky that the outcome was eventually a representative democracy and not another dictatorship. While the Ceausescus were hated, it is definitely not a given that popular discontent would have led to their deaths had it not been for that cabal that hastily arranged the trial and executions.

082349872349872 6y ago
Interesting, but I wasn't even thinking of the Ceausescus in particular. In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1989#Romania https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutions_of_1989#Romania it says "over 1,000 people died" (one link away says "Death(s) 689–1,290") which seems very high compared with neighbouring Bulgaria and Hungary.
- bad_user 6y ago
  That's because the military and the secret police opened fire on the population, the parent is talking nonsense.
bad_user 6y ago
The line about the coup d'etat is bullshit, stop spreading nonsense. Ceaușescu was killed because the terrorists wouldn't give up otherwise, the terrorists being suspected to be the old secret police, which also wreaked havoc in Timișoara.