[ATB]

"Those three countries - along with Romania (and sometimes Slovenia) are the case studies for Eastern Europe. They're where the transition from communism went remarkably well and lacked any sort of violence"

The Romanian revolution was extremely violent: over 1,000 people died and over 3,000 were wounded, and the former dictator and his wife were found guilty in a hasty show trial and executed on the spot. Their former allies then former a post-Communist clique that looted the country for most of the 90s and stole several elections. Romania continues to have one of the highest corruption rates in Eastern Europe.

But yes, aside from that, it went "remarkably well."

This isn't random conspiratorial nonsense, it's well-documented and NPOVed five ways from Sunday: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_Revolution_of_1989#Aft...

[Zev]

Point. Its late for me and I got slightly jumbled up. You're absolutely right that Romania was the most violent of the revolutions and that I shouldn't have included them in the lacking violence part. I've edited the original post to mention this.

Even still, it could have been much worse; the revolution could have failed. And it lead to a stable government that successfully transitioned between parties afterwards. And the Romanian economy is doing fairly well. I'd call that a pretty remarkable success, given how spectacular the failures in Eastern Europe are on the opposite end of the spectrum.

Their former allies then former a post-Communist clique that looted the country for most of the 90s and stole several elections.

I haven't really read much about this, Romanian elections being fraudulent. Don't suppose you could recommend a few good news articles or other data (books or papers, perhaps) on the subject (Romania after 1989, not just elections specifically)? The Wikipedia article doesn't have any citation for it either.

[ATB]

Henry F. Carey; East European Quarterly, Vol. 29, 1995, "Irregularities or Rigging: The 1992 Romanian Parliamentary Elections"

[Zev]

And something more recent to show that the trend has continued? Romania has elections every 4 years, I believe. That paper was published after one round of elections. There's been a few rounds since.

[idlewords]

"Extremely violent?" Even the Romanian revolution was practically bloodless compared to what could have been. Recall that there is a large Hungarian minority in Romania, with strong claims to territory, and there were great fears that the Yugoslavian debacle might repeat itself there.

The fact that Romania made it out of the hellish Ceausescu regime with comparatively little violence, and is now a full-on EU member, is one of the great success stories of that time.

You can bemoan the people that died and the slowness of the eventual transition towards more open government, but you must keep a sense of perspective. Even a dysfunctional country like Romania has been able to claw itself to levels of prosperity no one dreamed about in 1989.

[ATB]

"the Romanian revolution was practically bloodless compared to what could have been"

Compare it to the revolutions in the other Balkan states around 1988-1992. It was by far the most violent. How many died in Hungary? In Bulgaria? In Poland? In Czechoslovakia?

"there were great fears that the Yugoslavian debacle might repeat itself there"

There were? Interesting, given that the Yugoslavian Civil War happened several years AFTER those 1000+ Romanians died. How would that repetition have worked?

"You can bemoan the people that died"

Could there be a more callous response to thousands of casualties? As I've shown above, this didn't happen in ANY of the other countries making the same transition. It was only the multi-ethnic and barely-cohesive artificial country of Yugoslavia that did worse. Several years later.

"Even a dysfunctional country like Romania has been able to claw itself to levels of prosperity no one dreamed about in 1989."

Sure, and this is a great thing. However, as my reply quoted, it was in response to "lacked any sort of violence." 1000+ dead and many more injured is a poor definition of "any sort of violence."

[Zev]

Sure, and this is a great thing. However, as my reply quoted, it was in response to "lacked any sort of violence." 1000+ dead and many more injured is a poor definition of "any sort of violence."

And I admitted that I was wrong, right away. You're beating a dead horse to death if this is your main reason behind your statements.

Not lacking any violence at all doesn't mean that Romania had an incredibly violent revolution. Its not that black and white.

1,000 people dying is incredibly sad, yes. But, the death toll could have been much, much worse. The military could have sided with the government, not the people. There could have been an ethnic division within the country. The Soviet Union could have reversed the Sinatra Doctrine and stepped in.