| "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." |
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.