AHC: Make the 1989 Romainan revolution turn the country into Somalia-like anarchy

Alex99232

Make it, so that the 1989 revolution of Romania turns the country into an anarchy of various forces who fight eachother (warlords who control various army divisions, communist fanatics, ethnic fanatics etc.) and the NATO seals off the country from the rest of the world by bulding an Iron Curtain-esque blockade around it for security reasons.

Bonus if the situation still lasts in the present day.
 
Make it, so that the 1989 revolution of Romania turns the country into an anarchy of various forces who fight eachother (warlords who control various army divisions, communist fanatics, ethnic fanatics etc.) and the NATO seals off the country from the rest of the world by bulding an Iron Curtain-esque blockade around it for security reasons.

Bonus if the situation still lasts in the present day.


Hard to see it being Somalia level, but I suppose:

1989:

Riots in Timisora become much, much more violent. Hungarians decide they don't want anything to do with Romania anymore and start plotting seperation.

Ceausescu flees Bucharest and is not captured. Rather than flee the country and accept amnesty offered by USSR he hides and leads a Khemer Rouge like band of rebels that uses terrorism to try and regain control of the country. The Red Romanians target westerners and as a result western aid floods out of the country.

Ion illiescu is named new president, but is not accepted by various factions of the opposition. Many blame him for Ceausescu's escape and point to his one time friendship and his long career as a member of the Communist party. Illiescu tries to have George Funar arrested but this fails when Funar supporters fight off the police.

It soon becomes clear that Ceausescu is being given refuge by the Hungarians. Although Ceausescu is widely hated by many of the Hungarians, some support him due to his history of supressing Romanian nationalist, and others support him due to the fact that he is targeting the Romanian government and they wish to see Romania implode.

Government troops are driven out of central Romania and a Hungarian republic is declared.

Hungarian terrorist kill President Illiescu with a car bomb. Various members of the government now claim the title of president, while opposition groups call for elections and declare themselves "rightful representative of the Romanian people".

Civil war breaks out.

Hard to see it lasting from 1990-2012, but I guess it is possible...
 
I don't see it.

Somalia wasn't really a country any more than on paper, it was a series of tribal and/or nomadic peoples who identified more closely with their tribes than with the idea of a Somali nation.

Romania has been a unified political entity for centuries, the precedent isn't there.

If we're talking about Romania becoming complete anarchy, it simply isn't going to be allowed, nobody in the region has an interest in having it happen, Russia could tolerate the issues in Yugoslavia, it cannot tolerate issues in Romania.
 
I don't see it.

Somalia wasn't really a country any more than on paper, it was a series of tribal and/or nomadic peoples who identified more closely with their tribes than with the idea of a Somali nation.

Romania has been a unified political entity for centuries, the precedent isn't there.

If we're talking about Romania becoming complete anarchy, it simply isn't going to be allowed, nobody in the region has an interest in having it happen, Russia could tolerate the issues in Yugoslavia, it cannot tolerate issues in Romania.

Because also that romanian speaking 'republic' indeed.... They don't want troubles reaching Moldavia..
 
A bit of a harsh prospect, to be honest... Romania has had enough misery during Ceaucescu's reign, especially its later part.
 
It soon becomes clear that Ceausescu is being given refuge by the Hungarians. Although Ceausescu is widely hated by many of the Hungarians...

An Alien Space Bat just flew in: " :eek::eek::eek: Oh HELL no! I'm off to do something easy, like a combined Israeli, Iranian, Saudi kingdom!" ;)

Civil war breaks out.

Hard to see it lasting from 1990-2012, but I guess it is possible...

I could see it as Lebanon, rather than Somalia. Various border nations (particularly the Hungarians and the Russians) would throw their support behind a particular warlord, ethnic group, or region. Then the fragmented, low intensity sniping and jockeying could well last for two or more decades.
 
An Alien Space Bat just flew in: " :eek::eek::eek: Oh HELL no! I'm off to do something easy, like a combined Israeli, Iranian, Saudi kingdom!" ;)



I could see it as Lebanon, rather than Somalia. Various border nations (particularly the Hungarians and the Russians) would throw their support behind a particular warlord, ethnic group, or region. Then the fragmented, low intensity sniping and jockeying could well last for two or more decades.

Dont forget the bulgarians and the serbs.
 
The country was and still is pretty centralized, so whoever controls the capital will probably end up controlling the rest in short order, especially because the army generally listens to who is in charge "in the center".

So, in order to get a civil war going, nobody has to effectively contorl the center (army HQ) for quite some time, enough for individual units to be more loyal to local authorities. Even then, I have my doubts.

That said, here are a couple of factions that could rise up:

1. Ceausescu loyalists

Pretty much everyone hated him, so they are likely the first to get taken out. Investing more in a guerrila-type force filled with fanatics to be used in case of war with the soviets and using that would help (limited efforts towards this end were apparently made), and so would bringing in foreign mercenaries (like everyone thought was happening in the general confusion of the day).

There might also be a case for creating a separate branch of the armed forces, kind of like the SS, Republican Guard etc. years before the revolution and then having that force stay loyal to Ceausescu.


2. The party

OTL, a most of the power structures of the state were taken over (once the army switched sides) by men (e.g. Iliescu) from the lower party echelons rebranding themselves as revolutionaries. They shared a lot of power with:

3. The Securitate

Just like in the case of the party, men form lower echelons of the Securitate came to lead various revolutionary comitees etc. OTL, between the party and the securitate there was a bitter rivalry for power. Have the revolution hijacked and split between these two competing forces.


4. The Hungarians

There was some real ethnic tensions in the early days. IIRC, one romanian policeman had his head cut off in a hungarian-majority region. To his credit, Iliescu did a lot to defuse tensions. In a much, much more volatile situation, things could get ugly, and, with troops withdrawn to fight in other places, hungarian regions in Transilvania (e.g. Harghita, Covasna) could obtain de-facto independence from Bucharest during the chaos with all sorts of militas running around.

5. The monarchists

When King Michael arrived in Bucharest a few years after the revolution for the first time, one million people from all over the country came to cheer him. Even in 1989, people were chanting his name in Bucharest squares before Iliescu grabbed the reigns of power. I see the area around Timisoara in the west supporting him if they feel the revolution in Bucharest has been hijacked, as well as a significant percentage (though probably not a plurality) of people with a higher education in the big cities. The church will also probably back him as well, thus giving him a huge edge in the rural countryside.

6. The Miners

In the chaotic years after 1989, the miners from the Jiu Valley had a huge influence. The communists tried to use them to restore order in Timisoara (where the revolution began), only for the miners to join the revolutionaries and tip the balance in their favour. Later, they would march on Bucharest, beating supporters of opposition parties who challenged Iliescu, students and even bringing down governments. They are a big wild card and whoever they side with gains a huge edge.


All of this assumes that the army command fractures, because, if it doesn't, there is no civil war.
 

Alex99232

A significant boost to the fighting capabilities of the Ceausescu-loyalist group could be the Libyan terrorist called in at the beginning of the revolution.


Here are a few interesting videos from December 23. 1989 filmed by a Hungarian aid group entering Romania to bring food and medicine to Arad.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHNDyIPJPHA&feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDJlhp1EPEE&feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49-P0oRn_-U&feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkdUpcfVOAw&feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52wzhiRwjSA&feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=li3yIRjxixk&feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8E-m0Wh300

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSrtnTBDhAw


In the second video, when they are at the border point, a Hungarian who just returned from Romania said that Ceausescu brought in Libyan terrorists to help him, and in one of the videos taking place in the hospital in Arad, they bring in a child about 10 years old, who was caught by anti-Ceausescu Hungarians and Romanians trying to blow up the road bridge leading to the Hungarian border. The boy said that the Libyans made him try blowing up the bridge, because they promised him that afterwards they'd help him sneak into Hungary to get away from the chaos.
 
Not even Bosnia-Hercegovina enjoyed "Somalian" levels of anarchy and desorganisation during the Civil war. Such a situation in a European country (or North America) is hardly imaginable unless Civiliazation breaks down in general.

A rather Libya-like situation is more probable if the revolution goes even more bloody. Civil War erupts and the neighbours makes sure the proper side wins eventually.
 
Top