No Ceaușescu: Affects on Romania

Basic idea is Nicolae Ceaușescu never rise to power in Romania, between him dying in World War 2, or sometime before 1965.

So who will lead Romania? What affects would this have on Romania, and possible Eastern Europe, and the Cold War as a whole?
 
Last edited:
Off the top of my head, it probably be one of these two:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gheorghe_Apostol
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandru_Drăghici

although
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_Gheorghe_Maurer
is also a possibility

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emil_Bodnăraș
is IMO a long-shot, due to his closeness to Moscow.
Fun fact - my grandfather was offered to work as Bodnaras' assisstant whilst the latter was Minister of Defense. He turned it down, and got a couple of good beatings and some prison time for his refusal
 
Last edited:
I would assume Romania would become a generic East Bloc state not seen as a "rebel" and not quite as dysfunctional. The leaders in 1989 would not die as spectacularly...
Having our very own Beria, in the person of Draghici, get the top post, would be the best bet towards transforming communist Romania into an even better copy of Best Korea.

EDIT:
Best option would probably be Maurer, as he was the most sane one when it came to economics.
 
Maurer was a spineless weasel. He wouldn't take the top posting, he always styled himself as a schemer.

Grandad was firmly convinced Apostol was to have been Dej's successor, had it not been for Maurer's insistence to dump the Dej branch of the party.

A dark horse would've been Corneliu Mănescu, the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Though he might've been susceptible to accusations of 'Westernism' by the hardliners. Another potential candidate was Alexandru Bârlădeanu, Minister of National Economy and president of the Central Planning Committee, though his open anti-Soviet stance would've clashed with the Soviet Union's agents inside the Communist Party of Romania.

Gheorghe Gaston Marin had a lot of influence inside the Party (was the last of Dej's inner circle to be removed by Ceaușescu), but he, like Silviu Brucan, was Jewish. Romanians didn't suddenly stop being latently antisemitic after the arrival of Communism.
 
Well one of the things that would certainly change is the character of regime. Ceauceasku's regime was known for its' brutality, and in many occassions was seen as a "rebel regime" by Soviets. So let's assume Soviets install someone else as the Leader. I guess it would be someone who is loyal to the Soviet Union, which would mean that they would be nothing but a copy of Bulgarian or Polish regime. One of the things that could happen is that in 1968, a liberal revolution could happen, sort of like "Bucharest Spring". That kind of chain reaction could easily crumble down already fragile Soviet hegemony in the region. If Romanians and Czechoslovakians stood up together, we could see a domino effect here. It would be wild guessing to assume what would happen next. Reformists than had lots of options, and it could have led to an earlier dissolution of the socialist systems in Europe. And it could have very easily led into an open war. NATO would probably seize the opportunity to bring Eastern Europe under its' sphere of influence.
Since tensions were already great in the 60's, this could have easily escalated into something much worse.
 
The Western countries didn't really give a shit about Eastern Europe after the 50s, and was a good thing in the long run. No western country, least of all the entirety of NATO, would bother trying to do something apart from lip service to the 'reformists' (which were actually a more hands-off version of Communist, like Dubcek). Trying anything more would've made the already-paranoid Soviets go into overdrive. Best case scenario the 'reformists' get pushed out but the Soviet Union overextends even more, accelerating the rot.
 
Top