Three phases of postWWII relationships between Romania and the Soviet Union   OK Ive done some research and Im sure I still dont know as much as the rest of you but at least I am not as much of an ignoramus as I was a few hours ago  Ive looked at a number of online resources most of them nonscholarly but I think its enough to get a feel for what the situation is  The source that I found most useful is this one  Its clear that there were at least three phases of relationship between Romania and the Soviet Union after WWII  The first was legal occupation between  and   As Hamish and Prete say The occcupation lasted legally from the signature of the armistice until February  when peace treaties were signed in Paris  The next phase of the relationship involves a nominally independent Romania that is closely aligned with the Soviet Union and COMECON  As for Soviet troops Hamish and Prete say after  Soviet troops remained but on a different legal basis in Romania and Hungary  The official reason was that the Soviets needed to control communications between the Soviet Union and Soviet occupation forces in Austria  This reason disappeared with the conclusion of the Austrian State Treaty in   Instead Soviet forces remained as Allied troops and their status was more precisely defined with the signature in  of the Warsaw Pact  Now we know that the Soviet troops were pulled out of Romania in  and that Ceausescu took Romania on a path that diverged from COMECON but still remained enough in Khruschevs good graces that Romania never suffered a military incursion as Hungary or Czechoslovakia did  The point here is that there are at least three phases of relationship between Romania and the Soviet Union  The relationship between  and  was clearly one of occupation  After  everyone agrees that there was no more occupation of Romania  However between  and  its not clear what people call it  As Hamish and Prete state the legal occupation ended  As cited here and in Soviet occupation of Romania some sources state that the Soviet occupation ended in   Others call it a virtual occupation  Why virtual  Because it had all the earmarks of an occupation except that it wasnt officially one  And thus my argument that we shouldnt call it an occupation because it wasnt one  Whats the solution  Heres my proposal  First stop getting caught up in what the title of the article says  Let the Soviet occupation of Romania article remain where it is  Mention the entire period of  under this title ie Soviet occupations but make it clear that there were three phases of relationship and as I described it the period from  to  had many of the characteristics of an occupation but was not legally considered to be an occupation  Also add that many historians follow the lead of the Romanian government in calling the entire period from  an occupation by the Soviet Union    However also note that it is unclear whether this characterization is used by most historians many historians or some historians  In Soviet occupation of Romania the text says most Western historians but the references simply provide a handful of sources that use the word occupation to refer to the period   As someone argued this could be just cherrypicking  To support the assertion that most Western historians consider the period  to be a Soviet occupation you have to find a source that says exactly that ie the text has to say most Western historians blah blah blah  Failing that using the word most is OR  Much better to say many or just some