Talk:1946 Romanian general election

message: This is a tangential issue, to be sure, but perhaps worth pursuing.  The speech that Sir Winston Churchill delivered at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri on March 5, 1946 was a milestone in the history of the Cold War. Among other things, it popularized the term Iron Curtain.  The speech can be found at .  Here is the passage relevant to this article:
From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an "iron curtain" has descended across the Continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia; all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject, in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and in some cases increasing measure of control from Moscow.
Keep in mind that the speech was delivered on the eve of the March 6 elections in Romania.  It's not clear whether Churchill had that in mind, but clearly he referred to Bucharest as falling on the other side of the Iron Curtain.  Also, I would imagine that the connection between Churchill's "Iron Curtain" speech on March 5, and the Romanian elections on March 6 (which proved Churchill's point, I'd say) was made much before Macuc.  I can't prove that, but my hunch is that the connection was made by Churchill himself.  Sounds plausible?   Turgidson 16:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not have room to expand on this in the edit summary, but my actual point was that, of all the sources I had, this one was the only to mention the speech in connection to the elections. I suppose there are more around, and more for the article in general, but this format was to get us started (and to have only the various details to fill in). What I had meant about the link perhaps needs some explaining as well: a link to a section (with the "#" format) is dependent on the title that section has on the page, and this is very likely to change faster than anything (compromising the link in the process, and making necessary corrections hard to detect). I think that having an article on the speech is an excellent idea, and we should look forward to that. Dahn 21:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The explanation about not linking to a section makes plenty of sense -- I'd seen other people doing it, so I assumed it's the thing to do, but now that you put it this way, it sounds logical.  Again, sorry about the temporary confusion about the dates, I hope it did not muddle my point too much. Let me try to summarize, and add a bit.  First, I think it's a very good idea to have a section on "Context" -- as the article does have.  After all, these events did not occur in a vacuum, but in the wider context of the aftershocks of World war II, the incipient Cold War, the aftermath of the Yalta Agreements, and the creation of the Eastern Bloc -- with many specific characteristics due to the local situation, to be sure.  Of course, to discuss at length the wider context would take the article too far afield, so I would not advocate such a tack. But my inclination would be to look more closely at these global aspects, and see if one can say a bit more about that, as regards to this election.  Off the top of my head, the first (and so far, the only) idea that came to mind after reading this very informative article was to say something more about the "Iron Curtain" speech.   After all, Churchill was right there in the thick of things at Yalta, and for him to come out and ring that alarm bell, loud and clear, on March 5, 1946, was quite dramatic — and prescient  — I think.  So yes, I think his speech deserves an in-depth article  — surely  there are good references out there, if one were to look. Turgidson 22:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section could and perhaps should be expanded further. I believe that this should, however, be based on references that connect events abroad with events inside Romania, not just on references that comment events abroad. Otherwise, we would be the ones establishing the connections (which is original research, as plausible as those connections are -- and I too believe that they are). If this is desirable and accomplished, and if Churchill's speech turns out to be a topic of comments on Romania beyond one mention in one source, we could expand and clarify some more (of course, we wouldn't need to be that careful if Churchill had made an overt reference to Romania in the spech itself). In this context, I did not mean to imply that the info should be included in an article on the speech and only there; far from it -- I actually meant to express solidarity with the notion that an independent article on the speech is desirable (in fact, when I was editing, I was quite surprised that it did not have one already). Dahn 10:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Churchill's "Iron Curtain" speech

message: I wonder if the chief of splinter group of PNT was Nicolae Lupu (as written currently in the article). I thought it was Anton Alexandrescu.--MariusM 22:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was both of them, apparently. (Two separate groups - one in the BPD, one allied to the BPD.) Dahn 22:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nicolae Lupu or Anton Alexandrescu

message: The "notes" section would be better if it includes quotes from the source that validate the fact being sourced. Especially since I can't just click and read it off the internet. Context makes a difference. And with a quote I have something I can do a search on and maybe find an internet source. 4.250.168.119 04:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but this request makes absolutely no sense. For one, it is very unlikely that you will find the non-Anglo-Saxon sources on the internet, in English or in Romanian or any other language. Secondly, most of the sources are quoted, with the precise quote, unless the notion defined by them is as banal or as direct as to render this futile (you will note that most notes are to citations, not the other way). Let me add: it is an extremely tiring process to translate (instead of paraphrase) each and every statement made by a source, especially when the latter are repetitious and lengthy, and especially when the reason behind that is pretentious. Btw: when I translate a source in Romanian into English, the chance that you will find the resulting quotation in an internet search is equivalent to the chance I have of falling off my balcony and surviving. Dahn 07:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quoting sources

message: When formatting the results table today, I noticed that the figures given in Nohlen & Stöver for the makeup of the BPD are incorrect – the BPD won 347 seats, but the total of the individual parties is 348 (Social Democratic Party 81, PNL–Tătărescu 75, Ploughmen's Front 70, Romanian Communist Party 68, the National Popular Party 26, PNȚ–Alexandrescu 20 and independents 8). Does anyone have access to a source that might clarify which of the aforementioned figures is wrong? Cheers, Number 57 16:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on the nominal list of deputies at 1 December 1946, SDP had 79, PNL-T 74, PF 70, RCP 68, NPP 26, PNT-A 21, Independents 7 and the Jewish Committee 2. Since they used a common list, probably the exact composition varied, as some renounced their seat, others died, and the next eligible candidate on the list was generally not from the original party. Also, Independents may have registered with parties during their tenure, while Jewish deputies may also have been members of the SDP or RCP. This is further complicated by the fact that some SDP and RCP members ran on the Magyar Union list. Thus, there's some variation in sources regarding party totals, especially when it comes to SDP and RCP.Anonimu (talk) 12:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Party totals within the BPD