Talk:Securitate

Untitled

"A bizarre incident" sounds like a joke or an urban legend. Do we have any references to it ? Bogdan | Talk 11:19, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Moved here: Bogdan | Talk 22:19, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

During the 1970s, Securitate agents caught wind of a parrot that had been trained to say "Stupid Nicu", a reference to Nicolae Ceauşescu's son. The Securitate arrested the offending parrot, and took it to an interrogation room. They demanded to know who taught the parrot to say "stupid Nicu", and when it did nothing but repeat the offending phrase, a Securitate agent snapped the parrot's neck.

Please watch the "Downfall" section of the article. It seems like someone tryied to manipulate it without so much accuracy...

The "Downfall" part seems to have been more like vandalized than manipulated. The story about the parrot is referred to on the article about Nicu Ceausescu and linked to this article. So, I guess you should leave it in the article, and make a note that it's most likely an urban legend. Or at least edit the article on Nicu.

The best translation from the Romanian Securitate is Security and the best translation for Siguranţa statului is Safety of the State. The terms are similar, but we should keep the separate in English as they are in Romanian. If for no other reason, to distinguish the Communist secret police for the previous secret police. MihaiC 07:55, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

As Romania got rid of their dictator it was rumoured that many of the personnel in the Securitate Troops came from orphanages, hand picked, trained and indoctrinated into obedient behaviour toward their new "father". In retrospect one could see this as a tragic "blessing" considering the state did not allow abortions and so many children was transformed into psychotic and mentally retarded individuals overpopulating the orphanages in many cities of the country. These children/orphans were later the object of many childless aims for abortion, just to get them out of the life in squalor in these "homes". Lindus 18:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

---

"The Securitate was, in proportion to Romania's population, the largest secret police force in the Eastern bloc." Can we get some numbers to validate this claim? I thought the distinction belonged to the Stasi. 158.143.162.119 12:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Securitate files

This item comes from the log of a radio program: http://www.theworld.org/?q=node/4694

Romania is making more than 2 million files from its former secret police available to the public. The secret police spied on just about everyone in Romania during the reign of dictator Nicolae Ceausescu. Host Lisa Mullins speaks with BBC reporter Oana Lungescu, who not only reported on the story, but examined the files that the secret police kept on her.

I imagine there is info somewhere online on who has access to what and how one gets it. We should probably mention and link something (not this radio piece, I think, or I'd have done it myself). - Jmabel | Talk 22:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Românul Boris Grünberg?

He was born in imperial Russia in a Jewish family and then he got Soviet citizenship. Given all these facts why mention him in this context: "who was actually a Romanian born in Bessarabia"? Even if he got Romanian citizenship (I'm actually not aware of that) or even if by some laws he was considered Romanian even though he was a Jew born in Russia I fail to see why that is even worthy to be mentioned. -- AdrianTM 01:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice one Dahn. Yelling makes a perfect argument. -- AdrianTM 02:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

In-between his birth in Russia (where, as a Jew, I'm not even sure he was a citizen) and his Soviet citizenship, he had Romanian citizenship. Did you hear of the 1920s citizenship laws? Because I think you should have if you start debating this issue. (Btw, you are obstinately confusing nationality and ethnicity - aside from some legal matters which you show you are not aware of, him being Jewish adds nothing to the debate.) Dahn 02:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You didn't respond why is so important to mention that he's a Romanian since he was Soviet citizen too. I changed that sentence to reflect the whole truth not only the partial and misleading one. -- AdrianTM 02:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this present variant is still misleading "who held Romanian citizenship before he obtained a Soviet one in 1940" I mean from 1915 and 1920 he was citizen of Russian Empire, right? If he wasn't because he was a Jew (I don't know the statute of Jews in Russian Empire) then the fact that he was a Jew is relevant. Again, you didn't respond to my question, why mention his citizenship at all if it's this complicated? -- AdrianTM 02:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The "whole truth" is that any person born in Bessarabia had Soviet citizenship by default, and that ethnicity plays no part in this - unless you are trying to make an objectionable point about a particular ethnicity. In fact, in doing that, you would merely exposing the fact that the Romanian state was a primitive one, and had to be pressured into permitting all its inhabitants by birth to be citizens, irrespective of religion. What say you start adding to every mention of Ion Inculeţ the fact that he was Ukrainian born in Imperial Russia, to every mention of Constantin Stere the fact that he was Russian by birth, to every mention of Maniu the fact that he was Hungarian by birth? In case you only want this system of the "whole truth" to work only for Nicolschi, you would be proving what your POV is. It's also funny that you mention "the whole truth" (implicitly accusing me of having hidden it), when you were manifestly not even aware of what the truth was until a couple of minutes ago. Dahn 02:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

As for your core question: it is not more complicated than many other such instances where the vaguer details are discarded for clarity (Stere, Maniu, etc.). What is relevant to this article is that the man was not a Soviet agent by origin and profession, but by conviction and profession - a neutral point to make (especially since it does not prevent anyone who seeks to do so from seeing him as foreign, but sets the legal record straight to move beyond the cliché). Dahn 02:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"any person born in Bessarabia had Soviet citizenship by default" -- in 1915 there was no Soviet Union, he couldn't have been a Soviet citizen, he became afterwards (automatically or not), same for Romanian citizenship in 1915 Bessarabia was not part of Romania therefore he was not Romanian citizen either (he because automatically if I understand right, not by choice) so your claim that he "was not a Soviet agent by origin" (meaning that he was Romanian citizen doesn't hold, he was just as Romanian as he was Soviet, he was not Romanian by origin either). I didn't mention that he was Jew at the first I just deleted the misleading sentence that said that he was Romanian. He was a person who was born in Russia of a non-Romanian family and held both Romanian and Soviet citizenships (or so it seems) -- do we really need to mention that? I personally don't think so... -- AdrianTM 02:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC) 02:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the issue of him having acquired Soviet citizenship, the case is basically the same as that of Inculeţ and Pan Halippa (not to say Maniu). Of the guys I cited only Stere made the choice, and he kinda have to in order to evade surveillance (that is to say, no matter what his convictions were). For the rest of my point, I urge you to reflect some more. Mentioning "x was Soviet [adviser]" in this exact context would be a half-truth when referring to Nicolschi - as such, the term would refer to a person who was of Soviet origin (by birth, which was entirely possible by then, or by the inevitable "adoption" of former Russian subjects); it strikes me as necessary to make a brief mention that Nicolschi was not exactly that. In whatever argument you have brought up on this talk page, you were not able to prove that this is not the case.

No professional reference I have seen defines Nicolschi as Soviet, Russian, or Jewish first and foremost, while they all point out the many quirks of his legal status (to which one may add that he was *probably* among those stripped of their citizenship by Goga in 1937, but that he was probably tried as a citizen by Antonescu; the main thing that I gather from here is not that Nicolschi was not Romanian, but that Romanian authorities were not capable of sticking to a basic legal principle).

Moreover, if the Soviet Union considered all Bessarabians "Soviet", not all Bessarabians chose to be NKVD agents - where I was getting at is that the old and new formulations which you reverted were NPOV, and do not prevent anyone from seeing him as "foreign" (if him being so has any significance for bettwer or worse). Dahn 03:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help in this matter. I think the present version: "(who was born in Russian Empire and held both Romanian and Soviet citizenships)" is radically better than the misleading "(who was actually a Romanian born in Bessarabia)" he was just as Romanian as he was Soviet citizen if not less because I assume he was Russian citizen first (he was born in Russia after all). I'd personally vote for removing the reference to citizenship or nationality since it's not relevant and it's too complicated to be explained in a short sentence in an article that's not about him. I don't imply that being a foreigner made him a NKVD agent, I'm just correcting a misleading statement. -- AdrianTM 03:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, your version is missing a "the". Aside from that, though I object to "born in the Russian Empire" for the same reasons I would when paralleled with Stere or Inculeţ, I guess it is better than nothing. Dahn 03:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for grammar correction. I don't see any Stere or Inculeţ in this article... maybe mentioning where they were born and their citizenship is irrelevant in the article where they appear (as I actually claim to be the case here too, but if you really want to mention citizenship then you need to mention the whole truth, that's all). -- AdrianTM 03:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how being born in a defunct polity adds more to the "truth". What was discussed here is that he was not technically a Soviet adviser in the same way as others. It was the only thing worth discussing: mentioning his original name, ethnicity, place of birth, laws through which he acquired his citizenships etc is pointless and unbalanced. When a Romanian ethnic in pre-1918 Bessarabia is concerned, I note that people jump at the chance to move "Russian" as far away from casual mentions as possible (as if Romanians in Bessarabia were some sort of country on their own). Dahn 03:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

He was Soviet citizen, the fact that he was also a Romanian citizen is collateral and mentioned like it was it was plain misleading. I'm not sure what you mean by "When a Romanian ethnic in pre-1918 Bessarabia is concerned, I note that people jump at the chance to move "Russian" as far away from casual mentions as possible" this seems irrelevant here since we don't even talk about a Romanian ethnic, it's about a non-Romanian who was born in Russian Empire and was Russian subject (if not citizen) and became Romanian citizen in 1920 and then Soviet citizen in 1940, to portrait such a person as "actually a Romanian from Bessarabia" is misleading and I hope you don't deny that. -- AdrianTM 04:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The only thing in your post that I have not answered to twice by now is your persistent Völkisch references, which have absolutely no relevancy in both the context we are discussing and citizenship law in the civilized world then as well as now. Suffices to say that there are more things in heaven and earth. Dahn 04:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

A person can have an ethnicity (or even mixed ethnicity) and one or more citizenships. Characterizing a person who was not Romanian by ethnicity and had more citizenships (first one Russian I assume) as "actually a Romanian from Bessarabia" is misleading. Do you see that, or you anti-Völkischism blinds you and makes you discount people around you who don't seem to hold the exact opinions as you do? And why do I have to explain this over and over again, like I'm talking with idiots? -- AdrianTM 04:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

For one, that is not the form you currently see in the text, not that there would be anything inaccurate with it. Your two rhetorical questions are trolling (and elsewhere you have shown that you know what trolling means, if I remember correctly). You have been talking to yourself for a while now, so continuing this is pointless. Dahn 05:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not the form that we currently see in the text because _I_ changed it (BTW, you reverted it back). And yes it seems like I'm talking to myself when the other person instead of responding to arguments accuses me of Völkischism, pure projection, and now of trolling. For what is worth my "trolling" produced a more accurate version, I just wish that accuracy wouldn't be so damn hard to obtain in articles that you watch so attentively... -- AdrianTM 05:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, by all means: let's use the blanket accusation. It may also interest you to know that I have not even properly looked over this article, let alone watchlist it, until today, (as if that is an accusation to make); I watchlist the Nicolschi article because I damn well wrote it! I will repeat it: there is nothing "inaccurate" in either of the two sentence versions I endorsed for this article, and all your allegations that I mislead people etc. are the result of projection (or, if you prefer, strawmanship). I cannot begin to address them, because they start from misconceptions and attempt to portray my supposed motivations. Please understand: it is not that I cannot because you're not worth talking to, but because this type of argument is not worth answering to. I believe I have said all that was relevant here a long time ago, repeated it a long time ago, so feel free to continue this on your very own if you feel like it. Dahn 05:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, again accusing me of something, this time strawman, while making such a fine display of a strawman argument: I never accused you of watching pages, I just meant that is such a hard work to change 3 damn words in this and Nicolschi articles that you seem to watch now (or at least that's what I meant, I really don't care what other pages you watch). As for Nicolschi article I don't have complains now, I find the introduction accurate and clear "Born to a Jewish family in Chişinău, Bessarabia (part of Imperial Russia at the time)" -- simply perfect! Just imagine what it would be if somebody changed that to "a Russian born in Bessarabia". I don't want to accuse you of intellectual dishonesty, but maybe you just don't see my point: "a Romanian born in Bessarabia" is just as correct as "a Russian born in Bessarabia" -- but it's misleading. As for accusation of 19th century thinking please hold those kind of discourse for yourself, any sentence like: "Greek born in Turkey", or "Spanish born in Australia", "Turk born in Germany" could be read both as ethnicity and citizenship, and probably most likely as ethnicity. Since it's not clear it needed to be corrected and made it clear, stop accusing me of ulterior reasons, thanks. -- AdrianTM 06:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Btw, ever heard of 3RR? You just broke it. Dahn 02:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think 3RR applies for removing incorrect/misleading and unsourced info. If it does then I'm guilty *gets worried* -- AdrianTM 02:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You will find all the necessary references to what we were talking about in the article on him, which I took a trouble to research. You're welcome. Dahn 03:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't referenced in this article and to me it seemed clearly erroneous and misleading. -- AdrianTM 03:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I have never been a fan of referencing the trivial, but, if you have to, feel free to copypaste the references here (in fact, they could be used to back other stuff in this article as well). It is also interesting to note that this had to be referenced, whereas the other 99.99% of this article cites nothing). Dahn 03:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think everything should be referenced, I edited this because it was clearly misleading, feel free to edit and reference the rest. -- AdrianTM 03:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I think I'll just let people speculate some more for now. You see, I just love endless and tiresome chats like this one. Dahn 03:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I actually don't enjoy these discussions, I just don't like incorrect and misleading information more then the annoyance to discuss endlessly with you. -- AdrianTM 03:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Today, you learned what the Romanian Jewish citizenship debate is about, and I learned that you just don't like incorrect and misleading information more then the annoyance of discussing endlessly with me. I say it's win-win, so we will both sleep tight tonight, and wake up tomorrow feeling optimistic. Dahn 04:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know what you mean by "Romanian Jewish citizenship debate", I thought the issue was about citizenship not about ethnicity, if we were to talk about ethnicity the guy was not Romanian from the start and there would be no need of any discussion. What was this all about: a guy who was not born in Romania, held more citizenships (first one was probably Russian) and got categorized as "actually a Romanian from Bessarabia". How is that accurate and not misleading? If the guy were at least ethnically Romanian then that could have been interpreted that sentence as referring to nationality (not citizenship) and it would have been probably OK, although still kind of irrelevant. -- AdrianTM 04:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, you see, I was kind of hoping that the 19th century logic according to which, in common reference, "x-ian" is more likely to mean "of x ethnicity" than "of x citizenship" was long dead and buried. In fact, people the world over seem not to adopt that framework, but we sure stick with it over here, don't we? I guess I have to thank people like Nae Ionescu. Dahn 04:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think that Nae Ionescu was a big idiot (hmm, maybe that's not the right word because his IQ might have been higher than the average, but you get the idea.... I mean people with high IQ can promote idiocies and he would be the first example that comes to my mind). -- AdrianTM 04:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Good to know. Top of the morning to you. Dahn 05:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Cut passages

I've cut two items that need work:

1. (this was added by a banned user):

The remenants of the Securitate nowadays

Many former Securitate members have remained active after the revolution and have shaped many Romanian events in their favor. It is so that they managed not only to evade prosecution for the crimes. Their role in shaping Romanian politics after 1989 has been documented by historian Marius Oprea.

2. (an image caption): The former "Directia 5 securitate of Ceausescu ruin" and now a symbol of the New Romania

What's this supposed to mean? Biruitorul 03:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Ethnicity and citizenship

Here we have a person of Ukrajnean or Russian ethnicity, born in the Russian Empire. Later the person becomes a NKVD general and trusted Soviet agent, sent into an occupied country to organize the feared Securitate. He did not speak Romanian at all when settled in that country. Then we have an user (Dahn) who wants to call this person "Romanian from Bessarabia". Stalin himself would be proud of the confusion. Ridiculous as it is, it wears down all the other users and it ends up Dahn's way. This is how history is written. Dahn plays the same game for Vladimir Tismaneanu's father, incidentally also born in Bessarabia before WWI and trusted member of the PCUS. This one became "Romanian party activist". In matters as serios as the former Soviet Union's colonization attempt of Eastern European countries, the primary citizenship/allegiance is quite relevant and Dahn's sophistry of poor taste. It is irrelevant that these foreigners were eventually awarded local citizenship by the puppet occupation governments.(Icar 15:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC))

On principle, Icar, I consider that people can argue whatever they please on talk pages. Nevertheless, allegations, comparisons, and lies such as the ones you spew above are becoming quite counterproductive and purely annoying. All you have produced so far is a repetitive manifesto aimed at other users, and the introduction of rumors into articles. More of this and you'll force me to seek intervention from sysops to give you time to cool off. Have a lovely evening. Dahn 16:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Leaving aside personal attacks, I agree with Icar, primary citizenship/allegiance is quite relevant, thanks for edits, now it's complete and correct (and not misleading as it was before) Introducing some correct and complete info in this page was an uphill battle as it's witnessed by this talk page. -- AdrianTM 18:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi -- I joined in the editing for this page, focusing on this ethnicity/citizenship/name issue that was raised, regarding the initial leadership of this organization. Hopefully, the (small) edits I made will be agreeable to all. A technical question (left as a comment in the text); which official body issued Decree 221/30? I assume it was an act of the Romanian Government, but I could not find a ready confirmation with an internet search.

Thanks, your edits improved that section. -- AdrianTM 19:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Finally, in a different vein: What about those edits by Anominu? I agree with AdrianTM edits and comments on that, but I'm not quite sure what the etiquette around here is when referring to Nicolae Ceauşescu. Is it considered POV to say he was a dictator?? Turgidson 19:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It's just as POV as refering to Hitler and Musolini as dictators, take a look for example at Musolini article. Anominu considers himself a "Communist" and probably has a problem with reality. -- AdrianTM 19:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Citations needed

It seems to me that the article is quite good down to the discussion of the different branches of the organisation, at which point there is a lot of assertion and no citation or reference. Could we try to add some supporting evidence? I have no doubt that the Securitate were guilty of the things mentioned, but let's do things properly and display the evidence of their wrong-doing. Iain1917 06:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

How big was it?

How many people were actually in the Securitate? I've heard estimates as high as 14% of the Romanian population in the 1980s... --Stlemur 19:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

That 14% is a ridiculous number. But this is an interesting question. It also probably depends on what you consider "part" of Securitate, there were numerous "informers" but they were now full time employees. -- AdrianTM 20:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Subdivisions

The chapter about subdivisions / organisation of D.S.S. is not accurate and misleading. According to the Decree 130/1972 at 9th of April 1972 the Council of State Security (the coordinating political entity of D.S.S.) has been re-integrated into the Ministry of the Interior (previously became separate as of 1968-04-04) and the D.S.S. (Securitate) has been organised in 6 (six) Directorates (noted with Roman digits - to be precise), as follows:

DIRECTORATE I - Internal Informations;

DIRECTORATE II - Economic counter-informations;

DIRECTORATE III - Counter-espionage;

DIRECTORATE IV - Military counter-informations;

DIRECTORATE V - Security and Guard Service

DIRECTORATE VI - Criminalistic/Penal.

The Security Troops were not specifically a directorate, but organised as military units (Romanian abbrv. - UM). A particular unit was UM-0640, located in northern Bucharest's suburb of Baneasa, better known as U.S.L.A. (Rom. abbrv. approx. for Unit Specialised in Counter Terrorist Warfare). This unit was charged with counter terrorist activities in the main airports (Otopeni and Baneasa in Bucharest), as well as protection for Embassies and foreign diplomats in Bucharest. In the text, the number given for security troops is a guess at best - the exact numbers are of course highly classified info and are not supposed to be available to the public, even today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ervantc (talk • contribs) 15:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Did Securitate had a logo?

Did Securitate had an official logo or emblem, like MFS DDR or KGB? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.194.119 (talk) 13:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Securitate did not have a specific logo/emblem. The only recognition mark could be found on the Securitate troops uniforms, as blue marks on their collars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ervantc (talk • contribs) 04:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

proportion: number of stasi-employers in GDR / total population - and comparison with Securitate

I think the number of Stasi-informants (IMs) is scientifically very disputed. (Because the criterias to count the inofficial employers are, to count somebody as an "informant" or unofficial employer...) But all in all in average I don't believe that 1 (unofficial or official) spy per 6 or 7 people is realistic.

I think, German Wikipedia has more realistic numbers: For example at the end of the regime German Wikipedia says, they were approximately 100.000 official and 200.000-250.000 unofficial employers for a population of 16 Million people. This would be approximately one per 40 people. And this seams very much comparable to the number of agents in Romania... Maybe Romania had with 500.000 informants for only 22 Million people even more... And i think, the sources of German Wikipedia (I guess, Federal Commissioner for the Stasi Records or historians employed working for that agency, and so on...) are more scientific and reliable than New York Times. --Impulsiv. (talk) 20:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Securitate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071212092940/http://www.itcnet.ro/history/archive/mi1998/current10/mi24.htm to http://www.itcnet.ro/history/archive/mi1998/current10/mi24.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130708092658/http://www.cjpbn.ro/legislatie/acte/acord_suplim_RSR_RFG_1976.htm to http://www.cjpbn.ro/legislatie/acte/acord_suplim_RSR_RFG_1976.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd%2Fcstdy%3A%40field%28DOCID+ro0233%29

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Defilare 19891988.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)