"

 Three phases of post-WWII relationships between Romania and the Soviet Union 

OK, I've done some research and I'm sure I still don't 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.

I've looked at a number of online resources, most of them non-scholarly, but I think it's enough to get a feel for what the situation is.  The source that I found most useful is: this one.

It's clear that there were at least three phases of relationship between Romania and the Soviet Union after WWII.  The first was ""legal occupation"" between 1944 and 1946/47.  As Hamish and Prete say, ""The occcupation lasted legally from the signature of the armistice until February 1947, 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 1947], 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 1955.  Instead, Soviet forces remained as Allied troops, and their status was more precisely defined with the signature in 1958 of the Warsaw Pact.""

Now, we know that the Soviet troops were pulled out of Romania in 1958 and that Ceausescu took Romania on a path that diverged from COMECON but still remained enough in Khruschev's 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 1944 and 1946/47 was clearly one of occupation.  After 1958, everyone agrees that there was no more occupation of Romania.  However, between 1946/47 and 1958, it's 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 1958.  Others call it a ""virtual occupation"".  Why virtual?  Because it had all the earmarks of an occupation except that it wasn't officially one.  (And thus my argument that we shouldn't call it an occupation because it wasn't one.)

What's the solution?  Here's 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 1944-1958 under this title (i.e. Soviet occupations) but make it clear that there were three phases of relationship and, as I described it, ""the period from 1946/47 to 1958 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 1944-1958 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 1944-1958.  As someone argued, this could be just cherry-picking.  To support the assertion that ""most Western historians consider the period 1944-1958 to be a Soviet occupation"", you have to find a source that says exactly that i.e. 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"".

 "