The Archive of the Romanian Revolution of December 1989

A Catch-22 December 1989, Groundhog-Day Production. Presenting the Personal Research & Scholarship of Richard Andrew Hall, Ph.D.

Posts Tagged ‘Rewriting the Revolution: Authoritarian Regime-State Relations and the Triumph of Securitate Revisionism in Post-Ceausescu Romania’

25 for the 25th Anniversary of the Romanian Revolution: #21 The “Bizarre” Tactics of the Terrorists

Posted by romanianrevolutionofdecember1989 on December 27, 2014

(purely personal views as always, based on two decades of prior research and publications)

What would it have looked like if Nicolae Ceausescu’s Securitate executed a plan to counter an invasion…but the invaders never came?

Answer:  Well, you would have something that looked suspiciously similar to what actually happened in December 1989 in Romania…

(strictly personal viewpoint as always; I began my analysis of what have been characterized as the “strange,” “counter-intuitive,” and “irrational” character of the “terrorist” actions in December 1989 in Chapter 8 my Ph.D. dissertation (defended December 1996), which can be found here:  https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/rewriting-the-revolution-1997-chapter-8-unsolving-december/ and continued it in articles such as the following in Europe-Asia Studies from 2000, which can be found here, https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/theories-of-collective-action-and-revolution-2000/ )

A military aviation official, Colonel Mircea Budiaci, described the characteristics of the so-called “radio-electronic war” the armed forces faced, as follows:“…we were confronted with a powerful adversary which operated on the basis of long-prepared plans which were centrally directed and permanently adapted to changing conditions.  [They attacked] by radio-electronic means by creating signals on our radar identical to those which represented real targets.  When they reached a distance between 800 and 1500 meters from an object on the ground they would simulate gunfire of various types of weapons.  These two things created the image of an air attack.  They were combined with ground attacks, real or false, with various types of telephone calls by identified or unidentified callers, and with the spreading of rumors…on our operating frequencies there were conversations between what were presumed to be aircraft in flight and base command.  You didn’t know what to make of it, and the confusion was intensified by the fact that they were speaking not only in Romanian, but also in English, Turkish, and Arabic…You can imagine in what a situation we had to perform our duties…” (Colonel Mircea Budiaci, interview by Maior D. Amariei, “NU!  Teroristii n-au avut elicoptere,’ Armata Poporului, 21 March 1990, p. 4.) https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/2010/10/04/orwellian%E2%80%A6positively-orwellian%E2%80%9D-prosecutor-voinea%E2%80%99s-campaign-to-sanitize-the-romanian-revolution-of-december-1989-part-8-usla-and-friends/

Questioned by a reporter in 1992 if the Television station had ever really been in danger, Militaru responded:

No….You see, not even those of our commanders who were responsible for the defense of such objectives thought through and analyzed well enough exactly whom they were confronting. Because the adversary did not have an extraordinary number of men with which to take an object such as the TV tower by assault. They [the Army commanders] did, however, have to face a very well-equipped, well-prepared, and perfidious enemy. Not having sufficient forces, they [the “terrorists”] resorted to “gunfire simulators” which caused extraordinary confusion. They thus sought to do something completely different: to infiltrate…They succeeded in infiltrating into the TV station…[69]
[69].. Nicolae Militaru, interview by Corneliu Antim, “Ordinul 2600 in Revolutia din decembrie,” Romania Libera, 17 December 1992, 2.

https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/rewriting-the-revolution-1997-chapter-8-unsolving-december/

 

Through the years, the Romanian media–and especially former Securitate officers or collaborators in the Romanian media–have been very good about telling us the role of the Army in the event of a foreign invasion–but they have neglected to tell us about the planned role of Securitate units.

In fact, the tactics of the “terrorists” in December 1989 are strikingly similar to what was described in the journal of the Securitate (available on the CNSAS.ro site):

image0-003

image0-005

image0-007

image0-001

Lt. Colonel Tudor Alexandru si Capitan Nicolae Catana (Securitatea, nr. 85, martie 1989) http://www.cnsas.ro/documente/periodicul_securitatea/Securitatea%201989-1-85.pdf :

Actiunile de lupta desfasurate de formatiunile de rezistenta prezinta citeva caracteristici, altfel:  de regula, sint de scurta durata si violente, avind aspectul unor lovituri fulgeratoare; vizeaza in principal obiective ale inamicului de o dezvoltare mai redusa, dar de mare importanta pentru acesta; au un pronuntat caracter de independenta, ducindu-se in conditiile lipsei unor vecini apropriati si a sprijinului altor forte militare; se desfasoara cu forte relativ putin numeroase; necesita o minutioasa si, uneori, indelungata pregatire a luptatorilor participanti la actiune; impun cunoasterea amanuntita a particularitatilor terenului in care va avea loc actiunea, precum si elaborarea unui plan simplu, usor de aplicat; se desfasoara, de regula, noaptea si in conditii grele de stare a vremii, in momente si locuri in care sa se realizeze surprinderea inamicului…

Members of the Romanian Armed Forces have hinted at their suspicion that in December 1989 Securitate forces were executing attacks and disinformation in conformity with the “lupta de rezistenta” concept…

(Locotenent-colonel Alexandru Bodea, din serialul “Varianta la Invazia Extraterestrilor.  Pe cine interpelam pentru uriasa si ultraperfectionata diversiune psihologica si radioelectronica prin care s-a urmarit paralizarea conducerii armatei in timpul Revolutiei?” Armata Poporului, nr. 22 (“urmare din numarul 21″), 30 mai 1990.  Xerox-ul facut in anul 1994 la Biblioteca Academiei Romane).

Mai mult decit atit, a fost cunoscut si folosit in scop de diversiune inclusiv sistemul de transmisiuni pentru conducerea si instiintarea trupelor de aparare antiaeriana a teritoriului.  In majoritatea cazurilor, pregatirea actiunilor de lupta, aeriana si terestre, s-a desfasurat pe timp de noapte, probabil cu forte si mijloace dispuse din timp in zonele respective, dar si cu altele redislocati pe parcurs.  In aceasta ordine de idei, exista suficiente date si informatii care ne indreptatesc sa afirmam ca toate actiunile aeriene au fost declansate–fie real (cu ajutorul unor mijloace si dispozitive adecvate de creare a tintelor aeriene false), fie imitate (cu o aparatura radioelectronica moderna)–din interiorul tarii si, de regula, din aceleasi zone in raionele unor localitatii pe care, din motive pe care nu este aici cauza sa le explicam, nu le vom divulga.

Am adauga ca, in conceptia doctrinara referitoare la apararea patriei de catre intregul popor, elaborata ‘sub obladuirea fostului comandant suprem’ a existat, atit sub aspect teoretic, metodologic, cit si practic, o sustinuta preocupare, mai ales in ultimii ani, pentru fundamentarea conceptului de ‘razboi de rezistenta’ si de pregatire, inca din timp de pace, a unor formatiuni ‘de rezistenta’ si a unor ‘zone libere’ si raioane de pe teritoriu in care, in cazul ocuparii unor parti din teritoriul national, vor actiona asa-zise ‘grupuri sau detasamente de rezistenta.’

Dar se parea ca ‘serialul nocturn’ al atacurilor teroriste incepe sa-si arate anumite ‘tipicuri’–daca le putem numi asa–care ar fi meritat sa fie mai judicios analizate si luate in calcul pentru luarea unor masuri mai eficiente de contracarare.  Toate atacurile terestre ale teroristilor erau executate exclusiv pe timp de noapte si, de regula, in doua ‘reprize’ a circa o jumatate de ora fiecare, una in prima parte a noptii (aproximativ intre orele 22-23) si alta spre ziua (in jurul 02-03).  Executate de grupuri mici de teroristi–dar niste profesionisti ai luptei de gherila avind un armament de inalta precizie, dotat cu sisteme optice de ochire pe timp de noapte–atacurile nu vizua insa altceva decit intretinirea unei atmosfere stresante, de tensiune, de amenintare permanenta, pentru mentinirea intregului efectiv (pe cit posibil!) in cazarma, intr-o permanenta stare de lupta, pentru a-l uza si a-l determina sa-si iroseasca o cantitate de mai mare din resursele de munitie.

Even the former head of the Securitate, General Iulian Vlad, admitted in a very judiciously worded declaration from 29 January 1990 that the “terrorists” were from the Securitate.  (Significantly, this declaration has never appeared in the Romanian press, and even since its revelation by General Ioan Dan it has been consistently ignored.  It is, to say the least, painful and difficult for the deniers to address.)

General Magistrat (r) Ioan Dan

In aprilie 1990, generalul Ghoerghe Diaconescu a fost destituit din functia de conducere in Directia Procuraturilor Militare.  La plecare, mi-a predat cheia de la fisteul sau, cu mentiunea ca acolo au mai ramas cateva hartii fara importanta. Intrucat, la data respectiva, ma aflam in cea mai mare parte a timpului, in procesul cercetarilor de la Timisoara, mult mai tarziu, am dorit sa pun in respectivul fiset o serie de acte.  Am cercetat ce mai ramasese de pe urma generalului Diaconescu si, spre surprinderea mea, am gasit declaratia olografa a generalului Iulian Vlad, data fostului adjunct al procurorului general, fostul meu sef direct, nimeni altul decat generalul Diaconescu, la 29 ianuarie 1990, cand toate evenimentele din decembrie 1989 erau foarte proaspete.  Repet, este vorba despre declaratia olografa, un text scris foarte ingrijit, pe 10 pagini, din care voi reda acum integral doar partea care se refera expres la “actiunile teroriste in Capitala” (formularea apartine generalului Vlad).

“Analizand modul in care au inceput si s-au desfasurat actiunile teroriste in Capitala, pe baza acelor date si informatii ce le-am avut la dispozitie, consider ca acestea ar fi putut fi executate de:

1) Elementele din Directia a V-a, USLA, CTS si din alte unitati de Securitate, inclusiv speciale.

  1. a) Directia a V-a, asa cum am mai spus, avea in responsabilitate paza si securitatea interioara a Palatului Republicii, multe dintre cadrele acestei unitati cunoscand foarte bine cladirea, cu toate detaliile ei.  In situatia creata in ziua de 22.12.1989, puteau sa mearga la Palat, pe langa cei care faceau acolo serviciul si unii dintre ofiterii si subofiterii care se aflau la sediul CC ori la unitate.

Este ca se poate de clar ca numai niste oameni care cunosteanu bine topografia locului ori erau in complicitate cu cei care aveau asemenea cunostinte puteau patrunde in cladire (sau pe acoperisul ei) si transporta armamentul si cantitatile mari de munitie pe care le-au avut la dispozitie.

Tot aceasta Directie dispunea de o baza puternica si in apropierea Televiziunii (la Televiziunea veche).  De asemenea, avea in responsabilitate perimetrul din zona resedintei unde se aflau numeroase case (vile) nelocuite si in care teroristii ar fi putut sa se ascunda ori sa-si faca puncte de sprijin.

Sunt si alte motive care pun pe prim-plan suspiciuni cu privire la aceasta unitate.

  1. b) Elemente din cadrul unitatii speciale de lupta antiterroriste care aveau unele misiuni comune cu Directia a V-a si, ca si o parte a ofiterilor si subofiterilor de la aceasta unitate, dispuneau de o mai buna instruire si de mijloace de lupta mai diversificate.
  2. c) Elemente din Trupele de Securitate care asigurau paza obiectivilor speciale (resedinta, palat etc.) si, impreuna cu Directia a-V-a, Securitatea Capitalei si Militia Capitalei asigurau traseul de deplasare.
  3. d) Ofiteri si subofiteri din Securitatea Capitalei, indeosebi de la Serviciul Trasee, sau dintre cei care au lucrat la Directia a V-a.
  4. e) Elemente din alte unitati de Securitate, inclusiv unitatile speciale 544, 195 si 110, precum si din cele complet acoperite, comandate de col. Maita, col. Valeanu, lt. col. Sirbu, col. Nica, col. Eftimie si lt. col. (Eftimie sau Anghelache) Gelu (asa sta scris in declaratie–n.n.).  Aceste din urma sase unitati, ca si UM 544, in ansamblu, si UM 195 puteau dispune si de armament si munitii de provenienta straina, precum si de conditii de pregatire adecvate.

2) Ofiteri si subofiteri din Militie, atat de la Capitala, cat si de la IGM, cu prioritate cei din Detasamentul special de interventie si cei care asigurau traseul.

3) Cred ca s-ar impune verificarea, prin metode si mijloace specifice, a tragatorilor de elita din toate unitatile din Capitala ale Ministerului de Interne, precum si a celor care au avut in dotare sau au indeplinit misiuni folosind arme cu luneta.  N-ar trebui omisi nici chiar cei de la Dinamo si de la alte cluburi sportive.

4) Unele cadre militare de rezerva ale Securitatii, Militiei si Armatei, precum si actuali (la data respectiva) si fosti activisti de partid sau UTC, persoane apropriate tradatorului si familiei sale ori care poseda arme de foc.

Propun, de asemenea, o atenta investigare a celor care au fost in anturajul lui Nicu Ceausescu.  Acest anturaj, foarte divers, cuprindea inclusive unele elemente de cea mai scazuta conditie morala care puteau fi pretabile la asemenea actiuni.

Ar fi bine sa se acorde atentia cuvenita sub acest aspect si fratilor dictatorului–Ceausescu Ilie si Ceausescu Nicolae–care, prin multiplele posibilitati pe care le aveau, puteau organiza asemenea actiuni.

5) Anumite cadre militare sau luptatori din Garzile Patriotice.

6) Straini:

  1. Din randul celor aflati la studii in Romania:

– arabi, in general, si palestinieni, in special, inclusiv cei care sunt la pregatire pe linia Armatei (de exemplu, la Academia Militara);

– alte grupuri de straini la studii (iranieni si altii).

  1. Special infiltrati (indeosebi din cei care au urmat diverse cursuri de pregatire pe linia MI sau a MAN);
  2. Alti straini aflati in tara cu diverse acoperiri, inclusiv diplomatice;
  3. Fosti cetateni romani (care ar fi putut intra in tara si in mod fraudulos).

7) Elemente infractoare de drept comun care au posedat armament ori l-au procurat in chiar primele ore din dupa-amiaza zilei de 22 decembrie 1989, cand, din mai multe unitati de Securitate, intre care Directia a V-a si Securitatea Capitalei, s-a ridicat o cantitate mare si diversa de armament si munitie.”

Generalul Mircea Mocanu, comandantul CAAT în 1989, declara în faţa Comisiei Senatoriale pentru Cercetarea Evenimentelor din Decembrie 1989 că România s-a confruntat în mod cert, în timpul Revoluţiei, cu ceea ce se numeşte „război electronic”. El explică câteva dintre metodele unei astfel de operaţiuni. „Ulterior au fost găsite pe teritoriul ţării mai multe baloane tip meteo, cu materialul din plastic sfâşiat de schije; de baloane atârnau reflectoare poliedrice, adică un schelet de lemn cu foiţă de staniol în măsură să reflecte undele electromagnetice emise de staţiile de radio­­locaţie. Pe cutie – o brumă de aparatură, pe care scria în limba rusă «fabricat în URSS»; aveau şi o etichetă pe care scria în limba maghiară: «Cine aduce la organele locale un asemenea obiect primeşte 50 de forinţi»”Citeste mai mult: adevarul.ro/news/societate/video-misterele-revolutiei-diversiunea-radioelectronica-sovieticii-americaniii-1_50ad127b7c42d5a6638e4c95/index.html

 

https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/2014/01/19/what-would-it-have-looked-like-if-nicolae-ceausescus-securitate-executed-a-plan-to-counter-an-invasion-but-the-invaders-never-came-i/

In fact, the tactics of the “terrorists” in December 1989 are strikingly similar to what was described in the journal of the Securitate (available on the CNSAS.ro site):

Lt. Colonel Tudor Alexandru si Capitan Nicolae Catana (Securitatea, nr. 85, martie 1989) http://www.cnsas.ro/documente/periodicul_securitatea/Securitatea%201989-1-85.pdf :

– desfasurarea unor activitati de dezinformare a inamicului cu privire la actiunile fortelor proprii…

image0-001

Let’s take a look at some of the claims made about the character and content of the disinformation–especially as pertains to the so-called “radioelectronic war”–as it transpired in December 1989:

volumul Armata romana in revolutia din decembrie 1989 (Editura Militara)

image0-009

image0-006

Apreciem că, în acelaşi context, prezintă o oarecare importanţă şi aspectul semnalat în NOTA S.R.I. transmisă comisiei cu nr. S/9.022/1992 şi anume: „… În ziua de 2 ianuarie 1990 a fost reţinut la Unitatea militară 01929 Reşiţa, alături de alte cadre de securitate fostul şef al Serviciului „T”, cpt.(r.) Berinde Florin. Cu ocazia anchetelor la care a fost supus de către unele cadre militare ale M.Ap.N. şi organe ale procuraturii militare, acesta a relatat că, în ziua de 23 decembrie 1989, în jurul orelor 1500, pe când se efectuau acordurile pe scala staţiei R-105, pentru menţinerea legăturii, conform celor convenite anterior, s-au auzit convorbiri în limba rusă, ce aveau intonaţii puternice, de ordin. La auzul acestor mesaje lt.col. Măriuţa Gheorghe de la fostul organ de miliţie, cel mai mare în grad dintre cei prezenţi, a dat ordin să se închidă staţia pentru a nu afla şi alte cadre şi a nu crea o stare de panică în rândul efectivelor. Din cele relatate rezultă că aceste convorbiri se auzeau deosebit de clar se transmiteau de aproape, fără zgomot de fond fâsâit sau bruiaj. Acelaşi ofiţer a mai relatat că, în împrejurările de mai sus a discutat şi cu cpt.ing. Brencea Constantin, care i-a spus că începând cu 23 decembrie 1989 şi ei au fost bruiaţi pe sistemul de transmisiuni radioreleu pe unde scurte, pe toate canalele posibile cu semnale care emit fie convorbiri în limba rusă, fie un fel de triluri muzicale, iar pe radiolocatoare au fost bruiaţi prin generarea unui semnal care imita ţinte reale…”.

https://sites.google.com/site/problemeistorice/raport-final-comisia-senatoriala-decembrie-1989-sectiunea-5

Generalul Mircea Mocanu, comandantul CAAT în 1989, declara în faţa Comisiei Senatoriale pentru Cercetarea Evenimentelor din Decembrie 1989 că România s-a confruntat în mod cert, în timpul Revoluţiei, cu ceea ce se numeşte „război electronic”. El explică câteva dintre metodele unei astfel de operaţiuni. „Ulterior au fost găsite pe teritoriul ţării mai multe baloane tip meteo, cu materialul din plastic sfâşiat de schije; de baloane atârnau reflectoare poliedrice, adică un schelet de lemn cu foiţă de staniol în măsură să reflecte undele electromagnetice emise de staţiile de radio­­locaţie. Pe cutie – o brumă de aparatură, pe care scria în limba rusă «fabricat în URSS»; aveau şi o etichetă pe care scria în limba maghiară: «Cine aduce la organele locale un asemenea obiect primeşte 50 de forinţi»”.

http://adevarul.ro/news/societate/video-misterele-revolutiei-diversiunea-radioelectronica-sovieticii-americaniii-1_50ad127b7c42d5a6638e4c95/index.html

Reflectori poliedrici cu marca “Fabricat in URSS”
Faptul ca pe langa tintele false au existat si tinte reale este sustinut in cadrul raportului MApN de gasirea, in diferite locuri, a unor baloane asemanatoare cu cele utilizate in meteorologie. Neobisnuit insa, aceste baloane aveau acrosati reflectori poliedrici  care puteau induce pe ecranele de radiolocatie semnale similare celor provenind de la o aeronava reala. Pe cutia aparaturii acrosata baloanelor distruse s-au gasit inscriptii in limba rusa sau engleza cu “Fabricat in URSS”. Raportul militar mai mentioneaza un aspect greu de crezut, un fel de fantezie, si care pare mai degraba o influenta a curentului antimaghiar dezvoltat preponderent in randurile cadrelor armatei, indoctrinate sub comunism, din acea perioada, si anume ca mai existau “atasate biletele in limba maghiara prin care se promiteau aducatorilor acestor obiecte recompense de 150 forinti”. Era si o perioada in care teoria conspiratiei incerca sa justifice evenimentele din perioada Revolutiei. Sa nu uitam ca si Ceausescu, la fel ca si cadrele Armatei si Securitatii, avea aceasta obsesie a “cetatenilor straini care vor sa destabilizeze tara si sa fure Transilvania”. Ceea ce militarii specializati si procurorii militari au denumit, la inceputul anilor ’90, razboiul radio-electronic a amplificat starea emotiva a unei parti din participantii la Revolutie, care faceau periodic trimiteri la eventuale forte straine, solicitand implicit interventii din partea Armatei si a grupurilor de civili inarmati.

Elicopterul rusesc a ramas in urma
Mai multi tanchisti din batalionul de tancuri de la Targoviste, dislocat pentru apararea Ministerului Apararii Nationale si pentru intarirea dispozitivelor de paza din zona, au sustinut ca, incercand sa-si racordeze frecventele radio, au surprins fragmente din conversatii in limba rusa identificate ca avand drept sursa o formatiune de elicoptere. Din convorbirile interceptate, traduse de inginerul Simion Barbu, rezulta ca era vorba de o formatiune de zbor careia ii ramasese in urma un elicopter, aparat ce ar fi fost pilotat de o femeie. In transmisiunea radio, pilotul isi justifica ramanerea in urma si desprinderea de formatie prin defectiuni survenite la aparat, iar comandantul formatiunii i-a transmis ordinul sa pastreze aceeasi altitudine si acelasi itinerar pana in momentul in care va reusi sa realizeze contactul cu formatiunea de care apartinea.

http://m.romanialibera.ro/exclusiv-rl/investigatii/prigoana-vantului-diversiunea-elicopterelor-cu-teroristi-libieni-142385.html

Amiralul (r) Gheorghe Anghelescu*** rememorează la rândul său: „Acţiunile noastre au început să se desfăşoare atunci când ne aşteptăm mai puţin. În noaptea de 22-23 decembrie, pe ecranele
radiolocatoarelor sistemului de observare electronic al Marinei şi Apărării Antiaeriene a teritoriului au apărut nenumărate nave, avioane şi
elicoptere, care toate se îndreptau spre litoralul nostru. Prin reţelele radio se primeau cele mai diverse informaţii care confirmau această mare acţiune aeronavală ostilă. Totul părea incredibil. În portul Constanţa navele comerciale aveau indicii că sunt minate de scafandri inamici, de pe litoral, posturile de observare ne semnalau elicoptere, navele civile şi platformele petroliere marine descopereau şi informau despre ţinte aeriene, în reţelele radio se intensifica frecvenţa convorbirilor în limba rusă, arabă şi engleză; toate acestea ne-au făcut să percepem ca reală o agresiune aeronavală”.
Ţintele se îndreptau către plajele Mamaia, Mangalia, Sf. Gheorghe şi Sulina, zone propice efectuării de desantări de trupe. Rapoartele primite înştiinţau prezenţa elicopterelor în largul Mării Negre, în zona platformelor de foraj marin.

http://surrysipluta.blogspot.com/2010/12/decembrie-1989-si-caietele.html

Cine sunt agresorii din decembrie? Îi vom cunoaşte vreodată pe cei care au bântuit cerul în acele zile? Uimirea miltarilor a atins apogeul, când s-a constatat corelarea perfectă a evenimentelor din teren cu cele aeriene şi convorbirile radio: “04 către 34 … Staţia S, defectă … mergem numai 18 … unitatea de lângă noi a tras cu mitraliere, tunuri şi rachete”. Toate aceste convorbiri radio, se refereau la probleme concrete, la acţiuni reale; sau un alt caz: “se poate decola pentru că S.R.C. (staţia radiolocaţie cercetare) nu lucrează … aruncarea în aer a containerului …”Asemenea convorbiri se amestecau cu altele în limba rusă, arabă, engleză.

După data de 28 decembrie, atât numărul ţintelor reperate cât şi traficul radio, au căzut, ajungând la zero. Dealtfel şi fragmentele de conversaţii interceptate sugerau o retragere spre “bazele proprii”.  (Carol Roman, “Enigmele ale Revolutiei Romane din ’89”)

http://revista.balcanii.ro/index_html?editia=94-95&page=revolutia&nr=2

Simultan in circuitile telefonice, radio, si chiar de comanda (da, nu este o exagerare!) se inregistreaza o avalansa de ordine si informatii, atit in limba romana, cit si in engleza, araba, si turca.

Locotenent-colonel Alexandru Bordea, “Varianta la Invazia Extraterestrilor,” Armata Poporului, nr. 19 (9 mai 1990), p.2.

Convorbirile erau purtate in mai multe limbi, preponderent in engleza (cu un pronuntat accent arab), dar si in italiana, turca, bulgara, sirba, si romana…

Mai mult:

https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/razboiul-radio-electronic-noiembrie-1989-ianuarie-1990/

decembrie 1989 si diversiunea radioelectronica: “Varianta la Invazia Extraterestrilor” (VI) plus BONUS: de ce a ocolit zona Moldovei razboiul radioelectornic?!!!

decembrie 1989 si diversiunea radioelectronica: “Varianta la Invazia Extraterestrilor” (V)

decembrie 1989 si diversiunea radioelectronica: “Varianta la Invazia Extraterestrilor” (IV)

decembrie 1989 si diversiunea radioelectronica: “Varianta la Invazia Extraterestrilor” (III)

decembrie 1989 si diversiunea radioelectronica: “Varianta la Invazia Extraterestrilor” (II)

decembrie 1989 si diversiunea radioelectronica: “Varianta la Invazia Extraterestrilor” (I)

(strictly personal viewpoint as always; I began my analysis of what have been characterized as the “strange,” “counter-intuitive,” and “irrational” character of the “terrorist” actions in December 1989 in Chapter 8 my Ph.D. dissertation (defended December 1996), which can be found here:  https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/rewriting-the-revolution-1997-chapter-8-unsolving-december/ and continued it in articles such as the following in Europe-Asia Studies from 2000, which can be found here, https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/theories-of-collective-action-and-revolution-2000/ ; xeroxes below are from 1994 and 1997, Bucharest and Cluj)

https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/2014/01/19/what-would-it-have-looked-like-if-nicolae-ceausescus-securitate-executed-a-plan-to-counter-an-invasion-but-the-invaders-never-came-i/

https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/2014/01/21/what-would-it-have-looked-like-if-nicolae-ceausescus-securitate-executed-a-plan-to-counter-an-invasionbut-the-invaders-never-came-ii/

ALL THE RUSSIAN TOURISTS, WHERE DO THEY ALL COME FROM?…WHERE DO THEY ALL BELONG?

A modest proposal:  In order to operate in a country under foreign occupation and to confuse the foreign occupier, the “nuclee de rezistenta” would need equipment that could pass for that of the occupier.  In the previous episode, we saw this possibility with the weather balloon, with Russian writing, but a fictitious address in Budapest.  Since Nicolae Ceausescu was afraid most of all of a Soviet invasion, the “resistance fighters” would need to be able to appear or pass themselves off as Soviets/Russians themselves.  Is it then possible that the former Securitate’s insistence upon mentioning the presence of convoys of male Soviet tourists in Russian cars with Soviet plates is an admission–stripped out of context–that these cars and their occupants were part of the “resistance war” so long planned for and which we have seen awarded a critical, though until now not publicized, role to the Securitate?

Valer Marian’s revelations in September 1990 are VERY interesting in this regard…

Monica N. Marginean:  Sa revenim la datele concrete ale regiei de care vorbeam anterior.  Cum arata, de pilda, povestea atit de dezbatuta la procesul lui Nicu Ceausescu a cursei ROMBAC, daca o privim din perspectiva Comisiei de ancheta?

fostul procuror Marian Valer:  In mod normal, cursa de avion Bucuresti-Sibiu trebuia sa decoleze de pe aeroportul Baneasa, la orele 17,10 folosindu-se pe acest traseu avioane marca Antonov.  In dupa-amiaza zilei de 20 decembrie, insa, in jurul orelor 17, deci in apropierea orei prevazute pentru decolarea cursei obisnuite, pasagerii pentru Sibiu au fost invitati si dusi la Aeroportul Otopeni unde au fost imbarcati intr-un avion marca ROMBAC care a decolat in jurul orelor 18,30 si a aterizat pe aeroportul Sibiu in jur de ora 19.  Fac precizarea ca in dupa-amiaza aceleiasi zile, cu aproape 2 ore inaintea decolarii acestei curse, a aterizat pe aeroportul Otopeni avionul prezidential cu care Ceausescu s-a reintors din Iran. Conform datelor furnizate de agentia TAROM Bucuresti, in avionul respectiv spre Sibiu au fost imbarcati 81 pasageri.  In radiograma cursei sint consemnate domiciile doar la o parte din pasageri, cu mentiunea ca unele sint incomplete, lipsind fie localitatea, fie strada, fie numarul, iar la restul pasagerilor figureaza doar mentiunile ,rezervat’ sau Pasaport RSR.  In urma investigatiilor efectuate, au putut fi identificati doar 44 de pasageri, majoritatea avind domiciliul in municipul si judetul Sibiu, stabilindu-se ca au fost persoane trimise in delegatie la foruri tutelare din capitala, sau studenti plecati in vacanta, iar citiva domiciliati in judetul Alba.  Mentionez ca asupra acestor persoane nu planeaza nici un dubiu.  Dubiile sint create insa in primul rind de faptul ca mai multi pasageri figureaza cu domiciliul in municipiul Bucuresti, dar in realitate nu domiciliaza la adresele consemnate, iar la unele adrese sint intreprinderi.  Un alt element creator de dubii il constituie prezenta in avionul respectiv a unui inspector de la Departmentul Aviatiei Civile, cu numele de Nevrozeanu, care nu figureaza pe lista pasagerilor si cu privire la care s-a stabilit ca, in trecut, se deplasa cu avionul in cazuri speciale doar pe relatia Moscova, fiind un bun cunoscator al limbii ruse.  Mai multi pasageri sustin ca in partea dreapta din fata a avionului au sesizat un grup de barbati, mai inalti, atletici, imbracati sportiv, multi dintre ei fiind blonzi, grup care li s-a parut suspect.  Aceste afirmatii se coroboreaza cu faptul ca in zona respectiva a avionului nu a stat nici unul din pasagerii identificati.  Mai mult, verificindu-se la hotelurile din municipiul Sibiu persoane care aveau numele celor 37 de persoane neidentificate, s-a constatat ca doar un pasager neidentificat care figureaza pe listele TAROM-ului cu domiciliul in municipiul Bucuresti, care nu exista la adresa respectiva din localitate, a fost cazat la hotelul Bulevard, dar in registrul de evidenta figureaza cu un alt domiciliu din Bucuresti.  Ambele domicilii, si cei din diagrama TAROM si cel de la hotel sint false.  Cu ocazia acelorasi verificari s-a constatat ca in perioada respectiva in hotelurile din Sibiu au fost cazati multi turisti sovietici, in special la Imparatul Romanilor, Continental, si Bulevard, situate in zona centrala a municipiului.  Fac mentiunea ca din hotelurile respective s-a tras asupra manifestantilor si a armatei. Am omis sa precizez ca pe aeroportul Otopeni, in avionul ROMBAC au fost incarcate sute de colete identice ca format, dimensiuni si culoare, de marime apropriata unei genti diplomat, precum si ca, cu citeva minute inaintea decolarii cursei spre Sibiu, de pe acelasi aeroport au decolat curse ROMBAC spre Timisoara si Arad.  Consider ca, in legatura cu pasagerii neidentificati, sint posibile doua versiuni, respectiv sa fie au fost luptatorii U.S.L.A. trimisi in sprijinul lui Nicu Ceausescu, fie au fost agenti sovietici trimisi sa actioneze in scopul rasturnarii regimului Ceausescu.

Monica N. Marginean:  Ce alte demersuri a facut Comisia de ancheta pentru elucidarea misterului celor 37 de pasageri neidentificati?

Marian Valer:  Am luat contact cu unul din loctiitorii comandamentului trupelor U.S.L.A. din capitala, caruia i-am solicitat sa-mi puna la dispozitie pe cei trei insotitori U.S.L.A. ai avionului ROMBAC.  Loctiitorul mi-a spus ca acestia au fost audiati de un procuror militar si nu mai este de acord sa fie audiati inca o data.

Monica M. Maginean:  “MARIAN VALER:  Asistam la ingroparea Revolutiei,” Expres nr. 33, septembrie 1990, p. 2.

http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1342503.html (Submitted via the CIA publication review process January 2002, cleared without changes March 2002)

Reports Archive

East European Perspectives: April 17, 2002

17 April 2002, Volume  4, Number  8

THE SECURITATE ROOTS OF A MODERN ROMANIAN FAIRY TALE: THE PRESS, THE FORMER SECURITATE, AND THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF DECEMBER 1989

By Richard Andrew Hall

Part 2: ‘Tourists Are Terrorists and Terrorists are Tourists with Guns…’ *

HOW THE ‘TOURISTS’ ENTRY INTO THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF DECEMBER 1989 PARALLELS THE EXIT OF THE SECURITATE
In commenting in August 1990 upon how the details of the state’s case against him had changed since early in the year, Nicolae Ceausescu’s son, Nicu, ironically highlighted how Securitate forces had begun to fade away from the historiography of the December 1989 events. In the August 1990 interview from his prison cell with Ion Cristoiu’s “Zig-Zag” (mentioned above), Nicu discusses the “tourists” for which he was asked to find accommodations in the context of a group of mysterious passengers who had arrived by plane from Bucharest on the evening of 20 December 1989. We know that in the period immediately following these events, the then-military prosecutor, Anton Socaciu, had alleged that these passengers from Bucharest were members of the Securitate’s elite USLA unit (Special Unit for Antiterrorist Warfare) and were responsible for much of the bloodshed that occurred in Sibiu during the December events (for a discussion, see Hall, 1996). In August 1990, however, Nicu wryly observed:

“…[T]he Military Prosecutor gave me two variants. In the first part of the inquest, they [the flight’s passengers] were from the Interior Ministry. Later, however, in the second half of the investigation, when the USLA and those from the Interior Ministry began, so-to-speak, to pass ‘into the shadows,’ — after which one no longer heard anything of them — they [the passengers] turned out to be simple citizens…” (interview with Nicu Ceausescu in “Zig-Zag,” no. 20, 21-27 August 1990).

The impact of this “reconsideration” by the authorities could be seen in the comments of Socaciu’s successor as military prosecutor in charge of the Sibiu case, Marian Valer (see Hall 1997a, pp. 314-315). Valer commented in September 1990 that investigations yielded the fact that there were 37 unidentified passengers on board the 20 December flight from Bucharest and that many of the other passengers maintained that “on the right side of the plane there had been a group of tall, athletic men, dressed in sporting attire, many of them blond, who had raised their suspicions.” While investigations revealed that during this time there “were many Soviet tourists staying in Sibiu’s hotels,” they also established that “military units were fired upon from Securitate safehouses located around these units as of the afternoon of 22 December, after the overturning of the Ceausescu regime.” He thus carefully concludes:

“As far as the unidentified passengers are concerned, there are two possible variants: Either they were USLA fighters sent to defend Nicu Ceausescu, or they were Soviet agents sent to act with the intent of overthrowing the Ceausescu regime” (“Expres,” no. 33, September 1990).

Thus, as the “tourists” began to enter the historiography of the December 1989 events, so the Securitate — specifically the USLA — began to disappear.

http://portalulrevolutiei.ro/forum/index.php?topic=3.615

Re: @ REVOLUTIA SIBIU 1989 @
« Reply #615 on: March 08, 2010, 15:31:24 PM »

Fac apel la oricine care a fost in seara de 21 spre 22 (ora 11,30-11,50) pe strada(actuala)Revolutiei, sau a vazut autoturismele parcate vis-sa vis de fosta Brutarie Nesciuc trei albe si una rosu inchis “Lada”. Va intreb daca cele 11 persoane imbracate cu scurta albastre tip jeans,  pantaloni deschisi la culoare, doi cu caciula de blana, trei cu caciula de lana impletita de culoare inchisa, si restul cu capul gol care au intors autoturismele parcate din capatul strazii si incendierea acestora? Statura lor era atletica? Cine a mai vazut apoi aceste persoane (acest gen) in afara de Piatza Mare din 21 decembrie ora 11,30 cand l-au protejat pe domnul care a iesit in fatza scutierilor cu copilul ridicat pe maini? (in dreptul Casei Albastre)
Aceleasi persoane au fost si in data de 21 decembrie la ora 9 in fata intrarii in magazinul Dumbrava, cand au “jenat” fara nici o teama scutierii si politistii care incercau sa prinda persoanele care fugeau prin magazin…Mai apelez la locatarii Blocului de garsoniere “turn” din coltul Calea Dumbravii-Milea, sa ne trimita o informatie cu intamplarile din 23-25 de la etajul 7-8, cu persoanele in combinezon de culoare inchisa care au coborat pe partea dinspre magazin din balcon in balcon, inclusiv despre persoana decedata, daca are legatura cu acel incident.O alta intrebare extrem de importanta: stie cineva cine a organizat “filtrele” de pe strazile Sibiului?Va multumesc
O precizare: Autoturismele erau parcate pe str Dobrun inspre str. Berariei Era pe trotoarul brutariei particulare (Nescuc sau Cibu, nu mai stiu cum se chema)

Re: @ REVOLUTIA SIBIU 1989 @
« Reply #623 on: March 11, 2010, 14:16:55 PM »

Acesti emanati, aceste lichele, nu-si puteau face jocurile, acapararea puterii totale, precum si inaintasii lor Dej si Ceausescu, decat prin forta represiunii armate. Parte din armata a reactionat pasnic, datorita onor ofitzeri care au dovedit mai multa logica, parte din armata a jucat rolul de dusman al romanilor. La Sibiu, avem tot mai multe date care intaresc teoria ca Dragomir a fost teroristul Nr. 1 in acele zile, ajutat si de grupul USLA trimis de la Bucuresti la Sibiu, pentru protectia lui NC, si care s-au reantors la “locul faptei” dupa ce l-a pus pe Nicu in siguranta. Ei au fost aceia care au comis executiile din Piatza Mare in ziua de 21 decembrie ora 11,45 cu primele victime ucise sau ranite. Au fost repartizati in patru puncte ale pietii: In podul Casei Albastre, in podul actualei Primarii, in podul de deasupra Tunelului Generalului si in podul de deasupra magazinului Moda. De aici, au deschis foc inspre demonstranti. Au deschis foc si pe data de 22 decembrie inspre hotelul Imparatul Romanilor din acelasi pod de deasupra Tunelului Generalului care avea corespondent cu celelalte poduri dinspre magazinul Covorul. Aceste grupe ale USLA nu aveau insemne de grad sau arma, nu purtau boneta militara si aveau la dispozitie doua microbuze ale unitatii 01512 care i-a transportat in tot acest timp. Un grup al USLA era incepand din ziua de 21 decembrie ora 07 la sediul Judetenei de partid, ocupand garajul din curtea din sapate cu munitie si armament special. Se poate descoperi foarte repede, numele persoanelor care au fost trimise la SIBIU cu Rombacul in dupa-amiaza zilei de 20 decembrie, ca urmare a convorbirilor indelungate purtate de Nicu si Bucuresti, despre demonstratia anuntata pentru dimineata zilei de 21 decembrie de la Mag Dumbrava. In timpul convorbirii telefonice, in biroul lui Nicu se afla Traian Popsa, fostul director de la IJIM Sibiu, maiorul Dragomir, seful Garzilor judetene Pescaru, secretar al CJPCR Sibiu si Niculae Hurubean, prim secretar la Alba care se afla in trecere prin Sibiu. Aceste trupe USLA au purtat alternativ, combinezoane negre, uniforma militara sau haine civile…

————————————————————————————————————————————

Perhaps it should thus no be so surprising, that of all the people to talk with a former “KGB agent” in Romania, it was Sorin Rosca Stanescu, former USLA collaborator:

HOW THE ‘TOURIST’ MYTH NEVERTHELESS GAINED MAINSTREAM CREDIBILITY AND ACCEPTANCE
How, then, did the “tourist” myth gain credibility and acceptance in the Romanian press, given its rather obvious pedigree in the remnants of the Ceausescu regime, especially among former high-ranking Securitate officers and others most in need of an alibi/diversion to save their careers and avoid the possibility of going to jail? Although the reference to “tourists” during the December events probably entered the lexicon of mainstream reporting on the Revolution as early as April 1990 — not insignificantly, first in the pages of Ion Cristoiu’s weekly “Zig-Zag,” it appears — it was in particular journalist Sorin Rosca Stanescu who gave the theme legitimacy in the mainstream press.

Without specifying the term “tourists” — but clearly speaking in the same vein — Stanescu was probably the first to articulate the thesis most precisely and to tie the Soviet angle to it. In June 1990 in a piece entitled “Is The Conspiracy of Silence Breaking Down?” in the sharply anti-government daily “Romania libera,” Stanescu wrote:

“And still in connection with the breaking down of the conspiracy of silence, in the army there is more and more insistent talk about the over 4,000 Lada cars with two men per car that traveled many different roads in the days before the Revolution and then disappeared” (“Romania libera,” 14 June 1990).

Stanescu’s article was vigorously anti-FSN and anti-Iliescu and left little doubt that this thesis was part of the “unofficial” history of the December events, injurious to the new leaders, and something they did not wish to see published or wish to clarify.

But it was Stanescu’s April 1991 article in “Romania libera,” entitled “Is Iliescu Being Protected By The KGB?,” that truly gave impetus to the “tourist” thesis. Stanescu wrote:

“A KGB officer wanders in France. He is losing his patience and searching for a way to get to Latin America. Yesterday I met him in Paris. He talked to me after finding out that I was a Romanian journalist. He fears the French press. He knows Romanian and was in Timisoara in December 1989. As you will recall, persistent rumors have circulated about the existence on Romanian soil of over 2,000 Lada automobiles with Soviet tags and two men in each car. Similar massive infiltrations were witnessed in December 1990, too, with the outbreak of a wave of strikes and demonstrations. What were the KGB doing in Romania? Witness what the anonymous Soviet officer related to me in Paris:

‘There existed an intervention plan that for whatever reason was not activated. I received the order to enter Romania on 14 December and to head for Timisoara. Myself and my colleague were armed. During the events, we circulated in the military zone around Calea Girocului [Giriocul Road]. Those who headed toward Bucharest had the same mission. Several larger cities were targeted. We were to open fire in order to create a state of confusion. I never, however, received such an order. I left Romania on 26 December.’

I don’t have any reason to suspect the validity of these revelations. This short confession is naturally incomplete, but not inconclusive. What purpose would this elaborate, but aborted, KGB plan have had? The only plausible explanation is that it wasn’t necessary for KGB agents to intervene. The events were unfolding in the desired direction without need for the direct intervention of the Soviets. But this leads to other questions: What did the Ceausescu couple know, but were not allowed to say [prior to their hurried execution]? Why is Securitate General Vlad being held in limbo? To what degree has President Iliescu maintained ties to the Soviets? What are the secret clauses of the Friendship Treaty recently signed in Moscow? Is Iliescu being protected by the KGB or not? Perhaps the SRI [the Securitate’s institutional successor, the Romanian Information Service] would like to respond to these questions?”

Stanescu’s April 1991 article did not go unnoticed — despite its nondescript placement on page eight — and has since received recognition and praise from what might seem unexpected corners. For example, previously-discussed former Securitate Colonel Filip Teodorescu cited extensive excerpts from Stanescu’s article in his 1992 book on the December events, and he added cryptically:

“Moreover, I don’t have any reason to suspect that the journalist Sorin Rosca Stanescu would have invented a story in order to come to the aid of those accused, by the courts or by public opinion, for the results of the tragic events of December 1989” (Teodorescu, 1992, pp. 92-94).

Radu Balan, former Timis County party secretary, imprisoned for his role in the December events, has also invoked Stanescu’s April 1991 article as proof of his revisionist view that “tourists” rather than “non-existent ‘terrorists'” were to blame for the December 1989 bloodshed:

“…[W]hile at Jilava [the jail where he was imprisoned at the time of the interview, in October 1991], I read ‘Romania libera’ from 18 April. And Rosca Stanescu writes from Paris that a KGB agent who deserted the KGB and is in transit to the U.S. stated that on 18 December [1989] he had the mission to create panic on Calea Girocului [a thoroughfare in Timisoara]. What is more, on the 18th, these 11 cars were at the top of Calea Girocului, where I saw them. I was dumbfounded, I tell you. I didn’t tell anybody. Please study ‘Romania libera,’ the last page, from 18 April 1991” (“Totusi iubirea,” no. 43, 24-31 October1991).

In this regard, it would be irresponsible to totally discount the relevance of Rosca Stanescu’s past. Since December 1989, Stanescu has undeniably been a vigorous critic of, and made damaging revelations about, the Securitate’s institutional heir, the SRI, and the Iliescu regime, and he has frequently written ill of the former Securitate and the Ceausescu regime. Nevertheless, in 1992 it was leaked to the press — and Rosca Stanescu himself confirmed — that from the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s he was an informer for the Securitate (for a discussion, see Hall, 1997b, pp. 111-113). What was significant, however, was precisely for which branch of the Securitate Rosca Stanescu had been an informer: the USLA.

http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1342503.html

BUT WAIT, THERE’S MORE…A “SOVIET TOURIST” ENCORE IN 1990

Add to all of this (!), the allegations that the “Soviet tourists” were seen again on the streets during major crises in 1990, such as the ethnic clashes between Romanians and Hungarians in Tirgu Mures in March 1990 (for evidence of the reach of the allegation of KGB manipulation via the “tourist” mechanism both in December 1989 AND in March 1990, see Emil Hurezeanu, “Cotidianul,” 23 December 1999; according to Hurezeanu, “It appears they didn’t leave the country until 1991, following a visit by [SRI Director] Virgil Magureanu to Moscow”!).  Then there is the famous April 1991 interview of an alleged KGB officer—who spoke flawless Romania and was in Romania during the December 1989 events—who the interviewer, the vigorous anti-Iliescu foe, Sorin Rosca Stanescu, claimed to have just stumbled into in Paris.  Of all the reporters who could have stumbled into a KGB officer present in Romania during the Revolution—the only such case I know of—it was Rosca Stanescu, who, it turned out later, had been an informer for the Securitate until the mid-1980s—but not just for anybody, but for the USLA.  Intererstingly, although the article appeared on the non-descript page 8 of the primary opposition daily at the time (“Romania Libera”), the aforementioned Filip Teodorescu and Radu Balan invoked it in support of their contentions regarding the the “tourists” (for a discussion of this, see Hall 2002).  Even more suprising, or not, depending on your point of view, in his April 1991 article, Stanescu attempted to tie together December 1989 with December 1990 (!):

“As you will recall, persistent rumors have circulated about the existence on Romanian soil [in December 1989] of over 2,000 Lada automobiles with Soviet tags and two men in each car. Similar massive infiltrations were witnessed in December 1990, too, with the outbreak of a wave of strikes and demonstrations. What were the KGB doing in Romania?” (emphasis added) (“Romania Libera,” 18 April 1991)

(This points again to the idea that, to the extent the claim has any truth to it–and clearly, as always, there is an exaggeration of numbers–these “Soviet tourists” were of domestic manufacture.)

https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/2010/09/22/the-1989-romanian-revolution-as-geopolitical-parlor-game-brandstatter%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Ccheckmate%E2%80%9D-documentary-and-the-latest-wave-in-a-sea-of-revisionism-part-iii/

In addition, it is interesting to note that senior former Securitate officials like to point out that the cars being used were…”brand-new”…suggesting that they had not been used before…something you might expect for equipment to be used in a contingency plan.

THE SECURITATE ROOTS OF A MODERN ROMANIAN FAIRY TALE: THE PRESS, THE FORMER SECURITATE, AND THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF DECEMBER 1989

By Richard Andrew Hall

Part 2: ‘Tourists Are Terrorists and Terrorists are Tourists with Guns…’ *

http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1342503.html

Not to be out-done, Cluj Securitate chief Ion Serbanoiu claimed in a 1991 interview that, as of 21 December 1989, there were over 800 Russian and Hungarian tourists, mostly driving almost brand-new Lada automobiles (but also Dacia and Wartburg cars), in the city (interview with Angela Bacescu in “Europa,” no. 55, December 1991).

image0-001

image0-003

In February 1991 during his trial, former Securitate Director General Iulian Vlad, not surprisingly, also spoke of “massive groups of Soviet tourists…the majority were men…deploy[ing] in a coordinated manner in a convoy of brand-new Lada automobiles” (see Bunea, 1994, pp. 460-461),

Radu Balan, former Timis County party boss, picks up the story from there. While serving a prison sentence for his complicity in the Timisoara repression, in 1991 Balan told one of Ceausescu’s most famous “court poets,” Adrian Paunescu, that on the night of 18-19 December — during which in reality some 40 cadavers were secretly transported from Timisoara’s main hospital to Bucharest for cremation (reputedly on Elena Ceausescu’s personal order) — he too witnessed the role of these “foreign agents”:

“We had been receiving information, in daily bulletins, from the Securitate, that far more people were returning from Yugoslavia and Hungary than were going there and about the presence of Lada automobiles filled with Soviets. I saw them at the border and the border posts, and the cars were full. I wanted to know where and what they were eating and how they were crossing the border and going through cities and everywhere. More telling, on the night of 18-19 December, when I was at a fire at the I.A.M. factory, in front of the county hospital, I spotted 11 white ‘Lada’ automobiles at 1 a.m. in the morning. They pretended to ask me the road to Buzias�.The 11 white Ladas had Soviet plates, not Romanian ones, and were in front of the hospital” (“Totusi iubirea,” no. 43, 24-31 October 1991).

image0-005

image0-007

https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/2010/09/22/the-1989-romanian-revolution-as-geopolitical-parlor-game-brandstatter%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Ccheckmate%E2%80%9D-documentary-and-the-latest-wave-in-a-sea-of-revisionism-part-iii/

[Timis County party boss] Radu Balan ‘remembers’ that on 18 December at midnight when he was heading toward IAEM, he passed a group of ten soviet cars stopped 100 meters from the county hospital. (It turns out that in this night, in the sight of the Soviets, the corpses were loaded!).” [emphasis in the original] (Flacara, no. 27, 1991, p. 9).

 

(strictly personal viewpoint as always; I began my analysis of what have been characterized as the “strange,” “counter-intuitive,” and “irrational” character of the “terrorist” actions in December 1989 in Chapter 8 my Ph.D. dissertation (defended December 1996), which can be found here:  https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/rewriting-the-revolution-1997-chapter-8-unsolving-december/ and continued it in articles such as the following in Europe-Asia Studies from 2000, which can be found here, https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/theories-of-collective-action-and-revolution-2000/ )

https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/2014/01/19/what-would-it-have-looked-like-if-nicolae-ceausescus-securitate-executed-a-plan-to-counter-an-invasion-but-the-invaders-never-came-i/

https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/2014/01/21/what-would-it-have-looked-like-if-nicolae-ceausescus-securitate-executed-a-plan-to-counter-an-invasionbut-the-invaders-never-came-ii/

https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/2014/01/24/what-would-it-have-looked-like-if-nicolae-ceausescus-securitate-executed-a-plan-to-counter-an-invasionbut-the-invaders-never-came-iii/

Lt. Colonel Tudor Alexandru si Capitan Nicolae Catana (Securitatea, nr. 85, martie 1989) http://www.cnsas.ro/documente/periodicul_securitatea/Securitatea%201989-1-85.pdf :

Efectivele care desfasoara actiuni in cadrul lupte de rezistenta se vor dota corespunzator misiunilor incredintate.  Materialele  necesare vor fi realizate din cele aflate in dotarea unitatilor sau din depozitele special create in locuri ascunse, din capturi de la inamic, trimitere pe calea aerului sau alte surse…

image0-003

The Securitate, in recounting their version of what happened in December 1989, love to point out how their official stockpiles of arms were sealed when the Ceausescus fled by helicopter at approximately 12:00 on 22 December 1989.  (Even this is only partially true.)  Military Prosecutor General Dan Voinea, and many researchers of December 1989–including some of the best among them, such as Peter Siani-Davies, repeat claims similar to this–or to the extent that they acknowledge Securitate weapons might have been used, they suggest, as does Siani-Davies, that we cannot just assume that the Securitate used them, but that they may have fallen into the hands of civilians, the Patriotic Guards, the Army, etc.  None of this, however, accounts for the fact that from injured civilians, to domestic and foreign doctors who operated on them, to military officers, have attested to the existence, use, and discovery of atypical munitions not in the Army’s arsenal–namely the use of exploding Dum-Dum bullets and/or “vidia” bullets.  The Securitate appear to be generally correct:  these weren’t in their normal stockpiles.  But they didn’t use those.  Naturally, in the context of an assumed foreign invasion and occupation, they could not bank on access to such stockpiles, which would probably have fallen into the hands of the enemy.  Instead, they would have to rely on hidden stockpiles, secret deposits strategically placed in major cities and outside of them, that only they knew about, and that could be accessed in the case of foreign occupation.  Also, one can assume the scruples that they might have had with regard to the use of such munitions against their own unarmed people–although given what happened, it turns out they didn’t have many scruples after all–did not apply to an invading and occupying foreign force–hence the preparation of such munitions.  Moreover, after the Ceausescus fled on 22 December, the character of the terrorist actions were very much in keeping with what we might expect from a “resistance war” (lupta de rezistenta):  as some have noted in recounting what happened, if they were unarmed they seemed to be able to move with reasonable ease and not great fear of being shot…however, if they were armed they became a target, and could receive a sniper shot to the head or chest (something of which a civilian with little familiarity with arms or access to them before 22 December 1989 would have been unlikely to be able to pull off).

image0-001

“Saptamina trecuta am incheiat un ciclu de 2 saptamini de pregatire si examinare, la Baneasa, pentru obtinerea gradului de subofiter.  Acest ciclu l-am efectuat la Baneasa, deoarece stagiul militar de 9 luni, l-am satisfacut intr-o unitate apartinind Securitatii Statului.

–Ce specific a avut pregatirea?

Am fost antrenati pentru lupta de gherila urbana, in caz de agresiune externa.  Eram organizati in grupuri mici care actionau pentru destabilizarea inamicului, pe teritoriul ocupat de el.

–S-au facut afirmatii in perioada revolutiei, ca nu exista trupe specializate in gherila urbana!  Este adevarat?

Nu!  In cazul in care se face exceptie de notiunea de inamic strain sau agresiune externa, pregatire multor generatii de militari au acest specific.

–Ati fi activat doar in termenul celor 9 luni?

Nu!  Noi sintem la dispozitia lor in permanenta.  Putem fi convocati telefonic sau printr-o alta modalitate conspirativa.  Existe case conspirative si depozite de munitie in plin Bucuresti, de unde ne-am fi aprovizionat cu armament si munitie pentru a efectua ambuscade, aruncari in aer si altele.

–Considerati ca dupa revolutie lucrurile s-au schimbat, cum apreciati ca ati fost chemat tot la o unitate fosta a Securitatii?

Am fost indignati si chiar ne-am manifestat in sensul acesta!  La toate intrebarile noastre n-am primit raspuns.  De abia la sfirsitul stagiului am aflat ca ne-am pregatit, de fapt, la trupele de jandarmi.

–Si pina atunci?

Col. Porumbelu ne-a tacut un mic istoric din care am sa citez:  “Din 22 dec. in 28 am fost teroristi!  Din 28 pina in martie am fost M.Ap.N.-isti.  Pina pe 5 iulie sintem trupe de jandarmi….

 [Dinu Ispas, “Baneasa–Comedie muta ’90” Expres, iulie? /august ? 1990, p. ?]

image0-001

Stiu ca in zilele de 23-25 XII 1989, din circa 150 sesizari facute de cetateni 48 s-au dovedit intemeiate in sensul ca, in punctele indicate, s-au gasit depozite de arme.  Deci nu exista “taina absoluta.”  Depozitul de arme gasit in blocul Scala, prabusit la cutremur, era tot al USLA, deci de mult a fost pregatita actiunea.  Avem de a face cu o organizatie criminala pregatita de un stat impotriva populatiei sale.  — N.F., pensionar, Bucuresti.  “Voi ati tras in noi, noi va salvam viata!” 22, nr. 5 (16 februarie 1990), p. 10.  Now available online at http://www.revista22.ro/nou/arhivapdf/5_1990.pdf .

image0-003

from Gardianul 16 December 2005

(Virgil Magureanu before the Parliamentary Commission investigating the events of December 1989):

Vreau sa va spun ca tot atunci a venit tot un subordonat de-al meu, locotenent-colonel Chilin, si era seful informatiilor la brigada antiterorista

Nicolaescu: Ati stat de vorba cu un general de Securitate, ati luat niste securisti cu dv., ati plecat la televiziune sa aparati televiziunea, impotriva cui? Cu cine credeati dv. ca luptati?

Magureanu: Dl, noi am presupus ca insurgentii erau cei care nu doreau prabusirea regimului; indiferent cine erau aceia; dar noi am vazut ca televiziunea era in primejdie de a scapa din mana celor care dadusera anatema regimului Ceausescu si erau vadit impotriva. Acolo taberele erau cei pro si impotriva regimului Ceausescu.

Asa am apreciat atunci.

Si asa imi mentin aprecierea si azi. De principiu.

Ma rog, aflasem mai multe lucruri. Despre niste depozite de armament (Chilin mi-a zis) de pe traseul de la Piata Palatului spre iesirea din Bucuresti de unde se aproviziona Securitatea atunci cand pazea traseul, despre niste subterane in care ar exista, de asemenea, armament si munitie, subterane care trebuiau luate in posesie si sa fie vazut ce e acolo. (In other words, an USLA official confirmed that the Securitate had deposits of arms and munitions along routes in Bucharest.)

(“If memory serves correct, years later in Curierul National, Andronic was to refer to finding out about the collapsing of the Ceausescu regime from USLA officer, Alexandru Ioan Kilin.”  https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/2010/10/05/%E2%80%9Corwellian%E2%80%A6positively-orwellian%E2%80%9D-prosecutor-voinea%E2%80%99s-campaign-to-sanitize-the-romanian-revolution-of-december-1989-part-9-orwellian-sanitywont-get-fooled-again/ , for a mention of Kilin see also  http://ohanesian.wordpress.com/2010/07/11/tiganul-din-dosarul-carlos-sacalul/)

Nicolaescu: De cine sa fie luate in posesie?

http://www.newspad.ro/Magureanu-In-decembrie-1989-TVR-nu-era-atacata-de-teroristi-ci-de-insurgenti,66491.html

Stirile zilei - Ultimele stiri online @ Newspad Stiri

  • Printeaza articol - Magureanu: In decembrie 1989, TVR nu era atacata de «teroristi», ci de insurgenti
  • Trimite prin email - Magureanu: In decembrie 1989, TVR nu era atacata de «teroristi», ci de insurgenti

Magureanu: In decembrie 1989, TVR nu era atacata de «teroristi», ci de insurgenti

CE PARERE AI?
Interesant
Amuzant
Uimitor
Scandalos
Ingrozitor
Ciudat
100%romanesc
Magureanu: In decembrie 1989, TVR nu era atacata de «teroristi», ci de insurgenti
16 decembrie 2005

Magureanu: Si am ajuns. Oamenii de acolo, cand am aparut eu, sigur ca s-au strans in jurul meu. Vreau sa va spun ca tot atunci a venit tot un subordonat de-al meu, locotenent-colonel Chilin, si era seful informatiilor la brigada antiterorista. S-au grupat pur si simplu in jurul meu ca nici ei nu aveau cu cine sta de vorba acolo. Militarii aveau sarcinile lor in dispozitiv, ceilalti, politicienii erau cu preocuparile lor si ingrijorarile lor, iar eu disponibil.

Nicolaescu: Ati plecat de la Eforie, cam la ce ora si cati insi?

Magureanu: Dl Nicolaescu deci toate acestea s-au petrecut pana in dupa-amiaza; ora nu o stiu cu precizie si traseul a fost dificil. Ca sa nu fim opriti, deci a fost o dubita si cateva masini cu toti astia. Cred ca nu erau in civili, cred ca erau totusi in kaki, dar trebuie sa-i intrebam chiar pe ei. Oamenii au venit cu automatele, s-au asezat in dispozitiv, in partea dinspre Dorobanti.

Nicolaescu: La cine v-ati prezentat cu ei la televiziune? La ce poarta?

Magureanu: Daca nu ma insel, era generalul Tudor care-i repartiza in dispozitiv de aparare. I-am dus acolo, i-am lasat si oamenii si-au vazut de treaba lor in continuare.

Nicolaescu: Si dv. ati plecat mai departe?

Magureanu: Pe urma ce-a fost? A venit, ca iarasi ma cunosteau, se lipise de mine un inginer de la un institut de cercetari, care a si ramas cu mine, a aparut acolo a fost o cunostinta de-a mea, altul care a incercat sa-l contactez, fara succes, fostul general la politie generalul Penciuc. A fost trecut in rezerva. Prin 1983-1984 i-am facut o vizita la Baneasa. Nu a percutat in nici un fel. Si el stie o multime de lucruri despre ce s-a intamplat in decembrie. Dumitru Penciuc. Nu mai stiu ce functie a avut. Dar a venit la mine in 23 la amiaza. Chilin a venit si au mai venit inca si ne-au spus o serie de lucruri pe care noi am socotit ca e bine sa le transmitem in forma aceea celor de la aparare si dlui Iliescu.

Nicolaescu: Ati stat de vorba cu un general de Securitate, ati luat niste securisti cu dv., ati plecat la televiziune sa aparati televiziunea, impotriva cui? Cu cine credeati dv. ca luptati?

Magureanu: Dl, noi am presupus ca insurgentii erau cei care nu doreau prabusirea regimului; indiferent cine erau aceia; dar noi am vazut ca televiziunea era in primejdie de a scapa din mana celor care dadusera anatema regimului Ceausescu si erau vadit impotriva. Acolo taberele erau cei pro si impotriva regimului Ceausescu.

Asa am apreciat atunci.

Si asa imi mentin aprecierea si azi. De principiu.

Ma rog, aflasem mai multe lucruri. Despre niste depozite de armament (Chilin mi-a zis) de pe traseul de la Piata Palatului spre iesirea din Bucuresti de unde se aproviziona Securitatea atunci cand pazea traseul, despre niste subterane in care ar exista, de asemenea, armament si munitie, subterane care trebuiau luate in posesie si sa fie vazut ce e acolo.

Nicolaescu: De cine sa fie luate in posesie?

Magureanu: De catre cei care-si asumasera noua putere. Totusi se infiripase acolo. Nu era la televiziune intr-un dispozitiv care se raliasera evenimentelor? Si intr-un fel sau altul cei care luptau pentru apararea televiziunii trebuiau sa stie si unde sunt punctele de rezistenta ale celor care se opuneau.

Nicolaescu: Nu va suparati pe mine pentru ca vreau sa lamuresc.

Magureanu: Dle Nicolaescu nu cred ca sunt aici pentru sentimente precum suparare sau altceva.

Deci, sa stiti, treaba cu depozitele s-a dovedit nereala ulterior. Era Penciuc, inginerul asta de care va spun.

A, era sa-mi scape un amanunt. Cand am ajuns acolo si am stat de vorba cu Mortoiu, mi-a zis: “Toti isi iau arme automate. Luati-va si dv. macar un pistol, un pistolet”. Eu nu am purtat in viata mea arma. Nici acum nu o port. Este o chestie de psihologie personala.

Insa atunci s-a insistat “ia-l ca nu se stie ce se poate intampla”. Nu-mi dadeam seama ce se poate intampla si nici ce as face eu cu o arma pentru ca nu sunt capabil sa traga cineva.

In fine, daca a insistat si ca sa scap de gura lui am zis “bine domnule”. S-a nimerit ca nu a fost magazionerul acolo si am plecat fara, mai tarziu.

Nicolaescu: Ceilalti cum au luat arme daca nu era magazionerul acolo?”

Magureanu: Automatele mari erau intr-un loc anume. Oamenii nu aveau arme asupra lor, dar atunci li s-au distribuit arme si munitie din dotarea unitatii.

Pistoletele aveau probabil un alt regim. In orice caz, omul care trebuia sa-mi dea nu era.

Ca sa nu fim banuiti de altceva s-a scris pe pancarte: “Noua securitate a poporului”. Pe la Universitate am fost oprit si inca in vreo doua locuri. Si oamenii bombaneau “bine, bine numai sa fie noua”.

Mergem cu masini. Am ajuns fara incidente la TV. S-au repartizat in dispozitiv, tirul era “in draci”.

Reconstituirea traseului, daca are vreo importanta pot s-o fac dupa ce stau de vorba cu cei care au fost acolo.

In sfarsit, ce vroia sa spun. Doua ore mai tarziu hotarasem sa ne ducem la armata sa le spunem alora de depozit, de subterane, imi facusera capul calendar. Dl Chilin poate sa vina sa depuna aici. Acum s-a privatizat.

Si aceasta problema este un capitol separat (cu privatizarea).

Cand am iesit din TV ca sa mergem la armata (eram Peciuc si altii, nu-mi aduc aminte, eram cu o masina. Erau doua grupuri; unul mai mare si unul mai mic in stari diferite de luciditate. In Piata Aviatorilor – grupuri care stateau pe margini in partea dinspre Arcul de Triumf. Primul grup era de 15-20, curios este ca desi nu aveau imbracaminte neobisnuita, toti au trecut, pe mine m-au oprit. Am trecut de primul grup la al doilea mi s-a infundat. M-au buzunarit, au confruntat actele; daca gasea si pistolul, eram terminat. Cred ca cu ala ma impuscau. Nu am mai putut trece de ei. S-a produs o busculada. Era o dunga de la caciula si au zis “asta avea cascheta aici, e securist, e terorist, puneti mana pe el. Mai aveam inca in buzunar si biletele de tren. M-au tot inghesuit ca nu puteau sa gaseasca ceva. Toti cu care eram plecasera, singurul care ramasese cu mine era inginerasul acela de la institutul de cercetari. Unul din grupul acela, mai lucid, mi-a zis: “Dle uite astia vor sa-ti faca ceva, mai bine te legam, te punem intr-o Raba si te ducem la militie sa te indentifice. Eu aveam acte la mine, dar actele alea nu le spuneau nimic. Ne-am dus la postul de militie din dreapta statuii Aviatorilor si am stat vreo trei orei. Deci legat la maini pe mine si pe inginerul de care v-am spus.

Raposatul Stark a dat telefon de la TV sa-mi dea drumul. Numai asa mi-au dat drumul. M-am intors la TV.

Hossu: De unde stiau sa sune la TV?

Magureanu: Eu le-am dat sugestia. Le-am spus: Sunati la TV” ca de acolo am venit, nu am venit din alta parte.

Sabin Ivan: Din tot grupul cum de v-a luat tocmai pe dv.?

Magureanu: Nici eu nu-mi pot explica. Probabil ca au intuit ce o sa ajung eu.

Sabin Ivan: Pai asta era ideea. Nu-i tineti minte pe aia?

Magureanu: Nu.

Nicolaescu: Nu cumva totusi cineva din aia v-a recunoscut?

Magureanu: Nu. In mod sigur, nu.

Daca incidentul prezinta importanta, in nume personal eu oricum puteam sa fiu terminat acolo. Daca as fi avut ceva de ascuns va dati seama ca nu-l reproduceam.

Ivan Sabin: De ce l-ati reprodus totusi, ca nu e asa important?

Magureanu: Ar trebui sa va decideti dl. Am remarcat ca nu aveti decat intepaturi pentru mine.

Deci dlor ne-am intors la televiziune.

In 23 seara la circa o ora-doua a venit dl Iliescu, abia atunci am putut sa stam de vorba si am plecat impreuna cu niste TAB-uri la Aparare. Era cu noi Voican. Motanu, Babone – care a si produs un incident in noaptea aceea, cred ca era securist, dar de proasta calitate. Dl Iliescu nu-i cunostea.

Vreau sa va spun un lucru, care cred ca ma disocia fata de ceilalti. Multi s-au bagat acolo, in grupul acela cam fara nici o legatura cu ceea ce se intamplase. Si multi au avut grija sa apara pe urma in umbra actualului presedinte (eventual barba, sa li se vada).

Sabin Ivan: Astia au ramas in continuare langa presedinte?

Magureanu: Dar dv. stiti aceste lucruri. In orice caz de aceea am intrebat pe dl Iliescu daca-i cunoaste pentru ca anturajul devenise incert, dupa parerea mea. Prea multa lume civila si intamplatoare in sediul Apararii. Si orice ar fi cand e vorba de armata si de militarie in actiuni de acest gen, multi incurca “batatura”.

Acolo erau perdelele trase, o canonada in draci. Se discuta “cam la podea”. Cand am intrat acolo, proaspatul numit ministru Militaru s-a apropiat de dl Iliescu si i-a spus ca situatia tinde sa scape de sub control. Si a inceput sa insire escadrile de elicoptere dinspre mare, desant aerian, coloane de blindate pe Oltenitei si inca vreo doua din astea.

Platica: Ati amintit adineauri de proaspat numitul ministru. Deci in seara de 23?

Magureanu: Deci Militaru era acolo in calitatea de care eu va vorbesc acum.

Platica: Din discutiile avute cu ceilalti, aceasta numire a fost plasata in ziua de 24 din punct de vedere sa-i spunem formal, iar de drept, din 25 sau 26.

Magureanu: E posibil ca semnarea acestei numiri sa fi fost ulterioara, insa Militaru era in tinuta militara. Oricum el a fost primul care s-a apropiat de Ion Iliescu si i-a prezentat ceea ce v-am spus. Nu stiu cata insemnatate are data, s-ar putea de vreme ce m-ati intrebat, dar efectiv eu asa tin minte; ca in seara de 23 el era deja ministrul apararii. Dar bineinteles se poate reconstitui. Poate fi intrebat si dl Iliescu, Stanculescu. Dragos Munteanu actual ambasador la Washington. M-as fi mirat sa nu fie asa pentru ca de un ministru al apararii in acel moment este evident ca era nevoie.

Platica: Este evident ca era, dar tocmai de atunci incolo se mai pun niste intrebari. Stiti cumva la sugestia cui s-a facut aceasta numire? Pentru ca era inca o situatie de provizorat. Chiar dv. mai adineauri ati spus ca ati ramas oarecum mirat de configuratia formulei care exista in cadrul ministerului. Cum de s-a ajuns la aceasta numire a dlui Militaru?

Magureanu: Nu sunt in masura sa va raspund eu. Eu v-am relatat situatia care am vazut-o acolo. Poate ca intrebati chiar pe impricinat.

Va rog permiteti sa derulez noaptea acea de 23-24, dupa care va rog foarte mult programati-ma la o data care o considerati dv. convenabila ca sa revin sa reluam amanuntit.

Deci in 23-24, lucrurile au mers ca asa. Pe un fond de razboi psihologic foarte dens, Militaru a spus atunci ceea ce v-am spus. Poate s-o confirme, poate ca a si comunicat-o. In acel moment, generalul Stanculescu, care era de fata, a zis ca “nu crede ca 95% pot fi adevarate”. Este mai degraba o alarma falsa. Deci cel care a incercat sa dea o imagine mai moderata a fost Stanculescu. Cu mai mult realism, mai multa luciditate.

Canonada era in toi. Si atunci s-a presupus ca MAN era inconjurat de profesionistii in terorism care intentioneau sa distruga creierul apararii militare. Si pe acest fond a aparut acolo un personaj, defunctul Ardeleanu, fostul sef al USLA, cu care regret ca nu am stat mai mult de vorba cu el.

Nu-mi aduc aminte daca Vlad era, in orice caz era in alta incapere daca era.

Mai era si cu cineva din fostii mai-marelui regim, un personaj de prim-rang langa Ardeleanu, pentru ca ei pe urma au fost izolati. In orice caz, incerc sa-mi aduc aminte pana data viitoare.

Sursa: Gardianul

destituirea 2 years ago

– Gloantele Vidia erau marca secreta a Romaniei impotriva unui atac sovietic de care Ceausescu se tot ferea inca de la invadarea Cehoslovaciei in 1968.

Added: 3 years ago
From: destituirea
Views: 16,343

image-14

https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/usla-bula-trosca-militaru-m-ap-n/

(Sergiu Nicolaescu, Cartea revolutiei romane.  Decembrie ’89, 1999, p. 217.)

Uzina Sadu-Gorj, august-septembrie 1989,

comanda de fabricatie a gloantelor explozive DUM-DUM

Referitor la existenta cartuselor explozive si perforante, dupa unele informatii rezulta ca in perioada august-septembrie 1989 la uzinele Sadu-Gorj s-a primit o comanda de executare a unor asemenea cartuse explozive.  Comanda a fost ordonata de Conducerea Superioara de partid si executata sub supravegherea stricta a unor ofiteri din fosta Securitate.

Asa cum s-a mai spus, asupra populatiei, dar si asupra militarilor MApN teroristii au folosit cartuse cu glont exploziv.  Cartusele respective de fabricarea carora fostul director al uzinei Constantin Hoara–actualmente deputat PSM Gorj–si ing. Constantin Filip nu sunt straini, au fost realizate sub legenda, potrivit careia, acestea urmai a fi folosite de Nicolae Ceausescu in cadrul partidelor de vanatoare.

Consider ca lt. col. Gridan fost ofiter de Contrainformatii pentru Uzina Sadu–actualmente pensionar ar putea confirma fabricarea unor asemenea cartuse si probabil si unele indicii cu privire la beneficiar.  Daca intr-adevar aceste cartuse au fost fabricate in Romania atunci este limpede ca o mare parte din teroristii din decembrie 1989 au fost autohtoni, iar organele de securitate nu sunt straine de acest lucru.

https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/2013/12/01/vina-de-neiertat-a-tvr-a-contribui-decisiv-la-victoria-revolutiei-i/

https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/2013/12/04/vina-de-neiertat-a-tvr-a-contribuit-decisiv-la-victoria-revolutiei-ii/

image0-001

image0

https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/2013/08/25/tvr-chirurgi-si-reportaje-despre-gloante-explozive-dum-dum/

https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/2013/05/16/dosarele-revolutiei-si-expertize-balistice-cine-a-tras-in-voi-cu-gloante-explozive/

https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/2013/12/06/vina-de-neiertat-a-tvr-a-contribuit-decisiv-la-victoria-revolutiei-iii/

Timage0-001

It took 22 years for the text of Securitate Director General Iulian Vlad’s handwritten declaration of 29 January 1990 to become public knowledge–thanks to former military prosecutor General Ioan Dan.  (Inevitably, there will no doubt be those who will allege that General Vlad was “forced” to write this declaration to save his skin, etc., that this was the “propaganda of the moment” and all a huge lie.  If that were the case, one would have expected Iliescu, Brucan, Militaru, Voican Voiculescu, etc. to have made every effort for Vlad’s declaration to leak to the media.  Instead, for 22 years it was hidden from public knowledge!)

Of Note:  No “Soviet tourists,” no DIA (Batallion 404) troops of the army’s intelligence wing, no “there were no terrorists:  the Army shot into everyone else and into itself”–in other words, none of the spurious claims that have littered the narrative landscape, fueled by the former Securitate over the past two decades plus.  No, Vlad knew who the terrorists of the Romanian Revolution of December 1989 were, because they reported to him!

image0

image0-002

General Magistrat (r) Ioan Dan

In aprilie 1990, generalul Ghoerghe Diaconescu a fost destituit din functia de conducere in Directia Procuraturilor Militare.  La plecare, mi-a predat cheia de la fisteul sau, cu mentiunea ca acolo au mai ramas cateva hartii fara importanta. Intrucat, la data respectiva, ma aflam in cea mai mare parte a timpului, in procesul cercetarilor de la Timisoara, mult mai tarziu, am dorit sa pun in respectivul fiset o serie de acte.  Am cercetat ce mai ramasese de pe urma generalului Diaconescu si, spre surprinderea mea, am gasit declaratia olografa a generalului Iulian Vlad, data fostului adjunct al procurorului general, fostul meu sef direct, nimeni altul decat generalul Diaconescu, la 29 ianuarie 1990, cand toate evenimentele din decembrie 1989 erau foarte proaspete.  Repet, este vorba despre declaratia olografa, un text scris foarte ingrijit, pe 10 pagini, din care voi reda acum integral doar partea care se refera expres la “actiunile teroriste in Capitala” (formularea apartine generalului Vlad).

“Analizand modul in care au inceput si s-au desfasurat actiunile teroriste in Capitala, pe baza acelor date si informatii ce le-am avut la dispozitie, consider ca acestea ar fi putut fi executate de:

1) Elementele din Directia a V-a, USLA, CTS si din alte unitati de Securitate, inclusiv speciale.

a) Directia a V-a, asa cum am mai spus, avea in responsabilitate paza si securitatea interioara a Palatului Republicii, multe dintre cadrele acestei unitati cunoscand foarte bine cladirea, cu toate detaliile ei.  In situatia creata in ziua de 22.12.1989, puteau sa mearga la Palat, pe langa cei care faceau acolo serviciul si unii dintre ofiterii si subofiterii care se aflau la sediul CC ori la unitate.

Este ca se poate de clar ca numai niste oameni care cunosteanu bine topografia locului ori erau in complicitate cu cei care aveau asemenea cunostinte puteau patrunde in cladire (sau pe acoperisul ei) si transporta armamentul si cantitatile mari de munitie pe care le-au avut la dispozitie.

Tot aceasta Directie dispunea de o baza puternica si in apropierea Televiziunii (la Televiziunea veche).  De asemenea, avea in responsabilitate perimetrul din zona resedintei unde se aflau numeroase case (vile) nelocuite si in care teroristii ar fi putut sa se ascunda ori sa-si faca puncte de sprijin.

Sunt si alte motive care pun pe prim-plan suspiciuni cu privire la aceasta unitate.

b) Elemente din cadrul unitatii speciale de lupta antiterroriste care aveau unele misiuni comune cu Directia a V-a si, ca si o parte a ofiterilor si subofiterilor de la aceasta unitate, dispuneau de o mai buna instruire si de mijloace de lupta mai diversificate.

c) Elemente din Trupele de Securitate care asigurau paza obiectivilor speciale (resedinta, palat etc.) si, impreuna cu Directia a-V-a, Securitatea Capitalei si Militia Capitalei asigurau traseul de deplasare.

d) Ofiteri si subofiteri din Securitatea Capitalei, indeosebi de la Serviciul Trasee, sau dintre cei care au lucrat la Directia a V-a.

e) Elemente din alte unitati de Securitate, inclusiv unitatile speciale 544, 195 si 110, precum si din cele complet acoperite, comandate de col. Maita, col. Valeanu, lt. col. Sirbu, col. Nica, col. Eftimie si lt. col. (Eftimie sau Anghelache) Gelu (asa sta scris in declaratie–n.n.).  Aceste din urma sase unitati, ca si UM 544, in ansamblu, si UM 195 puteau dispune si de armament si munitii de provenienta straina, precum si de conditii de pregatire adecvate.

2) Ofiteri si subofiteri din Militie, atat de la Capitala, cat si de la IGM, cu prioritate cei din Detasamentul special de interventie si cei care asigurau traseul.

3) Cred ca s-ar impune verificarea, prin metode si mijloace specifice, a tragatorilor de elita din toate unitatile din Capitala ale Ministerului de Interne, precum si a celor care au avut in dotare sau au indeplinit misiuni folosind arme cu luneta.  N-ar trebui omisi nici chiar cei de la Dinamo si de la alte cluburi sportive.

4) Unele cadre militare de rezerva ale Securitatii, Militiei si Armatei, precum si actuali (la data respectiva) si fosti activisti de partid sau UTC, persoane apropriate tradatorului si familiei sale ori care poseda arme de foc.

Propun, de asemenea, o atenta investigare a celor care au fost in anturajul lui Nicu Ceausescu.  Acest anturaj, foarte divers, cuprindea inclusive unele elemente de cea mai scazuta conditie morala care puteau fi pretabile la asemenea actiuni.

Ar fi bine sa se acorde atentia cuvenita sub acest aspect si fratilor dictatorului–Ceausescu Ilie si Ceausescu Nicolae–care, prin multiplele posibilitati pe care le aveau, puteau organiza asemenea actiuni.

5) Anumite cadre militare sau luptatori din Garzile Patriotice.

6) Straini:

a. Din randul celor aflati la studii in Romania:

– arabi, in general, si palestinieni, in special, inclusiv cei care sunt la pregatire pe linia Armatei (de exemplu, la Academia Militara);

– alte grupuri de straini la studii (iranieni si altii).

b. Special infiltrati (indeosebi din cei care au urmat diverse cursuri de pregatire pe linia MI sau a MAN);

c. Alti straini aflati in tara cu diverse acoperiri, inclusiv diplomatice;

d. Fosti cetateni romani (care ar fi putut intra in tara si in mod fraudulos).

7) Elemente infractoare de drept comun care au posedat armament ori l-au procurat in chiar primele ore din dupa-amiaza zilei de 22 decembrie 1989, cand, din mai multe unitati de Securitate, intre care Directia a V-a si Securitatea Capitalei, s-a ridicat o cantitate mare si diversa de armament si munitie.”

https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/2009/12/08/decembrie-1989-gloante-speciale-sau-ce-s-a-mai-gasit-in-cladirea-directiei-a-v-a/

https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/2013/09/07/former-securitate-officials-who-corroborated-general-iulian-vlads-declaration-on-the-terrorists-liviu-turcu-ion-mihai-pacepa-radu-vasilevici-marian-romanescu-and-others/

https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/2013/12/22/cine-a-tras-dupa-22-cine-au-fost-teroristii-inca-o-dovada-de-adevar-ce-lipseste-din-cartea-lui-marian-romanescu-fost-uslas/

https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/2014/05/03/decembrie-1989-securitatea-si-lupta-pe-teritoriul-vremelnic-ocupat/

As I previously wrote here:  it appears the Securitate was accorded a critical, if rarely discussed role in contingency plans for a possible invasion and occupation of Romanian territory, the so-called lupta de rezistenta (“resistance war”) or lupta pe teritoriul vremelnic ocupat (“war on temporarily occupied territory”)–which explains the “strange” and “anonmalous” characteristics of the “terrorists” after 22 December 1989.  (It is this which I believe also in part explains the refusal and reluctance of Romanian authorities to clarify the identity, intentions, and actions of the “terrorists” of December 1989.)

https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/2014/01/19/what-would-it-have-looked-like-if-nicolae-ceausescus-securitate-executed-a-plan-to-counter-an-invasion-but-the-invaders-never-came-i/

https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/2014/01/21/what-would-it-have-looked-like-if-nicolae-ceausescus-securitate-executed-a-plan-to-counter-an-invasionbut-the-invaders-never-came-ii/

https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/2014/01/24/what-would-it-have-looked-like-if-nicolae-ceausescus-securitate-executed-a-plan-to-counter-an-invasionbut-the-invaders-never-came-iii/

https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/2014/01/27/what-would-it-have-looked-like-if-nicolae-ceausescus-securitate-executed-a-plan-to-counter-an-invasionbut-the-invaders-never-came-iv/

This hypothesis gains confirmation from the following discussion found at http://fortespeciale.ro/securitatea-si-fortele-speciale/

– In 1989 USLA a avut mai multe interventii efectuate cu profesionalism, intre care una intr-un bloc dintr-un cartier bucurestean, interventie in urma careia au fost lichidati trei “teroristi” (dupa dotare -pistoale Makarov- probabil tot colegi de-ai lor, din alt compartiment, destinat luptei pe teritoriul vremelnic ocupat).

This appears to be a reference to an incident that transpired at the Hotel Ambasador in Bucuresti, which was mentioned in the following interview with Army Col. Ilie Stoleru by Mihail Galatanu in Flacara in July 1992 (see bottom of column 3 second xerox).

image-13

image-12

Indeed, the very clearly knowledgeable author of the above page(s) and information, came upon and used information from the internal “strict secret” Securitatea journal found on the site of the CNSAS (Consiliul Național pentru Studierea Arhivelor Securității (C.N.S.A.S.)) a year and a half before I did independently (thanks to a tip to its existence).

5. Lupta in conditii de clandestinitate/ teritoriu vremelnic ocupat a constituit o preocupare deosebita a Securitatii dupa 1968, cu doua varfuri de activitate: 1969 si 1987. S-au creat structuri destinate acestei misiuni, o parte dintre ele constituind asa numita retea de rezerva- in Directia I, cunoscuta sub diverse denumiri (Reteaua S- confundata de altfel foarte competentul istoric Alex Mihai Stoenescu cu Unitatea Speciala S).

In afra de luptatorii din reteaua de rezistenta, toate unitatile si cadrele Securitatii erau pregatite pentru actiuni clandestine in teritoriul vremelnic ocupat (un fel de a doua specialitate).

 

 

6. Prin actiuni in adancimea strategica a teritoriului inamic intelegem o parte dintre misiunile paramilitare executate pe teritoriul unor state.

In aceasta categorie intra si UM o544/R din cadrul CIE, care se ocupa cu antiterorismul pe plan extern (“antiterorism” fiind un eufemism), dar si Brigada U (“Fantome”, “Ilegali” etc) unii dintre ofiterii infiltrati ar fi avut in caz de razboi printre misiuni si executarea unor sabotaje/diversiuni.

Este relevant ca o buna perioada de vreme toti ofiterii securitatii erau brevetati parasutisti, parasutarea fiind unul dintre mijloacele clasice de infiltrare, intre timp inlocuit de alte procedee mai putin romantice, dar mai eficiente.

 

 

NOTA * sursa CNSAS

Other interesting tidbits from this post, echo information found elsewhere:

– In afara de colaborarea cu GSG9, ofiteri ai USLA au fost trimisi in Liban unde au fost instruiti de membri Al Fatah. Au circulat si zvonuri legate de colaborari cu Israelul si de cadre USLA trimise la centrul sovietic de instructie spetsnaz de la Odesa, insa deocamdata n-au fost confirmate.

– Dotarea USLA era unica la nivelul Romaniei: casti balistice sovietice K6-3 (din titan), pistoale mitraliera cu teava scurta, pistoale automate Stechkin, autovehicule blindate de interventie (ABI), carabine cu luneta model 44 cu amortizor de zgomot etc.

We have had other information suggesting precisely the involvement and role of the USLA in such a contingency:

destituirea 2 years ago

– Gloantele Vidia erau marca secreta a Romaniei impotriva unui atac sovietic de care Ceausescu se tot ferea inca de la invadarea Cehoslovaciei in 1968.

Added: 3 years ago
From: destituirea
Views: 16,343

image-14

 

image0-001

It took 22 years for the text of Securitate Director General Iulian Vlad’s handwritten declaration of 29 January 1990 to become public knowledge–thanks to former military prosecutor General Ioan Dan.  (Inevitably, there will no doubt be those who will allege that General Vlad was “forced” to write this declaration to save his skin, etc., that this was the “propaganda of the moment” and all a huge lie.  If that were the case, one would have expected Iliescu, Brucan, Militaru, Voican Voiculescu, etc. to have made every effort for Vlad’s declaration to leak to the media.  Instead, for 22 years it was hidden from public knowledge!)

Of Note:  No “Soviet tourists,” no DIA (Batallion 404) troops of the army’s intelligence wing, no “there were no terrorists:  the Army shot into everyone else and into itself”–in other words, none of the spurious claims that have littered the narrative landscape, fueled by the former Securitate over the past two decades plus.  No, Vlad knew who the terrorists of the Romanian Revolution of December 1989 were, because they reported to him!

image0

image0-002

General Magistrat (r) Ioan Dan

In aprilie 1990, generalul Ghoerghe Diaconescu a fost destituit din functia de conducere in Directia Procuraturilor Militare.  La plecare, mi-a predat cheia de la fisteul sau, cu mentiunea ca acolo au mai ramas cateva hartii fara importanta. Intrucat, la data respectiva, ma aflam in cea mai mare parte a timpului, in procesul cercetarilor de la Timisoara, mult mai tarziu, am dorit sa pun in respectivul fiset o serie de acte.  Am cercetat ce mai ramasese de pe urma generalului Diaconescu si, spre surprinderea mea, am gasit declaratia olografa a generalului Iulian Vlad, data fostului adjunct al procurorului general, fostul meu sef direct, nimeni altul decat generalul Diaconescu, la 29 ianuarie 1990, cand toate evenimentele din decembrie 1989 erau foarte proaspete.  Repet, este vorba despre declaratia olografa, un text scris foarte ingrijit, pe 10 pagini, din care voi reda acum integral doar partea care se refera expres la “actiunile teroriste in Capitala” (formularea apartine generalului Vlad).

“Analizand modul in care au inceput si s-au desfasurat actiunile teroriste in Capitala, pe baza acelor date si informatii ce le-am avut la dispozitie, consider ca acestea ar fi putut fi executate de:

1) Elementele din Directia a V-a, USLA, CTS si din alte unitati de Securitate, inclusiv speciale.

a) Directia a V-a, asa cum am mai spus, avea in responsabilitate paza si securitatea interioara a Palatului Republicii, multe dintre cadrele acestei unitati cunoscand foarte bine cladirea, cu toate detaliile ei.  In situatia creata in ziua de 22.12.1989, puteau sa mearga la Palat, pe langa cei care faceau acolo serviciul si unii dintre ofiterii si subofiterii care se aflau la sediul CC ori la unitate.

Este ca se poate de clar ca numai niste oameni care cunosteanu bine topografia locului ori erau in complicitate cu cei care aveau asemenea cunostinte puteau patrunde in cladire (sau pe acoperisul ei) si transporta armamentul si cantitatile mari de munitie pe care le-au avut la dispozitie.

Tot aceasta Directie dispunea de o baza puternica si in apropierea Televiziunii (la Televiziunea veche).  De asemenea, avea in responsabilitate perimetrul din zona resedintei unde se aflau numeroase case (vile) nelocuite si in care teroristii ar fi putut sa se ascunda ori sa-si faca puncte de sprijin.

Sunt si alte motive care pun pe prim-plan suspiciuni cu privire la aceasta unitate.

b) Elemente din cadrul unitatii speciale de lupta antiterroriste care aveau unele misiuni comune cu Directia a V-a si, ca si o parte a ofiterilor si subofiterilor de la aceasta unitate, dispuneau de o mai buna instruire si de mijloace de lupta mai diversificate.

c) Elemente din Trupele de Securitate care asigurau paza obiectivilor speciale (resedinta, palat etc.) si, impreuna cu Directia a-V-a, Securitatea Capitalei si Militia Capitalei asigurau traseul de deplasare.

d) Ofiteri si subofiteri din Securitatea Capitalei, indeosebi de la Serviciul Trasee, sau dintre cei care au lucrat la Directia a V-a.

e) Elemente din alte unitati de Securitate, inclusiv unitatile speciale 544, 195 si 110, precum si din cele complet acoperite, comandate de col. Maita, col. Valeanu, lt. col. Sirbu, col. Nica, col. Eftimie si lt. col. (Eftimie sau Anghelache) Gelu (asa sta scris in declaratie–n.n.).  Aceste din urma sase unitati, ca si UM 544, in ansamblu, si UM 195 puteau dispune si de armament si munitii de provenienta straina, precum si de conditii de pregatire adecvate.

2) Ofiteri si subofiteri din Militie, atat de la Capitala, cat si de la IGM, cu prioritate cei din Detasamentul special de interventie si cei care asigurau traseul.

3) Cred ca s-ar impune verificarea, prin metode si mijloace specifice, a tragatorilor de elita din toate unitatile din Capitala ale Ministerului de Interne, precum si a celor care au avut in dotare sau au indeplinit misiuni folosind arme cu luneta.  N-ar trebui omisi nici chiar cei de la Dinamo si de la alte cluburi sportive.

4) Unele cadre militare de rezerva ale Securitatii, Militiei si Armatei, precum si actuali (la data respectiva) si fosti activisti de partid sau UTC, persoane apropriate tradatorului si familiei sale ori care poseda arme de foc.

Propun, de asemenea, o atenta investigare a celor care au fost in anturajul lui Nicu Ceausescu.  Acest anturaj, foarte divers, cuprindea inclusive unele elemente de cea mai scazuta conditie morala care puteau fi pretabile la asemenea actiuni.

Ar fi bine sa se acorde atentia cuvenita sub acest aspect si fratilor dictatorului–Ceausescu Ilie si Ceausescu Nicolae–care, prin multiplele posibilitati pe care le aveau, puteau organiza asemenea actiuni.

5) Anumite cadre militare sau luptatori din Garzile Patriotice.

6) Straini:

a. Din randul celor aflati la studii in Romania:

– arabi, in general, si palestinieni, in special, inclusiv cei care sunt la pregatire pe linia Armatei (de exemplu, la Academia Militara);

– alte grupuri de straini la studii (iranieni si altii).

b. Special infiltrati (indeosebi din cei care au urmat diverse cursuri de pregatire pe linia MI sau a MAN);

c. Alti straini aflati in tara cu diverse acoperiri, inclusiv diplomatice;

d. Fosti cetateni romani (care ar fi putut intra in tara si in mod fraudulos).

7) Elemente infractoare de drept comun care au posedat armament ori l-au procurat in chiar primele ore din dupa-amiaza zilei de 22 decembrie 1989, cand, din mai multe unitati de Securitate, intre care Directia a V-a si Securitatea Capitalei, s-a ridicat o cantitate mare si diversa de armament si munitie.”

https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/2009/12/08/decembrie-1989-gloante-speciale-sau-ce-s-a-mai-gasit-in-cladirea-directiei-a-v-a/

https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/2013/09/07/former-securitate-officials-who-corroborated-general-iulian-vlads-declaration-on-the-terrorists-liviu-turcu-ion-mihai-pacepa-radu-vasilevici-marian-romanescu-and-others/

https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/2013/12/22/cine-a-tras-dupa-22-cine-au-fost-teroristii-inca-o-dovada-de-adevar-ce-lipseste-din-cartea-lui-marian-romanescu-fost-uslas/

https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/2014/09/21/maracineni-securitatea-si-lupta-de-rezistenta-pe-teritoriul-vremelnic-ocupat-de-inamic-decembrie-89-soferii-iadului-in-varianta-autohtona-expres-19-25-ianuarie-1993/

http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comuna_M%C4%83r%C4%83cineni,_Buz%C4%83u

Possibly linked to the Maracineni case is the following:   Securitatea: Lupta de rezistenta in cadrul razboiului de aparare a patriei. Particularitati ale participarii unitatilor centrale si teritoriale de securitate la organizarea si ducerea luptei de rezistenta pe teritoriul vremelnic ocupat de inamic.  https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/2014/01/27/what-would-it-have-looked-like-if-nicolae-ceausescus-securitate-executed-a-plan-to-counter-an-invasionbut-the-invaders-never-came-iv/

image0

image0-003

image0

image0-001

Ioanesi Adrian ( 548 )
Profesie: Soldat in termen la UM 01027 Piatra-Neamt, sublocotenent post-mortem
Data nasteri: 24.09.1969
Locul nasterii: Vaslui
Calitate: Erou Martir
Data mortii: 24 decembrie 1989
Locul mortii: Maracineni, Buzau
Cauza: Impuscat in inima si cap
Vinovati:
Observatii:

http://www.portalulrevolutiei.ro/index.php?menu=1&jud=53

“In jurul orei 02,30 a fost impuscat, din spate, de 2 gloante de provenienta straina–unul in cap si unul in omoplatul sting.  Se presupune ca s-a tras cu arme de constructie speciala, foarte eficiente si pe timp de noapte.” Armata Poporului, p. 3, nr. 41 (44) Octombrie 1990.

Cazul Maracineni

Another small group of people wearing “black jumpsuits” held a military convoy under fire near the city of Buzau. On the evening of 23 December 1989, a military convoy from Piatra Neamt en route to Bucharest reached the community of Maracineni near Buzau.  Members of the local military unit told the soldiers from Piatra Neamt that

image0-002

…the unit had been attacked by two people, a civilian and Militia NCO, who disappeared with an Oltcit [car] and an ABI vehicle [an armored transport used exclusively by the Securitate’s USLA].  Shortly after [being told] this, gunfire opened on the convoy.  And gunfire reopened on the local military unit….those from the unit fired back with ordinance that lit the sky, in this way enabling them to observe a group of 3-4 armed people, wearing black jumpsuits (“salopete negre”) who were shooting while constantly changing position.  At the same time, on the radio frequencies of the convoy, they received messages about coming devastating attacks, and even Soviet intervention.  All of these proved to be simple disinformation.  The next day, in a moment of calm, villagers brought the soldiers food, and related how the terrorists had occupied attics of their houses.  They said they [the occupiers] were Romanians and that in a few words they had ordered [the villagers] to let them into the attics of their houses….In general, they shot at night, but on 25 December the cannonade continued during the day…. Curiously, the ‘fighting’ in Maracineni continued until 30 December.  Who and for whom were they trying to impress? [emphasis added][55]

Indeed, there are three key aspects here:  1) this was not a heavily populated area, thereby undermining arguments about “operetta-like” fake warfare to impress the population, 2) it is difficult to explain this episode as the result of “misunderstandings” between units, and 3) the gunfire lasted well over a week, a fact that is difficult to ascribe to confusion.

Ilie Stoian, Arta Diversiunii, 1993, pp. 55-57.

https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/2011/08/25/teroristii-din-decembrie-1989-camasile-negre-a-fekete-ingesek-the-black-shirts-uslac/

http://www.romanialibera.ro/exclusiv-rl/campaniile-rl/exclusiv-cum-au-disparut-gloantele-de-la-revolutie-si-despre-mortii-in-salopete-negre-247874.html

https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.wordpress.com/2010/09/30/%E2%80%9Corwellian%E2%80%A6positively-orwellian%E2%80%9D-prosecutor-voinea%E2%80%99s-campaign-to-sanitize-the-romanian-revolution-of-december-1989-part-four-the-mysterious-men-in-black/

Advertisements

Posted in decembrie 1989, raport final | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

25 for the 25th Anniversary of the Romanian Revolution: #8 Romania closes its borders to almost all foreigners…except Russian tourists returning from shopping trips to Yugoslavia (18-19 December 1989)

Posted by romanianrevolutionofdecember1989 on December 19, 2014

(Purely personal views as always, based on over two decades of research and publications inside and outside Romania)

2014 marks the 25th anniversary of the collapse of communism in central and eastern Europe–Poland, Hungary, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania.  This series looks at 25 things I have learned about the events of the Romanian Revolution of December 1989.  The numbering is not designed to assign importance, but rather–to the extent possible–to progress chronologically through those events.

Significance:  During the meeting of the equivalent of the Politburo of the Romanian Communist Party on the afternoon of 17 December 1989, Nicolae Ceausescu announced:  “I have ordered that all tourist activity be interrupted at once. Not one more foreign tourist will be allowed in, because they have all turned into agents of espionage….Not even those from the socialist countries will be allowed in, outside of [North] Korea, China, and Cuba. Because all the neighboring socialist countries are untrustworthy. Those sent from the neighboring socialist countries are sent as agents.”  On 18 December 1989, in the aftermath of the bloodbath of regime repression that had transpired in Timisoara the night before, it was officially announced–in typical Ceausist- (and undeniably Orwellian) style–that Romania would not accept any more tourists because of a “shortage of hotel rooms” and because “weather conditions” were “not suitable for tourism.”  Only it turned out in practice one group of tourists from a neighboring communist state were exempted from this requirement:  Soviet tourists returning home from shopping trips in Yugoslavia…

image0

FBIS-EEU-89-242 (19 December 1989), p. 85.  Paris AFP in English 1430 GMT 19 December 1989.

Vatin, Yugoslavia, Dec. 19 (AFP)

Romania’s borders are now closed to all but Soviet travellers, who pass through Romania to return home after shopping trips to Yugoslavia….

An AGENCE FRANCE PRESSE reporter was curtly told to “go back home, only Russians can get through,” after two Romanian border guards–one armed with a Kalashnikov rifle with an Alsatian guard dog at his side–carried out a detailed inspection of the license plates on some 15 cars waiting to cross.

I have been using this source since back in the 1990s when I wrote my dissertation (defended December 1996) at Indiana University (Bloomington), but I still get a kick out of it when I come across it–particularly in light of the seemingly never-ending, snowballing revisionism which alleges that the Timisoara uprising was sparked by “Soviet tourists” or “Russian tourists,” etc.

https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/2013/03/28/yugoslavia-romania-border-19-december-1989-an-agence-france-presse-reporter-was-curtly-told-to-go-back-home-only-russians-can-get-through/

 

An excerpt from

A chapter from my Ph.D. Dissertation at Indiana University: Richard Andrew Hall, Rewriting the Revolution: Authoritarian Regime-State Relations and the Triumph of Securitate Revisionism in Post-Ceausescu Romania (defended 16 December 1996). This is the original chapter as it appeared then [minus the xeroxes] and thus has not been revised in any form.

https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/rewriting-the-revolution-1997-chapter-6-18-22-december-1989/ (traducere de catre Marius Mioc 18-19 decembrie 1989 )

18-19 December 1989: The Timisoara Crackdown in Ceausescu’s Absence

Considering the centrality of the “foreign tourist” scenario to Securitate-inspired accounts of the December events, it is interesting to note the actions taken by the Ceausescu regime on 18 December 1989. At the close of the emergency CPEx meeting on Sunday afternoon, Nicolae Ceausescu had announced:

I have ordered that all tourist activity be interrupted at once. Not one more foreign tourist will be allowed in, because they have all turned into agents of espionage….Not even those from the socialist countries will be allowed in, outside of [North] Korea, China, and Cuba. Because all the neighboring socialist countries are untrustworthy. Those sent from the neighboring socialist countries are sent as agents.[5]

[from Mircea Bunea, Praf in ochi:  Procesul celor 24-1-2 (Editura Scripta, 1994), p. 34.]

image0-001

On Monday, 18 December 1989, in typical Ceausist-style it was therefore announced that Romania would not accept any more tourists because of a “shortage of hotel rooms” and because “weather conditions” were “not suitable for tourism.”[6] Ironically, the only ones exempted from this ban were: “Soviet travellers coming home from shopping trips to Yugoslavia”(!)[7]

Thus, it is intriguing to see how former Securitate Colonel Filip Teodorescu tailors his characterization of Timisoara on 18 December to account for this change:

There were few foreigners in the hotels, the majority of them having fled the town after lunch [on 17 December] when the clashes began to break out. The interested parties remained. Our attention is drawn to the unjustifiably large number of Soviet tourists, be they by bus or car. Not all of them stayed in hotels. They either had left their buses, or stayed in their cars overnight. Border records indicate their points of entry as being through northern Transylvania. They all claimed they were in transit to Yugoslavia. The explanation was plausible, the Soviets being well-known for their shopping trips. Unfortunately, we did not have enough forces and the conditions did not allow us to monitor the activities of at least some of these “tourists.”[8]

[from Filip Teodorescu, Un Risc Asumat, 1992, p. 92]

image-68

This raises the question of why, if the Soviet tourists were the ones suspected from the first of being behind the unrest, it should have been exactly they who were given continued access into Romania? One of the most effective rejections of the “tourist” scenario came in 1991 from “a group of [Army] officers from the Timisoara garrison.” In an open letter, they proclaimed:

If they [the tourists] appeared suspect to the special forces of the Securitate and counter-military intelligence, why did they not attempt to keep them under surveillance? During this period, did the Securitate and the counter-intelligence officers not know how to do their jobs? Did they somehow forget why they were paid such weighty sums from the state budget?[9]

[Un Grup de Ofiteri din Garnizoana Timisoara, Romania Libera, 15 octombrie 1991
“4.  Existenta unui mare numar de turisti straini, care s-au deplasat (cu autoturisme) spre Timisoara si prin Timisoara.
Cine au fost acei turisti?  Turisti banuiti, si ei, de intentii destabalizatoare.
Daca fortelor speciale de securitate si contrainformatii militare li s-au parut suspecti, de ce nu s-au procedat la verificarea acestora?  Oare in acel rastimp, securistii si contrainformatorii nu mai stiau sa-si faca meseria?  Au uitat pentru ce erau platiti, din bugetul statului, cu bani grei?”]

As we mentioned earlier, in an interesting psychological twist the former Securitate sometimes appear to attribute their own actions to others, especially the convenient phantom-like “foreign tourists.” Some of the Securitate‘s arguments also appear to be based on the manipulation and perversion of real information which has been ripped from its context and placed in another one which suits the Securitate‘s institutional interests better. For example, the comments of the Yugoslav News Agency (TANJUG) correspondent at the Vatin border post on 20 December 1989 may give us a hint as to where the idea of “foreign tourists travelling in convoys of cars” originated from:

People who spent a long time at this crossing point today say that the Romanian government is even accompanying private cars of tourists returning home via Romania. They usually wait until five or six of them assemble and then let them continue in convoys led by official Romanian cars.[10]

[5].. See Mircea Bunea, Praf in Ochi. Procesul Celor 24-1-2. (Bucharest: Editura Scripta, 1994), 34.

[6].. Belgrade Domestic Service, 1400 GMT 20 December 1989, in FBIS-EEU-89-243, 20 December 1989.

[7].. Agence France Presse, 19 December 1989, in FBIS-EEU-89-242, 19 December 1989.

[8].. Filip Teodorescu, Un Risc Asumat: Timisoara decembrie 1989 (Bucharest: Editura Viitorul Romanesc, 1992), 92.

[9].. Un grup de ofiteri din garnizoana Timisoara, “FRICA DE PROPRIUL POPOR… [Fear of your own people]” Romania Libera, 15 October 1991, 2a.

[10].. Belgrade TANJUG, 2137 GMT 20 December 1989, in FBIS-EEU-89-244, 21 December 1989, 80. Disinformation is frequently thought of as synonymous with the “big lie,” but indeed the most effective disinformation always contains a kernel of truth. Frequently, real facts are merely presented out of context. It is also intriguing to note the almost Freudian mirror-imaging quality of this disinformation–a characteristic common to totalitarian regimes. This is especially the case when it comes to the accusations of foreign powers being engaged in “terrorist actions”–an eerily accurate description of the Ceausescu regime’s own actions.

—————————————-

In combination with the following declarations from late December 1989 and early 1990 by senior officials of the former Securitate, dispatched to find evidence of Nicolae Ceausescu’s (/General Iulian Vlad’s) theory of what was transpiring in Timisoara, but who found no evidence of such involvement, this should be a body blow to the revisionist “recovered memory” regarding “Russian/Soviet tourists” in the Timisoara uprising.

https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/2014/08/23/nicolae-ceausescus-paranoia-as-a-theory-for-explaining-december-1989/

https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/2013/03/17/filip-teodorescu-adj-sef-dir-iii-contraspionaj-d-s-s-nu-sint-date-ca-ar-exista-instigatori-sau-conducatori-anume-veniti-din-strainatate/

https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/2013/03/16/emil-macri-rezumind-sintetic-informatiile-obtinute-ele-nu-au-pus-in-evidenta-nici-lideri-si-nici-amestecul-vreunei-puteri-straine-in-producerea-evenimentelor-de-la-timisoara/

https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/2013/03/10/liviu-dinulescu-cpt-la-serviciul-de-pasapoarte-al-jud-timis-precizez-ca-anterior-declansarii-evenimentelor-de-la-timisoara-din-datele-ce-le-detineam-serviciul-nostru-nu-rezulta-vreun-amestec-di/

https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/2013/03/06/secretele-revolutiei-de-la-timisoara-col-niculae-mavru-fost-sef-al-sectiei-filaj-si-investigatie-de-la-securitatea-timis/

https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/ultimul-raport-al-securitatii-catre-nicolae-ceausescu/

 

25 for the 25th Anniversary of the Romanian Revolution: #1 The Securitate Deny Foreign Instigation of the Timisoara Uprising

25 for the 25th Anniversary of the Romanian Revolution: #2 Shattered Glass: Securitate Vandalism to Justify Timisoara Crackdown

25 for the 25th Anniversary of the Romanian Revolution: #3 “Anti-terrorism” and Regime Repression

25 for the 25th Anniversary of the Romanian Revolution: #4 Timisoara Demonstrators Injured and Killed by Dum-Dum Bullets

25 for the 25th Anniversary of the Romanian Revolution: #5 Timisoara (Podul Decebal) Evidence Suggests only the Securitate Had Dum-Dum Bullets

25 for the 25th Anniversary of the Romanian Revoluion: #6 The Securitate Sends a Coded-Message to Its Undercovers in the Field (“Citeva sfaturi pentru cei aflati in aceste zile la mare,” Scinteia Tineretului, 18 December 1989)

25 for the 25th Anniversary of the Romanian Revolution: #7 Nicolae Ceausescu Leaves on a Less-than-spontaneous Trip to Iran (18 December 1989)

Posted in decembrie 1989, raport final | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments »

25 for the 25th Anniversary of the Romanian Revolution: #2 Shattered Glass: Securitate Vandalism to Justify Timisoara Crackdown

Posted by romanianrevolutionofdecember1989 on December 16, 2014

(Purely personal views as always, based on over two decades of research and publications inside and outside Romania)

2014 marks the 25th anniversary of the collapse of communism in central and eastern Europe–Poland, Hungary, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania.  This series looks at 25 things I have learned about the events of the Romanian Revolution of December 1989.  The numbering is not designed to assign importance, but rather–to the extent possible–to progress chronologically through those events.

Significance:  I have essentially been the only researcher who has consistently advocated this understanding.  Most others–including Peter Siani-Davies–tended to dismiss it.  Now we have documentary evidence that it took place.

An excellent documentary from 1991 posted to the internet by Florin Iepan only recently and seen rarely if at all since its showing in 1991.  There is much interesting information in this film.  (The film seems to start at min. 19:00 and has to be rewound to its beginning.)  Here, I will focus on the claim beginning at approximately min. 17:40 that the destruction of Timisoara shops and storefronts was organized and a pretext to justify–including legally–the repression by the Ceausescu regime of Timisoara demonstrators.  Interior Minister Tudor Postelnicu’s declaration of 17 March 1990 confirms this claim and the observations of eyewitnesses.

Timisoara Decembrie 1989 / Timisoara December 1989,

regia/directed by – Ovidiu Bose Pastina
imaginea/camera – Doru Segal

Sahiafilm 1991

Tudor Postelnicu (Ministerul de Interne in decembrie 1989):  “Unii militari de la trupele de securitate ale brigazii Timisoara au facut unele provocari la unele magazine si vitrine spargind geamurile sa imprastie participantii de pe straziile din apropriere, apoi au intrat in altercatie cu ei, si acum (?) vor sa le faca militia ordine.  ‘Nu am aflat ca costa provocare a zis Gl. Nuta, am trimis pe …” (17.III.1990) 

http://sensidev.com/fc/dosare%20de%20urmarire%20penala/dosar%20%20de%20urmarire%20penala%20volumul%2011/IMG_2576.JPG (Dosarul de Urmarire Penala, Vol. 11, IMG 2576)

IMG_2576

image0

Before we move on here, it is worth noting how this destruction was covered in Peter Siani-Davies’ 2005 volume The Romanian Revolution of December 1989.  As I have written on many occasions, Siani-Davies’ volume is wonderfully-written and is excellent, but the claim by Daniel Chirot that is a “near-definitive” account is far off the mark.  One of the negative characteristics of Siani-Davies’ work is the use of “filler” rational choice, cui bono arguments where he concludes there is not enough information to make a valid judgment.  The problem is the question is never one of “what was possible?” “what makes ‘sense’?” but rather what did happen?

Thus, for example in the case of the destruction of Timisoara Siani-Davies argues that there was already enough of a basis for the regime to crackdown, therefore why would they need to create a pretext for cracking down:  “Given the seriousness of the situation and the fact that shots had already been fired elsewhere, the security forces hardly needed to produce a further ‘excuse’ for the massacre which was to follow.” (p. 68)

image0-001

image0-003

Back to exploring more of the evidence…

An excerpt from Chapter 5 of my Ph.D. Dissertation at Indiana University: Richard Andrew Hall, Rewriting the Revolution: Authoritarian Regime-State Relations and the Triumph of Securitate Revisionism in Post-Ceausescu Romania (defended 16 December 1996). This is the original chapter as it appeared then and thus has not been revised in any form.

Chapter Five.  The Beginning of the End: Timisoara, 15-17 December 1989

The “Window Breakers”

The reportedly unusual scope of physical destruction which occurred in Timisoara, particularly on the afternoon and evening of 17 December 1989, has fueled revisionist arguments. Estimates of the damage during the Timisoara unrest are in the neighborhood of four to five billion lei (approximately forty to fifty million dollars at the time), a reasonably large sum given Romania’s standard of living at the time. A huge number of windows was broken and as many as 300 to 400 stores suffered some sort of damage, although relatively few were actually looted. On the evening of 17 December, stores, vehicles, and kiosks were burning in at least ten different areas of the city.[65]

Former Securitate officers clearly wish to link this destruction to the “foreign tourists” who were supposedly so ubiquitous in Timisoara during these days.[66] Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, former Securitate Director Iulian Vlad argued at his trial that

…the acts of vandalism, theft, destruction, arson… acts without precedent…could not have been the work [“opera”] of the faithful [apparently referring sarcastically to Tokes’ parishioners], nor the revolutionaries. They were produced by elements which wished to create a certain atmosphere of tension.[67]

Eyewitness accounts recorded soon after the events–therefore at a time before the various plots and scenarios had permeated the popular imagination–support the hypothesis that the vandalism was organized. Moldovan Fica remarks:

I admit that I cannot escape a certain conclusion. All of this [destruction] was done by a group of about five or six individuals, whose calm demeanor and self-control continues to stay with me to this day. They did not run from the scene, they appeared as if they did not fear anything; I would say that, in fact, they were doing what was required of them, something which had been ordered directly of them![75]

Describing destruction in a different part of the city, Andras Vasile observed that

…four young men with shaved heads and wearing civilian clothes had sticks–I would term them special sticks–1.7 to 1.8 meters long, equipped with metal rings on the top of them. They were breaking the windows, but not taking anything, as if they only had something against the windows, something which they thus went about with great enjoyment…they were led by two individuals in leather jackets.[76]

Other eyewitnesses supply details which confirm the widespread character of the vandalism; its undeniably organized quality; the disinterest of its perpetrators in looting the stores; and the almost “drugged” nature of the perpetrators, who seemed unperturbed by the chaos and repression going on around them.[77]

https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/rewriting-the-revolution-1997/

image0-005

Moldovan Fica (martor ocular)

image0-001

image0

Andras Vasile (martor ocular)

image0-003

image0-002

image0-004

Ioan Savu discussed the windowbreakers as follows:

0282

0280

———————————-

Other depictions of this event available online:

Conducerea partidului, alarmată, a trimis în Piaţa Maria, conform Ordinului 02600, numeroşi miliţieni şi trupe speciale, pentru a lichida manifestaţia care luase amploare. Circulaţia în zonă se întrerupsese. În Piaţa Maria au fost trimişi aproximativ 200 de activişti de partid, miliţieni şi numeroşi ofiţeri de securitate, îmbrăcaţi în haine civile. Au urmat ciocniri violente, mai ales după ce manifestanţii s-au încolonat şi au pornit spre sediul CJ PCR, strigând “Libertate”, “Vrem pâine”, “Vrem căldură”, “Azi la Timişoara, mâine în toată ţara”.
În acea seară echipe de miliţie dinainte pregătite au spart vitrinele magazinelor din centrul oraşului, pentru a avea argumente pentru o intervenţie în forţă. Desigur, multe vitrine au fost sparte şi de derbedei, asupra cărora s-au găsit bunuri furate. În acea noapte au fost arestate aproape 5-600 de cetăţeni. Ei au fost duşi la Penitenciarul oraşului, unde au fost bătuţi în mod bestial. În zilele care au urmat arestării au fost anchetaţi în vederea trimiterii lor în judecată. Bineînţeles, dacă Revoluţia n-ar fi reuşit.

“Azi la Timişoara”
Ivan Sabin

http://revista.memoria.ro/?location=view_article&id=371

Totuşi, se ştie că în acele zile fierbinţi din Timişoara au existat „personaje neidentificate” care au acţionat în mai multe zone ale oraşului. Am să amintesc aici doar două aspecte concrete cu privire la implicarea acestora în evenimentele din Timişoara. În zilele de 16 şi 17 decembrie au fost sparte aproape toate vitrinele magazinelor din zona centrală a oraşului. Sunt zeci de declaraţii ale revoluţionarilor care fac o descriere clară a celor care au spart acele geamuri. Au fost oameni bine îmbrăcaţi, robuşti şi tunşi scurt. Aceştia erau dotaţi cu nişte beţe speciale cu care printr-un gest scurt şi foarte bine exersat loveau vitrinele, după care plecau fără a încerca să sustragă ceva din magazine. Aceste persoane au fost văzute chiar şi de forţele de ordine desfăşurate în acea zonă, care în mod ciudat nu au luat măsuri împotriva lor, ci au acţionat împotriva manifestanţilor ce demonstrau împotriva regimului ceauşist. Un alt aspect relatat de mulţi timişoreni se referă mai ales la zilele de 17-19 decembrie, când, în rândul cordoanelor militare din diferite dispozitive amplasate în zonele importante ale oraşului, între soldaţi, erau intercalate persoane mai în vârstă, nebărbierite îmbrăcate doar parţial în uniforme militare, care nu făceau parte din acele unităţi militare.

Cine au fost acele „persoane neidentificate”? De ce s-a dorit în unele cercuri, cu insistenţă chiar, acreditarea ideii că oamenii au fost scoşi în stradă de agenţi străini? De ce, chiar şi după 20 de ani, se fac afirmaţii de genul: cadavrele celor arşi la Crematoriul „Cenuşa” erau ale unor agenţi străini? Nu voi căuta acum răspunsuri la aceste întrebări, dar, cu siguranţă, ele există.

Kali Adrian Matei

nascut in 30 iulie 1968 la Timisoara, muncitor la IJPIPS (1989), profesor de istorie la Liceul de informatica (1998), impuscat in spate

La Bijuterii concetatenii nostri tigani carau ce puteau. Numai la “Modex” nu era spart. Un grup de oameni se uitau cum niste indivizi bine instruiti spargeau geamurile de linga restaurantul Bulevard. Am rugat oamenii sa apere Modexul, pentru ca era clar ca spargatorii n-aveau nimic comun cu revolta.  30 septembrie 1995  http://timisoara.com/newmioc/4.htm

“În data de 14 decembrie, securitatea a spart toate gemurile din partea străzii principale, iar clădirea arăta ca o cetate asediată. Fostul primar al Timişorei, Petre Moţ l-a vizitat pe Tokes şi a ieşit la geam pentru a vorbi mulţimii. Moţ a cerut să se pună geamuri noi. Erau foarte multe maşini ale securiştilor. Întreaga stradă era ocupată. Se făcea filaj. Eu locuiam acolo, ba intram, ba ieşeam. Nu se vorbea încă revoluţie. Era o solidaritatea faţă de pastor”, declarat Iosif Kabai (foto), care locuieşte şi acum în clădirea bisericii reformate.Citeste mai mult: adevarul.ro/locale/timisoara/16-decembrie-1989-ziua-timisoara-s-a-strigat-data-democratie-jos-comunismul-1_50bd3d887c42d5a663c8e01f/index.html

Radu Tinu cu Angela Bacescu…

The reportedly unusual scope of physical destruction which occurred in Timisoara, particularly on the afternoon and evening of 17 December 1989, has fueled revisionist arguments. Estimates of the damage during the Timisoara unrest are in the neighborhood of four to five billion lei (approximately forty to fifty million dollars at the time), a reasonably large sum given Romania’s standard of living at the time. A huge number of windows was broken and as many as 300 to 400 stores suffered some sort of damage, although relatively few were actually looted. On the evening of 17 December, stores, vehicles, and kiosks were burning in at least ten different areas of the city.[65]

Former Securitate officers clearly wish to link this destruction to the “foreign tourists” who were supposedly so ubiquitous in Timisoara during these days.[66] Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, former Securitate Director Iulian Vlad argued at his trial that

…the acts of vandalism, theft, destruction, arson… acts without precedent…could not have been the work [“opera”] of the faithful [apparently referring sarcastically to Tokes’ parishioners], nor the revolutionaries. They were produced by elements which wished to create a certain atmosphere of tension.[67]

image0-006

RADU TINU:…SINGURLE COMPLEXE COMERCIALE RAMASE INTREGI AU FOST CELE DIN FATA MILITIEI JUDETENE SI CEL DE LANGA FABRICA “MODERN”…

image0-007

image0-008

 

The significance of window-breaking as a justification for repression–something the Securitate would have realized–was outlined by Nicolae Ceausescu in his teleconference of 17 December 1989 as follows:

“Oricine intra intr-un Consiliu Popular, intr-un sediu de partid sau sparge un geam la un magazin trebuie sa primeasca riposta imediat.

0007

Col. Ion Popescu (sef IGM)’s defense lawyer appealed to Legea 21 and Decretul 121 specifically as obligating Interior Ministry (M.I.–Militia and Securitate) forces to intervene in response to the breaking of windows of commercial units…

image0-001

image0

Thus, the breaking of windows, which according to Interior Minister was instigated and carried out in part by Securitate Brigade 30 under the command of Ion Bunoaica served a bureaucratic and legalistic function–a tactic not unknown in the annals of other totalitarian or authoritarian regimes…

image-18image-17image-16image-15

image-4image-9

———————————–

An excerpt from Chapter 5 of my Ph.D. Dissertation at Indiana University: Richard Andrew Hall, Rewriting the Revolution: Authoritarian Regime-State Relations and the Triumph of Securitate Revisionism in Post-Ceausescu Romania (defended 16 December 1996). This is the original chapter as it appeared then and thus has not been revised in any form.

Chapter Five.  The Beginning of the End: Timisoara, 15-17 December 1989

The “Window Breakers”

The reportedly unusual scope of physical destruction which occurred in Timisoara, particularly on the afternoon and evening of 17 December 1989, has fueled revisionist arguments. Estimates of the damage during the Timisoara unrest are in the neighborhood of four to five billion lei (approximately forty to fifty million dollars at the time), a reasonably large sum given Romania’s standard of living at the time. A huge number of windows was broken and as many as 300 to 400 stores suffered some sort of damage, although relatively few were actually looted. On the evening of 17 December, stores, vehicles, and kiosks were burning in at least ten different areas of the city.[65]

Former Securitate officers clearly wish to link this destruction to the “foreign tourists” who were supposedly so ubiquitous in Timisoara during these days.[66] Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, former Securitate Director Iulian Vlad argued at his trial that

…the acts of vandalism, theft, destruction, arson… acts without precedent…could not have been the work [“opera”] of the faithful [apparently referring sarcastically to Tokes’ parishioners], nor the revolutionaries. They were produced by elements which wished to create a certain atmosphere of tension.[67]

“A group of former Securitate officers” wrote to the Ceausist Democratia in September 1990 that after the Militia and Securitate refused to respond to the demonstrations provoked by the “foreign tourists”: “they advance[d] to the next stage: the massive destruction of public property designed to provoke forcible interventions–human victims were needed.”[68]

Nevertheless, here is how one opposition journalist, Grid Modorcea, has described the strange character of Timisoara destruction:

For the first time in history, a revolution…was announced in a previously unknown and absolutely original manner, both literally and figuratively speaking: through the methodical breakage of thousands of windows. On 16 and 17 December 1989, Timisoara was the city of [glass] shards. Well-trained groups of athletes spread throughout the town, tactically, but energetically smashing to pieces hundreds of huge windows without apparently being interested in stealing from these stores…they were like mythical Magis coming to announce the end of one world and the beginning of another. And they gave it an apocalyptic quality: the sound produced by the breaking glass was infernal. The panic this caused was indescribable….Those who “executed” the windows did so with karate-like kicks while yelling “Liberty and Justice”!…The crowds of people who came out into the streets transformed spontaneously into columns of demonstrators, of authentic revolutionaries. The effect was therefore monumental: the breaking of the windows unleashed the popular revolt against the dictator.[69]

Modorcea is convinced that the Tokes case was “merely a pretext” and that “someone–perhaps those who planned the vandalizing of the windows–has an interest in preventing it from being known who broke the windows.” Although Modorcea maintains he is unsure who was responsible, he insists on observing that:

Only the Customs people know how many tourists there were. All were men and long-haired. Inside their cars they had canisters. This fits with the method of the breaking of the windows, with the Molotov cocktails, and the drums used as barricades–they were exactly of the same type….To what extent the new regime which came to power was implicated, we cannot say![70]

Many Timisoara protesters appear torn between wishing to rationalize the extensive destruction as the courageous response of an enraged, long-suffering population, and denying that the perpetrators could have come from among their ranks. Even those investigators attuned to the retroactive psychology of the protesters cannot help but admit that widespread destruction occurred and that it could not have been wholly spontaneous.[71] Furthermore, as Laszlo Tokes has observed in discussing the events at Piata Maria, manipulation and attempts to instigate the crowd to violence were constant features during these days.

Tokes maintains that Securitate provocateurs had tried to agitate the crowd by shouting things like, “Let’s break into the house. The Securitate are in there; they’re trying to kidnap Laszlo Tokes! Let’s rush them!” and by appealing for him to “Come down into the street and lead us!”[72] According to Tokes:

I was alarmed at the obvious provocation from individuals in the crowd clearly intent on making the situation uncontrollable….Later, thinking about the events of those two days, I realized that the authorities would have had a great deal to gain if the situation had become a riot.[73]

Mircea Balan questions whether the protesters would have set stores on fire which were located on the ground floor of the buildings in which the protesters themselves lived.[74] Moreover, he wonders how even the revolutionary fury of the crowd could drive protesters to break so many windows, particularly given the presence of repressive forces on the streets. It is what Balan has termed the “systematic devastation” of property which raises questions.

Eyewitness accounts recorded soon after the events–therefore at a time before the various plots and scenarios had permeated the popular imagination–support the hypothesis that the vandalism was organized. Moldovan Fica remarks:

I admit that I cannot escape a certain conclusion. All of this [destruction] was done by a group of about five or six individuals, whose calm demeanor and self-control continues to stay with me to this day. They did not run from the scene, they appeared as if they did not fear anything; I would say that, in fact, they were doing what was required of them, something which had been ordered directly of them![75]

Describing destruction in a different part of the city, Andras Vasile observed that

…four young men with shaved heads and wearing civilian clothes had sticks–I would term them special sticks–1.7 to 1.8 meters long, equipped with metal rings on the top of them. They were breaking the windows, but not taking anything, as if they only had something against the windows, something which they thus went about with great enjoyment…they were led by two individuals in leather jackets.[76]

Other eyewitnesses supply details which confirm the widespread character of the vandalism; its undeniably organized quality; the disinterest of its perpetrators in looting the stores; and the almost “drugged” nature of the perpetrators, who seemed unperturbed by the chaos and repression going on around them.[77]

Mircea Balan has little doubt who committed this “systematic destruction”:

Demonstrators might have thrown rocks in windows, but the destruction of the entire store was not their work…Nobody need believe that for such a thing foreign intervention was necessary, seeing as there were enough first-class specialists in destruction and demolition right here at home. The Securitate could not have been foreign to what happened, no matter how much it fiercely attempts to deny this today. They were professionals in the art of destruction. They needed a justification for the bloody repression.[78]

In March 1990, Puspoki had been willing to identify the culprits more specifically. According to Puspoki, as the demonstrators began to gather to prevent Tokes’ eviction:

The USLA’s Sabotage and Diversion team was readied to break store windows, to devastate and set fires–to create the conditions necessary for mass repression: the existence of disorder in the streets and theft on the part of the demonstrators.[79]

Securitate Major Radu Tinu’s observation that the commercial complex “in front of the county Militia building” (i.e. the Inspectorate in which both the Securitate and Militia offices were located) was one of only two such complexes in the whole city to remain intact during these days may also be an indication of the source of the destruction.[80]

It is possible then that to the extent that this destruction did indeed contain an organized component, it was designed by the regime to subvert and cast suspicion upon the intentions of the protesters and to create a pretext for repression. To the extent that an organized component did contribute to the destruction, it was far more likely to have been regime forces attempting to undermine the protests than foreign agents attempting to provoke an uprising against the regime.

[65].. See, for example, Grid Modorcea, “Spargerea Geamurilor [The Breaking of the Windows],” Expres Magazin, no. 49 (1991), 8-9; Mircea Bunea, “Eroii noi si vechi [New and old heroes],” Adevarul, 2 February 1991, in Bunea, Praf in Ochi, 448-449; Suciu, Reportaj cu Sufletul, 57-58.

[66].. See, for example, the comments of Radu Tinu, the deputy director of the Timis County Securitate, in Bacescu, Din Nou in Calea, 67-85.

[67].. Mircea Bunea, “Ipse Dixit,” Adevarul, 21 February 1991, in Bunea, Praf in Ochi, 463. Vlad’s determination to emphasize that these were “acts without precedent” makes one wonder if they were indeed without precedent.

[68].. A group of former Securitate officers, “Asa va place revolutia? Asa a fost! [You like the revolution? Here is how it was!],” Democratia, no. 36 (24-30 September 1990), 4. The lengthy defense by these officers of the Fifth Directorate in this letter suggests that they were members of this directorate.

[69].. Modorcea, “Spargerea Geamurilor,” 8.

[70].. Ibid.

[71].. Balan, “Masacrul.”

[72].. Tokes, With God, for the People, 153, 156.

[73].. Ibid., 156.

[74].. Balan, “Masacrul.”

[75].. Suciu, Reportaj cu Sufletul, 96.

[76].. Ibid, 118. The fact that the two persons supervising the destruction are described as having worn “leather jackets” strongly suggests they may have been Securitate men. Mihai Decean claims that on a train headed for Bucharest on 25 December (therefore after Ceausescu’s flight), he helped in the arrest of two USLA officers whom he describes as “athletic, with shaved heads, and wearing leather jackets.” See Laura Ganea, “La Timisoara se mai trage inca” Tinerama, no. 77 (July 1991), 3.

[77].. Ibid., 71, 122. Some of the eyewitnesses cited in Modorcea, “Spargerea Geamurilor,” say similar things; Modorcea, however, gives them a very different interpretation.

[78].. Balan, “Masacrul.”

[79].. Puspoki, “Piramida Umbrelor (III).”

[80].. Bacescu, Din Nou in Calea, 80.

The following was added some years later as a footnote to the section above in republications of this chapter.  Badea says here “many years later” Postelnicu admitted this, but as we can now see from the Timisoara files, he wrote it in his declaration/statement dated 17 March 1990.

(In connection with the “window breakers” we do know a little more today than we did then back in 1996.  Dan Badea wrote in 1999 Bunoaica and the Window Breakers that “Tudor Postelnicu, the Interior Minister at the time, was to declare many years later that the “breaking of the windows” was a mission executed by personnel from the 30th Securitate Brigade led by col. Ion Bunoaica).  Orele 20.00 – 21.00: Sint sparte toate vitrinele magazinelor de pe Bulevardul 6 Martie (Tudor Postelnicu, ministru de interne la acea vreme, avea sa declare multi ani mai tirziu ca “spargerea vitrinelor” a fost o misiune executata de militari ai Brigazii 30 Securitate condusa de col. Ion Bunoaica).

25 for the 25th Anniversary of the Romanian Revolution: #1 The Securitate Deny Foreign Instigation of the Timisoara Uprising

Posted in decembrie 1989, raport final | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments »

25 for 2014: 25 Things You Should Know about the Romanian Revolution on the 25th Anniversary of the Fall of Nicolae Ceausescu’s Communist Regime: #8 Romania closes its borders to almost all foreigners…except Russian tourists returning from shopping trips to Yugoslavia (18-19 December 1989)

Posted by romanianrevolutionofdecember1989 on November 1, 2014

(Purely personal views as always, based on over two decades of research and publications inside and outside Romania)

2014 marks the 25th anniversary of the collapse of communism in central and eastern Europe–Poland, Hungary, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania.  This (likely aperiodic) series looks at 25 things I have learned about the events of the Romanian Revolution of December 1989.  The numbering is not designed to assign importance, but rather–to the extent possible–to progress chronologically through those events.

Significance:  During the meeting of the equivalent of the Politburo of the Romanian Communist Party on the afternoon of 17 December 1989, Nicolae Ceausescu announced:  “I have ordered that all tourist activity be interrupted at once. Not one more foreign tourist will be allowed in, because they have all turned into agents of espionage….Not even those from the socialist countries will be allowed in, outside of [North] Korea, China, and Cuba. Because all the neighboring socialist countries are untrustworthy. Those sent from the neighboring socialist countries are sent as agents.”  On 18 December 1989, in the aftermath of the bloodbath of regime repression that had transpired in Timisoara the night before, it was officially announced–in typical Ceausist- (and undeniably Orwellian) style–that Romania would not accept any more tourists because of a “shortage of hotel rooms” and because “weather conditions” were “not suitable for tourism.”  Only it turned out in practice one group of tourists from a neighboring communist state were exempted from this requirement:  Soviet tourists returning home from shopping trips in Yugoslavia…

image0

FBIS-EEU-89-242 (19 December 1989), p. 85.  Paris AFP in English 1430 GMT 19 December 1989.

Vatin, Yugoslavia, Dec. 19 (AFP)

Romania’s borders are now closed to all but Soviet travellers, who pass through Romania to return home after shopping trips to Yugoslavia….

An AGENCE FRANCE PRESSE reporter was curtly told to “go back home, only Russians can get through,” after two Romanian border guards–one armed with a Kalashnikov rifle with an Alsatian guard dog at his side–carried out a detailed inspection of the license plates on some 15 cars waiting to cross.

I have been using this source since back in the 1990s when I wrote my dissertation (defended December 1996) at Indiana University (Bloomington), but I still get a kick out of it when I come across it–particularly in light of the seemingly never-ending, snowballing revisionism which alleges that the Timisoara uprising was sparked by “Soviet tourists” or “Russian tourists,” etc.

https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/2013/03/28/yugoslavia-romania-border-19-december-1989-an-agence-france-presse-reporter-was-curtly-told-to-go-back-home-only-russians-can-get-through/

 

An excerpt from

A chapter from my Ph.D. Dissertation at Indiana University: Richard Andrew Hall, Rewriting the Revolution: Authoritarian Regime-State Relations and the Triumph of Securitate Revisionism in Post-Ceausescu Romania (defended 16 December 1996). This is the original chapter as it appeared then [minus the xeroxes] and thus has not been revised in any form.

https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/rewriting-the-revolution-1997-chapter-6-18-22-december-1989/ (traducere de catre Marius Mioc 18-19 decembrie 1989 )

18-19 December 1989: The Timisoara Crackdown in Ceausescu’s Absence

Considering the centrality of the “foreign tourist” scenario to Securitate-inspired accounts of the December events, it is interesting to note the actions taken by the Ceausescu regime on 18 December 1989. At the close of the emergency CPEx meeting on Sunday afternoon, Nicolae Ceausescu had announced:

I have ordered that all tourist activity be interrupted at once. Not one more foreign tourist will be allowed in, because they have all turned into agents of espionage….Not even those from the socialist countries will be allowed in, outside of [North] Korea, China, and Cuba. Because all the neighboring socialist countries are untrustworthy. Those sent from the neighboring socialist countries are sent as agents.[5]

[from Mircea Bunea, Praf in ochi:  Procesul celor 24-1-2 (Editura Scripta, 1994), p. 34.]

image0-001

On Monday, 18 December 1989, in typical Ceausist-style it was therefore announced that Romania would not accept any more tourists because of a “shortage of hotel rooms” and because “weather conditions” were “not suitable for tourism.”[6] Ironically, the only ones exempted from this ban were: “Soviet travellers coming home from shopping trips to Yugoslavia”(!)[7]

Thus, it is intriguing to see how former Securitate Colonel Filip Teodorescu tailors his characterization of Timisoara on 18 December to account for this change:

There were few foreigners in the hotels, the majority of them having fled the town after lunch [on 17 December] when the clashes began to break out. The interested parties remained. Our attention is drawn to the unjustifiably large number of Soviet tourists, be they by bus or car. Not all of them stayed in hotels. They either had left their buses, or stayed in their cars overnight. Border records indicate their points of entry as being through northern Transylvania. They all claimed they were in transit to Yugoslavia. The explanation was plausible, the Soviets being well-known for their shopping trips. Unfortunately, we did not have enough forces and the conditions did not allow us to monitor the activities of at least some of these “tourists.”[8]

[from Filip Teodorescu, Un Risc Asumat, 1992, p. 92]

image-68

This raises the question of why, if the Soviet tourists were the ones suspected from the first of being behind the unrest, it should have been exactly they who were given continued access into Romania? One of the most effective rejections of the “tourist” scenario came in 1991 from “a group of [Army] officers from the Timisoara garrison.” In an open letter, they proclaimed:

If they [the tourists] appeared suspect to the special forces of the Securitate and counter-military intelligence, why did they not attempt to keep them under surveillance? During this period, did the Securitate and the counter-intelligence officers not know how to do their jobs? Did they somehow forget why they were paid such weighty sums from the state budget?[9]

[Un Grup de Ofiteri din Garnizoana Timisoara, Romania Libera, 15 octombrie 1991
“4.  Existenta unui mare numar de turisti straini, care s-au deplasat (cu autoturisme) spre Timisoara si prin Timisoara.
Cine au fost acei turisti?  Turisti banuiti, si ei, de intentii destabalizatoare.
Daca fortelor speciale de securitate si contrainformatii militare li s-au parut suspecti, de ce nu s-au procedat la verificarea acestora?  Oare in acel rastimp, securistii si contrainformatorii nu mai stiau sa-si faca meseria?  Au uitat pentru ce erau platiti, din bugetul statului, cu bani grei?”]

As we mentioned earlier, in an interesting psychological twist the former Securitate sometimes appear to attribute their own actions to others, especially the convenient phantom-like “foreign tourists.” Some of the Securitate‘s arguments also appear to be based on the manipulation and perversion of real information which has been ripped from its context and placed in another one which suits the Securitate‘s institutional interests better. For example, the comments of the Yugoslav News Agency (TANJUG) correspondent at the Vatin border post on 20 December 1989 may give us a hint as to where the idea of “foreign tourists travelling in convoys of cars” originated from:

People who spent a long time at this crossing point today say that the Romanian government is even accompanying private cars of tourists returning home via Romania. They usually wait until five or six of them assemble and then let them continue in convoys led by official Romanian cars.[10]

[5].. See Mircea Bunea, Praf in Ochi. Procesul Celor 24-1-2. (Bucharest: Editura Scripta, 1994), 34.

[6].. Belgrade Domestic Service, 1400 GMT 20 December 1989, in FBIS-EEU-89-243, 20 December 1989.

[7].. Agence France Presse, 19 December 1989, in FBIS-EEU-89-242, 19 December 1989.

[8].. Filip Teodorescu, Un Risc Asumat: Timisoara decembrie 1989 (Bucharest: Editura Viitorul Romanesc, 1992), 92.

[9].. Un grup de ofiteri din garnizoana Timisoara, “FRICA DE PROPRIUL POPOR… [Fear of your own people]” Romania Libera, 15 October 1991, 2a.

[10].. Belgrade TANJUG, 2137 GMT 20 December 1989, in FBIS-EEU-89-244, 21 December 1989, 80. Disinformation is frequently thought of as synonymous with the “big lie,” but indeed the most effective disinformation always contains a kernel of truth. Frequently, real facts are merely presented out of context. It is also intriguing to note the almost Freudian mirror-imaging quality of this disinformation–a characteristic common to totalitarian regimes. This is especially the case when it comes to the accusations of foreign powers being engaged in “terrorist actions”–an eerily accurate description of the Ceausescu regime’s own actions.

—————————————-

In combination with the following declarations from late December 1989 and early 1990 by senior officials of the former Securitate, dispatched to find evidence of Nicolae Ceausescu’s (/General Iulian Vlad’s) theory of what was transpiring in Timisoara, but who found no evidence of such involvement, this should be a body blow to the revisionist “recovered memory” regarding “Russian/Soviet tourists” in the Timisoara uprising.

https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/2014/08/23/nicolae-ceausescus-paranoia-as-a-theory-for-explaining-december-1989/

https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/2013/03/17/filip-teodorescu-adj-sef-dir-iii-contraspionaj-d-s-s-nu-sint-date-ca-ar-exista-instigatori-sau-conducatori-anume-veniti-din-strainatate/

https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/2013/03/16/emil-macri-rezumind-sintetic-informatiile-obtinute-ele-nu-au-pus-in-evidenta-nici-lideri-si-nici-amestecul-vreunei-puteri-straine-in-producerea-evenimentelor-de-la-timisoara/

https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/2013/03/10/liviu-dinulescu-cpt-la-serviciul-de-pasapoarte-al-jud-timis-precizez-ca-anterior-declansarii-evenimentelor-de-la-timisoara-din-datele-ce-le-detineam-serviciul-nostru-nu-rezulta-vreun-amestec-di/

https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/2013/03/06/secretele-revolutiei-de-la-timisoara-col-niculae-mavru-fost-sef-al-sectiei-filaj-si-investigatie-de-la-securitatea-timis/

https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/ultimul-raport-al-securitatii-catre-nicolae-ceausescu/

 

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

25 for 2014: 25 Things You Should Know about the Romanian Revolution on the 25th Anniversary of the Fall of Nicolae Ceausescu’s Communist Regime: #1 The Securitate Deny Foreign Instigation of the Timisoara Uprising

25 for 2014: 25 Things You Should Know about the Romanian Revolution on the 25th Anniversary of the Fall of Nicolae Ceausescu’s Communist Regime: #2 Shattered Glass: Securitate Vandalism to Justify Timisoara Crackdown

25 for 2014: 25 Things You Should Know about the Romanian Revolution on the 25th Anniversary of the Fall of Nicolae Ceausescu’s Communist Regime: #3 “Anti-terrorism” and Regime Repression

25 for 2014: 25 Things You Should Know about the Romanian Revolution on the 25th Anniversary of the Fall of Nicolae Ceausescu’s Communist Regime: #4 Timisoara Demonstrators Injured and Killed by Dum-Dum Bullets

25 for 2014: 25 Things You Should Know about the Romanian Revolution on the 25th Anniversary of the Fall of Nicolae Ceausescu’s Communist Regime: #5 Timisoara (Podul Decebal) Evidence Suggests only the Securitate Had Dum-Dum Bullets

25 for 2014: 25 Things You Should Know about the Romanian Revolution on the 25th Anniversary of the Fall of Nicolae Ceausescu’s Communist Regime: #6 The Securitate Sends a Coded-Message to Its Undercovers in the Field (“Citeva sfaturi pentru cei aflati in aceste zile la mare,” Scinteia Tineretului, 18 December 1989)

25 for 2014: 25 Things You Should Know about the Romanian Revolution on the 25th Anniversary of the Fall of Nicolae Ceausescu’s Communist Regime: #7 Nicolae Ceausescu Leaves on a Less-than-spontaneous Trip to Iran (18 December 1989)

Posted in decembrie 1989, raport final | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

25 for 2014: 25 Things You Should Know about the Romanian Revolution on the 25th Anniversary of the Fall of Nicolae Ceausescu’s Communist Regime: #2 Shattered Glass: Securitate Vandalism to Justify Timisoara Crackdown

Posted by romanianrevolutionofdecember1989 on February 13, 2014

(Purely personal views as always, based on over two decades of research and publications inside and outside Romania)

2014 marks the 25th anniversary of the collapse of communism in central and eastern Europe–Poland, Hungary, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania.  This (likely aperiodic) series looks at 25 things I have learned about the events of the Romanian Revolution of December 1989.  The numbering is not designed to assign importance, but rather–to the extent possible–to progress chronologically through those events.

Significance:  I have essentially been the only researcher who has consistently advocated this understanding.  Most others–including Peter Siani-Davies–tended to dismiss it.  Now we have documentary evidence that it took place.

An excellent documentary from 1991 posted to the internet by Florin Iepan only recently and seen rarely if at all since its showing in 1991.  There is much interesting information in this film.  (The film seems to start at min. 19:00 and has to be rewound to its beginning.)  Here, I will focus on the claim beginning at approximately min. 17:40 that the destruction of Timisoara shops and storefronts was organized and a pretext to justify–including legally–the repression by the Ceausescu regime of Timisoara demonstrators.  Interior Minister Tudor Postelnicu’s declaration of 17 March 1990 confirms this claim and the observations of eyewitnesses.

Timisoara Decembrie 1989 / Timisoara December 1989,

regia/directed by – Ovidiu Bose Pastina
imaginea/camera – Doru Segal

Sahiafilm 1991

Tudor Postelnicu (Ministerul de Interne in decembrie 1989):  “Unii militari de la trupele de securitate ale brigazii Timisoara au facut unele provocari la unele magazine si vitrine spargind geamurile sa imprastie participantii de pe straziile din apropriere, apoi au intrat in altercatie cu ei, si acum (?) vor sa le faca militia ordine.  ‘Nu am aflat ca costa provocare a zis Gl. Nuta, am trimis pe …” (17.III.1990) 

http://sensidev.com/fc/dosare%20de%20urmarire%20penala/dosar%20%20de%20urmarire%20penala%20volumul%2011/IMG_2576.JPG (Dosarul de Urmarire Penala, Vol. 11, IMG 2576)

IMG_2576

image0

Before we move on here, it is worth noting how this destruction was covered in Peter Siani-Davies’ 2005 volume The Romanian Revolution of December 1989.  As I have written on many occasions, Siani-Davies’ volume is wonderfully-written and is excellent, but the claim by Daniel Chirot that is a “near-definitive” account is far off the mark.  One of the negative characteristics of Siani-Davies’ work is the use of “filler” rational choice, cui bono arguments where he concludes there is not enough information to make a valid judgment.  The problem is the question is never one of “what was possible?” “what makes ‘sense’?” but rather what did happen?

Thus, for example in the case of the destruction of Timisoara Siani-Davies argues that there was already enough of a basis for the regime to crackdown, therefore why would they need to create a pretext for cracking down:  “Given the seriousness of the situation and the fact that shots had already been fired elsewhere, the security forces hardly needed to produce a further ‘excuse’ for the massacre which was to follow.” (p. 68)

image0-001

image0-003

Back to exploring more of the evidence…

An excerpt from Chapter 5 of my Ph.D. Dissertation at Indiana University: Richard Andrew Hall, Rewriting the Revolution: Authoritarian Regime-State Relations and the Triumph of Securitate Revisionism in Post-Ceausescu Romania (defended 16 December 1996). This is the original chapter as it appeared then and thus has not been revised in any form.

Chapter Five.  The Beginning of the End: Timisoara, 15-17 December 1989

The “Window Breakers”

The reportedly unusual scope of physical destruction which occurred in Timisoara, particularly on the afternoon and evening of 17 December 1989, has fueled revisionist arguments. Estimates of the damage during the Timisoara unrest are in the neighborhood of four to five billion lei (approximately forty to fifty million dollars at the time), a reasonably large sum given Romania’s standard of living at the time. A huge number of windows was broken and as many as 300 to 400 stores suffered some sort of damage, although relatively few were actually looted. On the evening of 17 December, stores, vehicles, and kiosks were burning in at least ten different areas of the city.[65]

Former Securitate officers clearly wish to link this destruction to the “foreign tourists” who were supposedly so ubiquitous in Timisoara during these days.[66] Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, former Securitate Director Iulian Vlad argued at his trial that

…the acts of vandalism, theft, destruction, arson… acts without precedent…could not have been the work [“opera”] of the faithful [apparently referring sarcastically to Tokes’ parishioners], nor the revolutionaries. They were produced by elements which wished to create a certain atmosphere of tension.[67]

Eyewitness accounts recorded soon after the events–therefore at a time before the various plots and scenarios had permeated the popular imagination–support the hypothesis that the vandalism was organized. Moldovan Fica remarks:

I admit that I cannot escape a certain conclusion. All of this [destruction] was done by a group of about five or six individuals, whose calm demeanor and self-control continues to stay with me to this day. They did not run from the scene, they appeared as if they did not fear anything; I would say that, in fact, they were doing what was required of them, something which had been ordered directly of them![75]

Describing destruction in a different part of the city, Andras Vasile observed that

…four young men with shaved heads and wearing civilian clothes had sticks–I would term them special sticks–1.7 to 1.8 meters long, equipped with metal rings on the top of them. They were breaking the windows, but not taking anything, as if they only had something against the windows, something which they thus went about with great enjoyment…they were led by two individuals in leather jackets.[76]

Other eyewitnesses supply details which confirm the widespread character of the vandalism; its undeniably organized quality; the disinterest of its perpetrators in looting the stores; and the almost “drugged” nature of the perpetrators, who seemed unperturbed by the chaos and repression going on around them.[77]

https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/rewriting-the-revolution-1997/

image0-005

Moldovan Fica (martor ocular)

image0-001

image0

Andras Vasile (martor ocular)

image0-003

image0-002

image0-004

Ioan Savu discussed the windowbreakers as follows:

0282

0280

———————————-

Other depictions of this event available online:

Conducerea partidului, alarmată, a trimis în Piaţa Maria, conform Ordinului 02600, numeroşi miliţieni şi trupe speciale, pentru a lichida manifestaţia care luase amploare. Circulaţia în zonă se întrerupsese. În Piaţa Maria au fost trimişi aproximativ 200 de activişti de partid, miliţieni şi numeroşi ofiţeri de securitate, îmbrăcaţi în haine civile. Au urmat ciocniri violente, mai ales după ce manifestanţii s-au încolonat şi au pornit spre sediul CJ PCR, strigând “Libertate”, “Vrem pâine”, “Vrem căldură”, “Azi la Timişoara, mâine în toată ţara”.
În acea seară echipe de miliţie dinainte pregătite au spart vitrinele magazinelor din centrul oraşului, pentru a avea argumente pentru o intervenţie în forţă. Desigur, multe vitrine au fost sparte şi de derbedei, asupra cărora s-au găsit bunuri furate. În acea noapte au fost arestate aproape 5-600 de cetăţeni. Ei au fost duşi la Penitenciarul oraşului, unde au fost bătuţi în mod bestial. În zilele care au urmat arestării au fost anchetaţi în vederea trimiterii lor în judecată. Bineînţeles, dacă Revoluţia n-ar fi reuşit.

“Azi la Timişoara”
Ivan Sabin

http://revista.memoria.ro/?location=view_article&id=371

Totuşi, se ştie că în acele zile fierbinţi din Timişoara au existat „personaje neidentificate” care au acţionat în mai multe zone ale oraşului. Am să amintesc aici doar două aspecte concrete cu privire la implicarea acestora în evenimentele din Timişoara. În zilele de 16 şi 17 decembrie au fost sparte aproape toate vitrinele magazinelor din zona centrală a oraşului. Sunt zeci de declaraţii ale revoluţionarilor care fac o descriere clară a celor care au spart acele geamuri. Au fost oameni bine îmbrăcaţi, robuşti şi tunşi scurt. Aceştia erau dotaţi cu nişte beţe speciale cu care printr-un gest scurt şi foarte bine exersat loveau vitrinele, după care plecau fără a încerca să sustragă ceva din magazine. Aceste persoane au fost văzute chiar şi de forţele de ordine desfăşurate în acea zonă, care în mod ciudat nu au luat măsuri împotriva lor, ci au acţionat împotriva manifestanţilor ce demonstrau împotriva regimului ceauşist. Un alt aspect relatat de mulţi timişoreni se referă mai ales la zilele de 17-19 decembrie, când, în rândul cordoanelor militare din diferite dispozitive amplasate în zonele importante ale oraşului, între soldaţi, erau intercalate persoane mai în vârstă, nebărbierite îmbrăcate doar parţial în uniforme militare, care nu făceau parte din acele unităţi militare.

Cine au fost acele „persoane neidentificate”? De ce s-a dorit în unele cercuri, cu insistenţă chiar, acreditarea ideii că oamenii au fost scoşi în stradă de agenţi străini? De ce, chiar şi după 20 de ani, se fac afirmaţii de genul: cadavrele celor arşi la Crematoriul „Cenuşa” erau ale unor agenţi străini? Nu voi căuta acum răspunsuri la aceste întrebări, dar, cu siguranţă, ele există.

Kali Adrian Matei

nascut in 30 iulie 1968 la Timisoara, muncitor la IJPIPS (1989), profesor de istorie la Liceul de informatica (1998), impuscat in spate

La Bijuterii concetatenii nostri tigani carau ce puteau. Numai la “Modex” nu era spart. Un grup de oameni se uitau cum niste indivizi bine instruiti spargeau geamurile de linga restaurantul Bulevard. Am rugat oamenii sa apere Modexul, pentru ca era clar ca spargatorii n-aveau nimic comun cu revolta.  30 septembrie 1995  http://timisoara.com/newmioc/4.htm

“În data de 14 decembrie, securitatea a spart toate gemurile din partea străzii principale, iar clădirea arăta ca o cetate asediată. Fostul primar al Timişorei, Petre Moţ l-a vizitat pe Tokes şi a ieşit la geam pentru a vorbi mulţimii. Moţ a cerut să se pună geamuri noi. Erau foarte multe maşini ale securiştilor. Întreaga stradă era ocupată. Se făcea filaj. Eu locuiam acolo, ba intram, ba ieşeam. Nu se vorbea încă revoluţie. Era o solidaritatea faţă de pastor”, declarat Iosif Kabai (foto), care locuieşte şi acum în clădirea bisericii reformate.Citeste mai mult: adevarul.ro/locale/timisoara/16-decembrie-1989-ziua-timisoara-s-a-strigat-data-democratie-jos-comunismul-1_50bd3d887c42d5a663c8e01f/index.html

Radu Tinu cu Angela Bacescu…

The reportedly unusual scope of physical destruction which occurred in Timisoara, particularly on the afternoon and evening of 17 December 1989, has fueled revisionist arguments. Estimates of the damage during the Timisoara unrest are in the neighborhood of four to five billion lei (approximately forty to fifty million dollars at the time), a reasonably large sum given Romania’s standard of living at the time. A huge number of windows was broken and as many as 300 to 400 stores suffered some sort of damage, although relatively few were actually looted. On the evening of 17 December, stores, vehicles, and kiosks were burning in at least ten different areas of the city.[65]

Former Securitate officers clearly wish to link this destruction to the “foreign tourists” who were supposedly so ubiquitous in Timisoara during these days.[66] Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, former Securitate Director Iulian Vlad argued at his trial that

…the acts of vandalism, theft, destruction, arson… acts without precedent…could not have been the work [“opera”] of the faithful [apparently referring sarcastically to Tokes’ parishioners], nor the revolutionaries. They were produced by elements which wished to create a certain atmosphere of tension.[67]

image0-006

RADU TINU:…SINGURLE COMPLEXE COMERCIALE RAMASE INTREGI AU FOST CELE DIN FATA MILITIEI JUDETENE SI CEL DE LANGA FABRICA “MODERN”…

image0-007

image0-008

 

The significance of window-breaking as a justification for repression–something the Securitate would have realized–was outlined by Nicolae Ceausescu in his teleconference of 17 December 1989 as follows:

“Oricine intra intr-un Consiliu Popular, intr-un sediu de partid sau sparge un geam la un magazin trebuie sa primeasca riposta imediat.

0007

Col. Ion Popescu (sef IGM)’s defense lawyer appealed to Legea 21 and Decretul 121 specifically as obligating Interior Ministry (M.I.–Militia and Securitate) forces to intervene in response to the breaking of windows of commercial units…

image0-001

image0

Thus, the breaking of windows, which according to Interior Minister was instigated and carried out in part by Securitate Brigade 30 under the command of Ion Bunoaica served a bureaucratic and legalistic function–a tactic not unknown in the annals of other totalitarian or authoritarian regimes…

image-18image-17image-16image-15

image-4image-9

———————————–

An excerpt from Chapter 5 of my Ph.D. Dissertation at Indiana University: Richard Andrew Hall, Rewriting the Revolution: Authoritarian Regime-State Relations and the Triumph of Securitate Revisionism in Post-Ceausescu Romania (defended 16 December 1996). This is the original chapter as it appeared then and thus has not been revised in any form.

Chapter Five.  The Beginning of the End: Timisoara, 15-17 December 1989

The “Window Breakers”

The reportedly unusual scope of physical destruction which occurred in Timisoara, particularly on the afternoon and evening of 17 December 1989, has fueled revisionist arguments. Estimates of the damage during the Timisoara unrest are in the neighborhood of four to five billion lei (approximately forty to fifty million dollars at the time), a reasonably large sum given Romania’s standard of living at the time. A huge number of windows was broken and as many as 300 to 400 stores suffered some sort of damage, although relatively few were actually looted. On the evening of 17 December, stores, vehicles, and kiosks were burning in at least ten different areas of the city.[65]

Former Securitate officers clearly wish to link this destruction to the “foreign tourists” who were supposedly so ubiquitous in Timisoara during these days.[66] Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, former Securitate Director Iulian Vlad argued at his trial that

…the acts of vandalism, theft, destruction, arson… acts without precedent…could not have been the work [“opera”] of the faithful [apparently referring sarcastically to Tokes’ parishioners], nor the revolutionaries. They were produced by elements which wished to create a certain atmosphere of tension.[67]

“A group of former Securitate officers” wrote to the Ceausist Democratia in September 1990 that after the Militia and Securitate refused to respond to the demonstrations provoked by the “foreign tourists”: “they advance[d] to the next stage: the massive destruction of public property designed to provoke forcible interventions–human victims were needed.”[68]

Nevertheless, here is how one opposition journalist, Grid Modorcea, has described the strange character of Timisoara destruction:

For the first time in history, a revolution…was announced in a previously unknown and absolutely original manner, both literally and figuratively speaking: through the methodical breakage of thousands of windows. On 16 and 17 December 1989, Timisoara was the city of [glass] shards. Well-trained groups of athletes spread throughout the town, tactically, but energetically smashing to pieces hundreds of huge windows without apparently being interested in stealing from these stores…they were like mythical Magis coming to announce the end of one world and the beginning of another. And they gave it an apocalyptic quality: the sound produced by the breaking glass was infernal. The panic this caused was indescribable….Those who “executed” the windows did so with karate-like kicks while yelling “Liberty and Justice”!…The crowds of people who came out into the streets transformed spontaneously into columns of demonstrators, of authentic revolutionaries. The effect was therefore monumental: the breaking of the windows unleashed the popular revolt against the dictator.[69]

Modorcea is convinced that the Tokes case was “merely a pretext” and that “someone–perhaps those who planned the vandalizing of the windows–has an interest in preventing it from being known who broke the windows.” Although Modorcea maintains he is unsure who was responsible, he insists on observing that:

Only the Customs people know how many tourists there were. All were men and long-haired. Inside their cars they had canisters. This fits with the method of the breaking of the windows, with the Molotov cocktails, and the drums used as barricades–they were exactly of the same type….To what extent the new regime which came to power was implicated, we cannot say![70]

Many Timisoara protesters appear torn between wishing to rationalize the extensive destruction as the courageous response of an enraged, long-suffering population, and denying that the perpetrators could have come from among their ranks. Even those investigators attuned to the retroactive psychology of the protesters cannot help but admit that widespread destruction occurred and that it could not have been wholly spontaneous.[71] Furthermore, as Laszlo Tokes has observed in discussing the events at Piata Maria, manipulation and attempts to instigate the crowd to violence were constant features during these days.

Tokes maintains that Securitate provocateurs had tried to agitate the crowd by shouting things like, “Let’s break into the house. The Securitate are in there; they’re trying to kidnap Laszlo Tokes! Let’s rush them!” and by appealing for him to “Come down into the street and lead us!”[72] According to Tokes:

I was alarmed at the obvious provocation from individuals in the crowd clearly intent on making the situation uncontrollable….Later, thinking about the events of those two days, I realized that the authorities would have had a great deal to gain if the situation had become a riot.[73]

Mircea Balan questions whether the protesters would have set stores on fire which were located on the ground floor of the buildings in which the protesters themselves lived.[74] Moreover, he wonders how even the revolutionary fury of the crowd could drive protesters to break so many windows, particularly given the presence of repressive forces on the streets. It is what Balan has termed the “systematic devastation” of property which raises questions.

Eyewitness accounts recorded soon after the events–therefore at a time before the various plots and scenarios had permeated the popular imagination–support the hypothesis that the vandalism was organized. Moldovan Fica remarks:

I admit that I cannot escape a certain conclusion. All of this [destruction] was done by a group of about five or six individuals, whose calm demeanor and self-control continues to stay with me to this day. They did not run from the scene, they appeared as if they did not fear anything; I would say that, in fact, they were doing what was required of them, something which had been ordered directly of them![75]

Describing destruction in a different part of the city, Andras Vasile observed that

…four young men with shaved heads and wearing civilian clothes had sticks–I would term them special sticks–1.7 to 1.8 meters long, equipped with metal rings on the top of them. They were breaking the windows, but not taking anything, as if they only had something against the windows, something which they thus went about with great enjoyment…they were led by two individuals in leather jackets.[76]

Other eyewitnesses supply details which confirm the widespread character of the vandalism; its undeniably organized quality; the disinterest of its perpetrators in looting the stores; and the almost “drugged” nature of the perpetrators, who seemed unperturbed by the chaos and repression going on around them.[77]

Mircea Balan has little doubt who committed this “systematic destruction”:

Demonstrators might have thrown rocks in windows, but the destruction of the entire store was not their work…Nobody need believe that for such a thing foreign intervention was necessary, seeing as there were enough first-class specialists in destruction and demolition right here at home. The Securitate could not have been foreign to what happened, no matter how much it fiercely attempts to deny this today. They were professionals in the art of destruction. They needed a justification for the bloody repression.[78]

In March 1990, Puspoki had been willing to identify the culprits more specifically. According to Puspoki, as the demonstrators began to gather to prevent Tokes’ eviction:

The USLA’s Sabotage and Diversion team was readied to break store windows, to devastate and set fires–to create the conditions necessary for mass repression: the existence of disorder in the streets and theft on the part of the demonstrators.[79]

Securitate Major Radu Tinu’s observation that the commercial complex “in front of the county Militia building” (i.e. the Inspectorate in which both the Securitate and Militia offices were located) was one of only two such complexes in the whole city to remain intact during these days may also be an indication of the source of the destruction.[80]

It is possible then that to the extent that this destruction did indeed contain an organized component, it was designed by the regime to subvert and cast suspicion upon the intentions of the protesters and to create a pretext for repression. To the extent that an organized component did contribute to the destruction, it was far more likely to have been regime forces attempting to undermine the protests than foreign agents attempting to provoke an uprising against the regime.

[65].. See, for example, Grid Modorcea, “Spargerea Geamurilor [The Breaking of the Windows],” Expres Magazin, no. 49 (1991), 8-9; Mircea Bunea, “Eroii noi si vechi [New and old heroes],” Adevarul, 2 February 1991, in Bunea, Praf in Ochi, 448-449; Suciu, Reportaj cu Sufletul, 57-58.

[66].. See, for example, the comments of Radu Tinu, the deputy director of the Timis County Securitate, in Bacescu, Din Nou in Calea, 67-85.

[67].. Mircea Bunea, “Ipse Dixit,” Adevarul, 21 February 1991, in Bunea, Praf in Ochi, 463. Vlad’s determination to emphasize that these were “acts without precedent” makes one wonder if they were indeed without precedent.

[68].. A group of former Securitate officers, “Asa va place revolutia? Asa a fost! [You like the revolution? Here is how it was!],” Democratia, no. 36 (24-30 September 1990), 4. The lengthy defense by these officers of the Fifth Directorate in this letter suggests that they were members of this directorate.

[69].. Modorcea, “Spargerea Geamurilor,” 8.

[70].. Ibid.

[71].. Balan, “Masacrul.”

[72].. Tokes, With God, for the People, 153, 156.

[73].. Ibid., 156.

[74].. Balan, “Masacrul.”

[75].. Suciu, Reportaj cu Sufletul, 96.

[76].. Ibid, 118. The fact that the two persons supervising the destruction are described as having worn “leather jackets” strongly suggests they may have been Securitate men. Mihai Decean claims that on a train headed for Bucharest on 25 December (therefore after Ceausescu’s flight), he helped in the arrest of two USLA officers whom he describes as “athletic, with shaved heads, and wearing leather jackets.” See Laura Ganea, “La Timisoara se mai trage inca” Tinerama, no. 77 (July 1991), 3.

[77].. Ibid., 71, 122. Some of the eyewitnesses cited in Modorcea, “Spargerea Geamurilor,” say similar things; Modorcea, however, gives them a very different interpretation.

[78].. Balan, “Masacrul.”

[79].. Puspoki, “Piramida Umbrelor (III).”

[80].. Bacescu, Din Nou in Calea, 80.

The following was added some years later as a footnote to the section above in republications of this chapter.  Badea says here “many years later” Postelnicu admitted this, but as we can now see from the Timisoara files, he wrote it in his declaration/statement dated 17 March 1990.

(In connection with the “window breakers” we do know a little more today than we did then back in 1996.  Dan Badea wrote in 1999 Bunoaica and the Window Breakers that “Tudor Postelnicu, the Interior Minister at the time, was to declare many years later that the “breaking of the windows” was a mission executed by personnel from the 30th Securitate Brigade led by col. Ion Bunoaica).  Orele 20.00 – 21.00: Sint sparte toate vitrinele magazinelor de pe Bulevardul 6 Martie (Tudor Postelnicu, ministru de interne la acea vreme, avea sa declare multi ani mai tirziu ca “spargerea vitrinelor” a fost o misiune executata de militari ai Brigazii 30 Securitate condusa de col. Ion Bunoaica).

25 for 2014: 25 Things You Should Know about the Romanian Revolution on the 25th Anniversary of the Fall of Nicolae Ceausescu’s Communist Regime: #1 The Securitate Deny Foreign Instigation of the Timisoara Uprising

Posted in decembrie 1989 | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 11 Comments »

What would it have looked like if Nicolae Ceausescu’s Securitate executed a plan to counter an invasion…but the invaders never came? (I)

Posted by romanianrevolutionofdecember1989 on January 19, 2014

Answer:  Well, you would have something that looked suspiciously similar to what actually happened in December 1989 in Romania…

(strictly personal viewpoint as always; I began my analysis of what have been characterized as the “strange,” “counter-intuitive,” and “irrational” character of the “terrorist” actions in December 1989 in Chapter 8 my Ph.D. dissertation (defended December 1996), which can be found here:  https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/rewriting-the-revolution-1997-chapter-8-unsolving-december/ and continued it in articles such as the following in Europe-Asia Studies from 2000, which can be found here, https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/theories-of-collective-action-and-revolution-2000/ )

A military aviation official, Colonel Mircea Budiaci, described the characteristics of the so-called “radio-electronic war” the armed forces faced, as follows:“…we were confronted with a powerful adversary which operated on the basis of long-prepared plans which were centrally directed and permanently adapted to changing conditions.  [They attacked] by radio-electronic means by creating signals on our radar identical to those which represented real targets.  When they reached a distance between 800 and 1500 meters from an object on the ground they would simulate gunfire of various types of weapons.  These two things created the image of an air attack.  They were combined with ground attacks, real or false, with various types of telephone calls by identified or unidentified callers, and with the spreading of rumors…on our operating frequencies there were conversations between what were presumed to be aircraft in flight and base command.  You didn’t know what to make of it, and the confusion was intensified by the fact that they were speaking not only in Romanian, but also in English, Turkish, and Arabic…You can imagine in what a situation we had to perform our duties…” (Colonel Mircea Budiaci, interview by Maior D. Amariei, “NU!  Teroristii n-au avut elicoptere,’ Armata Poporului, 21 March 1990, p. 4.) https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/2010/10/04/orwellian%E2%80%A6positively-orwellian%E2%80%9D-prosecutor-voinea%E2%80%99s-campaign-to-sanitize-the-romanian-revolution-of-december-1989-part-8-usla-and-friends/

Questioned by a reporter in 1992 if the Television station had ever really been in danger, Militaru responded:

No….You see, not even those of our commanders who were responsible for the defense of such objectives thought through and analyzed well enough exactly whom they were confronting. Because the adversary did not have an extraordinary number of men with which to take an object such as the TV tower by assault. They [the Army commanders] did, however, have to face a very well-equipped, well-prepared, and perfidious enemy. Not having sufficient forces, they [the “terrorists”] resorted to “gunfire simulators” which caused extraordinary confusion. They thus sought to do something completely different: to infiltrate…They succeeded in infiltrating into the TV station…[69]
[69].. Nicolae Militaru, interview by Corneliu Antim, “Ordinul 2600 in Revolutia din decembrie,” Romania Libera, 17 December 1992, 2.

https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/rewriting-the-revolution-1997-chapter-8-unsolving-december/

Through the years, the Romanian media–and especially former Securitate officers or collaborators in the Romanian media–have been very good about telling us the role of the Army in the event of a foreign invasion–but they have neglected to tell us about the planned role of Securitate units.

In fact, the tactics of the “terrorists” in December 1989 are strikingly similar to what was described in the journal of the Securitate (available on the CNSAS.ro site):

Lt. Colonel Tudor Alexandru si Capitan Nicolae Catana (Securitatea, nr. 85, martie 1989) http://www.cnsas.ro/documente/periodicul_securitatea/Securitatea%201989-1-85.pdf :

Actiunile de lupta desfasurate de formatiunile de rezistenta prezinta citeva caracteristici, altfel:  de regula, sint de scurta durata si violente, avind aspectul unor lovituri fulgeratoare; vizeaza in principal obiective ale inamicului de o dezvoltare mai redusa, dar de mare importanta pentru acesta; au un pronuntat caracter de independenta, ducindu-se in conditiile lipsei unor vecini apropriati si a sprijinului altor forte militare; se desfasoara cu forte relativ putin numeroase; necesita o minutioasa si, uneori, indelungata pregatire a luptatorilor participanti la actiune; impun cunoasterea amanuntita a particularitatilor terenului in care va avea loc actiunea, precum si elaborarea unui plan simplu, usor de aplicat; se desfasoara, de regula, noaptea si in conditii grele de stare a vremii, in momente si locuri in care sa se realizeze surprinderea inamicului…

image0-003

image0-005

image0-007

image0-001

Members of the Romanian Armed Forces have hinted at their suspicion that in December 1989 Securitate forces were executing attacks and disinformation in conformity with the “lupta de rezistenta” concept…

(Locotenent-colonel Alexandru Bodea, din serialul “Varianta la Invazia Extraterestrilor.  Pe cine interpelam pentru uriasa si ultraperfectionata diversiune psihologica si radioelectronica prin care s-a urmarit paralizarea conducerii armatei in timpul Revolutiei?” Armata Poporului, nr. 22 (“urmare din numarul 21″), 30 mai 1990.  Xerox-ul facut in anul 1994 la Biblioteca Academiei Romane).

Mai mult decit atit, a fost cunoscut si folosit in scop de diversiune inclusiv sistemul de transmisiuni pentru conducerea si instiintarea trupelor de aparare antiaeriana a teritoriului.  In majoritatea cazurilor, pregatirea actiunilor de lupta, aeriana si terestre, s-a desfasurat pe timp de noapte, probabil cu forte si mijloace dispuse din timp in zonele respective, dar si cu altele redislocati pe parcurs.  In aceasta ordine de idei, exista suficiente date si informatii care ne indreptatesc sa afirmam ca toate actiunile aeriene au fost declansate–fie real (cu ajutorul unor mijloace si dispozitive adecvate de creare a tintelor aeriene false), fie imitate (cu o aparatura radioelectronica moderna)–din interiorul tarii si, de regula, din aceleasi zone in raionele unor localitatii pe care, din motive pe care nu este aici cauza sa le explicam, nu le vom divulga.

Am adauga ca, in conceptia doctrinara referitoare la apararea patriei de catre intregul popor, elaborata ‘sub obladuirea fostului comandant suprem’ a existat, atit sub aspect teoretic, metodologic, cit si practic, o sustinuta preocupare, mai ales in ultimii ani, pentru fundamentarea conceptului de ‘razboi de rezistenta’ si de pregatire, inca din timp de pace, a unor formatiuni ‘de rezistenta’ si a unor ‘zone libere’ si raioane de pe teritoriu in care, in cazul ocuparii unor parti din teritoriul national, vor actiona asa-zise ‘grupuri sau detasamente de rezistenta.’

Dar se parea ca ‘serialul nocturn’ al atacurilor teroriste incepe sa-si arate anumite ‘tipicuri’–daca le putem numi asa–care ar fi meritat sa fie mai judicios analizate si luate in calcul pentru luarea unor masuri mai eficiente de contracarare.  Toate atacurile terestre ale teroristilor erau executate exclusiv pe timp de noapte si, de regula, in doua ‘reprize’ a circa o jumatate de ora fiecare, una in prima parte a noptii (aproximativ intre orele 22-23) si alta spre ziua (in jurul 02-03).  Executate de grupuri mici de teroristi–dar niste profesionisti ai luptei de gherila avind un armament de inalta precizie, dotat cu sisteme optice de ochire pe timp de noapte–atacurile nu vizua insa altceva decit intretinirea unei atmosfere stresante, de tensiune, de amenintare permanenta, pentru mentinirea intregului efectiv (pe cit posibil!) in cazarma, intr-o permanenta stare de lupta, pentru a-l uza si a-l determina sa-si iroseasca o cantitate de mai mare din resursele de munitie.

Even the former head of the Securitate, General Iulian Vlad, admitted in a very judiciously worded declaration from 29 January 1990 that the “terrorists” were from the Securitate.  (Significantly, this declaration has never appeared in the Romanian press, and even since its revelation by General Ioan Dan it has been consistently ignored.  It is, to say the least, painful and difficult for the deniers to address.)

image0-001

General Magistrat (r) Ioan Dan

In aprilie 1990, generalul Ghoerghe Diaconescu a fost destituit din functia de conducere in Directia Procuraturilor Militare.  La plecare, mi-a predat cheia de la fisteul sau, cu mentiunea ca acolo au mai ramas cateva hartii fara importanta. Intrucat, la data respectiva, ma aflam in cea mai mare parte a timpului, in procesul cercetarilor de la Timisoara, mult mai tarziu, am dorit sa pun in respectivul fiset o serie de acte.  Am cercetat ce mai ramasese de pe urma generalului Diaconescu si, spre surprinderea mea, am gasit declaratia olografa a generalului Iulian Vlad, data fostului adjunct al procurorului general, fostul meu sef direct, nimeni altul decat generalul Diaconescu, la 29 ianuarie 1990, cand toate evenimentele din decembrie 1989 erau foarte proaspete.  Repet, este vorba despre declaratia olografa, un text scris foarte ingrijit, pe 10 pagini, din care voi reda acum integral doar partea care se refera expres la “actiunile teroriste in Capitala” (formularea apartine generalului Vlad).

“Analizand modul in care au inceput si s-au desfasurat actiunile teroriste in Capitala, pe baza acelor date si informatii ce le-am avut la dispozitie, consider ca acestea ar fi putut fi executate de:

1) Elementele din Directia a V-a, USLA, CTS si din alte unitati de Securitate, inclusiv speciale.

a) Directia a V-a, asa cum am mai spus, avea in responsabilitate paza si securitatea interioara a Palatului Republicii, multe dintre cadrele acestei unitati cunoscand foarte bine cladirea, cu toate detaliile ei.  In situatia creata in ziua de 22.12.1989, puteau sa mearga la Palat, pe langa cei care faceau acolo serviciul si unii dintre ofiterii si subofiterii care se aflau la sediul CC ori la unitate.

Este ca se poate de clar ca numai niste oameni care cunosteanu bine topografia locului ori erau in complicitate cu cei care aveau asemenea cunostinte puteau patrunde in cladire (sau pe acoperisul ei) si transporta armamentul si cantitatile mari de munitie pe care le-au avut la dispozitie.

Tot aceasta Directie dispunea de o baza puternica si in apropierea Televiziunii (la Televiziunea veche).  De asemenea, avea in responsabilitate perimetrul din zona resedintei unde se aflau numeroase case (vile) nelocuite si in care teroristii ar fi putut sa se ascunda ori sa-si faca puncte de sprijin.

Sunt si alte motive care pun pe prim-plan suspiciuni cu privire la aceasta unitate.

b) Elemente din cadrul unitatii speciale de lupta antiterroriste care aveau unele misiuni comune cu Directia a V-a si, ca si o parte a ofiterilor si subofiterilor de la aceasta unitate, dispuneau de o mai buna instruire si de mijloace de lupta mai diversificate.

c) Elemente din Trupele de Securitate care asigurau paza obiectivilor speciale (resedinta, palat etc.) si, impreuna cu Directia a-V-a, Securitatea Capitalei si Militia Capitalei asigurau traseul de deplasare.

d) Ofiteri si subofiteri din Securitatea Capitalei, indeosebi de la Serviciul Trasee, sau dintre cei care au lucrat la Directia a V-a.

e) Elemente din alte unitati de Securitate, inclusiv unitatile speciale 544, 195 si 110, precum si din cele complet acoperite, comandate de col. Maita, col. Valeanu, lt. col. Sirbu, col. Nica, col. Eftimie si lt. col. (Eftimie sau Anghelache) Gelu (asa sta scris in declaratie–n.n.).  Aceste din urma sase unitati, ca si UM 544, in ansamblu, si UM 195 puteau dispune si de armament si munitii de provenienta straina, precum si de conditii de pregatire adecvate.

2) Ofiteri si subofiteri din Militie, atat de la Capitala, cat si de la IGM, cu prioritate cei din Detasamentul special de interventie si cei care asigurau traseul.

3) Cred ca s-ar impune verificarea, prin metode si mijloace specifice, a tragatorilor de elita din toate unitatile din Capitala ale Ministerului de Interne, precum si a celor care au avut in dotare sau au indeplinit misiuni folosind arme cu luneta.  N-ar trebui omisi nici chiar cei de la Dinamo si de la alte cluburi sportive.

4) Unele cadre militare de rezerva ale Securitatii, Militiei si Armatei, precum si actuali (la data respectiva) si fosti activisti de partid sau UTC, persoane apropriate tradatorului si familiei sale ori care poseda arme de foc.

Propun, de asemenea, o atenta investigare a celor care au fost in anturajul lui Nicu Ceausescu.  Acest anturaj, foarte divers, cuprindea inclusive unele elemente de cea mai scazuta conditie morala care puteau fi pretabile la asemenea actiuni.

Ar fi bine sa se acorde atentia cuvenita sub acest aspect si fratilor dictatorului–Ceausescu Ilie si Ceausescu Nicolae–care, prin multiplele posibilitati pe care le aveau, puteau organiza asemenea actiuni.

5) Anumite cadre militare sau luptatori din Garzile Patriotice.

6) Straini:

a. Din randul celor aflati la studii in Romania:

– arabi, in general, si palestinieni, in special, inclusiv cei care sunt la pregatire pe linia Armatei (de exemplu, la Academia Militara);

– alte grupuri de straini la studii (iranieni si altii).

b. Special infiltrati (indeosebi din cei care au urmat diverse cursuri de pregatire pe linia MI sau a MAN);

c. Alti straini aflati in tara cu diverse acoperiri, inclusiv diplomatice;

d. Fosti cetateni romani (care ar fi putut intra in tara si in mod fraudulos).

7) Elemente infractoare de drept comun care au posedat armament ori l-au procurat in chiar primele ore din dupa-amiaza zilei de 22 decembrie 1989, cand, din mai multe unitati de Securitate, intre care Directia a V-a si Securitatea Capitalei, s-a ridicat o cantitate mare si diversa de armament si munitie.”

image0

image0-002

Generalul Mircea Mocanu, comandantul CAAT în 1989, declara în faţa Comisiei Senatoriale pentru Cercetarea Evenimentelor din Decembrie 1989 că România s-a confruntat în mod cert, în timpul Revoluţiei, cu ceea ce se numeşte „război electronic”. El explică câteva dintre metodele unei astfel de operaţiuni. „Ulterior au fost găsite pe teritoriul ţării mai multe baloane tip meteo, cu materialul din plastic sfâşiat de schije; de baloane atârnau reflectoare poliedrice, adică un schelet de lemn cu foiţă de staniol în măsură să reflecte undele electromagnetice emise de staţiile de radio­­locaţie. Pe cutie – o brumă de aparatură, pe care scria în limba rusă «fabricat în URSS»; aveau şi o etichetă pe care scria în limba maghiară: «Cine aduce la organele locale un asemenea obiect primeşte 50 de forinţi»”Citeste mai mult: adevarul.ro/news/societate/video-misterele-revolutiei-diversiunea-radioelectronica-sovieticii-americaniii-1_50ad127b7c42d5a6638e4c95/index.html

Posted in decembrie 1989, raport final | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | 13 Comments »

The Historiography of the Romanian Revolution: the Uses of Absurdity and the Triumph of Securitate Revisionism

Posted by romanianrevolutionofdecember1989 on December 31, 2013

(strictly personal viewpoint based on research and publications in academia from September 1990 to September 2000)

Not for nothing, as I like to say, did I include the phrase, “the Triumph of Securitate Revisionism” in my dissertation title (Richard Andrew Hall, Rewriting the Revolution: Authoritarian Regime-State Relations and the Triumph of Securitate Revisionism in Post-Ceausescu Romania (defended 16 December 1996, Department of Political Science, Indiana University, Bloomington IN, Ph.D. in Political Science awarded February 1997).

Although my 1999 article in East European Politics and Societies (Richard Andrew Hall, “The Uses of Absurdity: the Staged War Theory and the Romanian Revolution of December 1989,” East European Politics and Societies, September 1999, vol. 13, 3:  pp. 501-542.) focused heavily on the “consumption” or “demand-side” of how Securitate revisionism came to be integrated, paralleled, and accepted in the Romanian media and body politic, I also discussed the content, role, and intentions of Securitate disinformation as disseminated by former Securitate personnel and collaborators in shaping the historiography of the Romanian Revolution of December 1989.  Here is an excerpt:

image0-001

…Securitate disinformation has perhaps been so effective precisely because it did not have to follow any detailed script:  the goal was not to construct a single, coherent alternative to the initial understanding of events, but to destroy the initial understanding.  In other words, the goal was to create confusion for the sake of confusion.  This has had unintended, but nevertheless beneficial, consequences.  First, it has spared former Securitate members from having to worry about the problem of contradiction.  Second, it has appealed to their egos by encouraging individual former Securitate members to add their personal flourish to the evolving tall tale.

Disinformation in the Romanian case, I suspect, has been more anarchical and individually initiated, than planned and ordered from above.  Nobody needed to tell former Securitate members what they should or should not say about the December events.  They knew well that initial accounts had identified the Securitate as the terrorists.  None of them could be sure how their colleagues might respond to an admission that the initial account was indeed correct.  Moreover, as the dust began to settle after December 1989, it did not take long to realize that even if the Securitate no longer existed as an institution, many former colleagues considered the identity relevant and considered it the duty of former Securitate personnel to uphold the institution’s reputation in the historiography of the December events.  Prudence counseled a conservative approach and that meant denying the initial understanding of the Securitate’s culpability.  Indeed, Securitate disinformation may have been designed as much for internal consumption as to manipulate the public.  The individual former Securitate officer who negated the existence of Securitate terrorists was in effect demonstrating his continued loyalty to his colleagues.  Such manifestations of individual behavior collectively preserved the meaning and relevance of the Securitate’s identity beyond the institution’s official death.

Little did I think, of course, that two decades on, the direct influence of the former Securitate on the historiography of December 1989 should be so strong, so obvious, and yet go so-unchallenged in the Romanian media.  What follows is the “harvest” from this year’s anniversary’s crop of articles on December 1989.  I will present links to those articles first, briefly identifying the persons involved, and then post links to my research refuting their claims where appropriate (virtually all necessary features are covered in the first two deconstructions, as former Securitate revisionism is nothing if not repetitive…) and including a preview of some documents, photos, articles from that research.

1) Adevărul

Cristian Troncotă, Alex Mihai Stoenescu, Filip Teodorescu (Grigore Cartianu)

http://adevarul.ro/cultura/istorie/adevarul-live-ora1300-cine-a-tras-22-grigore-cartianu-1_52b023b6c7b855ff56c613cf/index.html

http://adevarul.ro/cultura/istorie/cine-fost-teroristiii-cine-a-tras-22-grigore-cartianu-8_52b02b7ec7b855ff56c64a04/index.html

Grigore Cartianu moderează o nouă emisiune Adevărul Live despre evenimentele sângeroase din decembrie 1989. Dezbaterea îşi propune să ofere răspunsuri convingătoare unor întrebări dureroase: Cine au fost „teroriştii“? Cine-a tras în noi după 22? De ce au fost lichidaţi soţii Ceauşescu în ziua de Crăciun? În studioul Adevărul Live se află trei invitaţi de mare greutate: istoricii Cristian Troncotă şi Alex Mihai Stoenescu, precum şi Filip Teodorescu, unul dintre „aşii“ contraspionajului din decembrie 1989.Troncotă is the editor-in-chief of Revista Vitralii Lumini si Umbre, a mouthpiece for former Securitate officers,  http://www.acmrr-sri.ro/categorii/19/revista-vitralii–lumini-si-umbre.html

Alex Mihai Stoenescu has been publicly identified as former Securitate collaborator and is known for research and publications exonerating the former Securitate

Filip Teodorescu is a former Securitate officer

Cartianu has been promoted for his writings on December 1989 by the following: Joi, 16 decembrie, 11.30h dezbatere publica la IICCMER: Armand Gosu, Raluca Grosescu, Grigore Cartianu, Mihail Neamtu

http://tismaneanu.wordpress.com/2010/07/21/deshumarea-lui-ceausescu-un-pas-spre-adevar/

http://www.movingimagesource.us/articles/how-was-ceausescu-possible-20110929

2) Evenimentul Zilei

Marian Ştef, Securitate officer in Timisoara in December 1989

Când a început Procesul Revoluţiei, Ştef a ajuns martor al apărării. “Am încercat să povestesc despre “combinezoanele negre” , adică despre agenţii KGB care au făcut atmosferă la Revoluţie. Nu m-au lăsat. În seara de 16 decembrie, aproape de biserica lui Tokes, undeva între orele 19 şi 20, i-am văzut
prima dată pe agenţi. Erau opt, îmbrăcaţi în negru. Spărgeau vitrinele la Librăria Mihail Sadoveanu şi îi îndemnau şi pe puştanii de stradă să facă la fel. Mi-a sărit în faţă vocea lor: vorbeau româneşte, dar suna diferit. Aveau accent străin. Peste trei zile, am reîntâlnit  combinezoanele negre  pe podul de la Elba, când a fost incendiat un tractor. Erau 12. Instigau oamenii. Au introdus elemente de teroare în rândul oamenilor”, îşi aminteşte fostul ofiţer de contraspionaj economic.

Ion Mihai Pacepa, former head of Foreign Intelligence until his defection in 1978

http://www.evz.ro/detalii/stiri/pacepa-nicolae-ceausescu-a-fost-executat-pentru-a-i-se-inchide-gura-1074110/pagina-comentarii/1.html#comentarii

background on the connections of Pacepa’s interviewer:  http://blog.itmorar.ro/un-traseist-de-opinie-andrei-badin/

Pacepa’s interview was also broadcast by the B1 station and its details relayed by the daily Cotidianul

http://www.cotidianul.ro/pacepa-despre-executia-lui-ceausescu-229030/

3) Cotidianul

Aurel I. Rogojan, chief deputy to General Iulian Vlad, the Securitate Director in December 1989

Part 3 of a 5 part series:  http://www.cotidianul.ro/evenimentele-din-decembrie-1989-intre-sperantele-unora-si-deziluziile-altora-iii-228956/

4) Curentul

General Maior Victor Nicolciou, head of the Securitate’s so-called anti-KGB and Warsaw Pact counterespionage

http://www.curentul.ro/2013/index.php/2013122094848/Decembrie-1989-marturii-si-documente/Fostul-sef-al-unitatii-anti-KGB-si-turistii-din-decembrie-1989.html

1) Grigore Cartianu

http://adevarul.ro/cultura/istorie/adevarul-live-ora1300-cine-a-tras-22-grigore-cartianu-1_52b023b6c7b855ff56c613cf/index.html

at minute 35, Troncota claims the “terrorists” were an “invention”:

https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/text-of-securitate-general-iulian-vlads-29-january-1990-declaration-identifying-the-terrorists/

Declaratia lui Iulian Vlad, 29 ianuarie 1990, nepublicat de presa romana timp de mai bine de 23 de ani!!!

image0-001

image0

General Magistrat (r) Ioan Dan, Teroristii din ’89 (Lucman, 2012).

at minute 51, there is a discussion that “Soviet tourists” were the “terrorists”:

Generalul Emil Macri (seful Dir. II-a Securitatii, Contrainformatii Economice),

Declaratie 2 ianuarie 1990:

“Rezumind sintetic informatiile obtinute ele nu au pus in evidenta nici lideri si nici amestecul vreunei puteri straine in producerea evenimentelor de la Timisoara.  Raportarea acestor date la esalonul superior respectivi generalului I. Vlad a produs iritare si chiar suparare…”

IMG_1219

Filip Teodorescu (adj. sef. Dir III Contraspionaj D.S.S.), Declaratie, 12 ianaurie 1990: 

Seara [luni, 18 decembrie 1989], dupa 23:00, responsabili (anumiti ?) de generalul-maior Macri Emil pe diferitele linii de munca au inceput sa vina sa-i raporteze informatiile obtinute.  Au fost destul de neconcludente si cu mare dificultate am redat o informare pe care generalul-maior Macri Emil a acceptat-o si am expediat-o prin telex in jurul orei 01:00 [marti, 19 decembrie 1989.  In esenta se refera la:

–nu sint date ca ar exista instigatori sau conducatori anume veniti din strainatate…

IMG_1453

The Last Report of the Securitate (DSS) to Nicoale Ceausescu

Please note:  no mention whatsoever of the alleged role played by “Russian tourists” or “Soviet tourists” in allegedly fomenting the Timisoara uprising

published in Evenimentul Zilei, 28 iulie 1992, p. 3.

at minute 64, discussion that the “terrorists” were from the Army’s special DIA unit, a favorite, longstanding myth invented and spread by members of the former Securitate:

image-61image-62

Expres Magazin, 9 ianuarie 1992

image-24

at minute 69, blaming Teodor Brates at TVR for intentionally creating panic about the “terrorists”:

https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/2013/12/22/revisiting-the-myths-of-the-revolution-part-iii-the-water-is-poisoned-apa-este-otravita-dr-heyndrickxs-toxicology-report/

https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/2013/12/22/revisiting-the-myths-of-the-revolution-part-iv-the-romanian-television-building-is-in-danger-bomba-in-subsolul-televiziunii/

Romania

On December 21, 1989, people drinking from water tank #4 in Sibiu experienced headache, visual disturbances, loss of consciousness, vomiting, etc.  These symptoms are all compatible with organophosphate poisoning.  The analysis of the water (by gas chromatography) and the determination of the cholinesterase activity of the blood was done in the University of Cluj.  The conclusion was that an organophosphate had been used.  Atropine sulfate and toxogonin were advised.

As soon as the symptoms appeared among the population, water tank #4 was shut off, rinsed, and cleaned.  The people received water from army trucks.

A few days later, there was a fight in Timisoara between the army and Securitate over the water tanks.  Poisoning was feared, as had occurred in Sibiu.  According to witnesses, the Securitate possesses “all possible chemical warfare agents.”

Toxicologist Aubin Heyndrickx supervised the chemical tests and interviewed the physicians at Central Hospital who treated the patients.  From the tests and from the very high dose of atropine required to produce a response, he concluded that the tank was poisoned with sarin or VX (Report on the Humanitarian Mission to Romania, December 23-29, 1989, Laboratoria voor Toxicologie Criminalistiek, State University of Ghent).

http://www.physiciansforcivildefense.org/cdp/jan90.htm

Indeed, one can watch a brief discussion of the incident with Dr. Heyndrickx beginning at approximately the 40 second mark from an ITN broadcast of 27 December 1989

http://www.itnsource.com/en/shotlist//ITN/1989/12/27/BSP271289002/?s=romania+sibiu+after+the+revolution+27+1989&st=0&pn=1

ROMANIA: SIBIU AFTER THE REVOLUTION:

}T27128901   ROMANIA: SIBIU AFTER THE REVOLUTION: United Nations medical
27.12.89     relief team arrives in Sibiu with medical supplies and blood
TX           to treat the people who were injured during the fight against
             Securitate (secret police). Toxicologists have found evidence
             that the security police poisoned the water supply. Injured
             Securitate are being treated in hospitals alongside the people
             they shot.
Clip Ref: BSP271289002 0

Clip 1of1

}T27128901   ROMANIA: SIBIU AFTER THE REVOLUTION: United Nations medical
27.12.89     relief team arrives in Sibiu with medical supplies and blood
TX           to treat the ...
  • Duration: 00:01:44 |
  • Timecode – In: 00:00:00:00  Out: 00:01:44:00 |
  • Copyright: ITN / 3rd Party Copyright

Corneliu Vaida has been kind enough to share with me, the following additional confirmation of his actions in the document below:

HP0010

For more about Corneliu Vaida during the Revolution in Timisoara in December 1989, see his interview with ITN correspondent Penny Marshall on 27 December 1989:

https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/2011/05/11/lets-go-to-the-videotape-i-to-the-army-its-confirmation-that-theyve-been-dealing-with-a-specially-trained-force-because-its-the-type-of-bullet-theyve-never-seen-before-itn-uk-telev/

Corneliu Vaida Timisoara December 1989

In early March 1990, AFP reported the declared findings of surgeons in Bucharest, attesting to the fact that many of those wounded on 21-22 December 1989 in Bucharest had been shot with exploding bullets, DUM-DUM bullets.  This is a critical article (and description of an event that I believe has gotten almost no coverage inside or outside Romania).  Lt. Gnl. Traian Oancea, chief of surgery in part of the Central Military Hospital in Bucharest, and Dr. Nicolae “Nae” Constantinescu, chief of surgery at the Coltea Hospital, discussed this at a meeting of the Society of Surgeons in Bucharest.

This was also discussed by Bucharest medical personnel at a 1994 conference:

AMFITEATRUL FACULTATII DE MEDICINA

“Decembrie 1989, in spitalele din Bucuresti”

Mihail Lechkun, Romania Libera, 10 februarie 1994, p. 2

“In decembrie 1989 a fost o disponsibilitate pentru bestialitate, pe care nu am crezut-o capabila la poporul care fac parte, ” a declarat dl. conf. dr. Nicolae Constantinescu (Spitalul Coltea), in cadrul conferintei care s-a desfasurat marti seara in Amfiteatrul Mare al Facultatii de Medicina din Bucurest, avand ca subiect “Decembrie 1989, in spitalele din Bucuresti”.  Printre invitatii Ligii Studentilor in Medicina, organizatorul acestei conferinte, s-au numarat:  dl. prof. dr. Petre Andronescu, prorector, dl. dr. Constantin Antofie, dl. prof. dr. Marian Ciurel, dl. prof. conf. dr. Dan Niculescu, dl. conf. dr. Nicolae Constantinescu, dl. prof. conf. dr. Ilie Pavelescu, dl. dr. Eduard Geambasu, toti medici chirurgi din Capitala care au fost confruntate cu fluxul de raniti din decembrie 1989.  “Documentatia pe care am avut-o, nu o mai avem,” a spus dl. prof. dr. Marian Ciurel (Spitalul de Urgenta) amintind totusi faptul ca au fost inregistrate date intr-o lucrare de doctorat.  “Putini dintre cei raniti au fost socati psihic,” isi aminteste prof. dr. Petre Andronescu (Spitalul Colentina).  Revolutionari si raniti au primit acelasi tratament, “stim doar ca la o parte din bolnavi s-au schimbat catusi” isi aminteste dl. prof. dr. Marian Ciurel.  Peste 60 la suta din ranitii adusi la Spitalul Coltea erau impuscati lateral sau din spate.  S-a tras si asupra oamenilor care au stat ghemuiti, acestia suferind astfel leziuni complexe.  Pe langa datele statistice prezentate, medicii prezenti au atras atentia asupra naturii leziunilor care, in numar mare, au fost cazate de munitie al carie efect a fost mai mult distrugerea, mutilarea decat scoaterea din lupta.  In acest sens, deosebit de interesante au fost datele prezentate din lucrarea de diploma, a medicului M. Briciu:  “S-a tras cu gloante explozive”. Concluziile ce se pot trage din faptul ca cei adusi in spitale, in intervale de timp distincte, prezentau leziuni corespunzatoare anumitor portiuni din corp, demonstreaza existenta unor ordine asupra locului unde trebuia ochit.  “Cred ca Romania va fi capabila sa constituie acel ecran care sa protejeze de acum inainte natia de asemenea manifestari,” a spus dl. conf. dr. Nicolae Constantinescu, remarcand aspectul benefic al unor astfel de conferinte.

NOR WERE THESE THE ONLY DOCTORS AND MEDICAL PERSONNEL–FOREIGN OR DOMESTIC–WHO ATTESTED TO THE USE OF DUM-DUM EXPLODING AND OTHER ATYPICAL, UNUSUAL MUNITIONS USED DURING THE EVENTS OF DECEMBER 1989

https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/2011/08/08/doctors-and-dum-dum-bullets-in-romania-in-december-1989-i-dr-manuel-burzaco-medecins-sans-frontieres/

https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/2011/08/10/doctors-and-dum-dum-bullets-in-romania-in-december-1989-ii-trimisi-in-strainatate-italia-franta-austria-anglia-si-germania-pentru-tratament/

https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/2011/08/11/doctors-and-dum-dum-bullets-in-romania-in-december-1989-iii-ce-spun-medici-romani/

Dr. Manuel Burzaco from “Doctors without Borders” was part of a team of doctors from that group who visited hospitals in Bucharest, Ploiesti, Brasov, Buzau and Braila in late December 1989 and early January 1990.  This report from the Madrid daily El Pais touches upon the women and children gravely injured by the exploding “dum dum bullets used by the Securitate.”

Other reports from Bucharest and Timisoara hospitals during the events:

“At Bucharest’s main emergency hospital, doctors said that Securitate snipers, apparently using infra-red telescopic sights and exploding dum-dum bullets, had been firing throughout Saturday night and they shot many civilians, with bullets striking foreheads and hearts.  The morgue at the hospital was stacked with 90 bodies at noon today, almost all of them civilians dead of gunshot wounds.”

Blaine Harden, “In Bucharest, Tears and Prayers for the Fallen,” The Washington Post, 25 December 1989, p. A1; A40.

Procesul de la Timisoara (II). Audierea partii civile Popovici Ion: “…Atata retin foarte bine minte, ca ofiterul a spus, cica: ‘Nu, voi trageti cu dum-dum-uri si dupa aia Armata raspunde.’”

Popovici:  “Mi-am revenit intr-un camion militar in care eram multi civili unii morti fiind adusi la garnizoana militara.  La garnizoana eu am fost dat jos si predat unui cpt (capitan) sau unui lt.major (locotenent major). vazand rana mea n-a vrut sa ma primeasca exprimand: Voi trageti cu dum dum si noi sa raspundem pentru acest lucru.”  (my thanks to A.K. for this transcription)

Popovici:  “I came to in a military truck in which there were lots of civilians some dead being brought to the military garrison.  At the garrison I was taken down and surrendered to a captain or lt. major, who looking at my wound did not want to receive me, exclaiming:  You shoot with dum-dum bullets and we are held responsible for it.”

available on this site http://www.banaterra.eu/romana/procesul-de-la-timisoara-1990-1991-vol-v ].  The following is from Volume V.]

Some excerpts: P.C.:  Ati dat o declaratie?   Po. I. :  Da  P.C.:  O mentineti?  Po. I. Da (p. 827) P.C.:  “Inteleg sa fiu audiat in cauza ca parte civila”, da?  V-as ruga sa faceti putin liniste!  “Mentin declaratia de la Procuratura si…” (p. 833)

Po. I.:  …Da [am fost ranit].  Si dupa aceea a venit unul dintre trei [civili mai in varsta] dupa mine, m-a tarat pana la masina si la masina, acolo, am luat o bataie…ca n-am putut doua saptamani nici sa mananc nimica.  M-a lovit cu patul de arma in falca si cu bocancii in cap.  Si m-au dus, m-au dus la Garnizoana.  La Garnizoana m-au aruncat din masina si a venit ofiterul de serviciu.  Au venit si acestia trei a spus lu’ ofiterul de serviciu, cica:  “Luati-l si duceti-l  la arest.”  Atata retin foarte bine minte, ca ofiterul a spus, cica:  “Nu, voi trageti cu dum-dum-uri si dupa aia Armata raspunde.  Voi omorati oameni si raspunde Armata dupa aceea.”  Asta tin minte precis.  Si de acolo mi-am dat seama ca nu poate sa fie soldati aceia. (p. 830)

IMG_0291

IMG_0290

Mircea Stoica (declaratie, 8 ian 1990):  “Cind am ajuns aici, la poarta o voce de militar din garnizoana s-a exprimat:  “Ce faceti mai — voi toti cu BUM-BUM sau DUM-DUM si ni-i trimiteti noua sa ne spalam pe cap cu ei.”

 Mircea Stoica (declaration, 8 January 1990):  “When I got there, I heard a soldier’s voice from the garrison exclaim:  “What are you guys doing? You all with your BUM-BUM or DUM-DUM and then you send`em to us to solve the problem [almost impossible to solve]” <very angry, pissed off>

(my sincere thanks to Gigga Adrian Tudor for this transcription and translation of the quote!)

IMG_0335

“Cind am ajuns aici, la poarta o voce de militar din garnizoana s-a exprimat:  “Ce faceti mai — voi toti cu BUM-BUM sau DUM-DUM si ni-i trimiteti noua sa ne spalam pe cap cu ei.”

IMG_0330

at minute 89, claimed “inventions” about the secret tunnels underneath the Central Committee building and elsewhere

https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/2012/11/28/post-ceausescu-romania-confronted-by-questions-they-dont-like-a-number-of-military-officers-and-officials-whom-we-encountered-simply-lied-stupid-lies-the-kind-that-speak-of-a-society/

I know of no better metaphor for what has happened to research on the Romanian Revolution of December 1989 than Ted Koppel’s surreal experience in Bucharest in early 1990 recounted below.

from 2 April 1990, ABC News Special.  The Koppel Report:  Death of a Dictator.

Monday, March 5 (1990). 

Bucharest.  Among the many art forms that have atrophied during the past 45 years in Romania, is that of dissembling.  Confronted by questions they don’t like, a number of military officers and officials whom we encountered, simply lied.  Stupid lies; the kind that speak of a society in which no one ever dared to question an official pronouncement.

We had requested a tour of the complex of tunnels that radiate out from beneath the old Communist Party Central Committee building in Bucharest.  An army colonel escorted us along perhaps 50 yards of tunnel one level beneath the ground and the pronounced the tour over.  I asked to be shown the second and third levels, videotape of which had already been provided us by some local entrepreneurs.  “There is no second or third level,” said the colonel.  I assured him that I had videotape of one of his own subordinates, who had escorted us on this tour, lifting a toilet that concealed the entrance to a ladder down to the next level of tunnels.  The colonel went off to consult with his man.  When he came back he said, “my officer says he’s never seen you before.”  “True,” I replied, but then I’d never said he had, only that we were in possession of the videotape I’d described.  “There are no other tunnels,” said the colonel.

Ted Koppel, “Romanian Notebook.  The week Lenin got the hook.” The Washington Post, 13 March 1990, A25.


Dupa alti 20 de metri militarii au observat ca peretii tunelului au alta culoare, sunt mai noi si sunt acoperiti cu un fel de rasina sintetica. Dupa inca 10 metri culoarul se infunda. Chiar la capat se afla un piedestal din lemn pe care era asezat un capac de WC. Au ridicat capacul iar sub el au gasit un chepeng de fier. L-au ridicat si au gasit… un rau cu apa curata, care curge intr-o matca artificiala din beton. Are latimea de circa 1,5 metri si adancimea de aproximativ un metru. Raul se afla la aproximativ 12 metri sub platforma Pietei Revolutiei . Cele 16 barci erau folosite de fapt pentru acesta cale de navigatie.

from 2 April 1990, ABC News Special.  The Koppel Report:  Death of a Dictator.

 

2) Evenimentul Zilei

See among others:

https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/2013/12/27/revizionism-securist-despre-spargerea-vitrinelor-la-timisoara-si-cateva-adevaruri-incomode-pentru-securisti-revizionisti/

https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/2013/12/17/dosarele-revolutiei-de-la-timisoara-si-procesul-de-la-timisoara-cateva-documente/

https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/2013/12/16/dosarele-revolutiei-de-la-timisoara-tudor-postelnicu-unii-militari-de-la-trupele-de-securitate-ale-brigazii-timisoara-au-facut-unele-provocari-la-unele-magazine-si-vitrine-spargind-geamurile/

https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.com/2013/07/07/after-the-ceausescus-were-executed-the-counter-revolution-is-disappeared-26-december-1989-24-january-1990/

I will leave the rest to some of the commenters to former Securitate officer Marian Stef’s claims on the Evenimentul Zilei site:

25 December, 11:19. Adevarul combinezoanelor

Nu stiu ce fel de “ofiter de Securitate ai fost (probabil,o lichea ca toti ceilalti!) si cum dracu ai ajuns SRI-st (alt gen de lichea!),dar imi aduc aminte cum toate lichelele din militie si securitate,spuneau in decembrie 1989 si 1990 ca ei sunt ‘militari”.niste NENOROCITI care au ajuns dupa aia sa spuna ca MILITARII sunt vinovati pentru asasinatele de la revolutie.Voi,cei din militie,securitate,DGIa sunteti calaii si principalii vinovati pentru acele crime!voi sunteti cei in “combinezoane negre” care ati ASASINAT nevinovati!”Combinezonul” era semnul distinctiv si de recunoastere intre voi,criminalilor! ….Iti spune toate astea,un militar adevarat (nu de la militie,Securitate sau din structurile informative si represive!)!

25 December, 11:45. Vom fi ce am fost

Securitatea romana avea o anumita calitate care o punea mai presus decat multe servicii mari de informatii din lume. Acest lucru a fost confirmat de aceste mari servicii de securitate care au recunoscut ca la acest capitol Secu era mult mai tare ca ei. Si anume la: DEZINFORMARE
Dezinformare a fost inainte de ’89, a fost imediat dupa ’89, si este si acum poate mai tare ca oricand.

Posted in decembrie 1989, raport final | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »