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 ‘turisti rusi’

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 »

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

Posted by romanianrevolutionofdecember1989 on January 24, 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/ ; 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).

Posted in decembrie 1989, raport final | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 10 Comments »

Final Boarding Call for TAROM’s special ROMBAC service from Bucuresti to Sibiu: Would the large party of suspicious “Soviet tourists” please report to the gate immediately! (I)

Posted by romanianrevolutionofdecember1989 on August 10, 2013

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

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

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/

From the outside, it might seem to be obvious disinformation or misinformation:

In the dead of winter, a dictatorship has closed its borders with its neighbors. The dictator believes that protests against his rule are the work of foreign agents.  Therefore, the dictator declares all citizens of surrounding countries to be spies and bans their entry into his country for the foreseeable future.
Yet several days later, with a serious uprising against the dictatorship underway in the country, what are described as, several dozen, conspicuous, tall, athletic young men from a large neighboring country arrive at the airport in the country’s capital with lots of bags of various sizes…and they board a plane, a larger one than is usually used, in order to assure they can fit on the flight (how thoughtful of the country’s national airline).  Their destination?  The city where the dictator’s son is in charge.
Nobody, not the airport staff, not the country’s national airline staff in this police state, thinks to make a phone call, to question the presence of this large number of foreign tourists.  Not when the tourists are going through airport security, not when the tourists are lining up to check their bags in and receive their boarding passes.   Nope, they get their boarding passes and when they get to the plane, nobody stops them from boarding.
No, the large group of suspicious tourists makes their flight.  And nobody at the receiving airport in the city controlled by the dictator’s son seems to have any questions when they land there.  It is then alleged that these athletic young men, with their bags of various sizes, containing presumably guns, participated in the violence in the city of the dictator’s son over the next few days, and when they were finished, they left the city and eventually the country, without anybody really noticing, let alone attempting to stop them.
And, of course, none of this even explains how did they get to the capital’s airport or even enter the country in the first place, without anybody in this police state detecting them or intervening?
For the outsider, it must sound like a bad joke then.  And yet the informational/narrative space about December 1989 in Romania is so amazingly confused and contaminated, that many people believe just the fantastical, magical scenario outlined above.  And many of these are reasonably smart people with good heads on their shoulders…

Posted in decembrie 1989 | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

decembrie 1989: in privinta ‘turistilor rusi,” cum au reactionat Securitatea si Ambasadorul Roman la Moscova? (documentele din Arhivele Ministerului Afacerilor Externe (AMAE), Telegrame, publicate de CWIHP)

Posted by romanianrevolutionofdecember1989 on March 14, 2010

Este nemaipomenit ca documentele diplomatice disponsible de pe site-ul Wilson Center (Cold War International History Project, www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/pubs/e-dossier5.pdf, vezi mai jos) n-au fost invocate, retraduse, sau folosite in nici un fel in Romania pana acum.  Daca cu adevarat regimul ceausist si mai ales securitatea credeau ca acesti “turisti rusi” sau “turisti sovietici” au fost agenti acoperiti si faceau o lovitura de stat, incepand cu evenimentele din Timisoara, de ce tocmai ei (“turisti rusi” in tranzit) au fost lasati sa calatoreasca prin tara dupa 17 decembrie 1989, si de ce “pericolul” acesta n-a fost ridicat in discutii diplomatice cu sovietici in aceste zile?


Este semnificativ ca Generalul Iulian Vlad, seful Securitatii, n-a suflat nici o vorba in timpul sedintei Comitetului Politic Executiv al CC al P.C.R. din ziua de 17 decembrie 1989 despre presupusi rolul “turistilor rusi” in ceea ce se intimpla la Timisoara.   DE FAPT IN NICI O TELECONFERINTA SAU SEDINTA CPExului din saptamana 17-22, NIMENI (CU EXCEPTIA LUI NICOLAE CEAUSESCU) N-AU VORBIT DESPRE ASA-ZISUL ROL AL “TURISTILOR RUSI/SOVIETIC” (De exemplu, vezi faptul ca nici Radu Balan sau Ion Coman n-a mentionat acest lucru in teleconferinta de 17 de la Timisoara http://mariusmioc.wordpress.com/2009/03/25/teleconferinta-lui-ceausescu-din-17-dec-1989/)  De ce?  Ideea venea din mintea lui Nicolae Ceausescu si faptul ca securistii si altii folosesc acest “argument” dupa decembrie 1989 vine numai dintr-o perspectiva RETROSPECTIVA:


from https://romanianrevolutionofdecember1989.wordpress.com/2009/11/27/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 his 1992 book, he [the chief of the Securitate’s Counter-espionage Directorate, Colonel Filip Teodorescu] developed further on this theme, specifically focusing on the role of “Soviet tourists:”

“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’” (Teodorescu, 1992, p. 92).

As I have written before, if it was obvious before 18 December, as these Ceausescu regime officials claim, that “Soviet tourists” were involved in the events in Timisoara, then why was it precisely “Soviet travelers coming home from shopping trips to Yugoslavia” who were the only group declared exempt from the ban on “tourism” announced on that day (see AFP, 19 December 1989 as cited in Hall 2002b)?  In fact, an Agent France-Presse correspondent reported that two Romanian border guards on the Yugoslav frontier curtly told him:  “Go back home, only Russians can get through”!!!  The few official documents from the December events that have made their way into the public domain show the Romanian Ambassador to Moscow, Ion Bucur, appealing to the Soviets to honor the Romanian news blackout on events in Timisoara, but never once mentioning—let alone objecting to—the presence or behavior of “Soviet tourists” in Romania during these chaotic days of crisis for the Ceausescu regime (CWHIP, “New Evidence on the 1989 Crisis in Romania,” 2001).  It truly strains the imagination to believe that the Romanian authorities were so “frightened” of committing a diplomatic incident with the Soviets that they would allow Soviet agents to roam the country virtually unhindered, allowing them to go anywhere and do anything they wanted.

traducere de catre Marius Mioc http://mariusmioc.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/rich-hall-brandstatter-12/

După cum am mai scris înainte, dacă ar fi fost vădit înainte de 18 decembrie, după cum afirmă aceşti oficiali ai regimului Ceauşescu, că “turiştii sovietici” erau amestecaţi în evenimentele din Timişoara, de ce au fost tocmai “călătorii sovietici întorcîndu-se din excursiile pentru cumpărături din Iugoslavia” singurul grup care a fost exceptat de la interzicerea turismului anunţată în acea zi (vezi Agenţia France Presse, 19 decembrie 1989, după cum a fost citată în Hall, R. A., 2002, “The Securitate Roots of a Modern Romanian Fairy Tale: The Press, the Former Securitate, and the Historiography of December 1989” [Rădăcinile securiste ale unui basm românesc modern: Presa, fosta securitate şi istoriografia lui decembrie 1989], “Part 2: Tourists are Terrorists and Terrorists are Tourists with Guns” [Partea a 2-a: Turiştii sînt terorişti şi teroriştii sînt turişti înarmaţi], Radio Free Europe “East European Perspectives” [Radio Europa Liberă “Perspective est-europene], Vol. 4, nr. 8). În fapt, un corespondent al agenţiei France Press a relatat că doi grăniceri români de la graniţa cu Iugoslavia i-au spus tăios: “Întoarce-te acasă, numai ruşii au voie să treacă”!!! Puţinele documente oficiale despre evenimentele din decembrie 1989 care au devenit disponibile public îl arată pe ambasadorul român la Moscova, Ion Bucur, cerîndu-le sovieticilor să nu relateze despre evenimentele din Timişoara (după cum făcea şi presa română), dar fără să menţioneze niciodată, cu atît mai puţin să protesteze, faţă de prezenţa sau comportamentul “turiştilor sovietici” în România în timpul acelor zile haotice de criză pentru regimul Ceauşescu (CWHIP, “New Evidence on the 1989 Crisis in Romania,” 2001). Este o forţare a imaginaţiei să se creadă că autorităţile române erau aşa de “înfricoşate” de a provoca un incident diplomatic cu Uniunea Sovietică încît ar fi îngăduit agenţilor sovietici să cutreiere ţara nestingheriţi, lăsîndu-i să meargă oriunde şi să facă orice doresc.

——————————————————————————-

Document 1

Telegram from the Romanian Embassy in Moscow

to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Bucharest)

18 December 1989, 12:35 pm

Comrade Ion Stoian, Candidate Member of the Executive Political Committee

5

of the Central

Committee of the Romanian Communist Party (CC PCR), Foreign Minister,

1. We took note of your instructions (in your telegram nr. 20/016 750 of 17 December

1989)

6

and we will conform to the orders given.

We have taken actions to implement your instructions, both at the consular section of the

Embassy and at the General Consulate in Kiev.

[Furthermore] we would [like to] inform that the Director of the TAROM

7

office [in

Moscow] received, through his own channels, instructions regarding foreign citizens traveling to

our country.

2. Considering the importance of the problem and the nature of the activity of issuing

visas to Soviet citizens, we would like to mention the following problems [which have arisen],

[problems] to which we would like you to send us your instructions as soon as possible.

A. Beginning with the morning of 18 December of this year, Soviet citizens have begun

to make telephonic inquiries to the Embassy from border crossings into Romania, implying that

there are hundreds of vehicles which are not allowed to cross [the border] into our country. [W]e

anticipate that the Soviet government will ask for an explanation with regard to this decision

taken [by the Romanian government]. We ask that instructions be sent explaining the way we

must deal with the situation if it arises.

B. Continuously, at the Consular Section, we have given transit visas to Soviet Jews

who have the approval [of the Soviet government] to emigrate to Israel, as well as to foreign

students studying in the Soviet Union. Since the director of the TAROM office has received

instructions that he is to continue boarding transit passengers without any changes, we would like

to request instructions with regard to the actions we must take in such situations.

C. Considering the great number of Romanian citizens that are living in the Soviet

Union who during the holidays travel to our country, we would like to know if we should issue

them visas.

D. For business travel to Romania, the instructions given to TAROM are that the

applicants must show proof [of an invitation] from the ir Romanian partners.

Please inform whether we must inform the Soviet government of this requirement since

the official Soviet delegations use, for their travels to Bucharest, exclusively AEROFLOT

8

and

that we have no means of [us] controlling the planning of such travels.

5

Politburo

6

The 17 December telegram is not available at this time.

7

The state-owned Romanian National Airline— Transportul Aerian Român

8

Soviet Airlines.


Page 5

We are experiencing similar problems in dealing with the possible situation of Soviet

citizens with tourist passports, which have received a visa prior to the [17 December 1989]

instructions and who will be using AEROFLOT for their travel to Romania.

E. We request that the Civil Aviation Department send instruction to the TAROM office

regarding the concrete actions that should be taken in connection with the 20 December flight

[from Moscow to Bucharest] so that they are able to make the final decision, during boarding,

regarding the passengers [that are to be allowed on to the plane].

We would [like to] mention that the list of passengers is given to the Director of

TAROM, from AEROFLOT or other [travel] companies, without any mention of the purpose of

the trip.

(ss) [Ambassador] Ion Bucur

[Source: Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs— Arhivele Ministerului Afacerilor Externe

(AMAE), Moscow/1989, vol. 10, pp. 271-272. Translated for CWIHP by Mircea Munteanu]

Document 2

Telegram from the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Bucharest) to all Embassies

19 December 1989

Cde. Chief of Mission,

In case you are asked during the exercise of your diplomatic attributes (we repeat: only in

case you are asked) about the so-called events taking place in Timisoara, reiterate, with all clarity,

that you have no knowledge of such events. After this short answer, and without allowing you to

be drawn into a prolonged discussion, resolutely present the following:

We strongly reject any attempts to intervene in the internal affairs of S.R. Romania, a free

and independent state. [We reject] any attempt to ignore the fundamental attributes of our

national independence and sovereignty, any attempt at [harming] the security interests of our

country, of violating its laws. The Romanian [government] will take strong actions against any

such attempts, against any actions meant to provoke or cause confusion, [actions] initiated by

reactionary circles, anti-Romanian circles, foreign special services and espionage organizations.

The [Romanian] socialist state, our society, will not tolerate under any circumstances a violation

of its vital interests, of the Constitution, and will take [any] necessary action to maintain the strict

following of the letter of the law, the rule of law, without which the normal operation of all

spheres of society would be impossible. No one, no matter who he is, is allowed to break the laws

of the country without suffering the consequences of his actions.

Instruct all members of the mission to act in conformity with the above instructions.

Inform [the Minister of Foreign Affairs] immediately of any discussions on this topic.

Aurel Duma [Secretary of State

9

, MFA]

[Source: Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs— Arhivele Ministerului Afacerilor Externe

(AMAE), Ministry Telegrams, vol. 4/1989, pp. 387-388. Translated for CWIHP by Mircea

Munteanu.]

9

Assistant Deputy Minister— Secretar de State.


Page 6

Document 3

Telegram from the Romanian Embassy in Moscow

to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

21 December 1989, 7:35 am

Cde. Ion Stoica, Minister [of Foreign Affairs],

Cde. Constantin Oancea, Deputy Minister [of Foreign Affairs],

DRI

10

On 20 December 1989, during a discussion with G. N. Gorinovici, Director of the

General Section for Socialist Countries in Europe, I expressed [the Romanian government’s] deep

indignation in regards with the inaccurate and tendentious way in which the Soviet mass media is

presenting the allegedevents taking place in Timisoara. I stressed that the stories made public by

radio and television are based on private, unofficial sources, and not on truthful information.

Many stories refer to the Hungarian press agency MTI, which is known for its antagonistic

attitude towards our country. I mentioned that V. M. Kulistikov, Deputy Chief Editor of the

publication Novoe Vremia, during an interview given to Radio Svoboda, expressed some opinions

vis-ŕ-vis Romania with are unacceptable. I brought to his [Gorinovici’s] attention the fact that on

19 December, Soviet television found it necessary to air news regarding the events in Timisoara

in particular, and in Romania in general, four separate occasions.

I argued that such stories do not contribute to the development of friendly relations

between our two countries and that they cannot be interpreted in any other way but as an

intervention in the internal affairs concerning [only] the Romanian government. I asked that the

Soviet government take action to insure the cessation of this denigration campaign against our

country and also to prevent possible public protests in front of our embassy. Gorinovici said that

he will inform the leadership of the Soviet MFA. In regards with the problems raised during our

discussion, he said that, in his opinion, no campaign of denigrating Romania is taking place in the

Soviet Union. “The mass media had to inform the public of the situation,” Gorinovici indicated,

in order to “counter-balance the wealth of information reaching the Soviet Union through

Western airwaves. Keeping silent on the subject would have only [served to] irritate the Soviet

public.” Following this statement, he recapitulated the well-known Soviet position with regards to

the necessity of allowing a diversity of opinions and ideas be expressed in the context of

informing the Soviet public about world events.

(ss) [Ambassador] Ion Bucur

[Source: Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs— Arhivele Ministerului Afacerilor Externe,

Moscow/1989, vol. 10, pp. 297-298. Translated for CWIHP by Mircea Munteanu.]

10

Directia Relatii I— Directorate 1, Socialist Countries, Europe


Page 7

Document 4

Informational Note from the Romanian Embassy in Moscow

to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Bucharest)

21 December 1989, 8:00 am

Cde. Ion Stoian, Minister of Foreign Affairs,

Cde. Costantin Oancea, Deputy Foreign Minister,

DR1

During the evening of 20 December 1989, I was invited in audience at I. P. Aboimov,

Deputy Foreign Minister of USSR. He related to me the following:

1. Lately, the Soviet press published news in connection to events unfolding in Romania,

specifically with the events in Timisoara. It is true that some of the published materials are based,

generally, on foreign [i.e. not Romanian] sources. It is evident that the [Soviet] mass media need

information on the basis of which to inform the public. Aside from this, during meetings with

foreign journalists, there were many requests addressed to the Soviet [government] to state its

position in regards with the events taking place in Romania as they were presented by various

press agencies. Furthermore, during his recent visits in Brussels and London, [Foreign Minister

Edward] Shevardnadze

11

was asked to state his opinion vis-ŕ-vis those events. In London, after

the official talks ended,

12

the Soviet Foreign Minister had a difficult time convincing [Prime

Minister Margaret] Thatcher that there should be no comments to the press on the events

allegedly taking place in Romania. The [Romanian] Foreign Ministry is also informed that

interest in this matter was expressed during working meetings of the Second Congress of the

People’s Deputies taking place in Moscow at this time.

13

The [Soviet] ambassador in Bucharest

was instructed to contact the Romanian government and obtain, from authorized officials,

information to confirm or refute the version of the events distributed by foreign press agencies.

To this date, the Soviet Embassy was unable to obtain and transmit any such information.

Due to such problems, the Soviet government asks that the Romanian government send

an informational note, even one that is restricted [cu caracter închis] regarding the events that are

really taking place in Romania. [The Soviet government] is interested in receiving information

that is as comprehensive as possible. If information is not received, it would be extremely

difficult to create an effective set of directions for the Soviet mass media, with which there are,

even so, many difficulties. [The Soviet government] is worried that, based on the news reported

in the press, some of the deputies participating at the sessions, would ask that the 2

nd

Congress of

the People’s Deputies take a position vis-ŕ-vis the alleged events taking place in Romania. The

MFA prepared for the deputies an information note in which it stresses that it does not have any

official information, but it is possible that this argument will not accepted long. Based on the

information available to the MFA, the Congress will adopt a resolution with regards to the US

military actions in Panama.

Of course, there is no connection between the two events. In Panama, a foreign military

intervention is taking place, while in Romania the events are domestic in nature. I. P. Aboimov

stressed his previous request that the Romanian government send, in the spirit of cooperation

11

Edward Sevardnadze traveled to Brussels and London at the end of 1989. On 19 December he met at

NATO HQ with NATO Secretary General Manfred Woerner and Permanent Representatives of NATO

countries.

12

Prime Minister Thatcher met Shevardnadze in London on 19 December 1989.

13

The Second Congress of the People’s Deputies began its session on 12 December 1989.


Page 8

between the two countries, an informational note truthfully describing the current situation in the

country.

2. The Soviet MFA received a series of complaints that the border between the Soviet

Union and Romania has been closed for Soviet citizens, especially tourists. The Soviet

government was not previously informed with regards to this development. [T]his omission

causes consternation. The Soviet government is not overly concerned with the situation, but

[notes that] it creates difficulties with tourists that have already paid for and planned their

vacations accordingly.

3. With regards to the above statements, I said that I would, of course, inform Bucharest

of this. At the same time, I expressed the displeasure [of the Romanian government] with the fact

that the Soviet radio, television and newspapers have distributed news regarding events in

Romania taken from foreign news agencies, agencies that are distributing distorted and overtly

antagonistic stories regarding the situation in Romania. I gave concrete examples of such stories

published in newspapers such as Izvestia, Pravda, Komsomolskaia Pravda, Krasnaia Zvezda,

stories distributed by western press agencies as well as the Hungarian Press Agency MTI, which

is known for its antagonistic attitude towards our country. In that context, I mentioned that the

Romanian government has not requested that the Soviet Union inform it concerning events

unfolding in Grozny or Nagornîi-Karabah, nor has it published any news stories obtained from

Western press agencies, believing that those [events] are strictly an internal matter concerning

[only] the Soviet government.

I expressed my displeasure with the fact that some Soviet correspondents in Bucharest—

including the TASS correspondent— have transmitted materials from unofficial sources, which

contain untruthful descriptions of the events and which create in [the mind of] the Soviet public

an erroneous impression of the situation existing in our country. I stressed the point that such

behavior is not conducive to strengthening the relationship between our peoples and

governments, on the contrary, causing [only] serious damage [to said relationship]. I brought to

the attention of the Deputy Foreign Minister in no uncertain terms that a resolution of the

Congress of the People’s Deputies [concerning] the alleged events taking place in Romania

would be an action without precedent in the history of relations between the two countries and

would cause serious damage to the relationship.

At I. P. Aboimov’s question, I described the events regarding the situation of pastor

László Tökes, as described in your memorandum, stressing that this information does not have an

official character. I presented, in no uncertain terms, the decision of [the government of] Romania

to reject any attempts at interference in the internal matters of Romania. I expressed the decision

[of the Romanian leadership] to take any necessary measures against disruptive and diversionary

actions perpetrated by reactionary, anti-Romanian circles, by foreign special services and

espionage agencies (servicii speciale si oficinele de spionaj staine). With regard to the issue of

tourists crossing the border in Romania, I said that I did not posses an official communication in

this regard. I suggested that some temporary measures were adopted due to the need to limit

access of certain groups of tourists [in the country]. [Those limitats were imposed] due to

difficulties in assuring their access to hotel rooms and other related essential conditions. Those

limitations do not apply to business travel or tourists transiting Romania. I reminded [I. P.

Aboimov] that the Soviet government had introduced at different times such limitations on travel

for Romanian tourists to certain regions [of the Soviet Union] (Grozny and Armenia), which

[had] provoked dissatisfaction.

4. The conversation took place in a calm, constructive atmosphere.

(ss) [Ambassador] Ion Bucur


Page 9

[Source: Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs— Arhivele Ministerului Afacerilor Externe

(AMAE), Telegrams, Folder: Moscow/1989, vol. 10, pp. 299-302. Translated for CWIHP by

Mircea Munteanu.]

Document 5

Information Note from the Romanian Embassy in Moscow

to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

21 December 1989, 2:00 pm

Comrade Ion Stoica, Minister of Foreign Affairs,

1. On 21 December 1989, at 12:00 pm, I paid a visit to Deputy Foreign Minister I. P.

Aboimov to whom I presented a copy of the speech given by Comrade Nicolae Ceausescu,

General Secretary of the Romanian Communist Party [PCR] and President of the Socialist

Republic of Romania [SRR], on the 20 December 1989 over radio and television. I. P. Aboimov

made no comments with regard to the speech. He requested that the Soviet side receive

information as to whether,during the events taking place in Timisoara, any deaths had occurred

and what the current situation in the city was.

2. Aboimov said that during the 19 December discussions between the Soviet ambassador

in Bucharest and Cde. Nicolae Ceausescu, the latter expressed his disapproval with the official

declarations made by Soviet officials concerning the events in Timisoara. He [Ceausescu] said

that those [actions taking place in Timisoara] are the result of strategies developed beforehand by

[member nations of] the Warsaw Treaty Organization (WTO). [Ceausescu] suggested that certain

officials in Bucharest told ambassadors from socialist countries that they have information with

respect to the intention of the Soviet Union to intervene militarily in Romania.

As for the so-called official declarations [Aboimov added], they probably refer to a reply

made by Cde. E[dward] Shevardnadze, [Soviet] Minister of Foreign Affairs to a question from a

Western journalist during his trip to Brussels. [The question] referred to the events in Timisoara

and [the question of] whether force was used there. Cde. Shevardnadze answered that “I do not

have any knowledge [of this], but if there are casualties, I am distressed.” Aboimov said that, if

indeed there are casualties, he considered [Shevardnadze’s] answer justified. He stressed that E.

Shevardnadze made no other specific announcement in Brussels [with regards to the events in

Timisoara]. Concerning the accusations that the actions [in Timisoara] were planned by the

Warsaw Pact, and specifically the declarations with regard to the intentions of the USSR,

14

Aboimov said that, personally, and in a preliminary fashion, he qualifies the declarations as

“without any base, not resembling reality and apt to give rise to suspicion. It is impossible that

anybody will believe such accusations. Such accusations”— Aboimov went on to say— “have

such grave repercussions that they necessitate close investigation.”

He stressed that the basis of interaction between the USSR and other governments rested

on the principles of complete equality among states, mutual respect, and non-intervention in

internal affairs.

(ss) [Ambassador] Ion Bucur

[Source: Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs— Arhivele Ministerului Afacerilor Externe

(AMAE), Moscow/1989, vol. 10, pp. 303-304. Translated for CWIHP by Mircea Munteanu.]

14

Ceausescu repeatedly accused the Soviet Union in December 1989 of planning an invasion of Romania.


Page 10

Document 6

Telegram from the Romanian Embassy in Moscow

to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Bucharest)

22 December 1989, 07:30 am

Cde. Constantin Oancea, Deputy [Foreign Affairs] Minister

Directorate 1— Socialist Countries, Europe

During a conversation between N. Stânea and V. L. Musatov, Deputy Director of the

International Department of the Central Committee (CC) of Communist Party of the Soviet Union

(CPSU) [Musatov], referring to the situation in Eastern European countries, declared:

The processes taking place [in Eastern Europe] are the result of objective needs.

Unfortunately, these processes taking place are [sometimes] incongruous. In some countries, such

as Hungary and Poland, the changes that took place went outside the initial limits planned by the

[local] communists, who have [now] lost control. The situation is also becoming dangerous in

Czechoslovakia and the German Democratic Republic [GDR]. At this time, in Bulgaria the

[Communist] Party is trying to maintain control, however, it is unknown which way the situation

will evolve. As far as it is concerned, the CPSU is trying to give aid to the communists.

Representatives of the CC of the CPSU have been or are at this time in the GDR [and]

Czechoslovakia to observe the situation personally. The attitude towards the old leadership is

regrettable. For example, [East German Communist Party leader] E[rich] Honecker will be

arrested. In the majority of these countries there are excesses against the communists. The Soviet

government is preoccupied with the future of “Our Alliance.” [The Soviet government] is

especially interested in the evolution of events in the GDR, in the background of the discussions

taking place regarding reunification. The Soviet Union is following all these events, but is not

getting involved in the internal affairs of the respective countries.

.

(ss) [Ambassador] Ion Bucur

[Source: Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs— Arhivele Ministerului Afacerilor Externe

(AMAE), Moscow/1989, vol. 10, p. 313. Translated for CWIHP by Mircea Munteanu.]

Document 7

Telegram from the Romanian Embassy in Moscow

to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Bucharest)

22 December 1989, 04:20 pm

Cde. Ion Stoian, Minister of Foreign Affairs,


Page 11

On 22 December 1989, at 02:00 pm I. P. Aboimov, Deputy Foreign Affairs Minister,

called me at the Soviet Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Accompanying me was I. Rîpan, [Embassy]

secretary. V. A. Lapsin, [Soviet MFA] secretary was also present.

Aboimov said that he was instructed to present, on behalf of the Soviet leadership, the

following reply to the message sent [by the Romanian government] through the Soviet

ambassador in Bucharest [during his discussion with Nicolae Ceausescu on 19 December].

“The message sent [by] the Romanian nation on 20 December of this year, has been

carefully examined in Moscow. We consider the problems raised in the message as very serious,

15

since they are dealing with the basic issues of our collaboration.

In the spirit of sincerity, characteristic for our bilateral relations, we would like to

mention that we are surprised by its tone and the accusations regarding the position and role of

the Soviet Union with respect to the events taking place in Timisoara. We reject wholeheartedly

the statements with regard to the anti-Romanian campaign supposedly taking place in the Soviet

Union, not to mention the accusation that the actions against Romania have allegedly planned by

the Warsaw Treaty Organization [WTO]. Such accusations are unfounded and absolutely

unacceptable. Just as absurd are the declarations of certain Romanian officials who are suggesting

that the Soviet Union is preparing to intervene in Romania. We are starting, invariably, from the

idea that, in our relations with allied nations, as well as with all other nations, the principles of

sovereignty, independence, equality of rights, non-intervention in the internal affairs. These

principles have been once again confirmed during the [WTO] Political Consultative Committee

summit in Bucharest.

It is clear that the dramatic events taking place in Romania are your own internal

problem. The fact that during these events deaths have occured has aroused deep grief among the

Soviet public. The declaration adopted by the Congress of the People’s Deputies is also a

reflection of these sentiments.

Furthermore, I would like to inform you that our representative at the UN Security

Council has received instructions to vote against convening the Security Council for [the purpose

of] discussing the situation in Romania, as some countries have proposed. We consider that this

would be an infringement of the sovereignty of an independent state by an international

organization.

We want to hope that, in the resolution of the events in Romania, wisdom and realism

will prevail and that political avenues to solve the problems to the benefit of [our] friend, the

Romanian nation, will be found.

Our position comes out of our sincere desire not to introduce into our relationship

elements of suspicion or mistrust, out of our desire to continue our relations normally, in the

interest of both our nations, [and in the interest of] the cause of peace and socialism.

I. P. Aboimov asked that this message be sent immediately to Bucharest.

(ss) [Ambassador] Ion Bucur

[Source: Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs— Arhivele Ministerului Afacerilor Externe

(AMAE), Telegrame, Folder Moscow/1989, vol. 10, pp. 324-325. Translated for CWIHP by

Mircea Munteanu]

15

Ceausescu had accused the Soviet leadership, in cooperation with “other Warsaw Pact members” of

masterminding the events taking place in Timisoara, and of preparing an attack on Romania.

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

e-Dossier No. 5

New Evidence on the 1989 Crisis in Romania

Documents Translated and Introduced

by Mircea Munteanu

1

Recently released Romanian documents translated by the Cold War International History

Project (CWIHP) shed new light on how, in December 1989, the dramatic albeit mostly peaceful

collapse of Eastern Europe’s communist regimes came to its violent crescendo with the toppling

and execution of Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu. Following Solidarity’s electoral victory

in Poland, the demise of Communist authority in Hungary, the fall of Erich Honecker, a close

friend and ally of Ceausescu, and, finally, the deposing of Bulgaria’s Todor Zhivkov, Romania

had remained the last Stalinist bulwark in Eastern Europe. Much to everybody’s surprise,

however, an explosion of popular unrest in mid December 1989 over Securitate actions in

Timisoara quickly engulfed the Ceausescu regime, leading to the dictator’s ouster and execution.

CWIHP previously documented from Russian sources how, confronted with the violent

turmoil in Romania, the US administration sought intervention by the Soviet Union on behalf of

the oppositionforces. On Christmas Eve, 24 December 1989, with Moscow some eight hours

ahead of Washington, US Ambassador Jack Matlock went to the Soviet Foreign Ministry and met

with Deputy Foreign Minister I. P. Aboimov. According to the Soviet documents, the message

Matlock delivered— while veiled in diplomatic indirection— amounted to an invitation for the

Soviets to intervene in Romania. The Russian documents recorded that Matlock, apparently on

instructions from Washington, “suggested the following option: what would the Soviet Union do

if an appropriate appeal came from the [opposition] Front? He let us know that under the present

circumstances the military involvement of the Soviet Union in Romanian affairs might not be

regarded in the context of ‘the Brezhnev doctrine.’” Repudiating “any interference in the

domestic affairs of other states,” Aboimov— probably referring to the then ongoing US invasion

of Panama— proposed instead “that the American side may consider that ‘the Brezhnev doctrine’

is now theirs as our gift.”

2

The newly accessible Romanian documents, obtained by Romanian historians Vasile

Preda and Mihai Retegan, bring to light the Soviet reaction to the Romanian events in Timisoara

and Bucharest through the perspective of the Romanian ambassador in Moscow, Ion Bucur. His

cables, now declassified, illustrate the isolated and paranoid stance of the Ceausescu regime at the

height of its final crisis.

The events of December 1989 in Romania started, inconspicuously enough, with the

attempted relocation of the ethnic Hungarian Calvinist pastor László Tökés from his parish in

Timisoara. The failed attempts of the police (Militia) forces, joined by the secret police

(Securitate), to remove the pastor from his residence enraged the local population. Dispelling the

so-called “historical discord” between Hungarians and Romanians in the border region, the

population of Timisoara united together to resist the abuses of the regime.

Ceausescu’s reaction was a violent outburst. Blaming “foreign espionage agencies” for

inciting “hooligans” the ordered the Militia, the Securitate, the patriotic guards and the army to

use all force necessary to repress the growing challenge to the “socialist order.” The repression

caused over 70 deaths in the first few days alone; hundreds suffered injuries. By 20 December

however, it became clear that the popular uprising could not be put down without causing

massive casualties, an operation which the army did not want to undertake while Ceausescu was

1

For more information, please contact the CWIHP at Coldwar1@wwic.si.edu or 202.691.4110 or Mircea

Munteanu at MunteanuM@wwic.si.edu or 202.691.4267

2

See Thomas Blanton, “When did the Cold War End” in CWIHP Bulletin #10, (March 1998) pp. 184-191.


Page 3

out of the country. After the army withdrew in the barracks on 20 December, the city was

declared “liberated” by the demonstrators.

Ceausescu returned from a trip in Iran on 20 December and immediately convened a

session of the Politburo. He demanded that a demonstration be organized in Bucharest

showcasing the support of the Bucharest workers for his policies. The demonstration proved to be

a gross miscalculation. The popular resentment had, by that time, reached a new peak: The

demonstration quickly degenerated into chaos and erupted in an anti-Ceausescu sentiment. The

violent suppression of the Bucharest unrest rivaled that of Timisoara.

3

Securitate, police and army

forces fired live ammunition into the population in Piata Universitatii (University Plaza) and

close to Piata Romana (Roman Square).

The following documents show the attempts of the Romanian regime to maintain secrecy

on the events taking place in Romania— even with regard to its increasingly estranged Soviet ally.

From restricting the access of Russian tourists in Romania beginning with 18 December

4

(Document No. 1) to the demands made by the Romanian embassy in Moscow to the Soviet

leadership to prevent the Soviet media from publishing news reports about “alleged events”

taking place in Timisoara, Cluj and, later, Bucharest (Documents Nos. 4 and 5),Bucharest sought

to limit the damage to the regime’s image of stability. Afraid that information about the events

taking place in Romania would tarnish Ceausescu’s image of “a world leader,” the Foreign

Ministry instructed the Romanian embassies not to respond to any questions concerning the

“alleged” events and demanded that all actions taken by the Romanian government were

legitimate by virtue of its sovereignty. (Document No. 2).

The documents also present a picture of a regime grasping at straws, accusing even

former allies of conspiracy, and believing that isolation would insure its survival. Ceausescu’s

longstanding hysteria about the machinations of “foreign espionage agencies” — and his growing

mistrust towards Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev— reached new heights in his accusation that

turmoil in Romania was used by the Warsaw Pact to oust him (Ceausescu) from office, a

suggestion that struck Aboimov as utter “insanity.” (Documents Nos. 5 and 7). Quite the

contrary, the US-Soviet conversations suggest, was actually the case.

3

Official statistics place the death figure at 162 dead (73 in Timisoara, 48 in Bucharest, and 41 in the rest

of the country) and 1107 wounded (of which 604 in Bucharest alone).

4

There were persistent rumors, during and after the 1989 events in Romania that the Soviet KGB sent

numerous agents in Romania in December 1989. Some accounts accused the KGB of attempting to

destabilize the regime while others accused them of attempting to shore it up. Likely both accounts are

somewhat exaggerated. While it is clear that the KGB was interested in obtaining information about the

events, it is unlikely that it attempted to interfere, either way in the unfolding of the events. It is more likely

that the closing of the borders both with the USSR but also with Hungary and Yugoslavia, is likely that

stranded numerous transistors on Romanian territory.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »