The inauguration of the Communist regime in Romania was the result ofhistorical circumstances in which the Romanian people undoubtedly played theleast important role. Whether it was short-sightedness or self-interest that causedCommunism's advent in Romania, has now become a question for history to answer;to search today for the determinants of this tragedy is perhaps useless, or inany event merely academic. One fact, however, is certain. The Romanians notonly did not want such a regime, they did not even dream that something like itwas possible, because -- perhaps as in no other European country -- noCommunist Party had existed in pre-war Romania, not even a Communist problem.The clandestine Communist organization, according to both its boss and thefiles of the police, had a total of 820 members -- and almost half of thosewere agents of the state police! I met many of them in prisons, sentenced after1945 for "crimes against humanity"!
The surprise which benumbed the nation at first, later gave way to anxiety.The public in its entirety reacted from the start against Communist violence,which was initially supported by the short-sightedness of political parties andadventurers, but later on only by the Soviet battalions and secret police.
The downfall of the monarchy on Dec. 30, 1947 marked the starting point; itwas the signal for a Communist offensive on all fronts to destroy thefoundations of the nation and replace them with Soviet tyranny. This new stateof affairs compelled the Romanian citizen to choose between two alternatives;one being collaboration with the Communists, offering honors, a life free fromwant, and high position; the other carrying the risk of joblessness,incarceration in the cellars of the Securitate, or even loss of life itself.
Instinctively or deliberately, the great majority chose the second, eventhough they could not influence the course of events in their favor. The fight wasso tragically unequal. On the one side we have the live organism of Communism,perfectly disciplined, with strategy perfected over three decades ofsubjugating the Russian people. This force was small in number, to be sure, butthe stakes were high, and knowing the risks, it was not disposed to make anyconcessions that might weaken its position as victor or "jeopardize itslegal status. " It was in fact a foreign body determined to embed itsfangs in the arteries of the Romanian nation.
On the other side of the conflict we have an organically unblendedcommunity, discouraged by the loss of a war, with the feeling of an unjustdefeat yet in its heart, and aware that it had been left to make the best ofthings by its own means -- the attitude of the Westerners being more thanmanifestly one of disinterest in what happened in Romania. In view of thisunfavorable attitude of the Western powers, and because of a lack of leadershipto channel its efforts toward a possible and advantageous solution, a mass reactionwas impossible. To this, one could also add not too small a dose of naivete,especially among politicians, who many times believed the opposite of theobvious. They believed, for example, that the Communist occupation and theimposed regime were but transitory stages and that sooner or later everythingwas going to revert to normal, without the slightest effort on their part.While the people's zeal was being wasted in fruitless effort, the CommunistParty was winning victory after victory, and the politicians were making dealsbehind-the-scenes or forming tentative governments in anticipation of thearrival of -- the Americans!
In the face of the new events, one observed a change in the make-up of thepopulace. To the ranks of several hundred Communist conspirators and theirinternational brethren was gradually added a stratum of individuals ofuncertain background, in large part roustabouts and creatures from the moredegraded and contemptible sectors of humanity. To these were added in quitelarge numbers members of the minority groups who were now installed ingovernment jobs, most of the time without having the slightest competence.Contrary to the professed principles of "class struggle," theCommunists that were brought in from the Soviet Union (Ana Pauker, Bodnarenco,Chisinevski, Tescovici, Moscovici, et al.,) encouraged ethnical dissension andthe centrifugal tendencies of national minorities, thus arousing and exploitingstrongly anti-Romanian sentiments by favoring non-Romanians for admission intoParty membership and appointment to low-echelon administrative positions.
On the "counter-revolutionary" front stood the flower of theRomanian nation, with the front ranks occupied by students and youngintellectuals, mostly of peasant or middle-class origin. The young people hadbeen anti-Communist for years prior to the direct confrontation with theinvaders -- for the Russians have always been looked upon as such -- possiblybecause of the national instinct, or their education, or a natural pride. Thereasons for this anti-Communist posture are as various as are the forms takenthroughout the whole anti-Communist struggle.
Confronted by this situation, the Communists adopted measures which theydeemed appropriate. Completely disregarding all principles of social ethics,human decency, and the Peace Treaty of Paris, which supposedly guaranteedfreedom of speech, they unleashed a wave of arrests. Every social stratum ofRomania contributed its share of victims, but the hardest hit were thestudents. How many of them passed under the "protection" of thepolice, one cannot tell. From 1948, then, until the present time, violentrepression of discontent has continued, its intensity depending on theperspicacity of the Securitate's informers or on increase or decrease of thepeople's resignation to their fate. For manner and magnitude, the arrests ofthe night of May 14/15, 1948 remain memorable. For on that one night, in thethree most important university centers (Bucharest, Iasi and Cluj) no fewerthan 1,000 students were arrested. This figure represents about 2% of allstudents at the time.
The methods of torture most commonly used by the Communist Secret Policewere freely applied in the interrogation of prisoners. For months, the militarytribunals pronounced sentences prepared by the Ministry of the Interior inadvance of the "trials", either behind closed doors or in public forthe benefit of journalists and Party activists. Sentences ranged from hardlabor for life down to five years' imprisonment. Sentences of only two or threeyears were extremely rare and given only where there was no evidence at allagainst the accused.
Using a method long practiced in the U. S. S. R., that of segregatingprisoners according to their professional background and intellectual capacity,the Communists in Romania grouped the students in a category apart from theothers, and designated as their place for detention the prison at Pitesti. Thismeasure served another purpose, also -- that of preventing them from exercisingtheir influence (which was considerable) over the great number of peasants andworkers who continually swelled the ranks of political prisoners. The influenceof the students in Romanian society after the Second World War was as great asit had been before the war.
One single fact is worthy of note here. Among the large numbers of arrestedstudents, hardly any were of minority origin! The "class struggle"theory here was undeniably violated. According to the theory, of course, theenemies of Communism would have included large numbers of the foreign ethnicgroups that enjoyed a favored economic position prior to the takeover and hadpresumably suffered correspondingly great economic losses with the liquidationof "capitalism. "
Also it is worth noting that, just as the wealthy resident aliens hadaroused no apprehension in the Communist rulers, so the sons of rich Romanianswere conspicuously lacking among the students arrested. The basis for thisremarkable discrimination may lie in a conflict between two worlds based onmotives entirely other than those taught in Communist classes inMarxism-Leninism and in the "history" of the Party and theworking-class.
During the trials, sometimes relatives of the accused were permitted to seehim once more, but after sentence was pronounced, the doors were locked behindhim, and tight secrecy deprived the family of all news of him, until he wasreleased -- if ever he was. Oftentimes prisoners had been dead for years whilethe family waited and waited at home for news, hoping that after 10 or 20 yearsthey might be re-united with the loved one who had disappeared. It was to beexpected that such rigorous secrecy would prevent leakage outside the prisonwalls of any report or even rumor of the crimes committed within.