Misplaced Pages

Pitești Prison: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:47, 15 December 2006 editDahn (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers148,225 editsmNo edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 21:49, 15 December 2006 edit undoVintila Barbu (talk | contribs)618 edits add infoNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
The '''Piteşti prison''' (]: ''Închisoarea Piteşti'') was a penal facility in ], ], best remembered for the ] experiment carried out by ] in ]-] (also known as ''Experimentul Piteşti'' - the "Piteşti Experiment" or ''Fenomenul Piteşti'' - the "Piteşti Phenomenon"). The latter was designed as an attempts at violently "reeducating" the mostly young ]s, male members of banned groupings such as the ] and ] parties, as well as those who claimed inspiration from the ] ] or ] members of the ].<ref>Cesereanu; Cioroianu, p.316-317; Măgirescu; Rusan; Wexler</ref> The '''Piteşti prison''' (]: ''Închisoarea Piteşti'') was a penal facility in ], ], best remembered for the ] experiment carried out by ] in ]-] (also known as ''Experimentul Piteşti'' - the "Piteşti Experiment" or ''Fenomenul Piteşti'' - the "Piteşti Phenomenon"). The latter was designed as an attempt at violently "reeducating" the mostly young ]s, male members of banned groupings such as the ] and ]
parties, as well as those who claimed inspiration from the ] ] or ] members of the ].<ref>Cesereanu; Cioroianu, p.316-317; Măgirescu; Rusan; Wexler</ref>


The experiment's goal, compliant with the regime's take on ], was for prisoners to discard past political and religious convictions, and, eventually, to alter their ] to the point of absolute obedience.<ref>Rusan</ref> Estimates for the total number of people passed through the experiment range from 1,000<ref>Rusan</ref> to 5,000.<ref>Popa</ref> The experiment's goal, compliant with the regime's take on ], was for prisoners to discard past political and religious convictions, and, eventually, to alter their ] to the point of absolute obedience.<ref>Rusan</ref> Estimates for the total number of people passed through the experiment range from 1,000<ref>Rusan</ref> to 5,000.<ref>Popa</ref> It is considered the largest and most intensive brainwashing through torture in the Eastern bloc.<ref>Ierunca, p.41</ref>


==History== ==History==
Line 14: Line 15:
The process begun after that date involved ] (mainly through humiliation) and physical ].<ref>Cesereanu; Măgirescu; Rusan</ref> The process begun after that date involved ] (mainly through humiliation) and physical ].<ref>Cesereanu; Măgirescu; Rusan</ref>


Detainees, who were subject to regular and severe beatings, were also required to engage in torturing each other, with the goal of discouraging past loyalties.<ref>Cesereanu; Cioroianu, p.317; Măgirescu; Rusan</ref> Guards would force them to attend scheduled or ad-hoc political instruction sessions, on topics such as ] and ]'s ''History of the ] Short Course'', usually accompanied by random violence and encouraged ] (''demascare'', lit. "unmasking") for various real or invented misdemeanors.<ref>Cesereanu; Cioroianu, p.317; Măgirescu</ref> In addition, each victim of the experiment was subject to regular ], during which torture was applied as a means to expose intimate details of his life.<ref>Cioroianu, p.317; Măgirescu</ref> ] was also enforced: notably, religious inmates were dressed as figures of ], and all others were required to address them insults.<ref>Măgirescu</ref> The prison also ensured a preliminary selection for the ]s at the ], ], and other sites, where squads of former inmates were supposed to extend the experiment.<ref>Cioroianu, p.317; Măgirescu</ref> Detainees, who were subject to regular and severe beatings, were also required to engage in torturing each other, with the goal of discouraging past loyalties.<ref>Cesereanu; Cioroianu, p.317; Măgirescu; Rusan</ref> Guards would force them to attend scheduled or ad-hoc political instruction sessions, on topics such as ] and ]'s ''History of the ] Short Course'', usually accompanied by random violence and encouraged ] (''demascare'', lit. "unmasking") for various real or invented misdemeanors.<ref>Cesereanu; Cioroianu, p.317; Măgirescu</ref> In addition, each victim of the experiment was subject to regular ], during which torture was applied as a means to expose intimate details of his life.<ref>Cioroianu, p.317; Măgirescu</ref> ] was also enforced: notably, religious inmates were dressed as figures of ], and all others were required to address them insults.<ref>Măgirescu</ref>

The programme of re-education progressed in four stages. The first was called “external unmasking” by which the detainee had to reveal everything he was supposed to have hidden from previous interrogations, even things they intended to do. In the hope of escaping torture, many prisoners confessed imaginary misdeeds.

In the second phase, known as “internal unmasking” the tortured had to reveal the names of those who had behaved less brutal or somewhat indulgently towards him during the detention, be it a fellow detainee or a ward member. After ensuring that the prisoner has become himself an informer, the next stages aimed at destroying the prisoner’s personality and moral structure.

In the third stage, called “public moral unmasking”, the inmate was forced to denounce and scorn everything he held most dear, like family, friends, faith, intimate convictions and finally himself. Thus, active believers had to blaspheme religious symbols and sacred texts, the past of each family’s member of the prisoner was distorted and attributed with absurd, criminal features. Next, the detainee was made to write a false autobiography where he fabricated a history of aberrant behaviour and sexual deviance. “By injecting gradually into the victim’s subconscious information different from what he had always accepted as real and true, by altering and constantly deprecating existing reality and substituting for it a fictitious image, the re-educator at last achieved the final purpose of the unmasking: to make the lie so real to the victim that he would forget what had formerly for him made sense.” <ref> Bacu, p.103 </ref>, thus realizing a “complete reversal, for an indeterminate time, of the values in which the student had always believed ” <ref> Bacu, p.104 </ref>

In order to consolidate the moral collapse and to shape a new moral and psychological profile, in the final stage, the prisoner was forced to carry out the “re-education” of his best friend, torturing him with his own hands and making him undergo the same procedures he has endured. If he was regarded as too moderate in the beatings or less zelous in depriving his victims of sleep, he was subjected a second time to the “unmasking” process.

To enforce this programme, physical violence, primarily harsh beatings were practiced at any stage. Over weeks, the subjects of “re-education” were forced into an exhausting, humiliating and absurd labour schedule, such as clean the floor with a rag clenched between the teeth. At night, already “re-educated” fellow inmates were forced to strike those who fell into sleep. Prisoners had to eat as fast as they could scald food directly from bowls put on the flour, with hands behind their backs. Sometimes they were forced to eat excrements or to plunge their heads into a bucket of urine.

The prison also ensured a preliminary selection for the ]s at the ], ], and other sites, where squads of former inmates were supposed to extend the experiment.<ref>Cioroianu, p.317; Măgirescu</ref>


], kept in degrading and unsanitary conditions,<ref>Cioroianu, p.318; Măgirescu</ref> inmates were prevented from engaging in contacts with the outside world, and forced to cover their eyes in the few instances where they could walk out of their cells.<ref>Măgirescu</ref> ], kept in degrading and unsanitary conditions,<ref>Cioroianu, p.318; Măgirescu</ref> inmates were prevented from engaging in contacts with the outside world, and forced to cover their eyes in the few instances where they could walk out of their cells.<ref>Măgirescu</ref>
Line 31: Line 44:


==References== ==References==
*Bacu, D., The Anti-Humans Student R-Education in Romanian Prisons, Englewood, Colorado, 1971
*{{ro icon}} , in '']'', Nr.684, April 2003 *{{ro icon}} , in '']'', Nr.684, April 2003
*], ''Pe umerii lui Marx. O introducere în istoria comunismului românesc'' ("On the Shoulders of Marx. An Incursion into the History of Romanian Communism"), ], Bucharest, 2005 *], ''Pe umerii lui Marx. O introducere în istoria comunismului românesc'' ("On the Shoulders of Marx. An Incursion into the History of Romanian Communism"), ], Bucharest, 2005
*{{fr icon}} Ierunca, V. Piteşti, Madrid, Limite, 1981
*{{ro icon}} *{{ro icon}}
*{{ro icon}} *{{ro icon}}

Revision as of 21:49, 15 December 2006

The Piteşti prison (Romanian: Închisoarea Piteşti) was a penal facility in Piteşti, Romania, best remembered for the brainwashing experiment carried out by Communist authorities in 1949-1952 (also known as Experimentul Piteşti - the "Piteşti Experiment" or Fenomenul Piteşti - the "Piteşti Phenomenon"). The latter was designed as an attempt at violently "reeducating" the mostly young political prisoners, male members of banned groupings such as the National Peasants' and National Liberal parties, as well as those who claimed inspiration from the fascist Iron Guard or Zionist members of the Romanian Jewish community.

The experiment's goal, compliant with the regime's take on Leninism, was for prisoners to discard past political and religious convictions, and, eventually, to alter their personalities to the point of absolute obedience. Estimates for the total number of people passed through the experiment range from 1,000 to 5,000. It is considered the largest and most intensive brainwashing through torture in the Eastern bloc.

History

Beginnings

The prison itself was built at an earlier stage — according to Eugen Măgirescu, work on it had begun in the late 1930s, under King Carol II, and had been completed during Ion Antonescu's rule (see Romania during World War II). For a while after the proclamation of a Romanian People's Republic, it continued to house primarily those found guilty of misdemeanors.

The early stages of "reeducation" had occurred at the prison in Suceava, being soon adopted in Piteşti and, less violently, in Gherla prison. The group of overseers had been formed from people who had themselves been arrested and found guilty of political crimes, and was headed by Eugen Ţurcanu, a student at the University of Iaşi and former member of the Iron Guard, who had joined the Communist Party before being purged. Ţurcanu, who was probably acting on the orders of Securitate chief Alexandru Nikolski, selected a tight unit of reeducation survivors, as his assistants in carrying out political tasks; named Organizaţia Studenţilor cu Convingeri Comuniste (OSCC, "Organization of Convinced Communist Students") - it included the future Orthodox priest and dissident Gheorghe Calciu-Dumitreasa (himself a former Iron Guard member) and the Jewish Petrică Fux.

The wave of Suceava inmates who had passed through the early stages was sent to Piteşti, where the initially humane treatment became subject to increasing restrictions — according to Măgirescu, the situation rapidly degenerated in June.

Stages of "reeducation"

The process begun after that date involved psychological punishment (mainly through humiliation) and physical torture.

Detainees, who were subject to regular and severe beatings, were also required to engage in torturing each other, with the goal of discouraging past loyalties. Guards would force them to attend scheduled or ad-hoc political instruction sessions, on topics such as dialectical materialism and Joseph Stalin's History of the CPSU(B) Short Course, usually accompanied by random violence and encouraged delation (demascare, lit. "unmasking") for various real or invented misdemeanors. In addition, each victim of the experiment was subject to regular interrogation, during which torture was applied as a means to expose intimate details of his life. Public humiliation was also enforced: notably, religious inmates were dressed as figures of Christ, and all others were required to address them insults.

The programme of re-education progressed in four stages. The first was called “external unmasking” by which the detainee had to reveal everything he was supposed to have hidden from previous interrogations, even things they intended to do. In the hope of escaping torture, many prisoners confessed imaginary misdeeds.

In the second phase, known as “internal unmasking” the tortured had to reveal the names of those who had behaved less brutal or somewhat indulgently towards him during the detention, be it a fellow detainee or a ward member. After ensuring that the prisoner has become himself an informer, the next stages aimed at destroying the prisoner’s personality and moral structure.

In the third stage, called “public moral unmasking”, the inmate was forced to denounce and scorn everything he held most dear, like family, friends, faith, intimate convictions and finally himself. Thus, active believers had to blaspheme religious symbols and sacred texts, the past of each family’s member of the prisoner was distorted and attributed with absurd, criminal features. Next, the detainee was made to write a false autobiography where he fabricated a history of aberrant behaviour and sexual deviance. “By injecting gradually into the victim’s subconscious information different from what he had always accepted as real and true, by altering and constantly deprecating existing reality and substituting for it a fictitious image, the re-educator at last achieved the final purpose of the unmasking: to make the lie so real to the victim that he would forget what had formerly for him made sense.” , thus realizing a “complete reversal, for an indeterminate time, of the values in which the student had always believed ”

In order to consolidate the moral collapse and to shape a new moral and psychological profile, in the final stage, the prisoner was forced to carry out the “re-education” of his best friend, torturing him with his own hands and making him undergo the same procedures he has endured. If he was regarded as too moderate in the beatings or less zelous in depriving his victims of sleep, he was subjected a second time to the “unmasking” process.

To enforce this programme, physical violence, primarily harsh beatings were practiced at any stage. Over weeks, the subjects of “re-education” were forced into an exhausting, humiliating and absurd labour schedule, such as clean the floor with a rag clenched between the teeth. At night, already “re-educated” fellow inmates were forced to strike those who fell into sleep. Prisoners had to eat as fast as they could scald food directly from bowls put on the flour, with hands behind their backs. Sometimes they were forced to eat excrements or to plunge their heads into a bucket of urine.

The prison also ensured a preliminary selection for the labor camps at the Danube-Black Sea Canal, Ocnele Mari, and other sites, where squads of former inmates were supposed to extend the experiment.

Malnourished, kept in degrading and unsanitary conditions, inmates were prevented from engaging in contacts with the outside world, and forced to cover their eyes in the few instances where they could walk out of their cells.

It has been argued that techniques used by the OSCC were ultimately derived from Anton Makarenko's controversial pedagogy and penology principles in respect to rehabilitation. On at least one occasion, Makarenko was allegedly cited as inspiration by Ţurcanu himself.

Ending and legacy

In 1952, as Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej successfully maneuvered against the Minister of the Interior Teohari Georgescu, the process was stopped by the authorities themselves. The OSCC secretly faced trial for abuse, and over twenty death sentences were handed out (Ţurcanu was held responsible for the murder of 30 prisoners, and the abuse exercised on 780 others); Securitate officials who had overseen the experiment, including Colonel Teodor Sepeanu, were tried the following year — all were given light sentences, and were freed soon after. Responding to new ideological guidelines, the court concluded that the the experiment had been the result of successful infiltration of American and Horia Sima's Iron Guard agents into the Securitate, with the goal of discrediting Romanian law enforcement.

Abandoned and partially in ruin, the building was sold to a construction firm in 1991 (after the Revolution of 1989; several of the facilities have either been torn down or suffered major changes). A memorial was built in front of the prison's entry.

Notes

  1. Cesereanu; Cioroianu, p.316-317; Măgirescu; Rusan; Wexler
  2. Rusan
  3. Rusan
  4. Popa
  5. Ierunca, p.41
  6. Măgirescu
  7. Măgirescu
  8. Măgirescu; Rusan
  9. Cioroianu, p.316-317; Măgirescu
  10. Cioroianu, p.317
  11. Cioroianu, p.317
  12. Măgirescu
  13. Wexler
  14. Măgirescu
  15. Cesereanu; Măgirescu; Rusan
  16. Cesereanu; Cioroianu, p.317; Măgirescu; Rusan
  17. Cesereanu; Cioroianu, p.317; Măgirescu
  18. Cioroianu, p.317; Măgirescu
  19. Măgirescu
  20. Bacu, p.103
  21. Bacu, p.104
  22. Cioroianu, p.317; Măgirescu
  23. Cioroianu, p.318; Măgirescu
  24. Măgirescu
  25. Cioroianu, p.317; Măgirescu
  26. Măgirescu
  27. Rusan
  28. Cioroianu, p.318
  29. Rusan; Wexler
  30. Cioroianu, p.318; Rusan
  31. Popa
  32. Popa

References

External links

Categories:
Pitești Prison: Difference between revisions Add topic