Interesting Site

I mentioned this site during rehearsal today, and was asked to share it with everyone. I found the Social Conditions & The Ceausescu Era particularly relevant.

http://countrystudies.us/romania/

Epic Theatre + Caryl Churchill = Mad Forest

Excellent Article on elements on Epic Theatre found in Mad Forest.

http://sbe.erciyes.edu.tr/dergi/sayi_26/7-%20_93-106.%20syf._.pdf

- Natalia

Amy's Part 2

Abbatoir: a slaughterhouse; from French abbatre, meaning to strike down

Terroristi

The term “terrorist” was applied to those who were still loyal to the communist government during the revolution. Often applied to members of the Securitate who sprayed a protesting crowed with bullets, killing 100 people. It was rumoured that 1,000/10,000/60,000 were killed the night of December 16/17, 1989. It is suggested that this was a last ditch attempt to scare away protestors to maintain Ceausescu’s rule. But Ceausescu fled after this failed.

The Romanian Anticommunist Revolution and the Terrorists

This mysterious figure, which was rather a figment of irrational thought, gave free reign to the imagination. According to one conspiracy theory, the secret about the terrorists is well kept by only a handful of important people with a hidden agenda. Romanians are divided over the existence of terrorists: some believe they existed, others that it was all a set-up to benefit the new power. But was the profile of the Romanian revolution terrorist? He was generally believed to be an educated, black-haired man of athletic build and average height. He allegedly owned sophisticated weapons, disguising and diversion equipment and all kinds of electronic devices like transmission and reception equipment, weapons simulators and infrared devices. According to some people in the military, about 100 people believed to be terrorists were captured and handed over to the superiors but later released. Those people were suspected of being members of two divisions created to fight behind the frontline in the event of an invasion within the army and the Securitate secret police known as “R” and “S”, respectively. The only viable explanation is that the members of these two groups were ordered to act, as a last-resort solution. In 1989, Andrei Banc was a TV journalist. He lived close to the University Square, a place that saw some of the heated moments of the revolution. In 1999, he told the Oral History Centre of the Romanian Radio Broadcasting Revolution of something that struck him during the shooting:: Andrei Banc: “I could hear intermittent sound of machine gun fire and I saw people lying on the ground for cover at the corner of the National Theatre, but the odd thing was that there was no sound of bullets flying past. I should have been able to hear the bullets going through the air or hitting the walls. I went to where all the people were lying and stayed there for a while, and I thought it had to have been a simulator, it couldn’t have been a machine gun, because you couldn’t hear the sound of bullets. I looked up but couldn’t see any weapon firing from a window. People had already started to talk about simulators. I made my way home carrying several loaves of bread. My flat was 50 meters away. My wife was waving at me desperately, but I was walking on unruffled. People were shouting at me to lie down, it was absolutely hallucinating, that machine gun seemed to never cease firing, it went on firing even after I reached my flat and went out on the balcony.” A participant in the events at Palace Square career officer Valentin Gabrielescu also recalled the strange things that happened back then. Valentin Gabrielescu: “I witnessed the terrorist attack on the Central Committee. There was no terrorist, no shots were fired at the Central Committee. I stood by the window all night long, the windows were large and the light was on. And nobody shot at me! The walls were not hit. As a career military man, I can tell where shots are fired from. These paratroopers and soldiers were all firing at the terrorists that had allegedly taken over the Royal Palace, but there were no terrorists there. Some people climbed on top of the museum, to raise a flag. I then recognised Ion Caramitru, I knew he was an actor. He was shouting: ‘Stop firing. Stop firing! There is no terrorist here’. I approached the soldiers and paratroopers who were firing their guns like crazy. I told one of them: son, who are you firing at, for God’s sake? It was already dark. He answered: I’m firing at the terrorists. Did you see any terrorist, I asked? You are a paratrooper, a well-trained soldier. Bullets are for human targets. Who are you firing at right now? The Royal Palace? I went to talk to the officer and told him: captain, stop firing. He said he could not control them”. No conclusion could be drawn as to the existence of terrorists. But what is unarguable is that the revolution victims cannot be blamed only on the void of power caused by the toppling of Ceausescu, on the generalised state of confusion or on misfortune. In the end, the truth regarding the involvement of terrorists in the Romanian revolution might turn out to be rather ordinary and therefore hard to accept.

The Securitate

Securitate still around under Romanian Intelligence Service?

It is still not known precisely how many Romanians were employed by the Securitate, partly as a consequence of the lack of material released since the collapse of Communism. Deletant estimates that from a population of 23 million people in 1989, available records indicate total DSS personnel of 38, 682.Virgil Magureanu, director of the SRI (Serviciul Roman de Informatii), which wasformed on 26 March 1990 as the successor to the Securitate, estimates that in 1989 total Securitate personnel totalled only 14, 259, although this figure does not include those engaged in activities outside Romania, and Lavinia Stan suggests the continuity of influence between the Securitate and the SRI means that these figures cannot be trusted. The variance in figures between Magureanu and Deletant illustrates a long running debate over just how many individuals were employed by the Securitate. What is further unknown were how many people were hired to act as informers to the secret police, although this figure is considered to be extensive: Deletant simply categorises ‘tens of thousands of informers’ whom the Securitate, ‘by exploiting fear, was able to recruit’. It has been estimated that by the 1980s as many as one in every 30 Romanians was working as a Securitate informant.

The Securitate’s own records claimed that 97 percent of all informers were recruited voluntarily because of their ‘political and patriotic sentiment’, 1.5 percent were recruited through offers of financial compensation, and 1.5 percent through the use of blackmail with compromising evidence’.Frankly such statistics are farcical. Lavinia Stan estimates that between 400,000-700,000 part time informers were ‘employed’ by the Securitate and the chances of 97 percent of these being loyal to the regime is highly unlikely considering the low living standards and repressive policies in place under Ceausescu. Similar to the East German Stasi, fear was an essential method of recruitment employed by the Securitate, with threats and blackmail routinely used to coerce informants. It is likely that people dared not refuse the ‘offer’ of informing out of fear that they too would end up on the Securitate black list, marked as an ‘enemy’ or opponent of the state. The consequences could be serious; for example, World War Two veteran George Marzanca refused to collaborate with the Securitate and within a month he had been arrested and sentenced to four years imprisonment, on spurious grounds. In reality then there was often little real ‘choice’ in the matter; so perhaps it is little wonder that many people ‘willingly’ accepted informant status (Lavinia Stan, Inside the Securitate Archives).

The targeting of ethnic Hungarians in a town called Dej met with initial opposition from Laszlo Tokes, who was a pastor with the Hungarian Reformed Church. Tokes gained widespread support within his parish and as a result he was soon targeted by the Securitate. Tokes and his friends were placed under constant surveillance and subject to daily harassment until pressure on the clergy eventually led to Tokes removal and enforced ‘deportation’ to a village 40 kilometers from Dej, in 1982 . The example of Tokes is telling in a number of respects: demonstrating the use of extensive coercion by Securitate agents; illustrating the lengths to which the regime would go to get rid of an opponent and exemplifying the power of the state over the Reformed Church; as members of the clergy could be forced to denounce their staff at the will of the party.

The case of Tokes further highlights the use of intimidation, brutality and terror tactics by the Securitate. A second attempt to deport Tokes was issued on 20 October 1989; this time he was ordered to leave the town of Timisoara, where he had been reluctantly appointed after the involvement of the US senate. After his refusal, on 2 November, four attackers armed with knives broke into the flat, ‘while Securitate agents looked on’. Fortunately Tokes survived thanks to his friends fighting the attackers off, but this instance indicates the willingness of the Securitate to tolerate state sanctioned murder. The second attempt to deport Tokes was met by a united public outcry from both Romanians and Hungarians.

In the trial… The prosecutor Gica Popo also demanded to know who gave the order to shoot in the Timisoara uprising, and surprisingly Elena and Nicolae blame the Securitate, accusing them of being ‘terrorists’ who killed indiscriminately;  they also deny being in charge of the Securitate,  although it was common knowledge that the Ceausescus’ had authorised their acts of terror. Following a hurried trial by military tribunal, both Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu were sentenced to immediate execution via firing squad.

Transcript of Ceaucescu’s Trial

http://www.ceausescu.org/ceausescu_texts/revolution/trial-eng.htm

December 22 – Defence minister ordered army to stand down. He was killed by the Securitate, it is believed. The army sided with revolutionaries.

Excerpts from a NY Times Article

“Dr. Dragoi was part of a 1994 panel that concluded that there were 10 unexplained deaths in hospitals. Strangers in medical garb were roaming the halls, and the one running elevator No. 5 in one hospital was suspected of killing patients.

Today Dr. Dragoi, 43, is one of the few Romanians who knows exactly who shot him. A former major admitted in a 1995 interview that he stood in the director's office of the government newspaper building and sniped at passers-by. ''I was scared,'' was his explanation. Dr. Dragoi, passing by, was hit in the leg and still limps.

The major was cashiered in 1995 and charged with shooting four people, one fatally. He retorted that he was sorry he had not aimed at their heads.”

“Someone, Mr. Brucan now believes, ordered the secret sniper units that Ceausescu had formed into action. Mr. Dinescu said he later saw hotel rooms with guns and food hidden in the walls, and light poles rigged with machine-gun simulators.

Ceausescu fled north, stopping at a lakeside villa so his wife could grab jewelry. His pilot, who is now dead, either pretended mechanical problems or said antiaircraft radar was tracking them. They landed near Tergoviste, had a bodyguard hijack two cars and sought safety at a government nursery, but they were arrested by the army.”

“On Dec. 25, a tape of the trial shows, an arrogant Ceausescu pounded the table and his wife broke down. Then their hands were tied for execution, but not their bodies.

The indiscriminate shooting continued, so the next night the bullet-riddled bodies were put on display. By the next morning, the shooting faded away.

''That,'' said Mr. Brucan, ''was the proof of the pudding,'' and virtually the only certainty left by a revolution that continues to haunt Romania.”

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/12/31/world/romania-s-revolution-of-1989-an-enduring-enigma.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

Still on the hunt for:

-confirmation of 7:00 radio station take over

-poisoned food or water (mentioned by NY Times article - people screaming into cameras that food and water had been poisoned - yet I have not found any other material to support this yet)

-possible Securitate activities on December 25th

-any regulation of alcohol during revolution (probably not)

Interesting Article

This is not a part of my research, but I found this article really interesting. It mostly talks about the aftermath of the revolution and the shame or cowardly attitude some Romanians try to challenge when talking about the Revolution and who actually won.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/5d198e48-e45c-11de-a0ea-00144feab49a.html#axzz26AudHgBE

Bevin's Part 3 Research

Part 3 – Research

BD.

Attitudes of Romanians in the weeks following the revolution:

-          Tension between those who support the National Salvation Front, and those who want to abolish communism all together. (FSN was a group formed by Ion Illescu and other government officials who formerly served under Ceausescu).

-          People were generally hopeful, and it was mostly students and intellectuals who wanted the Front out of power. Blue-collar workers were extremely supportive of the Front.

Food/cigarette Rationing:

-          This occurs when government economic policies regarding the production and distribution of goods fail horribly, often in times of crisis.

-          Rationing is more likely to occur in “highly centralized, planned economies”, such as Russia, China, North Korea and Cuba, ie. Communist countries

Hospitals:

-          Hospitals were very overcrowded after the revolution to the point that some of the wounded were being executed.

-          Not enough doctors to meet patient demand.

-          ‘Gifts’ were likely used as bribes by the family members of patients to expedite their treatment

Hunger strike:

-          Threat of a hunger strike amongst those who were still unsatisfied with the interim government.

National Salvation Front (FSN):

-          Grew out of a schism within Ceausescu’s government

-          Created by 6 members of the  Communist party who fell out with Ceausescu

-          Helped facilitate the revolution

-          Led by Ion Illescu

-          After the fall of Ceausescu, the FSN retained control of mass media, so it was easy for them to transition to an interim government.

-          FINALLY instituted an electoral system

-          Political scientist Steven Roper has claimed that the FSN was popular with peasants and urban industrial workers, while the Peasant’s Party and the Liberal Party held more sway with intellectuals

Gypsies:

-          In Romania, gypsies are heavily discriminated against, although it’s surprisingly not as bad as it is in the rest of the Eastern European countries.

-          They are the most socially and economically disadvantaged and segregated minority in Romania

Research from Amy... Finally!

Topics:

St. Peter

Romanian Wedding Traditions

Economy, Food rationing, Electricity

Alcohol... kinda

St. Peter

The Eastern Orthodox Church regards Apostle Peter, together with Apostle Paul, as "Preeminent Apostles". Another title used for Peter is Coryphaeus, which could be translated as "Choir-director", or lead singer.^[84] The church recognizes Apostle Peter's leadership role in the early church, especially in the very early days at Jerusalem, but does not consider him to have had any "princely" role over his fellow Apostles.

The New Testament is not seen by the Orthodox as supporting any extraordinary authority for Peter with regard to faith or morals. The Orthodox also hold that Peter did not act as leader at the Council of Jerusalem, but as merely one of a number who spoke. The final decision regarding the non-necessity of circumcision (and certain prohibitions) was spelled out by James, the Brother of the Lord (though Catholics hold James merely reiterated and fleshed out what Peter had said, regarding the latter's earlier divine revelation regarding the inclusion of Gentiles).

Eastern and Oriental Orthodox do not recognize the Bishop of Rome as the successor of St. Peter but the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinoplesends a delegation each year to Rome to participate in the celebration of the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul. In the Ravenna Document of 13 October 2007, the representatives of the Eastern Orthodox Church agreed that "Rome, as the Church that 'presides in love' according to the phrase of St. Ignatius of Antioch (To the Romans, Prologue), occupied the first place in the taxis, and that the bishop of Rome was therefore the protos among the patriarchs, if the Papacy unites with the Orthodox Church. They disagree, however, on the interpretation of the historical evidence from this era regarding the prerogatives of the bishop of Rome as protos, a matter that was already understood in different ways in the first millennium."

With regard to Jesus' words to Peter, "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church", the Orthodox hold Christ is referring to the confession of faith, not the person of Peter as that upon which he will build the church. This is allegedly shown by the fact that the original Greek uses the feminine demonstrative pronoun when he says "upon this rock" (ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ); whereas, grammatically, if he had been referring to Peter, he would allegedly have used the masculine.^[85] This "gender distinction" argument is also held by some Protestants.

Weddings

The wedding is the most interesting family custom of all. It is also a complex custom which has various traditional forms all over the country and combines economic, law, ritual and folkloric elements. The popular "show" is almost fabulous. The acts from the marriage foundation are ritual and ceremonial meant to bring prosperity, fecundity, happiness and social integration to the young family. In this moment the popular costume gains some specific significances and the act of the ceremony is composed from many customs: the well - wishing at the bride\'s gate, the dowry dance in the bride\'s yard and the parents forgiveness, then the wedding at the groom\'s house, the gifts and the bride\'s adorning.The musical repertoire is suitable: "the dowry dance", "the big dance", "three times around the table", "the bride\'s grief song", "the bride\'s ring dance", "and the big ring dance".

MOLDOVA:

Moldavian marriage is a bouquet of traditions and culture. People sit together and are served with food and wine. Traditional dances also take place. In Moldova, people speak of "wedding parties" instead of just "weddings,” The wedding ceremony itself isn’t the focus of the festivities; it can be a small, understated event leading up to the wedding party proper, usually an all-night celebration.Wedding ceremonies today are held at "casa mare" or House of happiness. The modern ceremony includes the old wedding custom of bowing to the parents as a token of gratitude and respect. The traditional wedding party is magnificent in its arrangement, and intense from the moral ethical point of view. The singing and dancing continues until the daybreak. At dawn everyone sits down for a minute and the bride is given a child to hold in her arms. According to tradition, the bride will then be sure to have a home full of children. The young husband then leads her to the threshold of their house. But before they step over the threshold the couple is showered with grain - a sign of prosperity.

A Moldovian maxim says: "The person who has failed to build a home, to raise a son, to dig a well and to plant a tree has wasted his life". That\'s why the Moldovian villages are so green, the houses are so beautiful and you can see wells along the streets.

MARAMURES:

The wedding in Maramures has a unitary structure and as most important sequences, the asking-in-marriage, the "belief" (engagement) and the wedding. The secondary characters, but with a very important position within the ceremony are the "callers" to the wedding, the bridesmaids, the "socacita" (chief-cook), the "man with the larder", the musicians, the group of the lads and the wedding guests.

Taken as a whole, the ceremony is simple. A trustful person of the groom\'s part is going to the bride to ask her in marriage on the groom\'s behalf (most of the time he gets an affirmative answer only the third time), then the girl\'s dowry is discussed and the date of the engagement is set. The way to the wedding and the wedding itself contain many preparations and ritual objects, each one with its own significance. A great deal of attention is paid to the details in dressing, arranging of the table and most of all, the orders and priorities. There will exist, for example, an order for entering and coming out of the church, in serving the wedding guests, etc.

The rituals preceding every sequence or level represent the picturesque of the traditions. For example, on the night before the wedding (which is called "the flag evening") the "flagman ", accompanied by a group of lads and musicians goes to the groom\'s house with the flag. Here they start dancing a certain ritual "flag dance", with the adequate witty couplets.

The clothing also deserves a very special attention. The bride will wear a white shirt, white skirt with a white apron over it. Over the shirt she will wear a woolen sleeveless sheepskin coat and a woolen thick fleecy overcoat, tied on the waist with a red belt. The groom\'s clothing is even simpler: hempen white shirt, the sleeveless woolen sheepskin coat, and the "large pants" (or in winter time the white woolen stretch pants). The body is tied up with a broad belt with six buckles containing the knife, the tobacco, the pipe, the moneybag and other necessary small things. As a last element, in his case he also wears clinkered boots. His only decorative objects are the hand sewn cuffs, a bag over his shoulders, and he sign for being a groom - the white artificial flowers on his chest.

Emotional scenes for the relatives are the "forgiving" moments - when the bride and the groom ask for forgiveness from their parents on the account of possible former mistakes.

When the groom is going for the bride, the godfather, the "flagman" and a great deal of the wedding guests accompany him. Of all the rituals met with at the wedding ceremony, the most interesting is the one of cleaning the cheeks of the groom and bride by the mother-in-law. As this is the first time she comes to her mother-in-law\'s house the gestures may be considered as a ritual of acceptance of the bride in the new "house" (the "house" house meaning in the mentality of the peasants in Maramures the family/relatives). After the wedding, the entering of the young woman into the new category of married women implies certain beliefs and practices, like the chopping of a wood piece by one hit with an axe (in order to give birth easily) or the spinning of the wool (in order to be a good status host).

TRANSYLVANIA:

The wedding dress of the maidens was a proof that the girls knew to sew and weave, which was a very important condition for marriage. Some garments could also indicate an occupation (the long leather cloak of the shepherds, worn on the shoulders, with the fur on the outside or their hood or the “chimir”, a large belt worn by those who worked in the wood) or the social status (only married women worn kerchiefs).Some garments have a ceremonial role. They are only made on specific occasions. The bride, helped by the girls from the village, was supposed to make the groom’s shirt in a single night. The “plague shirt” also had to be worked entirely in a single night. These clothes are only worn on special moments. At the wedding the most beautiful decorated costume is worn (many times it is especially made for this occasion). In Transylvania there are places where both bride and groom wear wool clothes, no matter the season. The most characteristic elements for the wedding are the bride’s head dress, worn only on that occasion.

At the funeral, the deceased is dressed in the wedding clothes, which are especially kept. The practice of weddings includes the moments when young people separate from their social groups. Additionally, there is the separation of the bride from her parents which is followed by her joining the bridegroom\'s family. Lastly, there is the union of the two young people and the integration of the bride into her new family. (Prior to the marriage is the betrothal which is followed by a long process of acceptance towards the prospective couple by the existing group of those who are already married.) The wedding is a performance with well-established rituals. Poetry, song, dance and ceremonial costumes all have a detailed role in the wedding ceremony. This ceremony begins when the spokesman of the bridegroom comes to the bride\'s home to woo her. During this time, the best men go throughout the village inviting the relative and friends to the wedding. Then, before the closed gates guarded by the bride\'s relatives, the bridegroom\'s best man tells a story. It is the story of a young emperor who gathered a great army and went hunting. While hunting, he saw a fairy and sent his warriors to look for her. Following the fairy\'s trail, they arrive at the bride\'s house. They have been told that there is a certain flower in the garden. This flower cannot bear fruit because of the unsuitable soil in which it grows. The warriors came to pick the flower and plant it in the young emperor\'s garden. There, the soil was known to be good and provide the nutrients enabling the flower to bear fruit. The dress and hairdressing of the bride is also important. She wears a ceremonial costume and flowers in her hair.

In the western part of Transylvania, in Bihor, the bridegroom must pass a test of cleverness. He must solve a series of riddles in order to prove that he is able to be part of the married community.The entrance of the bride into the community of married women is marked by a change of her hair style, and the covering of her head with a scarf. The scarf is a symbol of the married women. This ceremony is also accompanied by a song.Just as for a medieval meal, the wedding meal provides an opportunity for singing, dancing and listening to epic hero songs. Dance forms, especially for the young people, are an essential part of the wedding, as well as the birth ceremonies. One dance, called a "hora" marks the decisive moments of the ceremonial. It is a seal of the marriage contract. The above wedding ceremonials in Romania last for three days. The final day ends with a "dance of masks."

ROMANIA

Romanian wedding traditions include a parade of guests in traditional costume before the wedding, the carrying of a decorated pole by the best man, the midnight bridal dance, the presentation of the wedding gifts, and the bride and groom partaking in bits of bread from an oversized loaf. The bride's hair is often braided and covered with a crown of flowers and ribbons. In Greek Orthodox weddings, metal crowns are placed upon the bride and groom's heads, and their hands are tied together with ribbon while they share wine from the same cup. Guests might throw sweets and nuts -- or in some regions, corn and water -- at the couple as they make their departure to wish them prosperity.

Economy, Food rationing, Electricity

Romanian Ration Card

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/06/Romanian_ration-card_for_bread%2C_1989.jpg/412px-Romanian_ration-card_for_bread%2C_1989.jpg

The 1980s: severe rationing and construction of the Palace of the People

Romania continued to make progress. High rates of growth in production created conditions for raising living standards of the people. From 1950 to the mid-1980s, the average net wages increased more than eightfold. The consumption fund increased 22-fold, and a broad program of building cultural facilities and housing was carried out. Over 80 percent of the country's population had moved to new apartments during this period.^[15]

Measures in the mechanization and chemicalization of farming helped to increase the output of agricultural products. In 1950, more than 300 kg of cereals was gathered per head of the population, whereas in 1982 this amount increased to 1 ton. Meat production increased from 29.5 to 100 kg.^[15]

In the late 1980s, the United Nations Human Development report classified Romania as having had high human development. The life expectancy was 71 years, literacy rate at 96%, and the Real GDP per capita at $3000.^[16]

In the 1980s, Ceauşescu became simultaneously obsessed with repaying Western loans and with building himself a palace of unprecedented proportions, along with an equally grandiose neighborhood, Centrul Civic, to accompany it. These led to a shortage of available goods for the average Romanian. By 1984, despite high crop yield and food production, food rationing was introduced on a wide scale (the government promoted it as "a means to reduce obesity" and "rational eating").

Bread, milk, butter, cooking oil, sugar, pork, beef, chicken, and in some places even potatoes were rationed in most of Romania by 1989, with rations being made smaller every year (by 1989, a person could legally buy only 10 eggs per month, half to one loaf of bread per day, depending on the place of residence, or 500 grams of any kind of meat^{[citation needed]}). Most of what was available were export rejects, as most of the quality goods were exported, even underpriced, in order to obtain hard currency, either to pay the debt, or to push forward in the ever-growing pursuits of heavy industrialisation.

Romanians became accustomed to "tacâmuri de pui" (chicken wings, claws and so on), mixed cooking oil (mostly unrefined, dark, soy oil, of the poorest grade), "Bucureşti Salami" (consisting of soy, bonemeal, offal and pork lard), ersatz coffee (made of barley), oceanic fish and sardines as a meat replacement, cheese mixed with starch or flour, and untasty juices as Cil-Cola orCireşica^{[citation needed]}. Even these products were in very scarce supply, with queues whenever such products were available. All quality products, such as Sibiu and Victoria Salami, high- and mid-grade meats, and Dobrudja peaches were designated as "export-only", and were available to Romanians only on the thriving black market.^{[citation needed]}

By 1985, despite Romania's huge refining capacity, petrol was strictly rationed, with supplies drastically cut, a Sunday curfew was instated, and many buses used methane propulsion (they were mockingly named "bombs"); taxis were converted to burning methanol. Electricity was rationed to divert supplies to heavy industry, with a maximum monthly allowed consumption of 20 kWh per family (everything over this limit was heavily taxed), and very frequent blackouts (generally 1–2 hours daily).^{[citation needed]} Only one in five streetlights was to be kept on, and television was reduced to a single channel broadcasting just 2 hours each day.

Gas and heating were also turned off; people in cities had to turn to natural gas containers ("butelii"), or charcoal stoves, even though they were connected to the gas mains. According to a decree of 1988, all public spaces had to be kept to a temperature of no more than 16 degrees Celsius (about 61 degrees Fahrenheit) in winter (the only institutions exempted were kindergartens and hospitals), with some (such as factories)^{[citation needed]} kept at no more than 14 degrees (about 57 degrees Fahrenheit).

All shops were to close no later than 5:30 pm, in order to preserve electricity. A thriving black market appeared, with Kent cigarettes becoming Romania's second currency (it was illegal and punished with up to ten years imprisonment to own or trade any foreign currency), used to purchase everything, from food to clothes or medicine. The quality of health care dropped substantially, as drugs were no longer imported.

Alcohol

The Romanian Revolution of December 1989 (book)

-says terrorists being treated by two doctors in Bucharest were supposedly high on drugs and alcohol. It is supposed that during the revolution, stores that were broken into were robbed of alcohol.

-No information on alcohol rationing at this time. Both Sweden and Russia implemented alcohol control or rationing programs, however I have not yet found any information concerning rationing in Romania during the revolution

part 3 - JV

Hunger strikes:

Hunger strikes were WIDELY used throughout Romanian history to protest political and social movements. I could not find specific examples from the 1989 period but there seem to be some very recent hunger strikes by ex-government officials and even teachers (by recent I mean in the past 5-10 years!).

Here is an example : http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/26/us-romania-mayor-protest-idUSTRE7AP0JS20111126

Hospital conditions:

Hospitals in Romania

The hospitals listed below are the most historically relevant hospitals in Romania.

Colţea Hospital, in Bucharest, was built by Mihai Cantacuzino between 1701 and 1703, composed of many buildings, each with 12 to 30 beds, a church, three chapels, a school, and doctors' and teachers' houses. In 2011, the hospital has been fully re-equipped and is now one of the most modern hospitals in Bucharest.^[4]

Pantelimon Hospital was raised in 1733 by Grigore II Ghica. The surface area of the Pantelimon Hospital land property was 400,000 m². The hospital had in its inventory a house for infectious diseases and a house for persons with disabilities. The hospital is still operational today.

St. Spiridon Hospital, in Iaşi, opened in 1755, described in a document from 1757 as the largest in Moldavia and Wallachia, is nowadays the second largest in Romania.^[5]

Filantropia Hospital had a capacity of 70 beds and was built in 1806-1812, during the Russian occupation. The hospital is still operational today.

In 1830 the Brâncoveanu Hospital was inaugurated. The hospital worked on the same principle as a free clinic, offering various vaccines/medical tests free of charge. However, the urban development led to the hospital building being demolished (and therefore its activity ceased) in the mid 20th Century.

By 1985, despite Romania's huge refining capacity, petrol was strictly rationed, with supplies drastically cut, a Sunday curfew was instated, and many buses used methanepropulsion (they were mockingly named "bombs"); taxis were converted to burning methanol. Electricity was rationed to divert supplies to heavy industry, with a maximum monthly allowed consumption of 20 kWh per family (everything over this limit was heavily taxed), and very frequent blackouts (generally 1–2 hours daily).^{[citation needed]} Only one in five streetlights was to be kept on, and television was reduced to a single channel broadcasting just 2 hours each day.

A propaganda poster on the streets of Bucharest, 1986. The caption reads "65 years since the creation of the Romanian Communist Party", while in the background it reads "Ceauşescu Era" and "The Party. Ceauşescu. Romania"

Gas and heating were also turned off; people in cities had to turn to natural gas containers ("butelii"), or charcoal stoves, even though they were connected to the gas mains. According to a decree of 1988, all public spaces had to be kept to a temperature of no more than 16 degrees Celsius (about 61 degrees Fahrenheit) in winter (the only institutions exempted were kindergartens and hospitals), with some (such as factories)^{[citation needed]} kept at no more than 14 degrees (about 57 degrees Fahrenheit).

As demonstrated, hospital conditions were not the greatest but officials made an effort to keep them well-maintained even during the revolution.

Gifts for doctors:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/mar/26/health-romania

Like many Baltic/Soviet countries, gifts (bribes) for doctors were widespread for basic care. Salaries were not the best, even for certified professionals, so bribing the doctor if you wanted any kind of results was expected. Many patients died because their families could not pay the bribe.

Food and cigarette ration:

The 1980s: severe rationing and construction of the Palace of the People

Romania continued to make progress. High rates of growth in production created conditions for raising living standards of the people. From 1950 to the mid-1980s, the average net wages increased more than eightfold. The consumption fund increased 22-fold, and a broad program of building cultural facilities and housing was carried out. Over 80 percent of the country's population had moved to new apartments during this period.^[15]

Measures in the mechanization and chemicalization of farming helped to increase the output of agricultural products. In 1950, more than 300 kg of cereals was gathered per head of the population, whereas in 1982 this amount increased to 1 ton. Meat production increased from 29.5 to 100 kg.^[15]

In the late 1980s, the United Nations Human Development report classified Romania as having had high human development. The life expectancy was 71 years, literacy rate at 96%, and the Real GDP per capita at $3000.^[16]

In the 1980s, Ceauşescu became simultaneously obsessed with repaying Western loans and with building himself a palace of unprecedented proportions, along with an equally grandiose neighborhood, Centrul Civic, to accompany it. These led to a shortage of available goods for the average Romanian. By 1984, despite high crop yield and food production, food rationing was introduced on a wide scale (the government promoted it as "a means to reduce obesity" and "rational eating").

Bread, milk, butter, cooking oil, sugar, pork, beef, chicken, and in some places even potatoes were rationed in most of Romania by 1989, with rations being made smaller every year (by 1989, a person could legally buy only 10 eggs per month, half to one loaf of bread per day, depending on the place of residence, or 500 grams of any kind of meat^{[citation needed]}). Most of what was available were export rejects, as most of the quality goods were exported, even underpriced, in order to obtain hard currency, either to pay the debt, or to push forward in the ever-growing pursuits of heavy industrialisation.

Romanians became accustomed to "tacâmuri de pui" (chicken wings, claws and so on), mixed cooking oil (mostly unrefined, dark, soy oil, of the poorest grade), "Bucureşti Salami" (consisting of soy, bonemeal, offal and pork lard), ersatz coffee (made of barley), oceanic fish and sardines as a meat replacement, cheese mixed with starch or flour, and untasty juices as Cil-Cola or Cireşica^{[citation needed]}. Even these products were in very scarce supply, with queues whenever such products were available. All quality products, such asSibiu and Victoria Salami, high- and mid-grade meats, and Dobrudja peaches were designated as "export-only", and were available to Romanians only on the thriving black market.^{[citation needed]}

By 1985, despite Romania's huge refining capacity, petrol was strictly rationed, with supplies drastically cut, a Sunday curfew was instated, and many buses used methanepropulsion (they were mockingly named "bombs"); taxis were converted to burning methanol. Electricity was rationed to divert supplies to heavy industry, with a maximum monthly allowed consumption of 20 kWh per family (everything over this limit was heavily taxed), and very frequent blackouts (generally 1–2 hours daily).^{[citation needed]} Only one in five streetlights was to be kept on, and television was reduced to a single channel broadcasting just 2 hours each day.

A propaganda poster on the streets of Bucharest, 1986. The caption reads "65 years since the creation of the Romanian Communist Party", while in the background it reads "Ceauşescu Era" and "The Party. Ceauşescu. Romania"

Gas and heating were also turned off; people in cities had to turn to natural gas containers ("butelii"), or charcoal stoves, even though they were connected to the gas mains. According to a decree of 1988, all public spaces had to be kept to a temperature of no more than 16 degrees Celsius (about 61 degrees Fahrenheit) in winter (the only institutions exempted were kindergartens and hospitals), with some (such as factories)^{[citation needed]} kept at no more than 14 degrees (about 57 degrees Fahrenheit).

All shops were to close no later than 5:30 pm, in order to preserve electricity. A thriving black market appeared, with Kent cigarettes becoming Romania's second currency (it was illegal and punished with up to ten years imprisonment to own or trade any foreign currency), used to purchase everything, from food to clothes or medicine. The quality of health care dropped substantially, as drugs were no longer imported.

Life after revolution ( I covered this topic in previous posts)

Part 3 --EC

3.2.iii

- revolution vs putsch=

Revolution vs. ‘Coup d’état’ (overthrow the government)

*questions from the Patient:

- confusion over who was shooting on the 21 & 22 of December: I could not find any hard evidence that the people were shooting one day then the government were shooting the next, or vice versa, but there is speculation that the people started the revolution on the 21^st then the army prepared to fight and started shooting on the 22^nd.

- army vs Securitate - theories?: A theory exists that because the Securitate was so large and powerful, there was 1 Securitate member for every 45 Romanians. They would listen and watch and if you showed a behaviour that went against Ceausescu and Communism, then you could be arrested. This theory also fed the idea that during the shootings, members of the Securitate would dress as members of the army in order to fool the population and have reason to arrest them.

- where did the flags come from? : “The flags” being the Romanian flags with the communist crest on them. Many rioters had the flags with them during the revolution and were burning them or ripping them not to show disrespect to Romania but to the Communist side of it and to show that the people wanted a change.

- who put loadhailers (what ARE loadhailers) in the square? “Loudhailer” is a megaphone

- power on/off of the tv? *Still Searching*

- how many actually died at Timisoara? 1104 deaths and 3352 wounded

- mutilated bodies - AFTER they were killed, in order to provoke? by whom?:  According to the blog post (Link is posted below) The journalist found mutilated bodies near grave sites.

- drugs in food and water at Timisoara (again, was referenced in part 2 frequently) : emailed Les

- poisoned water at Bucharest?:  emailed Les

- IS Ceausescu dead? why no film? theories? conspiracy? :  emailed Les

- why were the schools closed a week early?:  I could not find any history that suggested the schools closed early. It all took place just before Christmas and Romania was predominantly Roman Catholic during this time so I would assume they had some sort of break. Keeping this in mind, parents would possibly keep their children home during this time of unrest and uncertainty.

- why did they evacuate foreigners from the geriatric hospital? STILL SEARCHING

- who were the men in the blue suits who appeared in the streets before the 21st? *STILL SEARCHING*

- doctor at the Municipal Hospital giving medical supplies to the police to sell on the black market?  *STILL SEARCHING*

- were they handing the wounded over to the Securitate? *STILL SEARCHING*

***How do all of these questions/answers reflect the level of paranoia that increased during the revolution? This is SO important!

 I found this blog post regarding reports from an RFE (Radio Free Europe) journalist. It is a blog so it could be biased but it is interesting…

http://coldwarradios.blogspot.ca/2011/12/december-1989-battle-for-timisoara-eye.html

Here is another article, with photos included,  from a professor at the University of Bucharest about the events that took place on December 21^st, 1989…

http://mepopa.com/rev.htm

what was the coverage in America like at this time? American attitudes/media coverage of the Romanian revolution *STILL SEARCHING*

3.4.iv

- Iliesu -  who is he? his politics, Romanian opinion about him, foreigner/world opinion about him - was he different than Ceausescu, really? We need as much as we can get about attitudes about him/theories/his politics - informs so much of the attitudes/relations in Part 3, particularly when discussed in comparison to Ceausescu)

-He was the President of Romania from 1990 to 1996 and 2000 to 2004.

-He joined the Communist party in 1965 and was part of the Centrel Committee in 1965 but was marginalized by Ceausescu in the early ‘70’s.

-He was vital to Romania’s revolution and the people saw him as Ceausescu’s opposite and he helped to stabilize politics in Romania.

-This website has more info:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/282832/Ion-Iliescu

3.4.v

- The Front - more information: (FSN) National Salvation Front was the governing body of Romania after the overthrow of Ceausescu and his communist government. In March of 1989, six prominent members of the communist party wrote a letter criticizing Ceausescu’s abuse of power among other things. This ‘Letter of the Six’ was circulated in the Western media and Radio Free Europe and an underground operation called the National Salvation Front was first mentioned here. The FSN was officially announced by Ion Iliescu on December 22^nd 1989.

- Posters for the Peasants Party - more information: The Peasants Party was a left-winged ideology that aimed to represent the goals and interests of the middle class working society. The Narodniks who were a socially conscious movement in Russian during the 1860’s and 1870’s influenced them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasants'_Party_(Romania)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narodnik

- feelings towards gypsies in Romania (did Ceausescu or Iliesu have a stance on this, publicly?:  Based on this article I found, gypsies are not looked at in a positive light in Romania nor other parts of Europe. The words: beggars, thieves and cheaters.

“Gypsies have always excited hatred in the press. For hundreds of years they have played a small but lively part in the European imagination, and these days, when so much of public discourse is deadened by euphemism, Gypsies are perhaps the last group up for grabs. (Is the beggar named as Maria Nistor going to complain when a reporter - the Sun again - claims that she has named her baby "Lucifer"?) These familiar strangers are regarded monolithically; their given name is a synonym for thieves and cheats. As beggars and as Gypsies they are now also emblematic of all asylum seekers: beggars and presumed cheats at the gate of the west.

But it is readers who are being "gypped".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/mar/24/immigration.immigrationandpublicservices

Ceausescu’s stance:

Romani=Gypsy

“Equally deserving of attention is the fact that while the overall population of the children so incarcerated is of both Romani and non-Romani origin, their respective presence in those institutions today is the result of two very different policies. Ceauşescu had specific plans for the Romanies, which were grimly reminiscent of the centuries of Romani slavery in his country, not fully abolished until 1864. He also brought techniques of genetic engineering—based specifically on the race policies of

Adolph Hitler and Nazi Germany—into the 1980s, forty years after the Holocaust in which the Romanies were selected alongside the Jews for complete extermination in the Final Solution³.”

http://www.radoc.net/radoc.php?doc=art_f_bias_robotworkforce&lang=fr&articles=true

Iliescu’s stance:

“Anti-Semitism had been largely absent in Romania during the Communist era because of a massive emigration of approximately 400,000 Romanian Jews after World War II, which left a much smaller Jewish population that today numbers only 30,000. This sentiment was resurrected after 1989 by nationalist-Communist tabloids like Europa and Politica. Attempts were made recently to rehabilitate Marshall Ion Antonescu, glorified in Romania as an anti-Soviet hero, but responsible for deporting tens of thousands of Gypsies and Jews to concentration camps.

Although Iliescu has made formal statements against anti-Semitic press and actions, this was apparently pure rhetoric, since he has not backed his statements up with real progress. In September 1995, for example, the parliament initiated a draft law on the restitution of property confiscated from Jews by the communist regime, but eventually the draft law was abandoned. Moreover, before the November 1996 elections, President Iliescu and his Social Democracy Party of Romania (PDSR) allied with the left-nationalists and campaigned for the votes of ethnic Romanians by using racist slogans about the Hungarian menace and criticizing the Jewish descent of some of their political opponents.

A positive advance toward reducing ethnic tensions in Transylvania was taken with the signing of the Romanian-Hungarian basic treaty in September 1996. Despite vociferous opposition from nationalist circles in both countries, the treaty was deemed a necessary and acceptable step for joining NATO and EU. Under the treaty, Hungary agreed to abandon territorial claims in Romania, and Romania agreed to promote local and cultural autonomy for its ethnic Hungarians, in accordance with European standards.

Despite some efforts to improve the status of minorities in Romania, the Iliescu administration still was unable to promote national unity. Indeed, more often than not, these efforts were mere rhetoric that was quickly abandoned.”

http://www.wcl.american.edu/hrbrief/v4i3/romani43.htm