Another valuable book
is My Mind on Trial, written by Eugen
Loebl, an official in Czechoslovakia during their communist period. By itself,
this book is another reason why communist history should be studied: to be
mentally prepared for interrogation. It
is Eugen’s testimony as to how he performed in his interrogation, describing in
detail what he suffered.
Eugen’s
psychological warfare began prior to arrest; a sudden order came from his
superiors to write his biography in full (Leobl 33). As soon as word of this went out, people avoided
him, even getting out of previously made plans (Leobl 36). Page 38 has Loebl making the classic,
mistaken assumption that Solzhenitsyn reports in new suspects, that “they will
set things straight and let you out” (Solz i12). Loebl assumed that his superiors would
realize that he was innocent. That is
not how communism works.
While his arrest
was less dramatic than most, Loebl went through a more or less normal intake
process. He was ordered to strip naked
so his mouth and anus could be thoroughly searched for contraband (Loebl 40). After being given prisoner’s issue clothing,
he was shoved into a cell and told to sleep, though at no point did his jailers
turn off the electric light. This cell
contained only a “toilet” (a hole in the floor), a pipe and faucet, newspaper
scraps (for toilet paper), a small table and chair, and a bed with a straw
mattress (Loebl 41). This seems to have
been a cell for more important prisoners, as Solzhenitsyn’s description of
early prison life entailed fewer “amenities” and more crowding (Solz i20).
Loebl was obliged
to wait several days for his interrogation before being brought to the
interrogation rooms, where he learned he was already tried and sentenced
(44-45). “I could not believe my
ears. There were no specific charges
whatsoever against me, only a request that I confess. There were no facts, no witnesses. Because I was a prisoner, I must be guilty of
something, and Kohoutek [the interrogator] wanted to find out what.” (Loebl 45)
Eugen was forced to
rewrite his previous biography to make it sound traitorous (47-49). Everything he ever did for Czechoslovakia was
turned against him, especially the time he accepted “imperialist” (American)
aid in the form of 16 billion Czech crowns (Loebl 53). Loebl was not tortured early on, though he
could hear the cries of those tortured in nearby interrogation chambers
(56). Later on he began to suffer
punishments that echoed Solzhenitsyn’s testimony: being forced to walk in his
cell indefinitely (Loebl 74), being sent to an unheated punishment cell to sit
on cold cement (75), repeatedly being awoken through the night (81), starvation
by interrogating him through food periods (120), and being forced to call
himself a traitor (87).
It might seem that
none of these are extreme forms of torture, but their constant use eroded
Loebl’s ability to resist. Dr. Robert
Cialdini, author of Influence: The
Psychology of Persuasion, reports that people are greatly influenced by what
they write (76-80), what they believe themselves to be (72-73), and by physical
torment that very obviously has no benefit to anyone (93). Thus, Soviet interrogators, whatever else one
might say about them, were clearly familiar with psychological combat. In the end, Loebl confessed (134).
Knowing or being
able to make a reasonable guess about how one would act in a perilous situation
is how a person becomes self-aware. Communist
study helps in learning one’s strengths and weaknesses. In countries like America, these mental survival
skills are underplayed because we have an expectation that people will act
reasonably. But, in a world where people
do not act reasonably, who are we?
Solzhenitsyn lists
many different types of people in his massive narrative. First of all, there are the normal prisoners,
or "sloggers". These are the
people who get sent out to do general work.
General work consisted of things like logging trees, digging out clay to
make bricks, and working on public construction projects (Solz ii19). It is basically any work that doesn't require
a lot of skill or intelligence. The
sloggers, people unlucky enough not to be able to con their way into a soft
job, must do this work day after day, for as long as their terms lasted. Or for the rest of their now shortened lives.
The next group is
the "trusties". A trusty is
someone who works for the camp or for a free official in the camp. This is the group all the prisoners really
wanted to be in, as it involved easier work, favors from the camp officials,
better housing, and most of all escape from general work (Solz ii251). Jobs that fall under this category are
tailors, launderers, carpenters, shoemakers, cooks, and basically any job
requiring specialized skills that a camp official might want. Is someone a shoemaker? Then the camp boss might want some new shoes
and he can buy his way out of logging.
Some trusties even filled out camp paperwork or led the work brigades of
sloggers (Solz ii252). Solzhenitsyn
estimates that out of all the Article 58 (political prisoner) survivors, nine
out of ten were trusties for much of their sentence (ii253).
The downside to
being a trusty was the moral complications involved. A trusty could steal food or get first dibs
on good government issue boots. These
supplies usually came out of what was meant for the general workers. The more powerful trusties had control over
the fates of the arriving prisoners. Did
an office trusty need an assistant for typing?
Then he could find his favorite new arrival and assign him to the
job. If a prisoner irritated a trusty,
then the trusty could not only reject the prisoner for a good job, but speak to
other trusties so that together they would insure that the offending prisoner
got sent to general work. Needless to
say, arrogance was a potential fate of the trusty (Solz ii253).
Better off than the
trusties (and morally worse, debatably) were prisoners assigned to the sharashkas:
the "Islands of Paradise" set up to exploit the scientifically gifted
prisoners. They were given better living
conditions in exchange for new inventions that "proved" Soviet Russia
was superior to those cruel capitalists.
Solzhenitsyn says that the sharashka zek is more or less like a
trusty, in that he must constantly choose between his skin and his morals (ii261).
There were also the
"socially friendly": the real criminals. These were the people who stole, raped, and
killed. However, only those that plundered
the government or offended an important official were given any serious prison
terms. This is primarily due to the fact
that Stalin himself liked criminals because he related to them (DeJonge, 37),
as well as the idealistic principle of socialism that states people are only
products for their environment, and therefore not to blame for the things they
do wrong. Thus, there is no motivation
for a criminal not to "ply his trade" to the best of his abilities.
It can be said that
there are two types of camp prostitutes: those that choose to, and those that
have to. The ones that chose to were
women of a more social type and have the knowhow to choose the right men. Possibly they were prostitutes prior to
arrest. When they were arrested, they
would simply continue their work, getting an easier and shorter sentence, and
"on completion of their terms, rich as never before, with suitcases full
of silks, they returned home to begin an honest life" (Solz ii67).
The second category
includes those that just want to live. They
would be propositioned by various staff members, who proposed the exchange of
easier jobs, better food, and other benefits in exchange for personal
relations. "What profit is there in
the fidelity of a female corpse?" (Solz ii230-1)
The happiest women
in the camp were the "nuns": women who simply refused to give in,
either to trading themselves for survival or to simply obeying all of the camp
regulations. They are referred to with
the feminine “nun” because it was generally women rather than men who held onto
their faith (Solz i37). These women were strong, but basically had to watch as
the less morally resistant women went home years ahead of them (Solz ii67)
It becomes clear that when standing on the cusp of such a prison term,
the prisoner must decide where he stands.
Will he give up his morals for his skin, playing Stalin’s game that he
might see the end of his term? Will he
take the harder way and stick by morality, and resist the gravity of his time? The student of communism will know learn to
ask himself these questions. He will
then know the level of his strength and the extent of his craftiness.
No comments:
Post a Comment