(a) Personal hygiene prevented: Facilities for maintaining bodily cleanliness are withheld; combs and shaving equipment are taken away; in extreme instances the individual may be forced to live in his own filth.

(b) Filthy, infested surroundings: The problem of personal sanitation is aggravated by the deliberate choice of filthy, vermin- or rodent-infested places of confinement.

(c) Demeaning punishments: Slapping, ear-twisting, and other degrading, but physically mild, punishments may be inflicted.

(d) Insults and taunts: Interrogators verbally abuse the prisoner. An insult which appears to affect the prisoner will be repeated, e. g., information regarding the personal life of the prisoner which the interrogators possess from other sources will be distorted so as to cast aspersions against his own or his wife's morality; an ailment complained of may be falsely diagnosed as venereal disease.

(e) Denial of privacy: Prisoners may be subject to constant surveillance; if vulnerable to embarrassment, they may be forced to perform private functions in public.

8. Enforcing trivial and absurd demands

Purpose: To develop habit of compliance.

(a) Forced writing: Most POW are required to write and rewrite answers to numerous questions-frequently, exceedingly trivial questions. They are given only very general instructions and forced to rewrite answers over and over again until "an acceptable" version is completed. In this way, the tendency to seek to understand and satisfy the interrogator's wishes is fostered.

(b) Enforcing rules: Numerous rules are stipulated (and punishments are given for violations of rules which have never been stated). These rules may even include the position which is to be assumed when sleeping, the prisoner being awakened if he changes position. Permission may be required from the interrogator or guard for the performance of almost any act; to stand up, sit down, sit in the sun, wash, or go to the latrine.

(c) "Upping the ante": Either at the outset of an interrogation, or when faced with resistance to a consequential demand, the interrogators will pretend that all the prisoner needs to do to end the interrogation is to comply with a relatively trivial demand. In seeking a false confession, for example, the interrogator may ask a resistant prisoner to write a denial of the accusation, then successively more and more detailed denials, and finally, to eliminate all the negative statements in the denial, thus changing a "denial of charges" to a "confession of their truth." Similarly, in attempts to extract true information from prisoners who maintain a rigid silence, the interrogator indicates that no information is required from the prisoner, but that some simple statements are needed from him "for the record" or to "insure that you are a pilot and not really a spy," etc. The interrogator may plead with the prisoner not to remain endlessly in solitary confinement, or "be shot as a spy" because of such a trivial matter.

SUPPLEMENTARY COMMENTS

Violence and torture

Physical violence and torture have not been included in the above list, despite their frequent use by the Communists. This omission is intended to emphasize the fact that physical torture is not an essential part of the Communist repertoire. The available evidence suggests, in fact, that torture may intensify, rather than weaken, the resistance of the prisoner and that more skillful and experienced Communist interrogators avoid its use.

POW of the Communists are apt to encounter physical violence as a coercive measure, however. This seems especially likely to occur (a) when a prisoner displays unusually intense fear when threatened with violence; or (b) when the interrogator is poorly trained, inexperienced, or sadistically inclined.

POW of the North Koreans, especially in very early stages of the war, were more likely to encounter crude torture methods than the more calculated techniques described in the above outline.

Self-inflicted pain

Increased understanding of the patterns described above can possibly be gained by noting one characteristic of these techniques: The emphasis in the pattern is on the individual doing things to himself, rather than on things being done to him.

The assertion that physical violence is not an essential element of these Communst techniques should be qualified accordingly. In a way, it would be more

accurate to say that external violence external torture-is not essential to the pattern, and in fact, seems to conflict with it. Self-inflicted torture is a frequent part of the pattern, however. Requiring the individual to stand at attention for extremely long periods or to assume other strained, painful positions is the typical form this takes.

Self-inflicted pain has distinct advantages for rendering the subject coopera

tive.

In the simple torture situation-the bamboo-splinters technique of popular imagination-the contest is clearly one between the individual and his tormentor. Can he endure pain beyond the point to which the interrogator is able to go in inflicting pain? The answer, from the standpoint of the interrogator, is all too frequently yes.

Where the individual is brought to inflict pain on himself, however, as when he stands for long periods at attention, an intervening factor is introduced. The immediate source of pain is not something the interrogator is doing ot the victim, but something the victim is doing to himself. The contest becomes one of the individual against himself. The motivational strength of the individual is likely to exhaust itself in this internal struggle.

Bringing the subject to act against himself has other advantages to the interrogator. As long as the subject can be brought to do this, there is no showdown on the actual ability of the interrogator to injure the subject. Although a few former victims assert that they continue self-inflcted tortures out of pride, most have felt that something worse would happen to them if they disobeyed the interrogator's orders to assume some pain-producing position. More frequently than not, the extent to which the interrogator was willing or permitted to inflict physical punishment actually was very limited. In most of the Korean and Manchurian POW situations, it appears to have been limited to cuffs, slaps, and kicks. Frequently, it seems to have been limited to shouted threats and insults. Returnees who have undergone long periods of sitting or standing assert that no conceivable experience could be more excruciating.

A corresponding advantage of self-inflicted torture from the standpoint of the interrogator is that it is consistent with formal adherence to the mythical principles of legality and humaneness important to the Communists. These principles are important in the interrogation situation itself; for example, in facilitating the adoption of a positive attitude by the subject toward the interrogator and the forces he represents. Adherence to these principles protects the interrogator from potential punishment at some future time for mistreating prisoners. There also is considerable propaganda advantage when victims are released if to be truthful they must admit that the no violence was actually used against them. As a reading of the outline of coercive techniques will disclose, this emphasis on having the subject do things to himself, as against things being done to him, is not confined to the matter of physical punishment. The techniques, in general, seem to strive for a maximum enlistment of the subject's energies in the encounter. The environment of the prisoner is structured so that it is next to impossible for him to avoid thinking about things the interrogator wishes him to thing about. He is led to ask himself the questions of fact that are of importance to the interrogator. He himself must figure out what his crime was. He is brought to develop in his own mind the consequences of continued resistance. His own pride is the measure of the degradation he suffers. And, as is explained later, his own guilt is likely to become the key factor in the outcome. Ideological appeals

An almost universal feature of Communist interrogations is the frequent injection of political and moral arguments. Appeals are made for the cooperation of the prisoner on the seeming assumption that he accepts the Communist viewpoint of the matter at issue. Almost all interrogations feature attempts by the interrogator to arouse the class consciousness, the "love of peace," or some similar attitude of the prisoner as a basis for securing his cooperation. This aspect of interrogation is necessary to the Communists when a confession is sought for propaganda use, since the confession must include expressions of repentance and other ideological references to fit its propaganda objective. In the case of interrogations of American POW by the Communists, when the interrogation objective was true informaion, the use of these Communist political appeals generally seemed to hinder the attainment of the objective. The alien political appeal generally intensified the prisoner's determination to resist. Not infrequently, it made the interrogator appear a ludicrous figure for believing in obvious absurdities.

Mind reform

It should be pointed out, however, that much of the interrogation which captives of the Communists experience is oriented toward gaining their total submission, rather than any single act of collaboration. As Communist interrogators put it: "You do not have the correct attitude. I am trying to help you adopt the correct attitude. You must change your attitude." The correct attitude, of course, involves viewing everything from the Communist political and moral perspective. It involves not only submitting to the expressed demands of Communist authority, but learning to act in terms of correct anticipations of what its demands will be. This is the broader concept of mind reform as it figures in the coercive interrogations of individuals. Analogous measures are applied to groups within Communist society and, through mass campaigns, to the society as a whole.

Much concern has been aroused by instances of victims of Communist coercion continuing to show an apparent acceptance of Communist political and moral beliefs for varying periods after they have been freed from coercion. Not even in cases where individuals had some earlier predisposition to Communist ideology is it readily comprehensible to many how these victims could have any feelings other than hatred for everything for which the perpetrators of the abominable outrages against them stood.

It is not the intention here to suggest that the behavior of these individuals, or human behavior, generally, is other than an exceedingly complex matter. Nonetheless, it is felt that a basic, readily understandable explanation of succumbing to mind reform exists. This is a principle upon which communism, and all states based upon terror, rely for whatever mobilization of the wills of their subjects they can secure. Communist terror confronts the individual with a choice between external punishment if he does or thinks what he regards as right, and internal punishment (guilt) if he begins to do or think as the Communists demand. One way out, of course, is for him to change his conscious ideas of what is right and wrong to accord with that of the Communists. The heavy emphasis in Communist coervice interrogation upon moral arguments attempts to provide the victim with a new moral justification for his behavior.

Paradoxically, the more morally outrageous the Communist demand, the more intense is the conflict for the individual when, as is almost inevitable under intense duress, he contemplates the possibility that he may be forced to comply. Similarly, the firmer the moral convictions of the victim, the greater is the internal torment during the effort to continue resistance.

In different cases, the moral rationalizations of unwilling compliance are of varying degrees of intensity. In some instances, reconciling the conflict may require only superficial rationalizations. In others, only by repressing intensely held values can the individual avoid what for him is intolerable self-reproach. How fundamental a self-delusion is required depends upon the nature of the demands made upon the victim by the Communists, upon the thoroughness and skill of the coercive tactics employed against him, and upon his own personality. Some have been able to regard each particular demand for collaboration separately and merely had to convince themselves that their submission was really of no particular consequence. Thus, some victims of pressure for false germ warfare confessions during the Korean conflict assured themselves that the confessions they gave the Communists were not really of any value and there was consequently nothing morally wrong with playing along to escape further duress. Others, faced with demands they could not regard as other than intensely repugnant, could not escape remorse through so easy a rationalization.

In the latter event, there were three possible outcomes. Some continued to draw sufficient strength from their self-esteem to continue resistance. Others, though brought to capitulate, were able to accept and live with their feelings of guilt. For others, only a reversal in consciousness of ideas of right or wrong could make their capitulation appear tolerable.

Recovery of true consciousness in the last type of case has frequently occurred as soon as the source of terror has been removed. In a very few cases, including the much publicized two most thoroughly brainwashed recently released by the Chinese Communists, recuperation is slower.

To the extent that the discussion here is sound, three kinds of solution to the individual's problem exist. Guilt can be minimized. Guilt can be accepted. Guilt can be avoided. All are possible. All are defensible.

Guilt can be minimized where the demands upon the individual are indeed of trivial importance in relation to the costs of resistance. Not infrequently, demands made by the Communists can legitimately be regarded as such. As has

been pointed out above, pressing trivial demands is one of the Communist techniques. Vainglorious behavior in such circumstances may eventuate in inglorious consequences. When demands are not trivial, guilt can also be reduced by the recognition that better men than oneself have had to bend before Communist pressures.

Judgments of one's own behavior are made in terms of one's own standards, however. Where an individual feels that he has yielded too much or too readily, and feels compelled to judge himself harshly in terms of his standards, insight into the dangers of deluding himself to escape this judgment may help protect him from a more devastating outcome.

The most desirable solution for the individual, and for what he represents, is the avoidance of guilt by resisting all efforts to force him into behavior contrary to his beliefs.

This paper assumes that an understanding of both the external and internal pressures it has sought to describe will increase the ability of captives of the Communists to attain this most desirable solution.

X