Victors need never explain
MASS
REPRISALS
My, sometimes fierce, discussions about
expediency of reprisals are always reduced to two questions. I am asked «Would
you like to be subjected to repression? » I answer: « No! ». The opponents are
asked the other question by me: « What do you suggest instead of mass reprisals
to finish with anarchy and to restore the order? » I have already been waiting for the answer
to this question for ten years, but there is no answer. I tell about discussion
in order that opponents of reprisals will think, before attack me.
Mass
reprisals are always resorted, when it is necessary to put an end to anarchy.
Anarchy happens as a result of degradation of a society, to be more exact as a
result of degradation of authority or after a defeat in war. Reprisals are
natural continuation of civil war or are used for its prevention. Reprisals are
used to put an end to putsch or terror which are
symptoms of anarchy in the country.
The problem of
reprisals is not in their consequences, but in the leaders of a society. The
leader should not be the impotent man. If there is a need for reprisals, it is
necessary to resort to them in proper time. Just as it is not necessary to
abuse reprisals and as soon as the purpose is achieved, the power and the order
are established, reprisals should be stopped. It is useful to compare reprisals
to a medicine for a society. If there is no other means of treatment, resort to
a medicine. A medicine is taken in APPLICATION of REPRISALS.
As it has been already mentioned, reprisals
automatically follow a civil war. The victorious party of the certain interval
of time and in the certain doze carries out mass reprisals against defeated
one. The civil war in the USA may be
mentioned as a typical example. It can happen that struggling groups are more,
than two and then there is a struggle for a power between them. The winner
severely suppresses the opponent. An example to that is the struggle for power
in Algeria. After Frenchmen leaving it, the Arabian coalition struggling
against them has broken up and inters tine war began. The result of this war
was: Ahmed Ben Bela who
headed the struggle of Arabs for their independence has been put into prison of
his fighting comrades and has stayed for 20 years there.
My aim is to point out the necessity of
reprisals for strengthening a victory already after military defeat of the
opponent. In these cases the purpose of reprisals is of double meaning: first, to demoralize an opponent completely and, second, to subordinate
it.
All history is filled with stories about
reprisals already after the termination of hostilities. For example, by means
of reprisals England has subdued Scotland. In those days even the Scottish
skirt has been forbidden. Scots were brought to ruin and for the lack of a
choice served as mercenaries in the British army.
During
the Second world war Germany did not hesitate in carrying out of reprisals in
all countries occupied by it. However after the termination of the Second World
War there was no need for reciprocal reprisals against Germans. They have
already been strongly demoralized by heavy losses on fronts, air bombardments
of rears and economic ruin. Nearly the same position was in defeated Japan.
It is not less interesting to consider the use
of mass reprisals in our time and especially to consider those cases when use
of reprisals is ignored by ideological or other reasons.
After
Six-day war Israel has missed an opportunity to put an end to the war and to
reach peaceful agreement only because it did not demoralize Arabs and has missed a victory.
The lesson of Israel has not been profited by
the USA and England because their leaders were guided by the instincts and
ideology, but not by sociology. The rout of the Iraq army in 2003 by a coalition of the USA and
England has taken place so immediately, as well as the Six-day war, with the
only difference, that the power of the dictator Saddam Hussein in Iraq has been
liquidated. The dictator has disappeared. All state hierarchy has failed at any
moment. It happened that was necessary to expect, the anarchy was established
in the country. The country has been paralyzed by anarchy. In these
circumstances Arabs plundered everything, that was possible to plunder,
including treasures of culture: museums and libraries.
Anarchy and plunders were the first evidences
of dullness of the President of the USA George Bush and the prime-minister of
the Great Britain Blair, their misunderstanding of social processes and ability
to foresee the consequences of their acts.
Mass reprisals typical for a new authority,
have passed Iraq by.
Any blitzkrieg should come to the end by mass
reprisals in order that the winner could establish and impose his power to
defeated people
Mass reprisals are a natural tool of social
dynamics which is necessary to be used each time when there is a need in it.
CRIME AND
PUNISHMENT
The
divergence between ideology and sociology is not shown in such a way anywhere
as in the question about punishment for mass reprisals. Each party tries to
interpret the existing norms and laws in a good light for themselves, ignoring
other aspects of the problem. For example, Arabs demand, that the terrorists
arrested by Israel and their accomplices are considered as prisoners of war. Nobody declared war to Israel, then where
have prisoners of war come from? If even undeclared war is waged why should not
Israel use the means corresponding to the moment? Let's suppose that
Israel will intern (will subject to repression)
and will put all the Arabian population in concentration camps for the period
of war .Just so the USA have acted
during the war , having put 100 thousand
their citizens of the Japanese origin
in concentration camps. It is
important to note, that the Supreme Court of the USA has considered this
question and has not found the contradictions with the constitution. Just so
the Englishmen interned all Germans in Palestine. Nobody protested.
The estimation of reprisals is strongly
influenced by ideology of the estimator. If someone condemns reprisals, they
are the left as a rule. It is done with the big delay. The purpose of reprisals
is to rally, and rallying leads to the agreement. The protest against the
internment of Japanese in the USA has sounded only in 20 years after the
termination of war. The Chilean general Pinochet subjected to repression about
3 thousand person. The entire world was silent and has perceived the revolution
organized by the general in the country
as the natural phenomenon. Only in twenty years after Pinochet has grown old, has retired and has transferred
the authority to the government chosen by democratic way, his international
persecution began. At the same time all the merits of the general who has
returned stability to the country and has achieved its economic prosperity were
completely ignored.
Why was it 20 years later? Probably such period
of time is required for a split of a society.
Legislators and judges rather frequently show
their ideological orientation in questions of reprisals. Ideologically self-possessed
judges pronounce determinations which show their stupidity and cause widespread
damages to the country. The persecution of the general Pinochet began in Spain
by the complaint of some its citizens. In all this persecution a question: what the
Spanish citizens in Chile had done and for what they had been subjected to
reprisals there, was passed over in silence. The sick general «has been
interned" in England after his arrival there. His maintenance cost huge
money for England, but what will not be done in the name of ideology.
Everything was ended by the fact, that the general has released, and the affair
has stopped.
MILITARY CRIMINALS
When the question is about criminals, it is
meant, that they have broken laws or even moral standards. When the question is
about military criminals basically those cannot be. War is, when there are no
any laws and absolutely all means are good for achievement of a victory and
destruction of the opponent. Yes, some conventions forbidding this or that are
written. These conventions are observed not because they are signed, but
because the adverse party can answer the same way or even stronger. And how can
such power as the
For the first time the question of punishment
of military criminals has arisen at the beginning of the Second World War. As
early as the 4th of December, 1941 the government of the USSR has acted with
the Declaration in which for the first time in a history it has been declared,
that punishment of military criminals is inseparably linked with ensuring of
«the lasting equitable peace». After victorious war, - it was specified in the
Declaration, - and corresponding punishment of criminals, the ensuring of «the lasting equitable peace»
will be the problem of the allied states. Requirements about punishment of
criminals were expressed in other countries which participated in war against
Germany, in particular in the USA. Created on the basis of the agreement
between the governments of the USSR, the USA, the Great Britain and France of
August, 8, 1945 the International tribunal for judgment of military criminals
of the European countries has condemned the main German military criminals for
the crimes committed by them against the world, war crimes and crimes against
humanity in October, 1946 in Nuremberg. The Nuremberg process, lasted since November, 20, 1945
within 10, 5 months. Twelve
criminals have been sentenced to a death penalty through hanging, and seven -
to various periods of imprisonment. The tribunal has also declared the supervisory personnel of the
national socialist party, SS, SD and
Gestapo to be criminals.
For the first time the statesmen guilty of preparation,
launching and conducting aggressive
war have been subjected to punishment as criminals.
On the basis of the Nuremberg principles the
International tribunal for the Far East has been formed. The
The general Assembly of the United Nations of
December, 11, 1946 has confirmed the principles of international law recognized
by the regulations of the Nuremberg tribunal and found reflections in its verdict.
Thus, the United Nations has recognized that aggressive war, war crimes and
crimes against humanity are painful international
crimes.
Conversations about ensuring of the just and
lasting peace by means of the International court turned out as a propagandistic
idle talk. Soon after the termination of the Second World War the world has
broken up into two antagonistic camps and the race of arms and balancing on the
verge of war have followed. So up to the Cuban crisis
the USA, threatening with war, has demanded from the USSR to clean rockets from
Cuba. The Cuban crisis has shown, as the world is close to the nuclear war and
self-destruction.
The
disintegration of the USSR and one of the military blocs has not led to
disappearance of the opposite. On the contrary, the bloc of the NATO has
cheered up and has proclaimed its domination all over the world. Now the USA
and the NATO decided what is good for the world and what is bad. It was showed
in war of the NATO against Yugoslavia most distinctly. First the NATO
stimulated guerrilla actions of Albanians of the province of Kosovo. Then it has accused the government of
Yugoslavia of reprisals against Albanians and started the carpet bombings of
the country. Finally, originally there were 25 thousand Albanian refugees,
today there are200 thousand refugees of Serbs. The mass-media of the entire
world groaned and experienced for destiny of Albanians, but the entire world
was silent and is silent about destiny of Serbs. The head of Yugoslavia
Milosevic has been declared the military criminal, and judged in Hague for
reprisals against Albanians, but nobody tries to accuse the President of the
USA Clinton and the heads of the NATO in anything. Who is stronger, that is
right. Milosevic is judged by the International court in Hague not because he
is the criminal but because he is the impotent man and, first, has allowed
Albanians of Kosovo to begin guerrilla struggle, second, has surrendered the
country on mercy of the NATO.
The USA and England have punished Iraq for a
crime which it has not made. What is it? Is it the judicial error? - There was
not any judgment.
Summing
up stated before I affirm: VICTORS NEED NEVER
EXPLAIN
GUILTY WITHOUT FAULT
The presence of mass reprisals shows that there
is no judicial system. It has failed as a result of war, anarchy, and an
establishment of dictatorship or other reason. It is natural, when there are
reprisals then there are persons subjected to repression. Among persons
subjected to repression there are such who deserve it and such, who are «guilty
without fault». It is impossible to separate one from others because there is
no only court the function of which is to divide people into guilty and not
guilty, but also laws which are trampled. God has shown application of mass reprisals
when he has punished the inhabitants of the cities of
However, in
It is one more of the examples of a divergence
between sociology and ideology. If you address to the reality it will turn out
that namely the left use reprisals most of all for an establishment of the
authority after revolution. So it was after the overthrow of the king in France,
so it was after the organization of the Bolshevik revolution in Russia.