Excerpt from one of the first and
few publications on paper about the threat of nuclear war, by JOHN ZUBE
(Bth was his mentor), who thereafter went 'FICHING',
(Libertarian Microfiche Publishing), proud
to outproduce and outpublish anybody alive or dead.
This file was created in nov 98; last minor changes in july 2001
Stat installed near the end of july 2001 (same counter adding up about 18 files)
Go see what else poetpiet can puzzle you with here ..............or here.......... or check the intro to this file and all the others in my first batch of guest appearances which happens to concern currency issues.
A P P E N D I X 10
SECTIONS OMITTED IN THIS BOOK
A number of related alphabetical entries were intended and prepared for this book. But they were not included for lack of space and time. They may be included in the next Peace Plan issues, Hints for more such entries are welcome, Aggressiveness / Allegiance / Asylum / Atrocities / Choice / Coercion / Collaboration / Collectivism / Competition / Cruelty / Destruction, discriminating / Disposal Suggestions / Distrust, justified / Embargoes / Freedom of the High Seas / Furnaces/ God / Hidden Bombs / Immunity against Class actions / Independence / Integration/ voluntary vs. compulsory / Legislation / Membership, compulsory / Militarism / Military Obedience / Military Training / Nationalized Defence / Objections / Oppression / Organization / Overkill / Parades / Peace Programmes / Personal Thinking / Private Enterprise / Public Services / Questionaire / Refusal to Accept Paper Money / Sabotage / Search for Hidden Weapons / Self-government / Self-reliance / Self-responsibility / Separate Development / Strength / Suspicion / Treaties / Unconditional Surrender / Vhemic Courts
Most ideas in this book can be traced back to the writings of Ulrich von Beckerath ( who died in 1969 ), his extensive correspondence and the numerous discussions I had with him between 1952 and 1959. To give you some impression of his way of thinkinq I give you here a rough translation of some of the notes and comments he added to his minutes on a session of a small society to which both of us belonged : Berlin Society of 1952 to fight the causes of unemployment, Session of May,
For a long time we have been aware that at the
outbreak of the next war a military insurrection or strike would not be
improbably in the authoritarian states We have developed a programme how
these strikers could finance their strike We have also considered that
such a strike should not be identical with subordination to the governments
of non-authoritarian states. We would expect that whole armies of the authoritarian
states would organize themselves as autonomous communities. These would
then negotiate, as equals, with governments, especially on the provision
within days, of non-exploitative employment and support for the millions
of members of the new communities "Autonomous communities in the form of
independent armies are nothing new in the Eastern world. The Red Army was
originally an autonomous community, although in a very primitive form.
The armies rising against the Soviets did also organize themselves as autonomous
communities, e,g, the armies of Denikin Judenitsch, Wrangel Machnow and
others. Also the Czarist army retreating after WW I into Serbian territory
persisted for a long time as an autonomous community. (Among the thousands
of publications on details of the first W.W. and its consequences there
is apparently not even one providing some details ''The ''Belgische
Kurier'', the organ published by the German Supreme Command for German
soldiers, published a long article on a petition of the Jewish population
of eastern territories which sought permission to organize this population
as an autonomous community, in 1916 or 1917 . ''The members know that the
German philosopher J.G. Fichte demanded autonomous communities in 1794
(in his work : Contribution to Correct Public Opinion on the French 220
everybody's right not to belong to any autonomous community but
rather to submit to a state government. "Further discussion dealt with
the question whether and if then in what way the autonomous community would
be suitable to realize the aims of our society even in a world situation
like the present one. The first aim was to find out why the numerous conferences
of the last few decades attempting to reduce armaments and the danger of
war remained without success. The unanimously accepted result of the discussion
was : The delegates and those who sent them were neither worse human beings
than the average man nor were they any more stupid. But the Political system
of the world wIth its division of the Earth's surface among States makes
world peace impossible, What makes this worse is the fact that the inhabitants
of each State see in it their fatherland, so much so that a great number
of them - and certainly not the worst - is prepared to sacrifice their
lives. Moreover, almost all inhabitants see in their state government their
rightful representation towards the inhabitants of other States. "The best
result which might be achieved in a peace conference would be a treaty
according to which on a predetermined day all states would disarm, render
theirmilitary installations useless, and oblige themselves to submit their
arguments of all kinds to an internationaL arbitration court for settlement.
Under present conditions it is impossible to achieve such a contract and
to carry it into effect. ''First of all it would be impossible to arrange
for the begin of the disarmament in the whole world at exactly the same
moment. It is as impossible as getting a great number of horses in a race
to start off at exactly the same moment as soon as it would become clear
that a sile government would have delayed its disarmament, and be it only
for some hours, the other governments would immediately cease with their
disarmament and accuse this government of breach of its
treaty obligations. ''One of the reasons why the disarmament particularly in the big states cannot be started punctually is the political motivation of a great part of the army the public service, the youth and of the people in general. Al these groups consider the destruction of weapons the dissolution of troop units etc. as an attempt to make the fatherland helpess. They would consider it as their patriotic duty to counter any such efforts. Thus the disarmament would be sabotaged by these groups. These groups would also attempt and to some extent succeed in hiding weapons, especially nuclear weapons At the same time they wouLd be likely to accuse the governments of other States of hiding atomic weapons. Such accusations would very soon bring disarmament to a standstill. The Political atmosphere of the world wil then be much more loaded with tension than it was before.
"Already when the League of Nations was established it was realized that contractual agreements with no other base than the good will of the contracting governments couLd not prevent any war whenever influential and in the old sense patriotically (better: nationalistic) groups seriously expect an attack by other governments. Thus right from the beginning there were .talks on the possibility of organizing an armed force under the excLusive command of the League of Nations. But nothing more than this discussion took place and could take place One cannot expect any government to help organizing a power which one day might restrict that government's freedom of action in any important affair On the other hand it is clear that without the organization of a positive force, superior to that of single governments of today, world peace cannot be achieved and the nuclear weapons especially could not be destroyed without it.
''Only one way out remains : The appeal should not longer be directed, as was usual so tar, to the governments but to every single human being who is seriously willing to save himself, his fellow citizens and also his State, and who understands that this is impossible under the present system even of one could reckon on te good will of governments.
We are in a situation more
dangerous than that of Holland durin the hi h tide of last year. (1953)
An appeal was made : Everyone who has eyes and hands to the dikes It was not made in vain, Everyone who could help did help and today Holland has the areas which were then flooded again under cultivation. The utilitarians of the world suffered a great defeat. This defeat was further enlarged through the action of the Dutch people who in the middle of their own catastrophy sent the qreater part of the food, clothing and blankets sent to them from many countries on to Berlin, asking to provide the refugees from the East with them, as the Dutch people were aware that these were still worse off than they were themselves. The world has not experienced a greater example of international solidarity. It was proof of the awakening of a new spirit in mankind.
Therefore an appeal should be directed to all friends
of peace in the whole world to organize themselves into an international
militia which would make all Preparations necessary to make the next war,and
especially nuclear war, impossible to make a start sections of the militia
should organize themselves as autonomous communities An internationaL association
of lawyers could alreadY now orqanize itself as an arbitration court for
autonomous communities, in a suitable locality, perhaps in Hague,Afterwards
some principles were discussed to which the international militia would
have to commit itself.
Some of these are :
1, The militia recognizes the principles of the Hague Convention on Warfare.
2, The militia will not use any weapons or tolerate the production of weapons which cannot be used without endangering non-combatants.
3, The militia declares that it considers the inclusion of women and children in fiqhtinq units or their use for the fabrication of war materials as contrary to internationat law. It appeals to the women of the world to refuse such war services Misguided women who were fighting and then captured will be immediately release ed by the militia provided they promise that henceforth they will only engage in peaceful labours. , The international militia will prepare organizations in all countries which will make it possible for all those refusing to serve in the armed forces to find labour which will support them.
"It was confirmed that our society does not have to fear being accused of involvement in any communist conspiracy. On the contrary, its programme offers the only really effective weapon aaainst the Soviet system economically as well as militarily Instead of referring the peoples captured by the Soviet system to the atomic weapons of the West as means of "liberation', it refers these peoples and every one of their members to their own strength and also shows them how tu use it.,..,"
"The governments that insist on continuing atomic tests, or on subsidizing further atomic development, must be publicly branded ( even if the countries are our own ) as the criminals they are in fact..,." Mary Hays Weik, Window on the World,9/73. What is usually called "nuclear strength'' as nothing but a scientifiic preparation for mass murder.
''The world has achieved brilliance without conscience, Ours is a world with nuclear giants and ethical infants.'' Omar N, Bradley, address on Armistice Oay, 1948, "My God, do they really believe there will be anybody around to either pay or collect tensions if the big boys press the buttons?" - GH Smith: The Coming of the Rats.
The following is the translation of a Letter by Ulrich von Beckerath to Mrs. V., written on 11/12/1954, a letter which well integrates some of the ideas in this programme :
''On the possibility to influence
governments or the UN to do something to abolish nuclear and similar weapons
Suppose one succeeded to initiate, as the Soviets proposed an international convention in which all governments obliged themselves -to destroy the nuclear weapons producing factories in their countries and Likewise their stocks of nucleaar weapons (something that would not be very simple), and also to tolerate an internnational control of this disarmament. Then suppose that a single government would break this pact and marufacture such weapons secretly and that this fact would finally be discovered by the international control commission. What would happen then?
The situation would be rather simple. The cheating government would be the master of the world and it would simply give its orders to the other qovernments In case any government would not obey, it would be destroyed, together with its subjects and then wiped out of the registers of the UN. This is the situation.
Is there any likelyhood that not at least one government would break this pact? Even the small section of world history which both of us have experienced lets me guess that at least one government would break this convention.
Suppose, furthermore, that either you or I were dictator of any large power. We would naturally, be under an obligation to protect our subjects from wrongful attacks and also from dishonesty, contract breaches and changes in the mentality of governments in our neighbourhood. An Instance: Czar Nicolas II was openly pacifistic at the beginning of his rule and he called for the famous Hague Conference. But only a few years later this same Czar became quite passive and left the government to his ministers. The war of 1914 was obviously prepared especially by the Russian government. I rcmember very well an article in the Frankfurter Zeitung in April of 1914. which pointed out lhat at least 1.5 miilion Russian troops were assembled in Poland, the Russian government did indeed assert that it would have to conduct military exercises in Poland. But for this purpose the territory around the Urals would have been decidedly better. In Fact when the war began in August 1914 the Russian Army was the only fully mobilized one, (Ed 's comment: At least by that time, some researchers asserted no full-scale mobilization was ever reversed, i,e , it always led to war) "Nothing was amiss. If the shots at Sarajewo hadn't been fired the Russian government would have found some other pretence Consequently, we as dictators, would feel obliged to protect our subjects from breaches of contract by the governments in our neighbourhood. Could we, in our case act o1herwise than secreting away a considerable numbor of atomic weapons and thus evading the nuclear disarmament agreement.
"Wouldn't our supreme rule be : ''right or wrong - my country!"? Wouldn't we be bad rulers if we didn't accept this as the maxime for our government? As we would feel obliged to think, so do all governments think indeed, even if they have as much good will as we can ascribe to ourselves.
What I stated here is nothing new. Wiser men than myself have explained long before me that in the principle "Right or wronq - my country!'' lies the impossibility to seriously conclude any disarmament agreement. Any ruler who would renounce this principle would soon be overthrown - whether he openly confesses that he is not committed to this idea and would rather stick to his contractual obligation or merely showed his attitude in his actions. (The misguided loyalty of emperor Wilhelm II did cost him his throne - which was already rather wobbly for other reasons also).
When two imporant moral principles contradict each other then at least one of them is wrongly founded. The principle : "Right or wrong, my country!" presupposes :
I. That the subdivision of Earth into States is morally unobjectionable and does not infringe the rights of men and citizens
II. That the inhabitants of a State's territory are obliged to obey their government unconditionally
III. That the decision and initiative in all public affairs belongs to the government (including parliament) and exclusively to it and that it is the government's business to declare what public affairs are or are not.
IV. That all obligations arising out of nationality take precedence before all other duties, for the head of state as well as for all subjects.
All these points have a religious foundation. Apostle Paulus taught (Romans Ch 13) "Let every sould be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
These principles were applied for centuries without arousing any opposition, But today perhaps for the first time in history, the question arises: do these principles still apply, even when the existence of mankind is not only at risk but certainly at an end provided these maximes are any longer applied when, in other words the slogan ''right or wrong, my country!'' is any longer adhered to and when men continue to accept the present political order as something God-given, really self-evident and in any case irreplaceable? I say : N O !!!
What reforms in political thought ( and not only in this ) are to take place and how the new thinking is to be realized, follows t o d a y easily from the nuclear war threat. In no other age were the probLems confronting us as clearly revealed as in ours.
When the best, cleverest and most energetic governments which are at the same time benevolent are unable to preserve mankind from extermination through atomic bombs expressly because of their position of governments - then one can no bnger appeal to them. No animosity is implied in this statement. On the contrary: Whosoever would now take a new initiative would also have to feel obliged to save the governments especially his own. Even in considerations how to save mankind he would have to begin somewhere and the obvious thing would be to begin with that part of mankind which in the narrower sense embraces his fellow citizen.
What is to be done? I will express myself on this without much ado :
I propose a public appeal - by a group to be formed - to all soldiers entrusted with the stockpiling of atomic weapons, an appeal requesting that they destroy these weapons. This group should also contact the workers in all nuclear bomb factories with an appeal to destroy them.
These appeals should be directed primarily to the workers and souldiers of those countries and kingdoms there were likewise, for hundreds of years, autonomous communities, among? the Franks there were the communities of the Burgundians, the Alemanni, even of Romans and others, Details can be found in Gibbon (Ed.: The History of the De-and Fall of the Roman Empire, Vol, VI, chap. 38" reprinted as plan 136 in PP. 6,) was probably the first German who represented the idea of the autonomous com-( in 1794 ( Ed. : See plan 198 in PP 12 )pointed out that the Jews in many countries found themselves in a legal situation, deplorable as it was in many respects, nevertheless left to themselves theof their own legal disputesEuropeans in Oriental countries formed up to 1914 autonomous communities. Consul jurisdiction was especially developed in Egypt and in Marocco. Germans should also, as fast as possible, establish citizen armies and get thefor this from the Allied Forces. When e.g. America sees that here is the real weapon against the Soviets then America will do everything to support this movement. America will remember its own militia and the world historic role it played. Let me to leave you with these hints for today.
"You're a Quaker?" "No. but I like all of them I've met, They're decent as individuals and also as a group, which is much rarer. They care about what happens to human beings, they don't like murder in the name of one-eyed ideologies and a lousy, make-believe sense of duty...."
"Most people got to feeling it would never happen after all - I know I did But it was a fools' paradise, wasn't it? If the thing is there, it only becomes a matter of time...."
"If I can't see it. it isn't there,' could be the national motto. That and 'don't rock the boat ", "it's been nearly thirty years since those bombs fell, and a quarter of a century since there's been much serious debate about the effects of nuclear war. Since then a highly effective soft-pedalling job's been done almost everywhere. Now a qeneration has entered into its responsibilities which knows next to nothing about what would actually happen if there were a major atomic war All the nasty stuff, those highly-unpleasant facts about what really happened to the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - I haven't so much as heard them mentioned for years, People would rather not"
''Moscow had been predictable. It had given its orders, and he was a man under dis_ cipline, pledged to obey them. It was a qreat killer of the people, this sense of discipl~ne, he reflected. The mad thought crossed his mind that he could take NOVGOROD to some neutral port, scuttle her, desert."
''Heaven knows he said. It sounds insane - but take my word for it. the military planning of the nuclear age is insane. Once you penetrate the jargon of any modern book on strategy it all boils down to sheer, illogical horror. Megadeaths, for example. One megadeath means the inevitable, premeditated killing of a million people, from babies taking their first breath to the aged. The textbooks already list numbers of megadeaths regarded as 'acceptable' in the case of war . ."
The above are all quotations from Colin Mason's novel . HOSTAGE, on how WW III could start First published 1973 by Macmillan, London, Sun Books, 1973. Reprinted
238 A P P E N D I X 17
MONEY AND THE NUCLEAR WAR
REVOLUTION AND RELIGION
The following is another vision by Ulrich von Beckerath in a letter to Mrs. V. It also helps to show some of the basic ideas in this book in combination.16.12,''It is not my intention to disturb your rest through frequent communications on the nuclear war threat and war financing, I only desire to iustify the enclosed booklet by Zander on the railway money issued in Germany in 1923", (Ed.: See plan 192 in PP No. 9,) shows in his booklet that there is a very simple means to abolish unemployment quickly and thoroughly : Enterprises suffering from it issue value tokens typified like money. With these they pay their expenses including wages. These certificates are not to have legal tender. But they will be covered by the readiness of the enterprises to accept them like cash when anybody buys their goods and services, The railway is such a productive enterprise. During 1923 it has provided work for about 700,000 workers by issuing "railway money", The details are explained in Zander' s booklet, work cannot be denounced with the objection common among ''practical'' men that it would contain only ''theoretical garbage". This railway money was a reality and these 700,000 workers of the railway were also a reality That they worked and had enough to eat was also a fact and no theory. It is not easy to determine how many employees outside the Railway were also indirectly provided with work by this measure but I am convinced that there were several million of them. During that time the railway had permission to issue railway money - until Schacht withdrew it. What could be done when there is no authority for such issues of means of payment? The answer is that wherever human rights are recognized and thus there exists at least freedom of expression, one tries in a legal way to obtain the required permission, But wherever human rights are not recognized one goes ahead on one's own initiative, This would be a monetary revolution, in the communist countries one could not proceed without this, page 15, chapt (?) of his work (p. 83 of PP No. 9) Zander indicates shortly that the principle explained by him can be applied not only by the railway. Indeed, it is of universal importance. Every large enterprise and every large association of small enterprises can protect itself against the need to dismiss workers by properly applying Zander' s principle. Zander did not get around at that time to describe the application to the retail shops. He had to solve a more urgent problem : to organize and finance his emigration and thereby to save his life, Zander were in Berlin now he would scarcely fail to explain to his fellow citizens that the principle of railway money, suitably applied, would also remove threat of nuclear war.
Let me give you a concrete example: Suppose, the workers of Russian atomic bomb want to strike and declared: "We will no longer produce this rubbish but will instead provide ourselves with some useful jobs" What would then happen? At first there would be a repetition of the events in Germany after June the 17th, 1953. How was the rising defeated? Russians played hardly a role in this, Their commander even fled to West Berlin, as you know. The whole unit was "unreliable" according to the terminology of the ? , To shoot striking workers? This they did not like at all'victor over this uprising was a lady : the president of the East German Bank in Jaeger Strasse, Berlin East. She instructed all bank branches in (239) the insurrectionist areas to block all wage payments for the time being. With this the uprising was finished. The few East German Marks which the workers had stilt in their pockets were rapidly spent and from then on "General Hunger" fought for the Soviets.
Whether I control a man or the money circulation on which he depends that is one and the same. Whoever supplies the means of payment is the master of the other and the other must follow all his orders. Thus the Russian Central Bank of Issue would no longer issue notes for wage payments in the revolutionary zones. The next day would be the decisive one for the rising workers, for Russia, for the world and for the future of mankind. If the workers or some of their leaders know Zander's principle then the retention of the State's exclusive paper currency would be received with amusement. After destroying the nuclear bomb factories they would spread to the bakeries, other food production centres, to State farms etc and initiate the issue of value tokens analogous to the German railway money and in accordance with the technique described by Zander.
The printing of these certificates could be done within an hour as was shown by the issue of stable value currency in Hamburg in October 1923 and also in the Ukraine when consumer co-ops in Ukrainian towns issued goods warrants and loaned them to the factories when the money supply from Moscow faltered through some or the other bureaucratic bungle. All participants were hanged because of "forgery". They had indeed unintentionally and unknowingly shaken the very foundations of the Sovietst power. This happened in 1934.
If in our case and today the West would take a hand and send a message to the workers inviting them to witness the destruction of the atomic factories in the West and if otherwise, the West would declare that it does not intend to occupy Russia and is ready to conclude a separate peace with every Russian army, then in a few days, the revolution would become general. In the West also nobody would then be able to mobilize an army for a war of aggression.
I have spoken here of "the Westi' but the governments in the West will not recognize the situation fast enough. They will therefore have to be supported by volunteer organizations, primarily by militias. They would make the first public declarations to the Russian soldiers and workers. The governments would then merely confirm them.
(Ed : Beckerath was conditioned to safely explain his real views even under Nazi censorship. He then adopted the stance of the super-patriot. Compare plan 234 in PP No 14. Always write as if a censor were peeping over your shoulder - was his oft repeated advice.)
Otherwise nobody in the West would think of abolishing the governments. On the contrary, -the governments, through their declarations, would appear as the saviours of world peace and really would be. At most a few Nazis would go mad and would have to be sent to mental asylums.
A great change would furthermore occur, one unnoticed by the masses: all note issue monopolies would be repealed and the legal tender of all notes would be abolished Zander's payment principle: Payment through service, not in the form of primitive tribal barter but through systematic clearing, would be accepted as a fundamental principle in all constitutions.
If you should know of another means to prevent the destruction of all life on Earth still within this century' then please, communicate it to me. There is rothing more interesting for me. Abolotion of the nuclear bomb threat by those threatened and by nobody else, this marks the beginning of a new age, a new economic order, a new political order or even of a new religion. Let me add a few words on this. Some days ago I read a leaflet of a Christian Circle in Darmstadt. In it the Atomic Bomb was declared to be unchristian and Christians were asked not to participate. It was n o t said in what form this nonparticipation should be practised, whether through a military strike (which the Soviets could defeat rapidly) or how otherwise. This does not surprise anyone with some knowledge of the religious books of the world. Neither the bible nor the writings of the founders of churches, nor the papal proclamations, nor those of protestant clerics, nor the Koran, nor the writings of Zarathustra, nor of Confucius or Laotse, not even those of the otherwise venerable Schweitzer, contain the least hint what should be done in a situation like ours. Do you know any religious writings containing something useful on this ???
Foes could become allies - with even greater speed than in the recent decades. - reversaL of a saying by Paul Tabori in "the survivors", Consul Books, London, 1964
Let tolerance reign supreme! J~, 29/4/75''
The first order which the UPPR troops broke in a peaceful and general mutiny was that of no fraternization." - Paul Tabori, ibid, p 47.
"Great and small states alike were making certain that peace should not break out suddenly and catch them unawares " Ibid, p 52
''The constantly improving armaments were simply threats, blackmailing or menacing instruments, but if they were never to be used who would ever be frightened by them? . " Ibid, p. 53/
''the rocket stations were activated; the atomic subs cruised around like mad. . ." Ibid, p. 61.
''The ordinance factories were working triple shifts to turn out armaments which all politicians maintained, would never be used." Ibid, p 62
"Did the politicians really believe that a sing le murder was a greater crime than mass murder? If they did not, they gave a pretty good imitation of accepting the double standards '' Ibid, p. 74.
"The Achilles heel of the powerful is their contempt for the weak." Ibid, p.83.
''I refuse to believe that three hundred people can suddenly enter into a suicide pact ." Ibid, p. 84.
''..Jeff ran into him at the Ministry for Humane Extermination, There seemed to be feverish activity throughout Whitehall, though Moriarty could not discover what aim it served. He only knew that no one would take the responsibility of being the one person who would refuse to be responsible for starting another war " Ibid, p. 106.
''If truth is the first victim of a war, confusion is its natural condition'' "And the attacking forces were themselves mostly wiped out in the process. Because of the isolation and the futility of the struggle, animal fear and animal cruelty became the dominant emotions. Within a few days the borderLine of aggressive and defensive warfare was completely erased. ". Ibid, p. 122.
'Poison gas, microbe and nuclear dust did not differentiate between enemy and ally.' bd, p. 123.
A P P E N D I X a b o u t
MI L I T A R Y J I U J I T S U
or HOW CHINESE SOLDIERS DETERMINED THE LIMITS OF MILITARY OBEDIENCE
The following is an extract of a letter written by ULrich von Beckerath in 1957, in German and translated by the ed. (John Zube).
'Mao Tse Tung applied the following tactic towards Chiang Kai Shek: He simply asked the soldiers of his opponent not to let themselves be killed or crippled for Chiang but to declare themselves neutral instead and to desert to him; Mao, bringing their weapons with them, and to let themselves be supplied with travel expenses and provisions and to go home. Success justified Mao's policy to an extent which has possibly surprised even him. In less than one year he conquered an area inhabited bv over 300 million people - with less ammunition than was usually used in a single battle in WW 11, Mao followed an old Chinese tradition. As Confucius reported in the Lun-Yii, King Wen did something very similar. Wen's enemies could not keep their soldiers. They all deserted to Wen because he kept his promises and, moreover, ruled well, very much better than the ruLers opposed to him. Perhaps Mao himself does not know that he had such a predecessor. It is quite possible that he did not act in accordance with any principle but merely did what for the time being was the most opportune In any case it is the task of all peace lovers who take themselves serious to clearly recognize the phantastic example set here, to put into the light the principle on which it rests and to see to it - everyone in his circle - that as many people as possible fully understand what has happened in this respect in China and consequently try to achieve the same in other parts of the world, in areas where the rulers put weapons into the hands of their subjects and tell them: 'There -now attack each other, I have no other use for you but - if you win - my advantage will be great'!
Mao acted upon the folowing fact: Soldiers in modern wars do not fight voluntarily but under coercion. If they had a choice to go on fighting or to return to their families then more than nine tenths of them would choose the latter. Moreover, when those soldiers inclined to fight see that right and left of them their comrades desist, then even those inclined to continue the fight lose heart and desert likewise. Furthermore, or,ce the units right and left have deserted, the remaining soldiers must expect to be attacked within hours by supenior forces. There was much practical experience with all this in both World Wars.
Especially during WW II could make my own observations I managed then - for 11 months, the library of the military command in F. As I found out later on it was one of the largest on the Western front. Only the one at Lille was larger. I had discussions with hundreds of soldiers and sometimes with officers also, They all trusted me I was careful not to discuss peace topics with gossipers and other unreliable people. This reading room was only 5 km behind the first trench and thus still in the fire zone. Anyhow, for all frequenting it, the question existed. Do we desert t o d a y or not? Very often English planes dropped leaflets asking the German soldiers to desert. Good treatment was promised. Almost daily I had a session with comrades who were considering: Do I make a run for it today or do I hold out longer?
At that time I dissuaded them from desertion I told them: "look at these Russians working here in F. They have to unload ammunition trucks within the fire zone and do many other things which are expressly prohibited in the conventions on prisoners of war. We have received information that the Germans on the other side are not treated any better. Supposedly it is a "retaliatory'' measure. Anyhow, if you desert ....then you, (242) ....get fed worse? than the Russians are by our side".
I have reason to believe that my words were effective. The reply was, of course, almost always : What? Do you expect us to let ourselves be turned into cripples fighting for these scoundrels? When they win they will treat us like they treat the Russian prisoners today and when they lose for what will we have been fighting? The hatred against those who prolonged the war (ludendorff, Tirpitz, etc.) was unbelievable.
And t h e n we realized : Indeed if we could expect to be decently treated on the other side, if we knew we wou~d not have to work against our comrades e g by unloading ammunition (these people were all good Germans with no international'' inclinations) If we knew also that after the war is lost (only very few still believed in victory) Germany would be treated fairly t h e n we would not stay a single day longer. Yes, ours are scoundrels and those on the other side, too! These words I heard often.
Some approached me later on and asked me: "Couldn't we stay in touch with each other and work after the war for a declaration by all States assuring we make no longer any prisoners of war. Whosoever comes to us voluntarily and declares that he fought against us only under coercion, will be treated by us as a guest and neutral foreigner. After our victory the enemy government will certainly be disarmed but the country will not be treated worse than our own.
What government would under these conditions still dare to declare a war? The war would be over within weeks - because its soldiers will have deserted. And then the revenge comes: A government which declared an aggressive war will be treated like a murder syndicate. We will see to that. Any government which starts a war shall remember that!"
I ended up in hospital and lost the addresses of these comrades. The pacifists whom I met later had curiously no interest at all in this idea but merely discussed impractical proposals like : converting the government to the philosophy of pacifism, establishment of a peaceful world government with the consent of national governments, etc., etc. You yourself have heard all this very often What these peacelovers did not have was the experience of the immediate proximity of the front line, the continuously dropped leaflets which asked soldiers to desert, the daily arising question : Is there any rational sense in continuing? Man, I mean the average man, depends very much on immediate impression " Where they are amiss he is inclined towards obvious but useless phantasies he does not consider the t e c h n i c a l aspects as this would be uncomfortable. The world is supposed to be something very simple and easily, comprehensible, something that only requires the evpression of desires (later, as with the Nazis the shouting sufficed to achieve already half of the aim. But now the world is very differrently organized.
During the second World War I spoke with many Nazis on this method applied today by Mao That was not v e r y dangerous as it appeared to the Nazis first of all as a proposal made in patriotic eagerness, as an idea which although impracticable, was at least meant -to promote the final victory (once indeed, ' came to the wrong address) The answer, particularly coming from the most convinced Nazis, was in essence always the following.
Such ideas are very contrary to National Socialism. If they spread, they could also influence the German soldiers, Very many German soldiers are not National Socialists at all and anyhow, they would rather stay at home than in the trenches. The enemy would only have to apply this method against Hitler and Hitler would be in a very difficult position, Apart from this it is the intention of National Socialism to increase the military spirit in -the whole world, train (243) men to think like soldiers that is, to become disciplined and obedient. To draft for the whole is not the concern of just anybody, The Fuehrer appoints for people he can trust, Thus let us talk about something else!
Nazis were quite right from their point of view, I recognized with great satisfaction that Fashism cannot apply the system which is used today by Mao, Fashism has to despise such ideas and even to prosecute them - for the same reason as Napoleon despised and prosecuted the German ''ideology''. He saw, riqhtly, that there was a power much stronger than his great army, comparable to a heap of gun powder, This may lie, seemingly completely harmless in some dry and quiet corner for a hundred years, Then a single spark falls into it. No totalitarianism can then prevent this powder from exploding.
The system is a kind of political Jiu Jitsu, it uses the enemy's own power aqainst him, Once this principle has been widely spread only those governments could conduct wars whose promises would be trusted even by the enemy's soldiers and who would simultaneously have propagated a good peace programme. It is possible to make all preparations for this in peacetime. Better still these preparations can be made with the knowledge that the enemy cannot interpret them as a hostile act. The advocates of the system will in their own country be considered as super-patriots who want to lead their country to victory under all circumstances, Thus they would play a role very different from that played formerly by pacifists. A danger like that confronting the old peace lovers does not exist for them.
As for myself, I will demand, as far as one will listen to me, that the German Federal Government and also all German States declare publicly In case of war all soldiers of powers hostile to us can call at all our offices and troop units and declare that they wili no longer fight for the enemy regime, We will not treat them as prisoners of war but as guests and neutral aliens, They can go where they want to go, foreign neutral countries included.
During the first 6 months after their defection these soldiers should be paid like civil servants, in cases of doubt like those of the Post Office. In this period the soldiers need not work if they do not want to, Afterwards, and without any qualifications, the rules for neutral foreigners should apply to them.
When these soldiers want to return home they should be given sufficient funds for travelling expenses, enough foodj and also a sum of money which would permit them to live on it for 3 months Officers should get a still better treatment in analogous application of the rules of the Hague Convention on land warfare.
Should the war not be finished within the above-mentioned 6 months then these soldiers should nevertheless have claims to the privileges listed here for up to 6 months after the ending of hostilities in case they still reside in the republic.
After the victory over its enemies the republic will endeavour to give the so far hostile countries a constitution essentially like the own one. Under no circumstances will the republic conduct retaiiatory measures after its victory or insist on reparations. It will leave the punishment of war criminals to those countries in which they can be arrested.
Such a declaration above only described in its essentials would have to be supplemented by declarations on the payment of weapons brought along by the defectors. It would be simple to compile such a price list. Weapons handed over would be paid for at the same rates which the manufacturers of war materials receive. Details would have to be publicized: an aeroplane: 1 million dollars, a machine gun: 200 dollars, a telescope: 10 dollars, etc. (244)
To atomic bombs the following rule should apply: whosoever surrenders one thereupon and for the rest of his life receive the same salary as the president of the republic. Whosoever could prove that he destroyed one before it could do any harm should receive the same.
Everyone should promote the inclusion of such clauses fn the constitution of whatever country he lives in. He should also encourage his friends in other countries to insist upon the same towards their governments. The relevant articles of the constitution should be announced by radio at least once every week and should be proclaimed in all civilized languages few months later on every man on Earth will then know how to behave in any future war.
It seems to be that such a procedure promises to be more successful than all petitions to all the governments in the world to financially support peace efforts. How far all governments are from such intentions is proven by the fact that the UN is so insufficiently supported that it could not provide people like the Count Bernadotte with a bodyguard.
The idea described here is in reality a very old one and was often put into 2000 years ago by the R o m a n s Montesquieu remarked in his 'Consideerations sur la grandeur des romains', that it was always a tactic of the Senate to constitute immediately, in case of war, a government-in-exile opposed to the enemy government. With this counter-government they concluded an alliance, Many enemy soldiers who would never have deserted to the Romans did without hesitation defect to the alternative government. Something similar was tried even in Europe now and then and mostly with success. During the war against Napoleon I in 1814/5 the Bourbons were used as an alternative government. Very many Frenchmen who would never have deserted to the Prussians defected nevertheless without much ado to the Bourbons, saying to themselves : Indeed, they did not rule very well but at Least one could live under them and they are certainly better than the Prussians Russians and Austrians. (It so happened that the government of Louis XVIII was the best which France has had up to then, much better than the rule of the famous Henry IV. During the 10 years of Louis XVIII France could advance faster in every respect than during any former 10 year period.)
Jews have for their passover a special ritual. This is read in the family circle. (The Jews form the only religious community known to me with such a practice.) Subject of the ritual is the discussion of the general strike of the Jews during the building of the two towns Ra-amses and Pithom under the well-known Pharaoh. Families abiding by this ritual are thereby induced to speak at least once a year on subjects outside of the ordinary household sphere. In the families of other nations for thousands of years only household matters are discussed.
I envision a ritual for use in peace loving families, read on a great holi-day , e, g, the 1st. of May, in the same way in these families as is the pass-ritual. After I am dead a better writer than myself will write this rituals.
Thus far my selection from the 4000 (and more coming) pages containing the correspondence between Beckerath and a number of people like Rittershausen (who is represented in this batch as well) as available from Libertarian Microfiche Publishing, the socalled 'PeacePlans <PP>.