The Bolshevik Uprising of 1917 drew on the philosophy of Karl Marx, a nineteenth century writer (1818 - 1883) and who lived in London, and as adopted by the leaders of the Bolshevik Revolution, Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin. The Russian working classes rose up in revolt against what they saw as oppressive masters (the profligately ostentiously wealthy monarchs) who were executed, and a workers collective (soviet) put in its place, led by the aforesaid.
It is claimed that the political philosophical works of Lenin and Trotsky, drawing on Marx, advocated 'terrorism' and the 'samosud' system of peasant rough justice. However, was this actually advocated in their writings? We know Stalin famously said, 'The end justifies the means', and sitcom shows (for example, Citizen Smith) have characters professing, 'Come the revolution, we'll line'em all up against the wall', referring to the 'capitalist bastards', but whilst we know Stalin had horrific purges and bloodbaths, is there any evidence this was part of the Communist Manifesto?
Sure, something similar also happened in France, with the monarchy despatched to the guillotine.
IMV in times of insurrection or mutiny, such as in a civil war (which Russia 1917 was) it is not uncommon for army officers to be given the authority to summarily execute perceived traitors or agitators seen as 'enemies of the state'. Normally, such persons would be taken prisoner but the discretion would be there for an officer to summarily execute them without facing charges or court martial themselves.
This did happen in the 1918 Finnish Civil War, when 'White' army officers had permission to summarily execute 'Red Army' rebels - who themselves were violent and retributive towards their 'class enemies' (as Marx would put it) - and this led to a lot of resentment after the Civil War (which left apx 5% of the entire population dead in three bloodsoaked months), as the officers concerned retained anonymity and were never named or made to face a hearing.
According to wikipedia, on the subject of Military Summary Execution, this is legal in the following cases:
wiki
So, the question is, were Lenin and Trotsky in 1917 indulging in the normal rules of engagement in a violent insurrection, in which the state is the enemy and the rebels with a do-or-die attitude having little choice but to fight or did Lenin and Trotsky actively advocate violent terrorism or the Russian concept of 'samosud', a Russian word for primitive peasant justice, in their philosophical writings? Or, put another way, was the guerilla violence inevitable, given the civil unrest and bearing in mind military expediency under those such conditions that might call for summary execution?
There is an extract from Crime, Cultural Conflict, and Justice in Rural Russia, 1856-1914
By Stephen P. Frank attached, explaining what samosud is.
It is claimed that the political philosophical works of Lenin and Trotsky, drawing on Marx, advocated 'terrorism' and the 'samosud' system of peasant rough justice. However, was this actually advocated in their writings? We know Stalin famously said, 'The end justifies the means', and sitcom shows (for example, Citizen Smith) have characters professing, 'Come the revolution, we'll line'em all up against the wall', referring to the 'capitalist bastards', but whilst we know Stalin had horrific purges and bloodbaths, is there any evidence this was part of the Communist Manifesto?
Sure, something similar also happened in France, with the monarchy despatched to the guillotine.
IMV in times of insurrection or mutiny, such as in a civil war (which Russia 1917 was) it is not uncommon for army officers to be given the authority to summarily execute perceived traitors or agitators seen as 'enemies of the state'. Normally, such persons would be taken prisoner but the discretion would be there for an officer to summarily execute them without facing charges or court martial themselves.
This did happen in the 1918 Finnish Civil War, when 'White' army officers had permission to summarily execute 'Red Army' rebels - who themselves were violent and retributive towards their 'class enemies' (as Marx would put it) - and this led to a lot of resentment after the Civil War (which left apx 5% of the entire population dead in three bloodsoaked months), as the officers concerned retained anonymity and were never named or made to face a hearing.
According to wikipedia, on the subject of Military Summary Execution, this is legal in the following cases:
Quote:
|
Under military law, summary execution is illegal in almost all circumstances, as a military tribunal would be the competent judge needed to determine guilt and declare a sentence of death. However, there are certain exceptions to this rule in emergencies and warfare where summary execution is legal. <snip> — Second Protocol of the Geneva Conventions (1977), Article 6.2 Exceptions to prisoners of war status However, some classes of combatants may not be accorded POW status, but that definition has broadened to cover more classes of combatants over time. In the past, summary execution of pirates, spies, and francs-tireurs[2] have been performed and considered legal under existing international law.[3] Francs-tireurs (a term originating in the Franco-Prussian War) are enemy civilians or militia who continue to fight in territory occupied by a warring party and do not wear military uniforms, and may otherwise be known as guerrillas, partisans, insurgents, etc. Though they could be legally jailed or executed by most armies a century ago, the experience of World War II influenced nations occupied by foreign forces to change the law to protect this group. Many of the post-war victors, such as France, Poland, and the USSR, had the experience of resistance fighters being summarily executed by the Axis if they were captured. The war also influenced them to make sure that commandos and other special forces who were caught deep behind enemy lines would be protected as POWs, rather than summarily executed as Hitler decreed through his 1942 Commando Order. |
So, the question is, were Lenin and Trotsky in 1917 indulging in the normal rules of engagement in a violent insurrection, in which the state is the enemy and the rebels with a do-or-die attitude having little choice but to fight or did Lenin and Trotsky actively advocate violent terrorism or the Russian concept of 'samosud', a Russian word for primitive peasant justice, in their philosophical writings? Or, put another way, was the guerilla violence inevitable, given the civil unrest and bearing in mind military expediency under those such conditions that might call for summary execution?
There is an extract from Crime, Cultural Conflict, and Justice in Rural Russia, 1856-1914
By Stephen P. Frank attached, explaining what samosud is.
via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/JIva6VL
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire