War: Instructions
Is it necessary to kill women and children with the aim of weakening the adversaries? Is that a strategy which pays ? The answer is yes! But it is certainly not the wright one. In any case it is the favorite option that armies choose when some herds of rebels aculeate them to an inescapable defeat. Herds of Rebel means in the military jargon: simple resistances deprived of everything except their dignity.
During the war of independence in the United States of America, a colonel of the English army has decided to massacre maquis’ women and children. The rebels had prevously inflicted to his troupes a bitter humiliation. So he gathers the entire inhabitants of a village in the church, then he gives the order to set the church on fire. He had as a preliminary given instructions so that doors and windows are padlocked from the outside.
During this war, the French army has appeared as the good which defends the widow and the orphan. But later this same army will not spare any means in order to subject the revolted tribes of the atlas. French army had come to bombard peaceful villages. By this means the combatants were constrained to deposit the weapons. It seems that this strategy had proven its reliability in Algeria, because it is by decimating in large party the tribe of the prince “abdel kader” that this one was obliged to surround.
American, who had formerly made the expenses of similar exactions, will not be encumbered by remorse when it is matter of gaining a battle. They will even invent a soft appellative to indicate what in a similar case would be called ¨ innocent victims ¨. I evoke here the good named “collateral damages”. As regards the horrors of the war which carries their signature, the most relevant example is that of “Hiroshima and Nagasaki”.
But the most disconcerting in all this, it is that this strategy does not always produce the same effect. If in certain cases it constrains the victims to give themselves out unconditionally, in different cases, it makes them more combative.
The feeling which becomes increasingly strong with time is that of revenge; and the risk that this practice spreads out is quite real. During the war of independence in the United States of America, a colonel of the English army has decided to massacre maquis’ women and children. The rebels had prevously inflicted to his troupes a bitter humiliation. So he gathers the entire inhabitants of a village in the church, then he gives the order to set the church on fire. He had as a preliminary given instructions so that doors and windows are padlocked from the outside.
During this war, the French army has appeared as the good which defends the widow and the orphan. But later this same army will not spare any means in order to subject the revolted tribes of the atlas. French army had come to bombard peaceful villages. By this means the combatants were constrained to deposit the weapons. It seems that this strategy had proven its reliability in Algeria, because it is by decimating in large party the tribe of the prince “abdel kader” that this one was obliged to surround.
American, who had formerly made the expenses of similar exactions, will not be encumbered by remorse when it is matter of gaining a battle. They will even invent a soft appellative to indicate what in a similar case would be called ¨ innocent victims ¨. I evoke here the good named “collateral damages”. As regards the horrors of the war which carries their signature, the most relevant example is that of “Hiroshima and Nagasaki”.
But the most disconcerting in all this, it is that this strategy does not always produce the same effect. If in certain cases it constrains the victims to give themselves out unconditionally, in different cases, it makes them more combative.
Publicité