Raj and his wife discuss a particular Battalion. Suzette asks:
"They're useless?'" (CHAPTER FOUR, p. 52)
Raj replies:
"'No, not useless. Reliable enough putting down strikes and riots.'" (ibid.)
Is this what troops are for? Why do workers strike or riot? See Battle of George Square.
I read an account of an incident during the Russian Revolution. Cossacks marching in one direction met workers marching in the opposite direction. The Cossack officer ordered his men to aim their rifles at the crowd. They obeyed. He ordered them to fire. They hesitated. He pointed his revolver at the head of one of his own men and repeated the order. Someone on the workers' side had a gun and killed the officer. Then the Cossacks fraternized and handed over their guns to the demonstrators. A soldier is an armed worker who can question where his loyalties lie. Do I like the regime that Raj defends? So far, no. Raj remembers rifles and rivulets of blood - not of the enemy but of "...the mob - the people..." (p. 52)
2 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
But remember what a hard world and hard SITUATION Bellevue and its nations were in. Neither the Civil Government or its neighbors and enemies were exactly "democratic." Raj's belief was that if matters were ever going to get better hard and harsh measures were going to be necessary. And HE DID NOT ENJOY ordering such things.
And I do believe riots, at least, should be put down. Preferably by the gentlest means possible. But I'm not going to waste much sympathy on riotous looters and killers. They made their choice to do such things, so let them face the CONSEQUENCES. No gov't, good or bad, can tolerate such things.
Sean
Kaor, Paul!
Oh yes, I forgot to add I have only the utmost possible contempt for the Russian Revolution. Poor bungling Nicholas II was soon succeeded by Lenin and Stalin, monstrous tyrants vastly worse than any Tsar ever dreamed of becoming!
Sean
Post a Comment