TRANSCRIPT of a small-print and badly offset-printed extract from a letter by U.v. BECKERATH,1957. (Previously reproduced in English in the appendix of Peace Plans No. 16-18. Translation by J.Zube, here only very slightly changed in an attempt to improve it.) MILITARY JIU JITSU or HOW CHINESE SOLDIERS DETERMINED THE LIMITS OF MILITARY OBEDIENCE. ------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 by over 300 million people - with less ammunition than was usually used in a single battle in W.W. II. 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 fantastic example set here, to clarify the principle on which it rests and to see to it - everyone in his circle - that as many people as possible do fully understand what has happened in this respect in China and that, consequently, they try to achieve the same in other parts of the world, in all areas where the rulers put weapons into the hands of their subjects and tell them, essentially: "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 following 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 still inclined to continue to fight, do see that right and left of them their comrades desist, then even those lose heart and desert likewise. Furthermore, once the units right and left have deserted, the remaining soldiers must expect to be attacked within hours by superior forces. There was much practical experience with all this in both World Wars. Especially during WW I, I could make my own observations. I did then manage, 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 TODAY 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, too, will probaby have to unload ammunition in the fire zone and will not be any better fed 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 today the Russian prisoners 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 treat;ed on the other side, if we knew, we would 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, moreover, 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 no longer make anyone a prisoner 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 4 weeks - because its soldiers will have deserted. And then the revenge comes: A government that 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 peace lovers 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 impressions. Where they are amiss, he is inclined towards obvious but useless phantasies. He does not consider the TECHNICAL aspects, since this would be uncomfortable. The world is supposed two be something very simple and easily comprehensible, something that only requires the expression of desires ( later, as with the Nazis, the shouting ), to achieve already half of the aim. But the world is very differently organized. During WW II, I spoke with many Nazis on this method applied today by Mao. That was not v e r y dangerous, since 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, I 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, to educate men to think like soldiers, that is, to become disciplined and obedient. To draft plans for the whole is not the concern of just anybody. The Fuehrer appoints for this people he can trust. Thus let us talk about something else!" The Nazis were quite right from their point of view. I recognized with great satisfaction that fascism cannot apply the system which is today used by Mao.* Fascism has to despise such ideas and even to prosecute them - for the same reason as Napoleon despised and prosecuted the German "ideology". He saw, rightly, 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 against 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 anyone will listen to me, that the German Federal Government and the German States, also, declare publicly: "In case of war all soldiers of powers hostile to us can call at all our office and troop units and declare that they will no longer fight for the enemy regime. We will not treat them as prisoners of war but as guests and neutral allies. 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 case 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 food, 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 that is, essentially, like the own. Under no circumstances will the republic conduct retaliatory 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 dllars, a machine gun: 200 dollars, a telescope: 10 dollars, etc. For atomic bombs the following rule should apply : "Whosoever surrenders one will 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 into 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. A few months later on, every man on Earth will then know how to behave in a future war. It seems me 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 tht the UN is so insufficiently supporterd 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 practice 2,000 years ago by the ROMANS. Montesquieu remarked in his "Considerations 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 government-in-exile they concluded an alliance. Many enemy soldiers, who would never have deserted to the Romans, defected without any hesitation 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 1814/15, 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. However, at least one could l i v e under them and they are certainly better than the Prussians, Russians and Austrians." (It so happened tat 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. France was advancing during the 10 years of Louis XVIII in ever respect faster than during any former 10 year period.) The 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 rital 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 do envision a ritual for use in peace loving families, read on a great holiday, e.g. the 1st of May, in the same way in these families as is the passover rital. Long after I am dead, a better writer than myself will write this ritual. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *) Mao was also a totalitarian. Under his rule even more people may have been murdered than were under Hitler. However, he did not start as a dictator opposing democracy but as an ideologically motivated liberator opposing a military dictatorship. Although the latter was never as bad, as his own turned out to be, later on, initially, he did offer advantages: Not only the open arms policy described above but also a reduction of rents, from something like 75 % to something like 25%. Naturally, he did not tell them that later on he would nationalize all land. Moreover, while there was a gallopping paper money inflation under Tschiang, Mao had conquered some silver mines and was sensible enough to pay for the weapons brought over by deserters in silver. That was a double attraction at that time. Then there was the ideological pretence to be on the side of the poor and exploited, pretences often not even seen through by academic scholars, confronted with stacks of evidence accumulated over decades. Thus many Chinese may be excused for having considered Mao, temporarily, as a liberator rather than a new and worse oppressor which he did become that later on, while Tschiang turned into a quite successful reformer where he took refuges with relatively few who remained loyal to him, on Taiwan. Thereupon Valenti Chu said that now Mao's own system could be very successfully applied against him, even if it were by someone equivalent to the former Empress of China. **) The bibliographer Abraham Yaari has listed 2,713 editions of the Haggadah, printed in 170 places, says Philip Goodman in "The Passover Anthology, The Jewish Publication Society of America, Philadeophia,1961, p.77. In short, these events and the legends and teachings around them have certainly stirred Jewish imagination for a long time and may be one of the explanations while Jewish people are so prominently represented in most reform and revolutionary movements. "...though this year we be slaves, next year may we be free men!" Theodor Gaster, in his Passover, its History and Traditions, Beacon Press, Boston, 1949, comes in his epilogue, p. 93 to some conclusions : "Judaism does not believe in a passive freedom but in an active redemption. A man is not free simply because he is not a slave. A man is free when he assumes responsibility for himself and when he fights for that self-realization which is the true revelation....It is important to remind ourselves that freedom is not to be won by the easy road of excape,*** but that it implies an active and combatinat struggle for the realization of spiritual ideals and the mobilizationof spirital consciousness. The answer to slavery is not absence of slavery, but militant struggle for independence. Men must be prepared to fight for their freedom without compromise and without capitulation. They must look not backward to Egype but forward to the Prmised Land, and they must be prepared to wander for forty years in order to reach it." I would add now that no territorial association can fulfil its promises and hopes, that only non-territorial but autonomous associations of volunteers can hope to approach them, among themselves. Thus the "promised land" lies in an independent community, one that free individuals establish between themselves, quite apart and different from any territorial regime. Cosmopolitan Jews who had asserted their autonomy anywhere on Earth would thus have come closer to Jerusalem or "the Promised Land, than those who settled before and after WW II in Israel or Palestine. All exclusive territorial claims amount to declarations of war against all dissenters and do, sooner or later, lead to civil and international wars. ***) Mere desertion is NOT enough. It is just a first step. Beckerath pointed at the need e.g. for an "open arms policy", neutrality and alliances, just war aims, the payment for surrendered weapons, support for the deserters etc. Separately, partly reproduced in PP 428-466, he proposed many further details, regarding e.g. the self-help full employment and immediate housing of whole armies that defected and other details of a liberation programme. In Peace Plans 61-63 (written in German in 1962) and later (1975), in PP 16-18, an attempt was made to integrate all these ideas in an extensive peace programme. J. Zube, September 7, 1986.