If the army is ruled by dishonest officers, it is doomed to defeat in the war.
Recently I came across a brochure "Tips of a Russian officer" published by the editorial board of the Russian Interior Ministry's Interior Troops magazine "On a combat post", the author of which is V. M. Kulchitsky, Colonel of the Russian Imperial Army. Many of our commanders of the older generation are familiar with these recommendations from their cadets. Printed on typewriters, rewritten by hand, they left few people indifferent then. The theme of officer honor, which has always been relevant for the domestic Armed Forces, both in pre-revolutionary, tsarist times, and under Soviet rule, runs through all Kulchitsky's instructions. But today it is perhaps gaining even greater significance.
What is honor, where did this concept come from among our ancestors, and why is it considered the pivotal quality of an officer?
SHRINK OF THE WATCH STATE
Even in the era of Ancient Rus, an estate of professional warriors - princely and boyar warriors - was formed, for whom it was a rule, along with combat skill, to be proud of the observance of the rules of military honor. The Kiev prince Svyatoslav Igorevich (IX century), getting ready for battle with superior enemy forces, turned to his army with the words: “We will not disgrace the Russian land, but we will lie down with our bones. The dead have no more shame. We do not have a custom of running to save ourselves. Let's become strong. Inspired by these words, the warriors withstood the onslaught of the enemy and returned to their homelands undefeated.
So, obviously, for the first time in Russian history, one of the most important axioms for a person who chose the military path was clearly formulated and documented in the Russian annals. You will not observe it - and what a military honor you have then. Note that Svyatoslav is talking about shame (shame). This is no coincidence. Our ancestors most of all tried not to compromise their conscience, the loss of which gave rise to shame, after which life itself lost its meaning. For honor and conscience do not exist separately and have always been put on the highest place in the list of virtues obligatory for a Russian soldier.
Our famous commanders of the 18th-19th centuries, military leaders, scientists, publicists and writers of that time wrote a lot about officer and military honor. For example, Colonel of the General Staff M. S. Galkin said about her with amazingly penetrating words: “Honor is an officer's sanctuary … it is the highest good … honor is a reward in happiness and consolation in sorrow. Honor builds courage and ennobles courage. Honor knows neither burdens nor dangers … honor does not tolerate and does not bear any stain."
Peter the Great, the creator of the Russian regular army, demanded that officers "observe honor", knowing full well that without it there is no officer as such.
The honor of a man in uniform, like a litmus test, must first of all manifest itself in battle, when performing a combat mission. In the opinion of A. V. Suvorov, who, in my opinion, was the standard of an officer, it was the sense of honor that prompted the soldiers to do military affairs. In combat conditions, honor is primarily expressed through personal courage, courage, fortitude, self-control, readiness for self-sacrifice. In the name of the success of the battle, Russian officers, captivating the soldiers with their example, overcame seemingly insurmountable obstacles (remember the stunning example of the passage of the Suvorov miracle heroes across the Alps). And the more difficult the situation developed, the stronger was the officer's desire to carry out the order at any cost - after all, honor was at stake! Personal honor, regiment honor, honor of the whole army.
Panicked in difficult climatic conditions, Austrian general Melas Suvorov sends a letter filled with barely concealed contempt: “Women, dandies and sloths are chasing good weather. A big talker who complains about the service will be removed from office like an egoist … Italy must be freed from the yoke of the atheists and the French: every honest officer must sacrifice himself for this purpose … Note, according to Suvorov, an honest officer is the bearer officer's honor.
A soldier is obliged to be honest, to preserve his spotless reputation, wherever he is: on the battlefield, in the company of colleagues, in everyday life, where none of his comrades sees him, and even … being captured. Here you can recall the feat of Lieutenant-General D. M. Karbyshev, being shell-shocked, unconscious was captured by the Germans. Nothing could shake the courageous military leader, force him to compromise with his conscience, break his oath in order to agree to serve the enemy! He was brutally tortured, but did not become a traitor, retained his officer's honor.
NO RIGHT TO DEAL WITH THE CONSCIENCE
Although in peacetime a military servant is not faced with a choice - honor or treason to the Motherland and violation of the oath. However, even in modern times, it takes courage to maintain your honor. Because the "observance of honor" should be manifested first of all in the strict fulfillment by a person in uniform of official duties, orders and orders of the authorities. And this is not easy!
But it is not for nothing that there is such a definition: the fulfillment of a given task is a matter of honor! This requirement is due to the special status of an officer who has no right to refuse, to evade the assigned task, because he is a sovereign person who does not belong to himself. It is difficult to agree with such a statement: how so - not to belong to yourself ?! However, this also has a special manifestation of honor, a kind of privilege - if not us, then who? And remember the famous motto of the Russian officers: "Soul to God, life to Fatherland, honor to nobody!" Not everyone can handle such tough requirements, which is why an officer is not just a profession, like a doctor or teacher. The officer is the backbone of the army - the shield of the Fatherland, and the shield must be flawless.
He was reminded of this by the uniform that he had no right to take off, shoulder straps, as well as the personal weapons with him (all together obliged a lot), the glorious history of the regiment, its traditions, the banner and the colleagues themselves - comrades in arms. And the formation of a sense of pride was promoted by corporatism, estates (already the first officer's rank up to the middle of the 19th century gave the right to hereditary nobility), self-awareness of "nobility" (belonging to the good - kind family of defenders of the Fatherland), the existing system of training and education. Unfortunately, many of these principles were destroyed and lost over time, and the current officers, at first glance, are difficult to compare with the brilliant cavalry guards of the past. However, the continuity of generations, a common goal and the presence of an officer's honor, of course, unite and make them related, put them on a par.
It is from the officers that society expects feat, readiness for self-sacrifice. Why? There is only one answer - they have no right to refuse, to dodge aside, to hide behind someone's back, because they have the honor! At the same time, it does not matter that a serviceman has a low salary, no apartment, a bunch of other unsolved problems, which, of course, is disgusting in itself. The paradox is that the state (but not the Motherland, not the Fatherland), the officials whom he defends, perhaps even his senior bosses are to blame for this. But even this does not give the right to a real person in uniform to make deals with his conscience, to dishonor, to stain his honor with unworthy actions.
Alas, lately there has been a cutting edge term - “officer crime”. According to the Chief Military Prosecutor's Office, now every third crime in the army, most of which has a selfish orientation, is committed by officers. This terrible scourge that struck our Armed Forces and Internal Troops is undoubtedly associated with the loss of a sense of honor by the servicemen. Indeed, by committing such a crime, an officer simultaneously loses his honor, dishonors his name. Why doesn't he think about it, doesn't he value his good name?
Most likely, such a person initially did not have a sense of the possession of honor and did not experience any inner discomfort in this regard. After all, honor is not awarded automatically along with the lieutenant's shoulder straps. Such a feeling is developed only as a result of various situations he has experienced with dignity during the period of service or in battle. And if the officer did not overcome them, did not pass such an important exam, then the hypothetical loss of his spotless reputation worries him little. For him, honor is what is more correctly called a military greeting. I gave it away - and went on about my business.
… NOT FATTY SALES, BUT IDEAL SERVICE
It is the presence in the ranks of a certain number of servicemen with an atrophied and unclaimed concept of a sense of honor that explains the bleak picture of the growth of officer criminality. Therefore, in addition to the measures taken by the military prosecutor's office and the command, this process can only be stopped by returning, and in most cases by strengthening this feeling in people in uniform.
Why was it practically not heard about such shameful phenomena in the old days? Do you think because the officers lived better? Perhaps this is partly true, but did they serve only because of profit and self-interest? Fortunately, Russian history, in which people of military labor played a huge role, refutes this argument. Almost all navigators and explorers, polar explorers and cosmonauts, many writers, poets, artists, and composers were officers. I'm not even talking about statesmen. The prestige of the officer's profession rested primarily on the right to possess a special status, rights and honor. To have honor is the privilege of an officer only, which is also enshrined in the current regulations. And real officers treasured this exclusive right. What does this oblige?
It is not for nothing that honor is called the shrine of an officer. The concept of a shrine for a person brought up in the traditional faith, family and school was something that cannot be violated, transcended, because this was a sin and entailed inevitable punishment - the death of the soul. "The beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord!" - written in the Bible. The loss of fear of God, the elimination of the idea of sin and the free interpretation of shame, the denial of the soul as an independent immortal substance naturally facilitated compromises with conscience, and therefore with honor. “If there is no God, then everything is permissible,” noted FM Dostoevsky, who, incidentally, is also a reserve officer.
It is difficult for a person with such a worldview to understand what holiness is. If there is no God, then there is no holiness. And if nothing is sacred, then honor is just an ephemeral concept. Each is his own god, his own judge and legislator. Therefore, over time, the concept of holiness lost its meaning and subsequently completely depreciated, it began to be remembered in vain. This is the reason why most officers who are told about holiness, duty and honor remain immune to calls. By and large, they do not understand what it is about, they see emptiness behind this concept.
And it is difficult for such officers to explain that the desire to own, for example, a more prestigious brand of a cell phone or a car is called a passion. That the readiness to break the law for the sake of satisfying this passion is not only a crime for an officer, but also a shame and dishonor. Any justification for such actions can be taken from a civilian, because he did not take an oath, does not wear shoulder straps, and is not obliged to honor. For an officer, they become unacceptable. Why? Yes, all because - he has the honor, and this obliges him to be honest always and in everything!
The motivation for serving as an officer, in the opinion of the well-known pre-revolutionary military theorist Colonel V. Raikovsky, is exclusively one: "Not fat salaries and personal well-being of a material nature … but ideological service to the cause." And it is impossible without the highest concept of honor. Hence the tradition of selfless service. To whom? Not to Ivan Ivanovich, not to his commander, but to the Fatherland! What could be higher on earth? It was from the realization of this height that Suvorov's heart was overwhelmed with feelings when he wrote in his "Science to Win": "Gentlemen, officers, what a delight!" The officer was filled with a sense of pride from his involvement in the holy and responsible cause - the defense of the Motherland. Yes, he is the person who is ready to fulfill his duty to the end - to give his life for the Motherland. For this he respects himself and has the honor!
The concept of honor, inseparable from honesty and conscience, must be brought up from childhood, nurtured, like a patient gardener grows a fruit tree, then it will grow and bear fruit. The process of educating an officer - a man of honor, of course, must be adjusted and put on stream. Where? Of course, in military institutions. But even at the beginning of the twentieth century, on the eve of the revolutionary events that shook the country, Colonel of the General Staff M. S. Galkin complained about this: “In military educational institutions, the training of the moral aspect of the duties of an officer takes up very little space. All attention is paid to the craft, to the technical side, to science …”Drawing lessons from the mistakes of the past, today it is necessary to create all the conditions for this.
A huge educational role is played by the personality of the course officer, teacher, and directly in the troops - the mentor, chief. If his words do not disagree with deeds, he is restrained in analyzing the mistakes of subordinates, he is always smart, correct and cheerful in spirit - all this, together with the personality of the bearer of these qualities, gives rise to an excellent role model.
And when the boss himself is not the master of his word, is arrogant, in a conversation with subordinates he constantly breaks down to shout, does not restrain himself in strong expressions even in the presence of women, publicly humiliates the human dignity of subordinates, uses his fists - what an example of officer honor he can be ? Only negative.
The issue of educating an officer as a man of honor is a key issue for the Armed Forces. An army ruled by dishonest officers is doomed to lose the people's trust and authority in society and, as a consequence, to defeat in any future war. There is no need to wait for instructions from above and the corresponding orders. The rescue of drowning people, as you know, is the work of the drowning people themselves. Saving the prestige of the army and troops is the business of the servicemen themselves.
The army, the state as a whole, has no future if its officers do not have a sense of honor. Comrades officers, let us think about it! I have the honor!
