The Generals

by Per Wahlöö

  Hardly. If anyone had attacked us with arms, we wouldn’t have been so foolish as to have tried to use the same primitive means.

  Do you mean that you wouldn’t have wanted to defend yourselves, or that you wouldn’t have been able to?

  We neither wanted to nor were able to. In our case, the latter is dependent on the former and vice versa.

  If you were attached from outside today, would you also refuse to defend yourselves?

  Who would want to attack us?

  (After that there was a brief silence. Finally someone said):

  That’s no answer to the question. Would you offer military resistance?

  Naturally not.

  I think I know that your army today has put in discreet but relatively large orders for arms and other equipment?

  What you think you know does not interest me very much, apart from the fact that it absolutely incorrect. First of all, we have no army. Secondly, we have neither bought nor ordered any military equipment.

  Do you deny that less than a month ago your gendarmerie, or militia as you call it, ordered a very large number of military vehicles from a certain place abroad?

  (Those damned jeeps!)

  There’s no reason to deny that. We have no car-factories and consequently have to import transport vehicles. Naturally we choose the type of vehicle that suits our terrain.

  (End of the pacifist section. A madwoman from Ireland began to talk about God.)

  I have, thank the Lord, never visited your country and neither shall I ever do so, but I have read and heard that you have no official religion.

  Yes, that is correct.

  They say that on the whole island there is not a single church. Why?

  Presumably because there is no need for churches.

  Then your people are completely secularised?

  I don’t know. I can’t answer personally for every single individual.

  Can you truly demand that the poor souls you’ve forced to live in spiritual darkness can exist under your anti-religious tyranny?

  The question appears to me academic. If there are people who need a church, they will certainly build one themselves.

  Would you then maintain that there is freedom of religious belief in your country?

  Naturally.

  I have brought with me a novel written by one of your authors and printed in Oswaldsburg. A dreadful book, but nevertheless I wish to quote a piece from it. This is word for word:

  They find a guy called God, then, and in his honour they build a special building, which they go into at definite times and kneel and mumble incantations. This may seem somewhat strange at a time when we’ve learnt to control and make use of all known forces of nature, when vehicles made by human hands land on the moon and when … I need read no further, I hope. Now I’m asking you: Does this author represent your country’s official standpoint?

  Our country has no official standpoints, either in matters of belief or any other matters.

  (End of discussion, thank goodness.)

  It seems to me that there are more interesting points in your speech than those concerning religion. Your country is, as jar as I know, the only one in the world that lacks a constitution?

  Yes. Neither are there any other laws or regulations.

  So you make no claim to being regarded as a judicial state?

  Yes, but not in that expression’s conventional sense.

  And despite this, you have a gendarmerie. Why?

  The militia has two tasks. One is to see to passport and visa control, the other to function as a rescue service for accidents or in cases or illness or in other emergencies which lie outside the control of the individual. It’s task vis-à-vis the ordinary citizen is to help, not to guard.

  All this sounds very good, of course, but how does it junction in practice? Is it not so that despite the absence of laws and regulations you have jurisdiction, a penal code, and some kind of courts.

  It is incorrect to talk about a penal code. There is only one punishment for us—deportation. If you are deported, you may never return.

  On what principle is this highly remarkable jurisdiction based?

  The principle of good sense. It lies in the individual’s own hands to determine what he or she can allow him or herself to do in relation to his or her fellow-human beings.

  How often has this punishment had to be resorted to?

  Hitherto, in ten or so cases.

  And who decides when it shall be enforced?

  We do. The people who live in the country.

  Is it not so that an authority called the Council—of which you yourself are a member—decides such matters and other essential ones?

  In principle, every citizen is a member of that Council.

  I have heard that. But I’ve also heard that in practice the Council consists of a junta of five people and that only in exceptional cases has it happened that outsiders, so to speak, may take part in decisions, Is that so?

  Of course.

  Isn’t that Fascism?

  (I’ve heard that question several times before and I like it less each time.)

  No, not in any respect whatsoever.

  Anyhow, it’s not democracy, is it?

  Not if by democracy you mean a system committed to parties and politicians, which suffocates the individual’s sense of responsibility, and thus also his initiative, with a flood of laws and hardened doctrines, with regulations which are meaningless from the beginning because they are not really self-evident, and the effect of which is that they make the individual feel incapacitated and gradually make him doubt his own mind. Democracy in the form you mean breeds nothing but a boundless, constantly-growing bureaucracy and a mind-paralysing bickering about trifles, so-called problems, which any normal ten-year-old could solve at the flick of a hand. Nor if you mean guidance of the people, the tea-party game for the chosen, in which outworn and old-fashioned concepts such as liberalism, reaction, social-democracy and radicalism are bounced back and forth as in a ping-pong match with neither a beginning nor an end.

  This philosophy, so remarkably alien to reality, is, as you know, not new, but it would be highly interesting to see it working in practice.

  (Sufficient sacrifices laid at the altar of demagogy. Then there was a short cross-examination.)

  Official information on your country’s financial status and the people’s standard of living is indeed diffuse, but despite the artificial population explosion you have achieved through immigration, it seems as if you have succeeded in creating a certain economic balance. This appears remarkable, as the country in which you and your compeers caused a revolution was still a fairly backward agricultural province. On what factors is this relative well-being based?

  On the fact that we created circumstances in which work was no longer regarded as a necessary evil but as a meaningful occupation.

  Do you mean by that that you have no leisure-time problems?

  Yes, amongst other things.

  What is your largest source of income?

  The tourist industry. To put it succinctly, you might say we undertake to solve other people’s leisure-time problems. Thanks to good geographical and climatic conditions, in combination with the factors I named earlier, we seem to have succeeded in this to everyone’s satisfaction.

  (I’d taken the words out of her mouth there, and she didn’t say anything else.)

  You said just now that there are no churches or religious comunities in your country. Nor any authorities. Have you also got rid of other cornerstones of society, marriage, for instance?

  No, people who live together can naturally get married if they want to.

  So they can enter into wedlock? In what way?

  In any way they like. That’s up to each person.

  What proportion of those people who live together and create a family get married?

  I don’t think anyone has taken the trouble to compile such extremely pointless statistics. But among people who live tog
ether or move in together in order to create a family, I think I have noticed a general tendency to manifest their cohabitation in various ways.

  How can they do that?

  Through private agreement, for instance, verbal or written. They can also add their names to a list which is available to all.

  Is it true that you do not tax individual citizens?

  Yes, by the end of our second year, communally owned sources of income paid such good dividends that it was considered possible to make a distribution, instead of collecting taxes.

  What are these communally owned sources of income?

  The tourist trade and overseas communications. As I said in my preliminary statement, the aim is that only the south-western area round the town of Marbella is to be exploited for tourism. Otherwise all new building, as I mentioned, has been concentrated in the two other larger towns. The aim is partly to avoid unnecessary interference with the countryside, and partly to protect our agricultural areas. Thanks to intensified exploitation and specialisation, we have in fact, in spite of the increase in population, managed to maintain overproduction of foodstuffs. Quality products from agriculture are at present our main exports. In addition, we have had to—in consideration of the huge demand—limit the touristified area. Otherwise the whole country would gradually be flooded with foreigners, to no one’s advantage.

  When I visited your country, I had the impression that most things were very expensive, at least in Marbella.

  Presumably you also had the opportunity to observe that our service is first-class.

  Is it true that your immigration conditions nowadays are extremely severe?

  To apply for citizenship you must have a recommendation from at least four people who are already living in the country. Despite this, the population is still increasing.

  Your visa regulations are not particularly liberal either. As a foreigner, it is impossible to get permission to live in the country for any length of time. Why is that?

  It’s an economic matter. We issue visas in three categories, for fourteen days, a week and forty-eight hours. The latter service is intended for guests who use speedy communications, i.e. air travel and hovercraft, to enjoy our attractions for a shorter period.

  You mean the gambling dens and brothels?

  Yes, to some extent.

  (The Irishwoman got her chance then.)

  It appears that your country lives on the exploitation of sins and depravity.

  I would not presume to judge what are sins or depravity, except on my own account.

  You cannot deny you have what someone called a comprehensive brothel system, which is considered to be the bes … I mean, the most extensive in the civilised world?

  No, why should I do that? I myself organised it. What do you mean, by the way, by the civilised world?

  (Then, thank heavens, time ran out. I was given thirty seconds to wind things up. The usual stuff.)

  Now I’m off to bed at last. I don’t see how I can stand it here for another week. I’ll probably come home before it ends. Goodnight, your Aranca.

  Major von Peters: Is that the end at last?

  Captain Schmidt: No, not quite. The letter contains one more addition, a post-script.

  Lieutenant Brown: P.S. It didn’t work. When I tried to go to sleep, I had the most ghastly jealous vision …

  Major von Peters: Brown, for God’s sake let’s have a moment’s peace. Is it really necessary to read that out as well?

  Captain Schmidt: I consider that it is. The P.S. is quite short, but it presents a horrifying picture of the kind of exaggerated free speech and the wholly disintegrated morality which flourished under the régime, even among the women, and within the leadership.

  Colonel Orbal: This sounds interesting.

  Captain Schmidt: It is frightening rather than interesting. I am warning the court that this bit of the appendix is extremely distasteful. But it illuminates, as I said, the total lack of ordinary decency at the time and at the same time it portrays the environment in which the accused was to live in the future.

  Colonel Orbal: Yes, yes. Get going now, Brown.

  Lieutenant Brown: P.S. It didn’t work. When I tried to go to sleep, I had the most ghastly jealous vision. Darling, it’s horrible, but I must try to tell you everything. I must ask you one thing. That you try to avoid sleeping with Dana. And if you do (but try not to!) then tell me at once, because I’ll notice at once anyhow, I’m certain of that. I wouldn’t ask you if I didn’t know, really know that it could happen so easily, some time when I was away like this, or not around.

  The vision I had was just that you suddenly went over to her and stood behind her and then you suddenly undid the belt of her white overall and she stood quite still while you did it, her arms hanging down her sides. She had nothing on underneath and when you let the overall fall to the floor, she was naked and then she stepped out of her white clogs and turned round. I was afraid because now I knew you couldn’t stop. You’ve never seen her naked, but I have, several times in the sauna, when we’ve been bathing together.

  I know a little about her which I don’t think you know. And I also know exactly what she looks like. She’s narrower across the shoulders and hips than I am, and slightly taller. Her breasts are much smaller, but her nipples at least three times as large as mine and dark brown. Every time I’ve seen her without clothes, they’ve stood straight up from her breasts, or straight out if you like, at least half an inch. Her skin is quite brown and from her navel downwards she’s got a string of short black hairs. You say my cunt is large, but hers is larger, at least it looks it. The hair is quite black and thick and in round tight curls. It goes further up on her stomach than on any other person I’ve ever seen. Once, about six months ago. she fell asleep in the sauna and I sat looking at her. She was lying on her back, sleeping very uneasily, moving her thighs all the time and fumbling with her hands all over her hips and breasts. I saw exactly how she felt and why, and when she woke I asked her straight out. She said at once that she hadn’t had a man for seven months and then it was someone she didn’t even know what he looked like, someone she’d met on the beach in the middle of the night when she was out walking, because she couldn’t bear being indoors lying in bed. She said that she’d just felt dispirited afterwards and that she didn’t want to do that again. She also told me she’d been married once and had lots of affairs before she came here, but that everything had gone wrong and ended badly in some way. People had died and been destroyed all round her, and the ones she’d really wanted to be with, she’d just done harm to, and she herself had always been unhappy. When she came here she had decided to try to live without sex, and she had done so too, almost completely. What had happened on the shore wasn’t that. But it wasn’t easy, she said, and I know that only too well.

  Now I’ll tell you why I had that vision, too. It seemed a bit shabby towards her, which is why I didn’t tell you before. It was last summer, when it was so terribly hot and we were in the little house down by the shore. I was busy with something in the inner room and out there you were walking to and fro in your shirt and bathing trunks, dictating something. She was sitting at the table writing and she was wearing those white clogs and that white overall. I came out to fetch something and happened to look at her. She seemed strange in some way and when she looked at me her eyes were quite cloudy. Suddenly she let everything fall from her hands and said to me: I must talk to you for a moment. She sounded hoarse and peculiar, but you didn’t notice anything, but just shrugged your shoulders and went out. She came in with me and locked the door behind her and I hadn’t a clue what was going on. She kicked off her clogs and tore off her overall. She was wearing nothing underneath. Without saying a word, she threw herself down on her back on the bed and began to masturbate. I was absolutely nonplussed (for once) and didn’t know what to do, so I went over to the window and stood there looking out. It took about ten minutes before she got an orgasm and then it went on for quite a time. Then she lay
quite still for a while and neither of us said anything until she got up and dressed. Then she looked at me and said: Sorry. I just couldn’t bear it. And I said: I understand.

  I just felt bloody sorry for her and also a little ashamed too, because you and I had been together only a few hours earlier.

  For many people it might well seem unusually stupid of me to write like this to you, but I don’t think so. I just want to tell you that it’s slightly dangerous. Now I really will go to bed. ‘Bye darling. A.

  Colonel Orbal: What page is that on?

  Captain Schmidt: Page nine hundred and twenty-two.

  Colonel Orbal: Give me that book, Carl.

  Major von Peters: Is it possible that we’ve now come to an end of all these perversions, smut and filth?

  Captain Schmidt: The appendix ends there.

  Colonel Orbal: Who was this woman?

  Captain Schmidt: Danica Rodriguez. Secretary to Janos Edner.

  Colonel Orbal: Was that the one with the moustache?

  Captain Schmidt: Exactly.

  Colonel Orbal: Oh, hell.

  Major von Peters: I must say, Schmidt, that you’re well on the way to transforming this court martial into … well, I don’t know what. I’m at a loss for words.

  Colonel Pigafetta: In that case that’s the most remarkable and fortunate thing that’s happened in this room for a long time.

  Major von Peters: What do you mean?

  Colonel Pigafetta: Nothing, of course.

  Major von Peters: I’ve noticed one very strange thing, Schmidt. During the whole of all that reading, I never heard Velder’s name mentioned once. Why is the accused sitting here at all? Because it amuses him? It doesn’t amuse me in the slightest.

  Colonel Pigafetta: The trial is in fact advancing somewhat slowly.

  Colonel Orbal: Peculiar person.

  Colonel Pigafetta: Who?

  Colonel Orbal: That Edner. That he didn’t notice anything, I mean. The woman was almost naked and just about dying of … oh, well, continue.

  Major von Peters: What with? Reading aloud?

  Commander Kampenmann: I was just thinking about something. How did the brothels function in fact?