FREE KINGDOM ARMED FORCES
DEMOCIDE INTERVENTION DOCTRINE
CLASSIFICATION LEVEL: OPEN
INTRODUCTION
Unfortunately, despite every effort of the international community and a variety of humanitarian actions, many actors on the world stage continue to turn towards mass violence against innocent individuals. The choice of victims in these murders may be based on political, ethno-religious, economic or even entirely arbitrary groups. At certain scales, this violence exceeds what can be dealt with through the internal resources of any community, and may require the action of the Free Kingdom Armed Forces to prevent and counteract.
The Free Kingdom is not party to any international agreements that would restrict its actions against those who commit and organize acts of mass-murder. Conversely, it is also not party to any agreements that would mandate these actions. However, the Free Kingdom’s legal system and state ideology, to what extent the Free Kingdom has a state ideology, is based on the premise of natural rights philosophy, and therefore an assumption that all sapient beings – humans, elves, and so forth – have a right to be free from murder, slavery, and other blatant violations, and that the primary purpose of states is to protect this right. In the view of the Free Kingdom’s government, those who violate these rights are not accorded the protections of customary international law, and it is free to intervene anywhere to stop them, subject only to the approval of the Free Kingdom’s own civilian authorities (Congress and the Crown, and in some cases the Supreme Court, may block a specific action on constitutional grounds, budgetary grounds, compliance with the Joint Armed Forces Authorization Act, or any other issues as proper to their lawful authority).
To enable discussion of the underlying realities of democide, the Ministry of War has cooperated with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has established the following terms, so that these realities can be clearly discussed in this Doctrine Document. Everywhere in this document, where these terms are used, they are used in this meaning unless explicitly stated otherwise:
Democide/Mass-murder: A deliberate series of acts of violence against a social group, religion, or any other group, intended to kill non-combatant members of the group, where at least 50,000 members of the group are killed or may be killed. (This numerical limit is used in the literature to exclude small-scale acts by individual bigots or race riots from the definition of ‘mass-murder’, however, in some circumstances it is possible to apply the conclusions in this document also to events where smaller groups (say, 10,000 members) are targeted. It is important to clarify here that in some cases pre-emptive response may be called for long before the members are actually killed, where a clear and present danger is seen to the group.
Ethnic cleansing: A forcible operation to remove members of an ethnic minority from a given area or society, through forced migrations or other means. While this activity sometimes devolves to outright mass-murder, it is sometimes simply in the form of violent relocations. While thousands and even millions may perish during such an event, it is distinct from genocide in that murder qua murder is not the perpetrators’ initial objective (though they are willing to accept murder as a ‘solution’ to their perceived problems).
Genocide: Specifically, a subtype of mass-murder targeting individuals based on their perceived ethnic or racial identity. (Because the definitions of ethnic or racial identity are often fluid and vary in different cultures, we use the term ‘perceived’ – that is to say, the perpetrators of the mass-murder believe that the people they’re murdering are a distinct race or ethnicity, and target them based on that principle.
This document does not address all possible solutions to genocide, democide, and ethnic cleansing. In the long-term, the best solutions revolve around creating solid social institutions in threatened societies. Creating strong liberal institutions, engaging in international trade and broad capitalist institutions (in other words, that thing called ‘civilization’) is the best long-term safeguard against mass-murder occurring. However, that is not, largely, within the purview of the Ministry of War and FKAF officers.
In this document, we will discuss military strategic, operational, and tactical solutions regarding protecting threatened individuals and groups from acts of mass-murder, as implemented by the Free Kingdom Armed Forces and allied armed forces operating under the Free Kingdom’s doctrinal guidance, and multi-agency actions in which the FKAF plays a role.
The Free Kingdom is not party to any international agreements that would restrict its actions against those who commit and organize acts of mass-murder. Conversely, it is also not party to any agreements that would mandate these actions. However, the Free Kingdom’s legal system and state ideology, to what extent the Free Kingdom has a state ideology, is based on the premise of natural rights philosophy, and therefore an assumption that all sapient beings – humans, elves, and so forth – have a right to be free from murder, slavery, and other blatant violations, and that the primary purpose of states is to protect this right. In the view of the Free Kingdom’s government, those who violate these rights are not accorded the protections of customary international law, and it is free to intervene anywhere to stop them, subject only to the approval of the Free Kingdom’s own civilian authorities (Congress and the Crown, and in some cases the Supreme Court, may block a specific action on constitutional grounds, budgetary grounds, compliance with the Joint Armed Forces Authorization Act, or any other issues as proper to their lawful authority).
To enable discussion of the underlying realities of democide, the Ministry of War has cooperated with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has established the following terms, so that these realities can be clearly discussed in this Doctrine Document. Everywhere in this document, where these terms are used, they are used in this meaning unless explicitly stated otherwise:
Democide/Mass-murder: A deliberate series of acts of violence against a social group, religion, or any other group, intended to kill non-combatant members of the group, where at least 50,000 members of the group are killed or may be killed. (This numerical limit is used in the literature to exclude small-scale acts by individual bigots or race riots from the definition of ‘mass-murder’, however, in some circumstances it is possible to apply the conclusions in this document also to events where smaller groups (say, 10,000 members) are targeted. It is important to clarify here that in some cases pre-emptive response may be called for long before the members are actually killed, where a clear and present danger is seen to the group.
Ethnic cleansing: A forcible operation to remove members of an ethnic minority from a given area or society, through forced migrations or other means. While this activity sometimes devolves to outright mass-murder, it is sometimes simply in the form of violent relocations. While thousands and even millions may perish during such an event, it is distinct from genocide in that murder qua murder is not the perpetrators’ initial objective (though they are willing to accept murder as a ‘solution’ to their perceived problems).
Genocide: Specifically, a subtype of mass-murder targeting individuals based on their perceived ethnic or racial identity. (Because the definitions of ethnic or racial identity are often fluid and vary in different cultures, we use the term ‘perceived’ – that is to say, the perpetrators of the mass-murder believe that the people they’re murdering are a distinct race or ethnicity, and target them based on that principle.
This document does not address all possible solutions to genocide, democide, and ethnic cleansing. In the long-term, the best solutions revolve around creating solid social institutions in threatened societies. Creating strong liberal institutions, engaging in international trade and broad capitalist institutions (in other words, that thing called ‘civilization’) is the best long-term safeguard against mass-murder occurring. However, that is not, largely, within the purview of the Ministry of War and FKAF officers.
In this document, we will discuss military strategic, operational, and tactical solutions regarding protecting threatened individuals and groups from acts of mass-murder, as implemented by the Free Kingdom Armed Forces and allied armed forces operating under the Free Kingdom’s doctrinal guidance, and multi-agency actions in which the FKAF plays a role.
CONCEPTUAL BASIS
One common assumption regarding acts of genocide and mass-murder is that they are commonly preceded by a widespread ideology and racism, and have the approval of the majority population in the nations where genocide and mass-murder are perpetrated. Unfortunately, this belief often leads the world community, and even decision makers who should know better, to imagine that they are powerless to stop a genocide once it is already under way, or to concentrate counter-genocide strategies on anti-racist or anti-bigotry education. While, obviously, widespread bigoted attitudes in the populace are not desirable, they are not necessarily related to genocide and democide. The historical record is full of countries where strong levels of ethnic, religious, and racial bigotry exist without bursting into full-scale slaughter (although often resulting in widespread low-key rights violations against the target group), and, conversely, countries where a leadership group had incited a mass-murder of a social group of people against whom no bigotry had previously existed, or one that was not even identified as a distinct group before they were targeted by the extremists for slaughter.
Nor is mass-genocide, typically, an act of spontaneous outpouring of public anger. Even where events occur in a seemingly random way, investigation has often revealed the guiding hand of an extremist group or a government agency at directing seemingly ‘spontaneous’ outbursts of anger and violence, and often plainclothes or even uniformed agents of these groups participating in these acts. Even in the truly massed events, such as the ‘anti-furry pogroms’ perpetuated by the government of the Grand World Order, documentation seized by the Allanean Armed forces revealed detailed guidance from the authorities, carried out through the police forces and the places of employment, intended to organize individuals and force their participation in riots, pogroms, and other events intended to harass, intimidate, and kill members of the non-human races. Those who participated would be rewarded.
In the typical incident of genocide, a very small proportion of the population participates directly (typically, less than 0.1% of the population). In truly extreme scenarios, dictatorial regimes manage to use propaganda and mass-recruitment to involve single-digit percentages of the public in the events, but this is typically carried out by making members of the ordinary public take up supporting roles (such as, perhaps, throwing rocks during a pogrom, or reporting individuals to the secret police). The core of the genocidal effort is typically carried out by a core of well-motivated professionals, typically members of the military or the secret police, sometimes specializing in the murderous task and organized for this purpose.
Two essential modes of operation exist for genocidal entities – either the direct killing of large amounts of individuals in extermination camps and by mobile teams, or their murder through their involvement in large-scale forced labor or relocation projects, in which they are subjected to extreme conditions which often cause the deaths of a large proportion of the members. This allows the regime a degree of plausible deniability, both in terms of its propaganda (in terms of portraying the forced labor or relocation projects as not being a form of murder, but being a ‘re-education’ or even a ‘rehabilitation’ or ‘protection’ measure), and even in terms of individual participants, who can be brought to believe that are not, in fact, involved in an act of genocidal mass-murder.
Another misconception is that genocidal actors are irrational, driven purely by an illogical bloodthirst. This is an oversimplification of the reality of genocide and mass-murder. The majority of genocide planners and decisionmakers share the following set of semi-rational assumptions:
Essentialization – membership of the target group, whether a social, a religious, or an ethnic-racial group, is held to be an essential feature of its members, that is to say, that members cannot quit the group, or that it is impossible to truly know whether the members have quit the group. With an ethnic-racial group the effect is obvious (a person cannot reasonably alter their membership in what is perceived to be a biological group). In religious groups, the justification is either through believing that members of the religion are somehow lying about their membership therein (perhaps the religion has some provisions that permit false conversion, which allows a propagandist to argue that all converts should be treated as false converts). Organizers of genocide based on some perceived class difference will argue that former members of the target class either retain their loyalty to a previous social system, or perhaps that they have been irretrievably morally or culturally corrupted by membership in the target class.
Urgency – the planners must believe that the target group must be dealt with swiftly, and that means lesser than outright murder have been exhausted. Sometimes genocide is carried out after attempts to encourage emigration by the target group have failed, or after the genocide planners have failed to achieve their socio-political goals through compromise with the target group, or perhaps the target group is perceived as being stubbornly resistant to the genocide planners’ socio-political goals.
Sometimes, genocidal violence comes as a retaliation for oppression or genocidal violence. In Atomosea, Allanean troops had to confront formerly enslaved persons who attempted to murder and enslave former slavers and force themselves on them sexually. Had this succeeded, it would have no doubt ended in acts of mass-genocide. The government of Crystal Spires had infamously engaged in mass-immolation of former members of the nobility in the aftermath of its civil war. Mutual mass violence was a feature of internal conflict in Greater Prussia, and has not been unheard of in other countries.
The below document does not distinguish between the motivations of different genocide planners, and suggests multiple international, multinational approaches.
Nor is mass-genocide, typically, an act of spontaneous outpouring of public anger. Even where events occur in a seemingly random way, investigation has often revealed the guiding hand of an extremist group or a government agency at directing seemingly ‘spontaneous’ outbursts of anger and violence, and often plainclothes or even uniformed agents of these groups participating in these acts. Even in the truly massed events, such as the ‘anti-furry pogroms’ perpetuated by the government of the Grand World Order, documentation seized by the Allanean Armed forces revealed detailed guidance from the authorities, carried out through the police forces and the places of employment, intended to organize individuals and force their participation in riots, pogroms, and other events intended to harass, intimidate, and kill members of the non-human races. Those who participated would be rewarded.
In the typical incident of genocide, a very small proportion of the population participates directly (typically, less than 0.1% of the population). In truly extreme scenarios, dictatorial regimes manage to use propaganda and mass-recruitment to involve single-digit percentages of the public in the events, but this is typically carried out by making members of the ordinary public take up supporting roles (such as, perhaps, throwing rocks during a pogrom, or reporting individuals to the secret police). The core of the genocidal effort is typically carried out by a core of well-motivated professionals, typically members of the military or the secret police, sometimes specializing in the murderous task and organized for this purpose.
Two essential modes of operation exist for genocidal entities – either the direct killing of large amounts of individuals in extermination camps and by mobile teams, or their murder through their involvement in large-scale forced labor or relocation projects, in which they are subjected to extreme conditions which often cause the deaths of a large proportion of the members. This allows the regime a degree of plausible deniability, both in terms of its propaganda (in terms of portraying the forced labor or relocation projects as not being a form of murder, but being a ‘re-education’ or even a ‘rehabilitation’ or ‘protection’ measure), and even in terms of individual participants, who can be brought to believe that are not, in fact, involved in an act of genocidal mass-murder.
Another misconception is that genocidal actors are irrational, driven purely by an illogical bloodthirst. This is an oversimplification of the reality of genocide and mass-murder. The majority of genocide planners and decisionmakers share the following set of semi-rational assumptions:
Essentialization – membership of the target group, whether a social, a religious, or an ethnic-racial group, is held to be an essential feature of its members, that is to say, that members cannot quit the group, or that it is impossible to truly know whether the members have quit the group. With an ethnic-racial group the effect is obvious (a person cannot reasonably alter their membership in what is perceived to be a biological group). In religious groups, the justification is either through believing that members of the religion are somehow lying about their membership therein (perhaps the religion has some provisions that permit false conversion, which allows a propagandist to argue that all converts should be treated as false converts). Organizers of genocide based on some perceived class difference will argue that former members of the target class either retain their loyalty to a previous social system, or perhaps that they have been irretrievably morally or culturally corrupted by membership in the target class.
Urgency – the planners must believe that the target group must be dealt with swiftly, and that means lesser than outright murder have been exhausted. Sometimes genocide is carried out after attempts to encourage emigration by the target group have failed, or after the genocide planners have failed to achieve their socio-political goals through compromise with the target group, or perhaps the target group is perceived as being stubbornly resistant to the genocide planners’ socio-political goals.
Sometimes, genocidal violence comes as a retaliation for oppression or genocidal violence. In Atomosea, Allanean troops had to confront formerly enslaved persons who attempted to murder and enslave former slavers and force themselves on them sexually. Had this succeeded, it would have no doubt ended in acts of mass-genocide. The government of Crystal Spires had infamously engaged in mass-immolation of former members of the nobility in the aftermath of its civil war. Mutual mass violence was a feature of internal conflict in Greater Prussia, and has not been unheard of in other countries.
The below document does not distinguish between the motivations of different genocide planners, and suggests multiple international, multinational approaches.
INTERNATIONAL OPPOSITION TO DEMOCIDE AND MASS-MURDER
As members of the international community, we cannot practically regulate and control every aspect of internal policies of foreign states, if only because there are over 175,000 various nations in the world, as last reported. Nor could consensus on this even possibly be achieved. It is not possible for us to define every form of natural rights abuse that occurs, much less to oppose all of them at once. However, prevention of genocide, democide, and mass-murder remains among the top priorities of the Free Kingdom. It is important to stress here that the Free Kingdom is not opposed to these because ‘cultures’ or ‘races’ are by them extinguished. We oppose them because individuals are murdered by the tens of thousands, sometimes by the millions.
As such, it is interruption of these murders that is our first goal. The Free Kingdom is ready to engage in international cooperation with partner forces willing to oppose such acts, even if these forces belong to a state normally hostile to the Free Kingdom, such as Edolia for instance.
Should news be received of potential acts of genocide and mass-murder, contacts should immediately be made with any and all states willing to assist in preventing it, as well as with the genocide perpetrators. Sometimes, genocide perpetrators are willing to reach a compromise in which the potential victims are released, or deported, to other states. While this represents a significant violation of their rights, it should be considered a great success if it succeeds in avoiding their murder. Moreover, the Free Kingdom should be considered as benefitting from any potential influx of talented migrants, in the famous words, “Hitler is shaking the apple tree, and I collect the apples.”
International sanctions on a foreign nation are not, historically, a very successful means of preventing genocide, except where they can directly cripple its military ability. Military intervention should be put on the table immediately and explicitly. It should be seen as morally justified as an act of defending innocent lives, and any international diplomatic effort should include that fact.
In negotiations with the genocide perpetrators, they should be given the opportunity to ‘climb down from the tree’, and demands should focus on simply ending the mass-murder. Demands to step down and submit to ‘international justice’, or transform their society into a democracy, will likely only strengthen the perpetrators’ sense of urgency, as they will perceive this as confirming their beliefs that the group is a threat to the survival of their regime and their socio-economic plan. However, should they insist on the mass-murder and necessitate stopping them through violence, then at that very point war goals will be more extensive, and possibly include complete regime change. The costs of compliance must be kept significantly lower than the cost of non-compliance, no matter our distaste for the perpetrators.
As such, it is interruption of these murders that is our first goal. The Free Kingdom is ready to engage in international cooperation with partner forces willing to oppose such acts, even if these forces belong to a state normally hostile to the Free Kingdom, such as Edolia for instance.
Should news be received of potential acts of genocide and mass-murder, contacts should immediately be made with any and all states willing to assist in preventing it, as well as with the genocide perpetrators. Sometimes, genocide perpetrators are willing to reach a compromise in which the potential victims are released, or deported, to other states. While this represents a significant violation of their rights, it should be considered a great success if it succeeds in avoiding their murder. Moreover, the Free Kingdom should be considered as benefitting from any potential influx of talented migrants, in the famous words, “Hitler is shaking the apple tree, and I collect the apples.”
International sanctions on a foreign nation are not, historically, a very successful means of preventing genocide, except where they can directly cripple its military ability. Military intervention should be put on the table immediately and explicitly. It should be seen as morally justified as an act of defending innocent lives, and any international diplomatic effort should include that fact.
In negotiations with the genocide perpetrators, they should be given the opportunity to ‘climb down from the tree’, and demands should focus on simply ending the mass-murder. Demands to step down and submit to ‘international justice’, or transform their society into a democracy, will likely only strengthen the perpetrators’ sense of urgency, as they will perceive this as confirming their beliefs that the group is a threat to the survival of their regime and their socio-economic plan. However, should they insist on the mass-murder and necessitate stopping them through violence, then at that very point war goals will be more extensive, and possibly include complete regime change. The costs of compliance must be kept significantly lower than the cost of non-compliance, no matter our distaste for the perpetrators.
COUNTERGENOCIDE STRATEGY AND TACTICS
The principal goal of intervention in the case of genocide and mass-murder is to stop the violent events themselves. Free Kingdom strategic and operational doctrine must, therefore, be conducive directly to those goals.
As such, the first priority must be given, whenever possible, to disrupt the actual mass-murders. For this purpose, the Free Kingdom must gather information about their conduct and planning. This can be carried out through IMINT (imagery collection by satellites and aircraft), HUMINT (questioning of agents and refugees), SIGINT (signals interception) or other means. As soon as possible, it is necessary to target those groups of enemy troops directly involved in the genocide, as well as the infrastructure directly used (trains, execution facilities, concentration camps) with long-range guided weapons strikes. We must not wait for the completion of military action that overthrows the regime to disrupt the genocidal acts, but commence it immediately.
Another tool for direct use in the countergenocide toolbox is the use of Special Operations and Reconnaissance teams. These teams will both gather information about the ongoing genocide, and disrupt its activity. Obviously, Prison Liberation Units (PLUs) are directly useful here due to their ability to extract individuals and groups of people from concentration camps and other facilities, and foment prison breaks and prison uprisings. Other special operations groups be used to sabotage and disrupt the genocide activity itself through attacks on its infrastructure and assassination of its planners, while simultaneously organizing the victim group to resist violently whenever possible. (Studies have shown that, while armed resistance against genocide is a highly costly tactic, it is superior in terms of survival rates to non-resistance).
Finally, the Free Kingdom Armed Forces should focus their conventional effort on a military victory against the genocidal government. Attempts to intimidate a genocidal faction by mass-bombings of the civilian population centers should not be undertaken, as they are unlikely to yield a result, and waste precious time and resources. As we already covered, the majority of the population is likely not meaningfully involved in the genocidal activities. Destruction of the opponent’s military capability directly is the best means to receive a result when all else has failed. However, in some extreme situations (particularly, in states that have defined their military include their entire adult population, and in situations where the enemy has already exterminated the target population, or in those rare situations where, indeed, the entire enemy population is participating in the genocide somehow), mass retaliation should be kept on the table.
As such, the first priority must be given, whenever possible, to disrupt the actual mass-murders. For this purpose, the Free Kingdom must gather information about their conduct and planning. This can be carried out through IMINT (imagery collection by satellites and aircraft), HUMINT (questioning of agents and refugees), SIGINT (signals interception) or other means. As soon as possible, it is necessary to target those groups of enemy troops directly involved in the genocide, as well as the infrastructure directly used (trains, execution facilities, concentration camps) with long-range guided weapons strikes. We must not wait for the completion of military action that overthrows the regime to disrupt the genocidal acts, but commence it immediately.
Another tool for direct use in the countergenocide toolbox is the use of Special Operations and Reconnaissance teams. These teams will both gather information about the ongoing genocide, and disrupt its activity. Obviously, Prison Liberation Units (PLUs) are directly useful here due to their ability to extract individuals and groups of people from concentration camps and other facilities, and foment prison breaks and prison uprisings. Other special operations groups be used to sabotage and disrupt the genocide activity itself through attacks on its infrastructure and assassination of its planners, while simultaneously organizing the victim group to resist violently whenever possible. (Studies have shown that, while armed resistance against genocide is a highly costly tactic, it is superior in terms of survival rates to non-resistance).
Finally, the Free Kingdom Armed Forces should focus their conventional effort on a military victory against the genocidal government. Attempts to intimidate a genocidal faction by mass-bombings of the civilian population centers should not be undertaken, as they are unlikely to yield a result, and waste precious time and resources. As we already covered, the majority of the population is likely not meaningfully involved in the genocidal activities. Destruction of the opponent’s military capability directly is the best means to receive a result when all else has failed. However, in some extreme situations (particularly, in states that have defined their military include their entire adult population, and in situations where the enemy has already exterminated the target population, or in those rare situations where, indeed, the entire enemy population is participating in the genocide somehow), mass retaliation should be kept on the table.
REBUILDING
Should the Free Kingdom find itself responsible for formulating a strategy for postwar rebuilding, our planners will find themselves between a policy Scylla and Charybdis. On one hand, we must avoid a situation where senior genocide planners, and key mass-murderers, evade entirely the responsibility of their acts. The desire for peace should not lead us into a ‘justice and reconciliation’ approach, where none of the senior actors in a mass-murder is ever called to account. At a minimum, the leadership, senior management, and the worst murderers must be put on trial.
Conversely, we must not seek out a ‘group guilt’ approach, where every individual, no matter how remote his involvement, is called to task for the genocide. We must not attempt to ‘re-educate’ an entire nation (which is a pointless, time-consuming process which often leads to revanchist backlash), not encourage mass retaliation for atrocities, which often becomes a genocidal effort of its own.
Assistance to genocide survivors – especially children – must take front and center in such a scenario. The Free Kingdom must work with private charities and international agencies to provide housing, food, medication and rehabilitation solutions until survivors commence integrating into peaceful life as citizens. In some cases, there may be a need for them to relocate abroad, either due to residual trauma, or possibly because a degree of bigotry against them still exists.
The prevention of murder and abuse does not, itself, solve all problems faced by its victims. It merely ensures they’re still around to solve them.
Conversely, we must not seek out a ‘group guilt’ approach, where every individual, no matter how remote his involvement, is called to task for the genocide. We must not attempt to ‘re-educate’ an entire nation (which is a pointless, time-consuming process which often leads to revanchist backlash), not encourage mass retaliation for atrocities, which often becomes a genocidal effort of its own.
Assistance to genocide survivors – especially children – must take front and center in such a scenario. The Free Kingdom must work with private charities and international agencies to provide housing, food, medication and rehabilitation solutions until survivors commence integrating into peaceful life as citizens. In some cases, there may be a need for them to relocate abroad, either due to residual trauma, or possibly because a degree of bigotry against them still exists.
The prevention of murder and abuse does not, itself, solve all problems faced by its victims. It merely ensures they’re still around to solve them.
Selected Bibliography
Why Not Kill Them All? The Logic and Prevention of Mass Political Murder
Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the 20th Century
