What is junta?From a student time the cheerful rhyme was remembered to me: “I wake up in the morning early - Luis Korvalan is absent. Here it, vota, huntova work“. Why, it is asked, still a nail plain this chastushka sits in memory?
Whether from the fact that it was rhymed with the known obscene chastushka where instead of unshakable Korvalan the spring from a sofa appeared? Whether from what, really, was a pity: eh, socialist experiment in Chile did not turn out? Whether from the fact that all were made laugh by the word “junta“ introduced by promotion in brains of the Soviet people?
In general, all words which in Russian begin with “a letter hu“ look ridiculously and a little indecently. To remember the same hunveybin about whom V. Vysotsky sang:
And the main thing, I know perfectly,
As they are said!
But something very indecent
to me is On the tip of the tongue.
It is good that those years to very few people caught sight Chinese - the Russian dictionary with chronological tables of imperial dynasties of China. Very much impresses the name of one of emperors of a dynasty Jin printed with the Russian letters: Tianhui. Now, however, that did not hurt the eyes, write Tianhui.
But we will return, however, to a subject. The word “junta“ (“junta“) in Spanish means “meeting, council“. In the Spanish and Latin American history similar meetings continually arose in race for power. And in whose hands the power in these rather poor countries was concentrated? In hands of military. Here in Spain, Portugal, and most of all in Latin America continually there were military coups when power was seized by young, hot majors and colonels and began “to drive“. After a while the heroes who came to the power turned into complacent aged generals. And here the new generation of military grew up, captains became majors, majors - colonels. They collected secretly new junta (that is council), decided that “so it is impossible to live“, and there was a new stir. For former junta everything came to an end as the well-known novel of Gabriel Garcia Marquez begins: “Many years later, before the execution, the colonel Aureliano Buendija will remember …“
For Latin America it. But from the Soviet country, davny - long ago to the worried romantic of own revolutions and own civil war, it was so far that very few people from the Soviet people and the word - that heard it, “junta“. When brothers Strugatsky of one of the heroes called Cristobal Jozevich Junta, it did not cause a cognitive dissonance in readers. (Ek, children as I on - scientific wrapped it! Simply speaking, the surname of the hero did not cause any bewilderment in readers).
In 1959 in Cuba there was a revolution, usual for Latin America. Junta replaced junta. The difference was only that Fidel Castro who came to the power decided to be on friendly terms not, as usual it was, with the near USA, and with the far Soviet Union. The friendship was accepted, and in the USSR suddenly learned about heroic Cuba. About Cuba sang songs, about Cuba shot movies, at men beards became fashionable. Junta nobody called the new Cuban government. They were heroes - revolutionaries. And Che Guevara killed in 1967 who unsuccessfully tried to repeat the Cuban revolutionary experiment in Bolivia only added them heroic revolutionism and revolutionary heroism.
In the same 1967 the military coup occurred in Greece. If I am not mistaken, the term “junta“ was broadcasting applied to the military government of Greece for the first time in the USSR. Though more in the course there was a nickname “Black Colonels“.
And here the military government of Avgusto Pinochet which in 1973 stopped socialist experiment in Chile “junta“ was branded, perhaps, before falling of this mode in 1990. And as as reported the Soviet newspapers, in Chile the lawlessness and justice, “junta“ from the word neutral were violated became the word with a negative connotation. (Again brought me! Simply speaking, this word for the Russian hearing became abusive.)
Now junta in Russia began to abuse the new government of Ukraine. Strictly speaking, for this purpose there are no bases.
In - the first, the junta is the military conspirators who came to the power in the unconstitutional way. Pinochet arranged revolution and overthrew the lawful government of S. Allende. Free began military mutiny against the lawful government of Spain. M. Gaddafi and S. Hussein came to the power too, having headed military plot against the lawful government. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the creator of modern Turkey, too, eventually, overthrew legitimate authority of the sultan in Istanbul.
In Ukraine the army did not participate neither in events on the Maidan, nor in events around the Maidan. Moreover, as showed the subsequent events, the army in Ukraine, strictly speaking, was not. There were some uncles who for some reason dressed up in uniforms and who got on peak-caps with a high crown. What here seizure of power? At all not military came to the power in Ukraine. And even “guerrilla“ from the present Ukrainian power carefully clean. Bo not potribni!
In - the second, the junta is always “seriously and for a long time“. (By the way whether you remember who told it and in what occasion?) Best of all - until the end of life of the one who headed junta. Free frankly declared himself the lifelong regent at the king of Spain. And changes to democracy began in Spain only in 1975 after death “ęŕóäčëüî“. Pinochet was in power 17 years, and the commander-in-chief was also that longer. Muammar Gaddafi formally was the president of the republic - Jamahiriyas, but really the term of its presidency was limited to nothing.
In Ukraine everything was made that in the shortest possible time to legitimize the seized power. And this procedure happened rather openly, in full view of mass media. What junta will promote the leaving from the power? Unless junta of suicides. They will be finished off next day! Generally, I advise to read already mentioned magic book of Gabriel Garcia Marquez “One Hundred Years of Solitude“.
So how my teacher of analytical chemistry said what we have in the firm rest? We have elementary mutual abuse, or as nicely speak on - Ukrainian, to “like“. There are two boys ready to fight and provoke themselves and the teams quite confused abuse. “You - hu …!“ - “You hu …!“ - “And you are even worse, than hu …, you hu - hu!“ - “You hu - hu! Here is how I harm you!“ - “I will cut it you!“ For what all this becomes? In order that that, another, whenever possible to frighten, and itself and the children whenever possible to excite for the future fight.
So can be, not talk too glibly how much in vain? You want a real fight? To me - no.