Revolutionary war, human rights and incomplete truths

Abstract

The article explores, in the first place, the narratives of perpetrators of the great crime (those who implemented state terrorism or have defended it and still vindicate it Readers of those former narratives will have no trouble spotting a tendency to swing towards some recurring topics: the figure of war, as an explanatory key; the insistence on the exceptional features of that war; the demand for recognition for those who won, and for homage to 'the forgotten dead'; the requirement of a whole or 'complete truth'; the indication of a 'political defeat' as the other face of the military victory; the appeal to the reconciliation of Argentinians. Along with these topics, other exculpatory arguments can be identified ('we were convoked' by the constitutional government; 'we proceeded within the framework of legality'; 'the methods were imposed by the enemy'), arguments articulated with negationist components, simple lies and justifications. Second, the article compares some of these core points with the more general issue of social memory and, especially, with the issue of militant memories and the place these continue to occupy in official discourse and state policies. Finally the article refers to the implicit tension between the revolutionary tradition and human rights notions.