Shalten debriefs Everard back in 1902 because:
"'In your position among us, you need to know the whole truth. For you to learn it later in this century could pose a hazard. Causational loops can be very subtle. Your experiences and accomplishments in Bactria must continue to have happened. Therefore you must be informed well pastward of our preparations for them. I thought you would enjoy a visit to my Belle Epoque.'" (p. 122)
Everard's activities in Bactria cannot cease to have happened because of any temporal changes that are made in the twentieth century. Nevertheless, Shalten has made some complicated changes. By deleting 1985 A. D., pp. 11-16, when Garshin was given the Bactrian letter, he has also deleted 1987 A. D., pp. 66-76, when he himself informed Everard of the Bactrian letter. Everard remembers experiences that did not occur in the current timeline. Shalten has to delete events that he wants to delete while preserving events that he wants to preserve. No doubt Unattached agents know how to do this.
Meanwhile, at least, Poul Anderson presents a vivid description of the Boulevard St. Germain in Paris in 1902, a world that, as Everard reflects, will crash to ruin in a dozen years. See 1902 AD.
10 comments:
Though WW1 happening -- or at least, happening when and where it did -- was the result of a series of low-probability accidents.
It might have happened earlier or later, of course; but that would have made the course, length and outcome of the war unpredictably different.
And it might not have happened at all.
One reason it did come in 1914 was that the German Supreme General Staff was convinced that by 1916, Russia would be too strong for Germany to take on, so they seized on the Sarajevo assassination as an excuse for a preventative war.
If Franz Ferdinand hadn't been killed, they probably couldn't have gotten the traction to start a war in 1914, perhaps not in 1915 either -- and then they wouldn't have tried, because they didn't think there would be any substantial chance of victory.
Ironically enough, in 1914 the Germans underestimated the French and British, and overestimated Russia.
In 1939-41, they did precisely the opposite.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
And worse of all, the Gen. Staff UNDERMINED Kaiser Wilhelm's efforts to defuse the Sarajevo Crisis. Because, when push came to shove, Wilhelm II did not want a war!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: even a stopped clock is right twice a day, which is the best you can say about Kaiser Bill.
By 1914, even strong monarchists in Germany had become exasperated by him, and the nationalist movement totally so, because he talked big and belligerent, then chickened out in a crisis, leaving Germany looking like a bloviating blowhard who backed down when its face was smacked.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
And it's precisely when Wilhelm was RIGHT that I sympathized most for him.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: yes, but if he had the same response in every international incident -- talk big, make threats, then scuttle -- it was eventually going to blow up in his face.
That's what happened in 1914: the General Staff let him do his "initial response" (back AH to the hilt, etc.) and then isolated him when he started to have his - inevitable - second thoughts.
By then he'd totally exasperated nearly everyone in Germany's power structure, which was why it was -possible- to cut him out of the loop, despite his constitutional position, which gave him authority over foreign policy decisions.
They felt they -had- to push him out of the way "at last", even if the circumstances weren't ideal.
Bismarck designed a system that only worked well if Bismarck was running it.
The American founders managed to design one that worked fairly well even when idiots and second-raters were running it.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
In that case, I can see why many influential Germans were frustrated with Wilhelm II by 1914, even tho I still disagree with their methods. That might have been avoided if Germany had a gov't more like that of the UK, with a strong rather than weak chancellor as first minister. I mean a chancellor who held office as long as he retained the confidence of the Reichstag.
And the General Staff miscalculated in 1914, Sarajevo and WW I blew up in their faces as well!
And we have a senescent idiot and FOURTH rater in the White House now. And the Democrat leaders in the House and Senate are no better. I just hope we survive their chaos!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: there's an old saying, "there is a good deal of ruin in a country".
(From SM Stirling.)
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I've heard of that saying, coined by Adam Smith, possibly to be found in his THE WEALTH OF NATIONS. And, while I agree with him, all nations only have a FINITE amount of ruination that could be tolerated. If the ruination goes too far, then catastrophe happens!
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Sean!
It’s too true, that when ruination goes too far, catastrophe happens. I must say, though, that if “sensescent idiot and fourth rater” is a proper description of Biden, what words can one ever find sufficient to describe Trump?
Best Regards,
Nicholas
Post a Comment