reads Poul Anderson's The Star Fox;
dislikes Gunnar Heim's militarism;
hears that this is typical Anderson;
writes off Anderson as militaristic;
reads no more Anderson;
thus, misses out on -
the Time Patrol series;
Anderson's time travel novels;
the Technic History (partly militaristic);
The King of Ys (with Karen Anderson);
the Old Phoenix sequence;
Tau Zero;
Starfarers;
The Boat Of A Million Years;
the Harvest of Stars Tetralogy;
Genesis;
other works -
- this is not a complete list.
Almost the entire point of this blog is to persuade that young sf fan to read more Anderson.
46 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
What does "militarism" even MEAN? Glorifying and praising of war, destruction, and killing? Writers like Anderson, Heinlein, Pournelle, Stirling, etc., were most emphatically not "militaristic" like that. They did not LIKE death, cruelty, wanton destruction, pointless wars, etc.
And I disagree Gunnar Heim was "militaristic" in any bad senses of that word. He simply disagree with those who wanted to appease Alerion and give in to its demands.
And I would hope young SF fans would find the colorful and dramatic stories of the authors I listed above appealing to them! And then go on to consider the philosophic ideas these writers took seriously.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I think I can argue that STARSHIP TROOPERS at least glorifies the military but I agree that Anderson's descriptions of military conflicts should not deter anyone from reading his works. Far from it.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I think it's more accurate to say RAH respects the military virtues. I never thought him, or any of the other writers I listed, to do that. And Anderson also respects honorable military people. And I don't think that means they were being "militaristic."
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
STARSHIP TROOPERS ends:
"To the everlasting glory of the infantry -"
Of course, I can think of a couple of different possible meanings of "militaristic" but, in this post, I was thinking of one way in which a reader might use that term and was not trying to defend that use.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I remember that line from STARSHIP TROOPERS, and I never thought it meant glorifying "militarism" in any bad sense. Rather, it was the kind of thing to be found under the heading of "esprit d'corps." Of learning to take pride in one's branch of service or unit. Nothing that can't be found, I'm sure, in any regular UK or US military units.
Ad astra! Sean
The Star Fox isn't militaristic as it is anti-appeasement and the wifty-wafty wishful thinking that produces that phenomenon.
Churchill was often called a militarist in the 1930's for pushing for vigorous rearmament and opposing Germany's expansionism.
(By people in both parties, but especially Labor.)
Even George Orwell, who was genuinely anti-fascist and proved it by putting his body on the line in Spain, was absolutely opposed to rearmament as late as 1938, an astonishing lapse of logic and triumph of emotion over reason.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
You are absolutely correct in your assessment of THE STAR FOX. And we see that kind of appeasement in Lord Hauksberg, in ENSIGN FLANDRY, because of his blind refusal to accept unpleasant facts about Merseia.
And if only enough of the leaders and people of the UK had listened to Churchill, it's possible WW II might have been prevented! I recall reading of how the German Army was prepared to oust Hitler from power, at the time of the reoccupation of the Rhineland, if the UK and France had emitted even the smallest SQUEAK of protest.
And, as you said, what you said about Orwell was an astonishing lapse on his part!
Ad astra! Sean
Both,
My reference to militarism in relation to THE STAR FOX should have placed the word inside quotation marks to show that I was attributing this interpretation of the novel to a hypothetical younger reader.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
In addition, I think "militarism" is one of those words with unclear or multiple meanings, both bad and good. And a word which can be too easily used as a cuss word, making it even more unsatisfactory to use.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Hi. It is the middle of the night here. I am nearly finished the other activity that kept me off the blog for most of yesterday.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I understand! I knew you were busy. Hope it went well, that other "activity."
Ad astra! Sean
A German United Front could probably have prevented the Nazis from gaining power. However, the Communists, misled from Moscow, denounced Social Democrats more than National Socialists with world catastrophic consequences.
Kaor, Paul!
Forget the Communists, people I have only contempt for, stooges as they were of Stalin. Any "United Front" against the National Socialists would have needed to include the Center Party and other parties of the moderate right. The inability of the internal opponents of the Nazis to unite against them was a major reason for the rise of Hitler to power.
I still argue that if France and the UK had not been so busy appeasing Hitler during his first years in power that alone would have probably led to him being ousted.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Yes. An anti-Nazi united front must actively involve everyone who is not a Nazi. In the 1970s in Britain, we knocked back the National Front with the Anti-Nazi League. In Germany, when Hitler had come to power, it became even more urgent to unite against him.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I don't entirely agree. Any effort within Germany to stop Hitler and the National Socialists would have needed to succeed BEFORE they got their hands on any power. I would point out how Hitler immediately worked to secure his grip on power after being appointed Chancellor. Some of the internal opponents of the Nazis foolishly thought they could restrain, restrict, hem in, etc., a mere Chancellor Hitler. Well, they were soon proven wrong!
Ad astra! Sean
Better to stop them getting power than to have to oppose them when they are in power.
Kaor, Paul!
Exactly! Esp. after Hitler rammed thru the Enabling Act cementing his grip on power. After that, realistically, only the Army, many of whose leaders were contemptuous of Hitler and the Nazis, might have overthrown them. The feebleness of France and the UK during those years played right into Hitler's hands, enabling him to win over the Army.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
At all times, the organized working class has the power to withdraw its labor to bring down a regime but it has to learn to use that power. The class is usually divided against itself, especially in a period when there was mass membership of the Nazi Party!
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I'm sorry, but this is simply not true. NO so called "working class" has ever behaved like this. BECAUSE there are so many and varied ways people have of making their livings or plying trades and professions. That alone means there will never be any "unity of interests" of the kind you imply. And many people in the "working class" were themselves Nazi Party members.
Real life and politics is far more complicated than anything like "labor power" can encompass.
Ad astra! Sean
The Nazis used to say that the most enthusiastic salutes to the
Hakenkreuz came from people who'd been saluting the red flag before they put the Swastika in the middle.
The SA and the Red Front types they fought in the streets tended to be the same sort of people, much more alike than either were to ordinary Social Democrats or conservatives.
Politics runs in a circle; if you go far enough in either direction, you become the other side.
Hitler's National Socialism and Stalin's socialism in one country...
When a big bunch of us were leafleting houses during a local Council election, one or two of our number were more interested in cruising around looking for a confrontation with the Other Side. When I found out what they were playing at, I hauled them back and gave them some leaflets to distribute.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Paul!
Mr. Stirling: Exactly! Hard core Nazis were much more like Communist/Red Front types than conservatives/and the more moderate SD people. That was commented on more than once by high ranking Nazis themselves. Hitler even talked of making STALIN governor of all or part of a conquered USSR if the Germans had won.
Paul: Indeed. National Socialism and Marxist-Leninism have much in common, both ideologically and in their practice, tactics, and methods.
Ad astra! Sean
"Socialism in one country" translates more or less as "National socialism"... 8-).
Stalin was heard to comment that he started respecting Hitler after the Night of the Long Knives, when he purged Rohm (and assorted other enemies).
One of the characteristic mistakes conservatives made in Europe in the 1930's was thinking they could use fascism to fight communism and keep it under control -- at least, it was a mistake in Germany, to their later bitter regret.
(Francisco Franco actually managed to pull this off, using the Spanish fascist movement, then betraying and neutering them and sending tens of thousands off to die in Russia.)
The characteristic mistake democratic socialists made was thinking they could make genuine alliances with Third International types -- then getting the rug pulled out from under them in 1939 with the Hitler-Stalin Pact. They would have been even more horrified if they'd known the secret codicils to it, which included close cooperation between the NKVD and the Sicherheitsdienst/Gestapo.
For that matter, European Communists made similar errors -- like all the German exiles in Moscow, most of whom were shot or sent to the Gulag when Stalin and Hitler decided they were each other's best friends.
Spain and Sweden managed to pull off a similar feat in WWII; they both put themselves in positions where they didn't have to fight, and could claim to be on the winning side whoever won.
A Swedish diplomat of the time said: "If the Allies win, we're a democracy. If the Germans win, we're Nordics."
Ireland, on the other hand, managed to put itself in a position where it would be despised by both sides -- like de Valera sending condolences to Berlin when Hitler died.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree with your comments here. I only have a few remarks to make.
It FIGURES that Stalin could respect somebody only if he was ruthless and brutal, as Hiter was during the Night of the Long Knives.
I agree it was a mistake for 1930's conservatives to think they could use something as dangerous and doubled edged as fascism to fight Marxism (because fascism is far too much like communism). Better to oppose both. Franco succeeded because he was utterly without illusions about Spanish fascism and had strictly limited ends or goals in mind.
And Spain had been exhausted by the Civil War in the 1930's. And was in no condition to fight in WW II, reinforcing Franco's determination to keep Spain out of the war.
I have heard of how De Valera's diplomatic clumsiness angered both sides. Sweden was much more adept about not irritating the Allied or Axis powers too much.
Ad astra! Sean
I am very interested in Sweden because of Stieg Larssen and wish that his country had not remained neutral.
Kaor, Paul!
But think of the GEOGRAPHY, of WHERE Sweden was located. By 1940 Sweden was surrounded on all sides by either allies of Germany or territories occupied by the Reich. To declare war on Germany would have immediately exposed Sweden to an overwhelming attack by a Reich then at the height of its power. Something which I believe any Swedish gov't would think was sheer folly. And when Germany was plainly losing, by about 1943, Stockholm, with cold rationality, must have concluded there was still no need to enter the war.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I see.
Paul.
Sometimes combox discussions take on a life of their own.
Kaor, Paul!
They do! And another point I thought of was that Sweden also had to worry about the USSR. The Winter and then the Continuation wars of Finland with the Soviets must have kept immediately in Swedish minds how uncomfortably near the huge and menacing Soviet Empire was. And thus the urgent need to avoid annoying too much not just Hitler but also Stalin.
Ad astra! Sean
Yup, the Swedish government's approach to WWII was spineless but rational in terms of Sweden's national interests.
Most Swedes had been extremely pro-Finnish in the Winter War period, for instance (there were a lot of Swedish volunteers fighting or trying to get there to fight) but the Swedish government resisted all pressure to get involved.
The British and French, who regarded the USSR as a German ally in this period, tried to get an expeditionary force to Finland to fight against the Soviets -- and wouldn't -that- have put the cat among the pigeons! The Swedes scuppered that, since it couldn't happen without them and the Norwegians cooperating.
In the Allied-German fight, most Swedes were pro-Allied, but with a strong minority (much bigger than in Denmark or Norway) sympathizing with Berlin. Partly out of ideological agreement with the Nazis, partly out of fear of the USSR (perfectly justified) and partly as a continuation of traditional sympathy for Germany in high circles, which went back to before 1914 -- Sweden was a pro-German neutral in WW1, until it became obvious that the Entente was going to win.
Now, the Irish government in WWII was principled, in its way, but deeply stupid -- it insisted on neutrality as a mark of sovereignty even though Ireland gained very little and lost diplomatic leverage and economic advantage.
Irish opinion, apart from the usual "England's difficulty is Ireland's opportunity" fanatics/imbeciles and a few home-grown fascists, was pro-Allied.
Thousands of Irishmen volunteered for te British armed forces, and many thousands more went to work in British war industries.
Ireland could probably have made a very good thing out of entering the war on the Allied side at the right moment -- possibly even reunification. And it wouldn't have had to actually contribute much, some token units, use of Irish ports as bases for convoy ships and aircraft, and would have gotten generous American aid for domestic political reasons in the US.
But de Valera stood on principle, the twit, and his people paid the price.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Many thanks for these very interesting comments! Yes, Sweden's behavior during WW II made sense, for good, sound, practical, if not very glorious reasons. And De Valera's "principled" stand was a disaster for Eire.
I do wonder what might have happened if the Anglo/French had managed to send an expeditionary force to Finland to help in the war against the USSR? Would that have made it impossible for the UK to ally with Stalin? MY view is that the UK and then the US did not need Stalin to defeat Germany after Operation Barbarossa began. Let Germany and the USSR rip each other apart in the East while the UK/US fought in the West.
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I looked up how the Gov't of Sweden behaved during WW II, and some further points seem worth commenting on. IF I can trust Wikipedia, that Expeditionary Force the UK and France tentatively planned to send to "assist" Finland in the war against the USSR in 1939 was actually meant to seize the Norwegian and Swedish iron ore mines in the north of those countries, to deny Germany access to a truly crucial resource. Which meant Sweden would have to either acquiesce in that seizure or refuse to allow the Anglo/French to enter the country. Plainly, Stockholm thought it wiser to placate Hitler than to appease France and the UK at that time.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: Yup, the Swedish government was quick and smart and calculated the odds with cold rationality at each point.
As the for Anglo-French intentions, since Germany and the USSR had just invaded Poland in concert (thus triggering the war) they regarded Stalin as Hitler's co-belligerent, which was sensible enough.
Of course, if they -had- managed to get the expeditionary force to Finland (taking the iron-ore mines along the way) then the USSR actually -would- have concluded a military alliance with Germany. The French were planning air raids on Baku from Syria (a French colony then) at the same time.
That would have put the cat among the pigeons and WWII would have assumed absolutely unpredictable forms.
The Swedish iron ore was very useful but not absolutely crucial for Germany; they had lower-grade ore sources they could tap. They didn't because it wasn't cost-effective if they could get the Kiruna ore from Sweden, but they could have -- plans were in place.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I can't really object! The Swedish Gov't was simply behaving as any state caught in such a "delicate" situation should act, looking out for the survival of its own country.
And Stalin WAS Hitler's co-belligerent from 1939-41, even if the USSR was not, technically, at war with the UK/France.
Hmmm, meaning an Anglo/French Expeditionary Force sent to assist Finland might have led to Operation Barbarossa being cancelled, because Germany and the USSR would have entered a really close military alliance? To say nothing of the planned French air raids on Baku? Yes, that truly would have caused WW II proceeding and ending in totally unpredictable ways!
Noted, what you said about Germany having other sources for iron ore, even if not as good as the Swedish mines.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: one thing that the World Wars demonstrated was that industrial economies were astonishingly flexible and resilient and hard to completely disrupt, and that modern nation-states could draw on not limitless but very deep reservoirs of popular legitimacy and commitment.
This increased over time.
Both the USSR and Germany took blows they couldn't have sustained a generation earlier, for instance.
The fact that Germany's war production kept rising right up until the fighting reached it despite the almighty hammering it was receiving is an example of that.
Pre-1939 expectations for air power were disappointed, of course, though it didn't stop the "Bomber Barons" from swallowing enormous shares of our war production.
The fact is that the more complex and developed a country is, the more damage it can absorb and keep functioning.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree with what you said about how modern, industrialized nations were far tougher and resilient than anyone had expected. That was first noticed during WW I. Even the USSR managed to draw on far deeper levels of support and "legitimacy" despite its spectacular brutality.
I think it was only until Feb. of 1945 that the German war economy finally started faltering and failing, both for the reason you gave and because the resources needed for it started running short.
Yes, the ideas of the "Bomber Barons" were discredited. I recall reading of how, after the German surrender, Allied intelligence and air force officers who questioned officials and experts were disappointed to find out how little damage their bombing had done to the Reich's war effort.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: it did considerable damage, and Curtis LeMay's firestorm raids on Japan were even more devastating, but on balance the air campaign against Germany probably was a waste in the sense that the same resources deployed elsewhere would have shortened the war and defeated Germany earlier.
The US and UK put about 30-40% of their industrial production into strategic bombing. The same effort expended on antisubmarine aircraft, landing craft, close-support aircraft, etc., would probably have shortened the war by about a year.
But that would have meant a number of unpalatable choices -- admitting that Germany had to be beaten in ground combat on the North European Plain, for example, or that air forces were valuable mainly as an ancillary to ground forces.
Also, the bombing campaign served the useful function of allowing us to let the Russians do the dirty work (with our logistical help) while -appearing- to be actually fighting.
The bombing of Japan right at the end started to approach the apocalyptic results predicted in the 1930's... but by then Japan had been beaten already by naval action and the island-hopping campaign. LeMay's annihilation blows were only possible because we'd taken air bases close to Japan and the destruction of their merchant navy had starved their factories of the capacity to produce fighters or even fuel them.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I would far rather the UK/US had devoted more of their industrial capacity the ways you listed. Far better to have ended the war a year sooner, if possible. But many people still had to learn about the limitations of air power.
I did have in the back of my mind what you said about Japan: naval defeat, destruction of her merchant marine, isolation from sources of urgently needed resources, etc., enabled the US bombing to do more damage to her, relatively speaking, than in Germany.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: the basic problem with air power is lack of precision. Thus, it worked best if a) unopposed, so the bombers could go low and slow safely, and b) using area-effect weapons like napalm fire-bombs (a lot of the B-29s' loads in the Japanese firestorm raids). Lack of effective defenses also allowed the use of things like the Stuka, which really could bomb accurately -- but which was an absolute sitting duck to AA guns and even more to fighters.
These days you actually can do what air-power advocates said could be done in the 1940's -- hit individual targets precisely while flying high and fast. With drones, you can hit an individual small building or car.
Against an industrialized power, this would be quite devastating because you could take out critical infrastructure reliably -- bridges, for instance; power stations; and other high-value targets.
But until the 1990's, you just couldn't do this, although there were some stabs at it -- the Germans were using TV-guided bombs at the end of WWII, for example.
I suspect that air forces delayed work on those because they didn't want to admit that their standard bombing techniques were so hopelessly inaccurate.
Just as they didn't want to admit that low-flying, heavily armored ground-attack aircraft (like the WWII Sturmovik or the modern A-10) were extremely effective and trying to use fighters in that role didn't work well, because they were institutionally fearful of being subordinated to the ground forces again.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I should have remembered how the technological advances of the past 30 years listed by you had drastically improved the accuracy and effectiveness of air power. We in the US and UK might be VERY badly damaged in our infrastructure in any major war with an up to date enemy.
I think one reason why air forces tended to be so reluctant to accept they would do best in ground support roles is because they didn't want to become like horse mounted cavalry after the advent of gunpowder weapons made infantry so much more dominant. Reduced to being mere ancillaries supporting ground forces.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment