On reflection, that list of people anticipating the Terran-Ythrian war is not really very comprehensive. Sean suggested that there could have been a scene with the interstellar diplomats trying to head off the conflict. I can think of at least two other possible extra scenes. First, the causes of the war include:
"'That there have been bloody clashes over disputed territories and conflicting interests.'" (III, p. 473)
Tales from the wild frontier?
By contrast, on Esperance, formerly a pacifist colony, Eve Davisson tells Philippe Rochefort:
"'I shan't join the demonstrators...'" (IV, p. 488)
One part of a single sentence is the only indication that there were anti-war demos on the planet called Esperance in the system of the star called Pax! I would want a film adaptation to show such a demonstration - and to do it right. The film makers could get real demonstrators to stage it for them. There was a Roger Moore film where a crowd of what looked like otherwise isolated individuals stood still chanting the single word, "Peace!," in dirge-like tones, then one of them tried to fake evidence of police violence! (Thankfully, I do not remember the title of the film.)
I was pleased when Dominic Flandry and Kossara Vymezal marched on the Dennitzan Parliament with Dennitzans of Merseian descent in A Knight Of Ghosts And Shadows. There have got to be some street politics in Technic civilization. In fact, Flandry refers to other such occasions.
37 comments:
The Terran-Ythrian war is a classic case of two expanding spheres of interest pushing and shoving to settle their border.
Limited war for limited aims, in other words.
You can get killed just as dead in a limited war, of course, but it's not a death-grapple.
Kaor, Paul!
I agree it would be interesting if any filmed version of THE PEOPLE OF THE WIND showed one of those "peace demonstrations" on Esperance. Presumably several hundred extras would be hired to do that scene. I think you are saying a realistic depiction of such a demonstration would be rowdier?
Stirling made good points, the war between the Empire and the Domain was a classic "cabinet war, fought for limited aims--not a desperate life and death struggle where one side or the other would be destroyed. It might have become one if the Domain had obstinately refused to admit defeat and ended up being totally wrecked.
Ad astra! Sean
I wrote a long response which has somehow been lost I think because of atmospheric conditions. I'll try to reply in short bursts.
A big demo would have quieter and rowdier sections.
I've seen Krishna monks chanting peacefully surrounded by angry shouting.
Kaor, Paul!
That makes sense, some demonstrators will be well behaved while others my be violent and riotous.
Outraged by the disgusting creatures who recently tried to vandalize the MONA LISA in Paris. They should be punished to the fullest extent set by law!
Ad astra! Sean
There should be different messages: pro-peace; anti-Imperial; human-Ythrian friendship etc.
A hand held camera should be carried between individuals and groups holding up different placards and banners.
A cinema audience should be both amused and challenged.
Do we feel like a demonstrator, a news reporter, undercover police, an agent provocateur, a member of the public who has taken a wrong turning?
Kaor, Paul!
And a pro-Imperial, anti-Domain counter demonstration!
Ad astra! Sean
It should seem real but still in a fantastic fictional context. Fiction reflects reality but remains fiction.
Counter-demo, yes.
Rochefort, Abrams and Flandry display one attitude to Empire. A demo scene should make us intensely aware of different, conflicting perspectives on the same Empire.
I think I've covered all the points I wanted to make.
Kaor, Paul!
Of course, what you said about fiction. But I recall how reality can be more fantastic than fiction, with Stirling citing the stunningly implausible "coincidences" leading to the assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand at Sarajevo as one appalling example.
What with me rereading Stirling's BLACK CHAMBER books, WW I is on my mind lately. No Sarajevo--and the world we have today simply wouldn't exist!
And my sympathies would be with Rocefort, Abrams, and Flanddry--I would agree with them that on balance the Empire was a good thing and that it was fortunate it existed in the Technic timeline.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
We each have our point of view but fiction has to reflect a society with multiple viewpoints which PA does, particularly in MIRKHEIM.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Of course, and that is what good writers succeed in doing, such as Anderson and Stirling.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean
"No Sarajevo--and the world we have today simply wouldn't exist"
There is the question of whether WWI was something just waiting to be triggered, but we could assume, 'no Archduke assassination=no WWI', or Hitler gets a bullet through his head during the 'Beer Hall Putsch', or...
One of my thoughts on such an alternate history is that, either way there is much less threat of a major war in the late 1930s/early 1940s, when nuclear fission is discovered.
So no Manhattan project and any development of nuclear weapons comes considerably later than in our time line. Importantly, well after the use of fission reactors for electricity, ocean going ships, creating useful radioactive isotopes, etc.
See https://atomicinsights.com/the-first-atomic-age-a-failure-of-socialism/
for one speculation on such a world.
See also
https://jackdevanney.substack.com/archive
especially
https://jackdevanney.substack.com/p/the-gordian-knot-news-a-list
In which he argues, convincingly in my view, that the 'Linear No Threshold' (LNT) model of harm from ionizing radiation grossly exagerates the harm from low dose *rate* radiation, AND that LNT is a *lie* that was promoted to help create opposition to nuclear bomb testing.
While I can sympathize with opposing bomb testing, the result of acceptance of LNT was merely to move bomb testing underground. However, Jack Devanney (and others) argue that it also caused great harm by pushing up the costs of nuclear energy for negligible benefit, and so making it more expensive than fossil fuel use.
So now I consider an alternate history without the LNT lie, so nuclear replaces fossil for electricity generation and probably also for industrial process heat. Leaving petroleum etc. used for about 10 to 20% of what they are used for now.
So we get a more prosperous world with less air pollution, and global warming as a *much* smaller problem.
Kaor, Jim!
I agree it's possible, even without the Sarajevo assassination, there would have been a major war in Europe within a few years--except we don't know if that would have happened. Also, Stirling commented elsewhere that a big reason why Germany supported Austria-Hungary so strongly in 1914 was because the German High Command believed that was the last good year Germany could hope to defeat Russia. It would have been much harder in 1915, and virtually impossible by 1916. Because Tsarist Russia was being transformed both in civil and military matters by the reforms starting in 1906. I'm also assuming the elderly blockheads clogging the Tsarist high command would have died or be pushed out by then. No Sarajevo and Germany would give up hope of winning a war by 1916.
Or Hitler could have died while serving on the Western Front. Given how he volunteered for the most dangerous front line jobs, that could have happened.
Even with no WW I and hence now WW II, a world here nuclear energy was developed without nuclear weapons being thought of, I believe such weapons would still have been made. Because such weapons would be a logical development.
Ad astra! Sean
Yes a nuclear bomb would have been made sooner or later, but with constructive uses coming first any negative attitudes toward nuclear energy would have been much more muted.
Kaor, Jim!
That too is a possibility--and one that is highly desirable. The hysterical panic so many techno-Luddites have for nuclear power is catastrophically crippling its development!
Ad astra! Sean
"Tsarist Russia was being transformed both in civil and military matters by the reforms starting in 1906"
Having reread your comment, I'm curious about the nature of those reforms. Can you point me to something that at least outlines that, and what the effects were up to 1914?
Kaor, Jim!
Any honest history of Russia would discuss those reforms. Briefly, defeat by Japan and the chaotic near revolution of 1905 forced forced the Tsarist gov't of the heed to think out of the box. Count Sergei Witte pushed thru the October Manifesto of 1905 in which Nicholas II promised that a Constitution would be written setting up a parliament with real powers and guaranteeing basic civil rights, which was done with the Constitution of 1906. Next, Peter Stolypin, President of the Council of Ministers from 1906-11, first restored order in the Empire and then set about drastically reforming the economy, for creating wealth, greater efficiency, and giving millions of Russians a stabilizing stake in the regime. An important means of doing so was abolishing the archaic system of communal ownership of land by the peasants, replacing it with ordinary freehold land ownership by private owners. Stolypin also opened up millions of acres of Crown and State lands for peasants to obtain on fairly easy terms. This land reform was so successful that by 1914 a vast new class of small and medium land owners was arising, a class hostile to anyone who would overthrow the regime. By 1914 a monster like Lenin was in despair, believing he would never be able to seize power!
Some books I have discussing all or most of these topics are listed below.
NICHOLAS AND ALEXANDRA, by Robert Massie
THE SHADOW OF THE WINTER PALACE, by Edward Crankshaw
NOVEMBER 1916, by Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Solzhenitsyn's book was esp., because of the lengthy, detailed chapters of straight history in it focusing on people like Peter Stolypin, one of the great unsung heroes of Russia.
Ad astra! Sean
Lenin was not plotting personally to seize power.
Kaor, Paul!
I disagree, because that is exactly what that loathsome creature did. You can't seize power without personally seizing power!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But he didn't. He helped to organize and lead a workers' seizure of power which, unfortunately, was overwhelmed and reversed by the isolation and backwardness of Russia.
I appreciate the informative analysis of Russian reforms by Stolypin but there has to be the same kind of acknowledgment and understanding of what the Bolsheviks, not just one of them, were trying to do. "Monster" and "loathsome creature" are not a dispassionate historical assessment.
As ever, I am not trying to get agreement here, just an acknowledgment that there are indeed issues that it is legitimate to disagree about.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
No, Lenin did not do that. His entire career as a conspirator and agitator was spent honing and sharpening an instrument for the sole purpose of seizing power by violence against whoever ruled Russia if he was not the master. The propaganda poured out by Lenin and his cronies were deceptions and lies, to deceive those urban workers to assisting him in grabbing power. The sole goal of the Bolsheviks was to seize power, all else was either folly or windrow dressing.
Recall how ruthlessly Lenin and Trotsky crushed the Kronstadt Uprising, a revolt by people who actually believed their lies before becoming disillusioned by Lenin's brutal rule. Many leftists renounced Marxist-Leninism after Kronstadt tore away the falsely benign mask from Lenin.
And why on Earth should a small minority of Russians, "urban workers," have the gall to claim the right to rule Russia when it was still an overwhelmingly agricultural nation? I strongly suspect it was because people who talked like that didn't like what many, many peasants wanted: land ownership, Russian Orthodoxy, and the monarchy.
I agree it is possible there are many issues where people can legitimately disagree with each other. But I don't believe Lenin and the Bolsheviks are among them. I believe any dispassionate study of them would have to conclude they were indeed monstrous and loathsome.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Well, there are many dispassionate studies that conclude the exact opposite! Discussion is indeed impossible if it is simply ruled out of court by one side from the outset.
You are right that urban workers were a minority in Russia. They had to acknowledge the rights of Russian peasants and also to build international solidarity with industrial workers in Germany and elsewhere. Efforts in these directions were violently opposed by White generals and armies of intervention. Kronstadt was certainly the death knell of revolution.
But we both know from a lot of experience that we will approach no agreement by exchanges here. The only question is how soon to terminate the present exchange which was kicked of by me responding to a disparaging remark about Lenin instead of letting it go which I usually do.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
First paragraph: I believe it is impossible to convincingly argue for a benign, benevolent Lenin. Because the brute facts of how he actually ruled crushes that notion. I mean things like his illegal seizure of power, founding of the first Soviet secret police (the Cheka), the horrendous Red Terror, his selling out to Germany in the Brest-Litovsk Treaty, the beginnings of the gulags, etc.
Second paragraph: Lenin never cared about the urban workers, they were just tools to be used and discarded. I note how you passed over the fact Russian peasants had goals and ideas at odds to what the socialists advocated.
And that rhetoric about solidarity with the "industrial workers" of Germany was precisely that, empty words. When push came to shove and the "proletariat" had to make a choice, industrial workers chose loyalty to the UK, France, Germany, Russia, etc. The White generals had nothing to do with that, they only rose to prominence after Lenin seized power.
I am angry because Lenin and his successors destroyed a great nation. The Russia of today is only an exhausted shadow of what it was or might have become in/after 1914. But you wish an end to this discussion so I will stop.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I did not pass it over! I acknowledge that workers and peasants have different interests.
You believe that a certain argument is impossible but many disagree. A proper discussion could start if the reality of that disagreement were initially acknowledged. I don't wish discussion to stop but I do think that this sort of fruitless exchange which has become interminable in the past has to be simply terminated preferably sooner rather than later.
Now we need international solidarity or we go under.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And not all Russian "urban workers" agreed with each other. Some were even monarchists!
I agree about the reality of disagreements. I also believe some interpretations of historical persons and events are going to be more accurate than others.
The last thing I ever expect to see is voluntary, global international cooperation.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
That workers, like members of every other socioeconomic class, disagree with each other is a given. All that a political party can try to do is to win a majority by argument, example and saying things that correspond to reality.
Some interpretations are more accurate than others. Also a given.
Cooperation between enough people, not everyone, might happen when it has become clearly necessary - or it might not. We imagine uniting against an alien invasion. Then we can regard an ecological collapse as the equivalent of an invasion.
Let me try not just to pursue this disagreement indefinitely but to say something that might help at least with communication. The disagreement is so deep that it determines not only how we interpret what we read but also what we DO read in the first place. I could say, "Read some books that are sympathetic to Lenin," but you are not going to do that and indeed I would not agree with every book sympathetic to Lenin. I could be even more specific and say, "Read books on Russia, Lenin and Trotsky by Tony Cliff and others in his political tendency," but we are not going to give each other reading lists. You read a lot of history already, clearly more than I do.
I can say this: (i) I have read books that have persuaded me that the Bolsheviks were right in what they were trying to do; (ii) even if it were proved beyond any doubt in my mind that every single Bolshevik was 100% cynical/dishonest/manipulative in claiming to promote workers' power and international solidarity, then I would still want here and now to support a party that did represent those values that the Bolsheviks had claimed to represent.
The disagreement is fundamental and it is about the here and now, not just about Kronstadt etc. This does not in any way advance the argument but it MIGHT just help to contextualize it a bit.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul1
I agree this disagreement is fundamental, with no agreement about Lenin being likely. I'll end by quoting this bit from the March 2024 issue of NATIONAL REVIEW (page 15): "Felled by the last of a series of strokes brought on, quite possibly, by the stress of running revolutionary Russia after a lifetime largely devoted to study, writing, and invective, Vladimir Lenin died 100 years ago, on January 21, 1924. The evil of his idea and the ruin launched by his deeds paved the way for the horrors that defined so much of the 20th century. Yet there remains a dangerously persistent belief that Lenin's cause was noble but was turned by Stalin into something monstrous. In reality, Stalin was Lenin's star pupil, simply expanding the use of Lenin's methods--single-party rule, censorship, mass murder, mass arrests, mass terror, concentration camps, the dehumanization of "class enemies," and all the rest--to build a totalitarian socialist state of which Lenin, for the most part, have approved (more secure in his position than Stalin, he would have killed fewer veteran Bolsheviks). In his very old age, Molotov, who knew both men, reportedly observed that "compared to Lenin, Stalin was a mere lamb."
Everything I have read about Lenin supports the conclusion he was a monster totally undeserving of any reverence. And Molotov's reported comment makes me think that if Lenin had lived to 73 (Stalin's age) he would have been even more brutal and monstrous than Stalin!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But it is possible to read books that say something else and I stick to my point that, even if Lenin and all the Bolsheviks were monsters, I would still support the ideas that they claimed to represent.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I acknowledge that--despite my belief those ideas were themselves unworkable and bad.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Of course you believe that. That is the main fundamental disagreement and it is about what is to be done now, not only about what was done in the past.
You seem sometimes to want to terminate an exchange by stating as if it were an indisputable fact that your view is obviously and inarguably right. Such a statement will never terminate an exchange because a rejoinder is always possible.
Nothing that you have read has said anything good about Lenin because you have not read anything that has said anything good about Lenin. That is a tautology.
Paul.
Post a Comment