Hauksberg inwardly addresses Fodaich (Commandant) Runei:
"...I'll assume you're honest, that you'd also like to see this affair wound up before matters get out of hand. I have to assume that. Otherwise I can only go home and help Terra prepare for interstellar war." (CHAPTER SEVEN, p. 65)
How to reason with someone like Hauksberg? It is possible that the Merseians are not honest, that what Hauksberg calls "matters getting out of hand" is precisely what they are aiming at, in which case to assume the opposite is disastrous. War might be imminent but his policy is to assume that it is not? Surely he has to be prepared for at least two possibilities? And one priority is to gather as much intelligence as possible which means cooperating with Max Abrams instead of regarding that Commander of Intelligence as one of the "...iron-spined militarists..." (p. 66) I would expect to have many disagreements with Abrams if I met him but I would also pay very close attention to his every word about the Merseians. Of course, Poul Anderson has set it up that, in the Flandry series, the Merseians of the Roidhunate are the bad guys, regarding diplomacy as war by other means - but, fortunately, he describes these greenskins/gatortails plausibly and also presents other alien species that are completely unlike the Merseians. If Abrams had been present during the colonization of Avalon, then he would have known better than to assume the worst about the Ythrians.
12 comments:
If Abrams had been present during the colonization of Avalon (Denitza), then he would have known better than to assume the worst about the Ythrians (Mersians).
Or really that he would realize that the hostile behaviour of Mersia is likely a cultural thing that *might* change in the future.
Kaor, Paul!
Of course the Merseians were honestly hostile to Terra's Empire! It was the height of folly on Hauksberg's part refusing to accept hard facts. And diplomacy between great powers is always going to be war by other means. With the little powers struggling to survive.
This scenario wasn't just "set up" by Anderson, he had real history and real world examples like Soviet Russia in mind. Everyone with their heads screwed on right knew in 1966 (the year the book edition of ENSIGN was pub.) the Soviets were implacably hostile to the Empire--Oops! I meant the US!--and the alliance it led. There were all too many real world analogs of Lord Hauksberg in the US bleating about peace with the poor misunderstood Soviets.
And the situation is no different now, except we had a whole Presidential administration full of Hauksbergs--with predictably disastrous results from their folly. Their bungling encouraged a feeble but still dangerous post-Soviet Russia to make a bloody bid to regain great power status, with aggressive terrorism by an Iran working feverishly to get its hands on nukes. Above all the weakness of "Josip" and his coterie of bungling Hauksbergs has allowed Maoist China to openly become a rival of the US, with the former aspiring for domination of the world (as Merseia craved domination of the galaxy).
The issues raised in ENSIGN FLANDRY are still relevant to our times!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Of course Anderson used real history. He decided to make the Roidhunate an consistently aggressive and expansionist regime.
The USSR was always weaker than the US. The latter had nukes first and always had more of them. The USSR bankrupted itself in military competition by stockpiling nukes. It should have used its resources in the interests of its population and to support workers' movements elsewhere. Practiced earlier, such a policy would have prevented the growth of Nazism.
Is it possible to discuss foreign policy without expressing contempt for alternative points of view?!
Paul.
a
Kaor, Paul!
Irrelevant, what you said about the "weakness" of the USSR. At most that weakness motivated the grim men in the ruling Politburo to be more cautious than they otherwise might have been. What matters is which of the two contending powers wanted to upset the balance of power--and that was the USSR, with its ideological drive to spread Marxist-Leninism worldwide by all practicable means. Including fomenting coups, civil wars, agitprop, etc.
Oh, yes, btw, the USSR was quite willing to make deals with the Nazis!
Some people deserve only contempt! I have only fury for the useful idiots, fellow travelers, or dupes who denied, excused, or ignored the bloody horrors of the Soviet regime from the moment Lenin seized power. I have no respect for the wretches who did their best to weaken the US in the face of Soviet aggression. Are we suppose to ignore the tyranny, gulags, terror famines, killing fields, boat people, etc., which is all the USSR has given us?
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
You are not supposed to ignore any such thing and that alone proves that USSR had become a regime that was totally opposed to the liberation sought by Marx. (Can we just discuss these issues instead of becoming totally polarized?)
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
You should at least consider the possibility there are flaws in Marxism which easily makes it an instrument of tyranny.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I do not. What are they?
I have responded to that specific point but, more generally, I have decided belatedly to apply my Zen training by "letting go of" all this "Disagree" stuff so there will be no more Disagrees from me.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I have repeatedly tried to explain where Marxism fails, both as economics and as politics, but I too will let it go.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
You have repeatedly tried to explain where you think Marxism fails both as politics and as economics. You keep presenting your opinions as if they were simple facts. On a level playing field of a discussion, there would be an agreed acknowledgment from the start that each of us has a finite, fallible opinion on difficult issues open to different and controversial interpretations and that everyone needs to learn more. If that much is agreed, then we can leave it. Otherwise, we just wind up with you again stating that you are right and your opponents are wrong, end of.
Paul.
Note that, in the preceding comment, I am not pursuing an argument about Marxism or about anything else but instead discussing the conditions that are necessary for any reasoned argument to take place.
The ethos among graduate philosophy students, Christian, atheist etc -
Not each of us thinking, "I have failed to explain to the others why they are wrong" -
But all of us thinking, "We are all, from our different perspectives, working towards a better understanding."
Post a Comment