"'The Narodna Voyska has been a, a basic part of our society, ever since the Troubles. Squadron and regimental honors, rights, chapels, ceremonies - I'd stand formation on my unit's parade ground at sunset - us together, bugle calls, volley, pipes and drums, and while the flag came down, the litany for those of our dead we remembered that day - and often tears would run over my cheeks, even in winter when they froze.'
"Flandry smiled lopsidedly. 'Yes, I was a cadet once.'"
-Poul Anderson, A Knight Of Ghosts And Shadows IN Anderson, Sir Dominic Flandry: The Last Knight Of Terra (Riverdale, NY, March 2012), pp. 339-606 AT V, p. 409.
Not glorification of the military as in Heinlein's Starship Troopers.
No way am I militaristic but Dennitzans would have had to defend their planet during the Troubles and, in Kossara's time, they are on the marches facing the Merseian Roidhunate. Fortunately, Anderson also shows us peaceful inter-species interactions. In the Technic History, human beings and Ythrians amicably share Avalon. In the Psychotechnic History, human beings and Hulduvians amicably share the Galaxy.
Have I said before that Poul Anderson covers every option?
39 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
We see the young Dominic Flandry as an Ensign in ENSIGN FLANDRY, but not when he was an even younger cadet at the Imperial Naval Flight Academy, or later, after ENSIGN, when he studied at the Intelligence Academy. Both institutions had rites and ceremonies similar to those described by Kossara Vymezal. Incidentally, decades later, Flandry was an occasional instructor at the Intelligence Academy.
I disagree Heinlein was "glorifying" the military in any bad senses in STARSHIP TROOPERS.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I did not say BAD sense - although I dislike the book.
"To the everlasting glory of the infantry..."
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I don't dislike STARSHIP TROOPERS, one of RAH's last really interesting stories, before he became such a sexually obsessed bore.
I believe in "glorifying" honorable military forces deserving of respect. One example I thought of from SF being Falkenberg's mercenaries, from Pournelle's Co-Dominium series/timeline.
Ad astra! Sean
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I remember Falkenberg ordered his men to fire into an unarmed crowd.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I also remember how Falkenberg gave that mob two chances to surrender--opening fire only when they refused to surrender and started shooting at his men. They were responsible for their fate, not Falkenberg.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
An unarmed crowd shot at his men?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
There wee armed thugs in that mob, led by power hungry men whipping up the crowd as a means of grabbing power from the established gov't. Like it or not force sometimes has to be used.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But not by shooting into the crowd! I have seen a crowd with some individuals at the back throwing stones at police and the police with truncheons responding by attacking people at the front of the crowd! The police need to identify individual stone-throwers, then form a wedge to part the crowd (I have seen them do this on other occasions) and arrest those individuals without harming anyone else.
(I once saw a police wedge driven back by the pressure of the crowd. I also once saw mounted police approach a crowd, see the size of the crowd, then think better of it, turn around and ride back. I was somewhere near the back and complete strangers linked arms with me and with each other expecting the police to advance. This was on a mass picket in support of a strike for union recognition.)
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
You are insisting on a standard which is not always possible in the real world. In the example being discussed from the Falkenberg stories, demagogues fomented an open rebellion against the established state and opened fire on Falkenberg's troops first, after he had given them chances to surrender. All gov'ts, in whatever form, believed it right to use force to suppress open rebellion.
The rebels, in their stupidity, failed to grasp that even a relatively small number of trained and disciplined troops, with the high ground, could pour far more concentrated, aimed fire into their opponents than hooligans firing almost randomly up at them. After a few minutes that was enough and surviving rebels threw down their arms and tried to surrender--with Falkenberg immediately ordering his men to cease firing.
I've mentioned Napoleon in another combox. He first began his rise to prominence and power by behaving exactly the same way. Bonaparte bloodily crushed a monarchist rebellion against the revolutionary regime in Paris in 1795. With more monarchists probably being sent to the guillotine afterward.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
My memory of that Falkenberg story is that that crowd was unarmed.
Paul.
There are deeper issues here, of course. As in real life, the first issue in dispute is the facts of the case. I do not think that I still have a copy of the book to reread it.
As far as I remember, in that series, Pournelle took imbalances of wealth and power that exist on Earth and projected them in an exaggerated form onto a colony planet, with the author's sympathies firmly on the side of the rich and powerful. (Who can doubt this in the case of Pournelle?) This seems to me a pointless exercise in speculative fiction.
If I had been in Derry on Bloody Sunday in 1972, then I would have been on the illegal Civil Rights march where British soldiers killed 13 unarmed demonstrators. Everyone in Ireland knew what had happened but the British government took decades to acknowledge and apologize. Only one soldier has been prosecuted, unsuccessfully.
Kaor, Paul!
The story we are talking about is THE MERCENARY, incorporated into FALKENBERG'S LEGION. The background to the crushing of that rebellion on the planet Hadley was a decaying Co-Dominium using one of its agencies, Bu-Reloc, to ship large numbers of voluntary and involuntary colonists to many colonial planets. Most of the latter came from "Welfare Islands" on Earth subsisting on drugs and factory produced synthesized food and totally uneducated and untrained in anything.
On Hadley these Welfare Islanders subsisted on what the local food factories produced, regardless of the technology for these factories would soon wear out as the Co-Dominium withdrew, ending with mass starvation. The rational policy would be to disperse these people over Hadley into its smaller town, farms, ranches, etc., as laborers, greatly reducing the strain on the capital. But the President of Hadley was assassinated in a conspiracy by the Second Vice President, who wanted to also eliminate the First Vice President and seize power. The Second VP demagogued the displaced Welfare Islanders with the usual blather by power hungry pols to whip up support for grabbing power. That was why Falkenberg placed his men in the stadium to attack the rebels if they refused surrender.
The example you cited from Derry is irrelevant, immaterial, and not to the point. What happened in both Pournelle's story and real-world examples like Napoleon's crushing of that pro-monarchist revolt was not a mere demonstration in a distant part of the nation, it was an attempt to overthrow an established regime by force and violence. For the purpose of this discussion it does not matter if the regime under attack was bad or tolerable. It was open rebellion, a waging of war against the State. Practically all gov'ts faced with such an attack will do what it takes to crush the rebellion and survive.
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Paul!
Title 18, United States Code, Section 2385 makes it a criminal offense for anyone to advocate the violent overthrowing by force of the US Gov't. Punishable by fine and imprisonment for 20 years. Which is exactly the right thing to do. And I hope the UK has a similar statute.
Ad astra! Sean
Irrelevant, immaterial and not to the point? Soldiers killed unarmed civilians. Period.
Kaor, Paul!
Yes, irrelevant, immaterial, and not to the point. You are not focusing on the major point of this discussion since my third comment.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Those are terrible words to use of 13 state murders.
The major point of the discussion since my first comment is that Falkenberg ordered his men to fire on an unarmed crowd. And British soldiers did exactly that in the real world in Derry.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
No, because these are two very different crowds. And that crowd on Hadley opened fire on Falkenberg's men first, refusing the chance given them to surrender. The point of this discussion was what Falkenberg did, and the circumstances leading to what he did.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
The point of this discussion is what Falkenberg did, and the circumstances leading to what he did.
There is a purely factual question here. My memory from THE MERCENARY was precisely that Falkenberg did order his men to fire into an unarmed crowd without having been fired on by anyone else first. Of course my memory on this point may be in error.
Also, even if fired on by some individuals in the crowd, it would be wrong just to fire indiscriminately into the crowd which I am fairly sure that they did.
The British troops in Derry claimed that they thought that they had been fired on first. They were not. In fact, one of them targeted a man holding up a handkerchief as a white flag while he went to help someone else who had already been shot. The best theory based on all the evidence is that the British action was deliberate, was ordered at a very high level and was a failed attempt to draw the IRA out into battle. However, the IRA were nowhere on the scene.
The two cases are similar although we can also clarify their differences.
My copy of THE MERCENARY has come to light while moving books around so I can check the text if I have the stomach for it.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And your memory erred, Falkenberg gave the rebels a chance to surrender and opened fire after they refused and started shooting at his men. It's axiomatic that an act of war against an established state, bad or good, a rebellion, will be resisted by whatever it takes to defeat it. It would be indiscriminate force if Falkenberg continued the shooting after the rebels started trying to surrender, which is not what he did.
I fully expect strife, conflicts, wars, internal upheavals/rebellions, etc., to occur in the future as it does now. These too are legitimate topics for SF writers, as can also be seen in the works of Anderson, not just those of Pournelle.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Well, if the rebels as a group did open fire on Falkenberg's men, then that is an entirely different matter, obviously. I might check the text to confirm this. I certainly remembered it otherwise and would not usually get anything like that so wrong but memories CAN err, nevertheless.
I do not need to be told that rebellions are resisted.
Poul Anderson writes very well about future wars and rebellions.
Paul.
I will probably take an Inspector Morse novel and THE MERCENARY to Wales. I do not contemplate with equanimity the rereading of Pournelle's rampant militarism but I should check the issue that we have discussed.
Kaor, Paul!
And sometimes it was truly catastrophic when rebellions/coups were not resisted, as was the case when Louis XVI, from a desire to avoid bloodshed, ordered his Swiss Guards to cease fire when the Jacobin scum attacked the Tuileries Palace on August 10, 1792. This well-meant effort led to France/Europe plunged into decades of upheavals/wars.
The most extensive non-fictional discussion we have by Anderson about war is found in his THERMONUCLEAR WARFARE (1963). He also covered that theme in SEVEN CONQUESTS (Macmillan, 1969), a collection of stories examining conflict/war. I'll quote from the Foreword (pages 9-10):
[Our subject is human conflict leading to institutionalized violence. The key word is "institutionalized." Societies have generally found ways to keep murder, battery, rape, and riot within some bounds. When they fail to do so, throughout history it has been a symptom of their breakdown; they are soon replaced by new systems or whole new cultures virile enough to guarantee the ordinary peaceful person a measure of security in his daily life. But no government thus far has established a similar protection against war: for this is a proceeding of society itself.
The prayers, prophecies, denunciations, pleas, studies, conferences, and political restructurings of several thousand years have not done away with war. Our generation is unlikely to get further with its noisy peace parades and its mealy-mouthed observances of United Nations Day. The violence of the state remains legitimatized, and often glorified, because it serves the ends of the state. And these ends are not always evil; ask anyone whom Allied forces liberated from Nazi concentration camps. Such considerations demonstrate the fallacy of pacifism.]
All Pournelle does in his stories, that you denigrate as "rampant militarism," is to draw out in detail what Anderson wrote about in his own stories and non-fiction. Anderson even contributed a story, "The Deserter," to the Co-Dominium timeline.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Were the Jacobins "scum"? Hardly an objective historical assessment!
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Yes, "scum" and worse than scum! I have only contempt for fanatical monsters like Robespierre and his Jacobins. The revolutionaries were responsible for horrors like the September Massacres, the Reign of Terror, the Vendean genocide, the mass drownings at Nantes, the bloody crushing of rebellious Lyons, etc., etc. Are we really supposed to respect such creatures???
If Louis XVI, a genuinely kindly and well-meaning man, had been able to bring himself to kill a thousand or so Jacobins who were attacking him on August 10, these horrors might have been averted.
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Paul!
I might well copy into my second CODEX ANDERSONIANUS notebook the paragraphs I quoted from Anderson's Foreword to SEVEN CONQUESTS. They are a good summing up of Anderson's ideas about conflict and war.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
There are "scum" (if you like) on both sides of most major conflicts. Your condemnations are entirely one-sided.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
"One-sided" because all these ideological tyrants and fanatics, starting with Robespierre and his gang, and their successors, sickens and disgusts me. Sometimes it's right to be one-sided.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
It is never right to be one-sided. Atrocities on one side are committed by "scum," on the other side by human beings who, of course, are "not angels." (I am quoting earlier arguments.)
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Robespierre and his Jacobins were human beings, but the anger and disgust I have for their fanaticism and cruelty remains. And that applies to the similar tyrant monsters of the 20th century as well.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I get that but you don't seem to realize that there are "scum" on sides that you support.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Unpalatable tho it is for many, some scum are better than others. I recall one of Pres. Franklin Roosevelt's advisers complaining a certain Latin American politician was a SOB. With FDR replying "Yes, but he's our SOB." Real world politicians and statesmen have to work with the tools available to them.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
A familiar, expectable rationalization.
Unpalatable tho it is to defenders of their own Great Power, no scum are better than others. Being OURS as against THEIRS does not make anyone less reprehensible.
Real world politicians have to do better than this. "Real world" is a loaded phrase. We are all living in the same "real world" but disagreeing about how to operate in it. Condemning "their" scum and making excuses for "ours" is entirely inconsistent.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I'll continue to have only contempt for Robespierre and his Jacobins.
In this real world the US (and UK) have no choice but to somehow cope with truly bad actors like Putin's Russia and Maoist China. Compared to them even unsavory regimes willing to be accommodating are preferable.
As for what FDR said, he had to deal not only with an enemy like Hitler, but also with an equally repulsive "ally," Stalin*. Again, compared to them, dealing with corrupt Latin American politicians willing to be accommodating to the US was preferable.
Ad astra! Sean
*FWIW, I believe FDR "managed" Stalin badly, being far too accommodating to his wishes and demands.
Sean,
I'll continue to have contempt for all, "left" or "right," who commit atrocities. (I usually do not feel "contempt" but am mirroring your language.)
We all live in this "real world." We just disagree about what to do about it. In "this real world," people around the world have no choice but to respond to bad actors like those you mentioned and several that you do not mention. Dealing with corrupt politicians willing to accommodate to the economic and strategic interests of one Great Power as against those of its opponents is not preferable.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Then we are at an impasse. Plus, I don't think Anderson would agree with you. I thought just now of how, in "Windmill" mention was made of how a despot in the Maurai timeline was willing to be accommodating to the Maurai Federation. Iow, an FDR style "SOB."
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
It has been said many times now that Anderson would not agree with me. Of course he would not. We each express our own opinions here.
Paul.
When troops think they may be fired on, you're just a twitch away from a shooting. Your mind narrows down and gets very, very sensitive when you think your life is under threat. And when you're trained to respond to threats in certain ways, that's the way you respond.
So provoking armed troops is... ah... suicidal.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Exactly! Which is why the responsibility for the slaughter at the stadium rests with the demagogues who whipped up that crowd, not with Falkenberg and his men. Soldiers are simply not policemen, good police have a very different kind of training.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
That is not what happened. Reread the passage. Falkenberg ordered his men to throw grenades into a packed, mostly unarmed crowd, then to attack that crowd with bayonets. Then unarmed civilians fleeing from this slaughter were shot and killed by his men surrounding the stadium. Do you approve of this? Would you participate in it?
Paul.
Post a Comment