Post League Eridani

tlb wrote:

tlb wrote:That cannot be true, because most history books written after the war were done by Southerners; remember the "Lost Cause", fighting for "states rights, not slavery" and a local favorite "Lincoln is a war criminal", all promulgated to disguise that the South's "peculiar institution" was the leading cause of the disruption.

Isilith wrote:Any other totally irrelevant red herrings you would like to toss out?

Sherman had PoWs, some captured in different states, hung ( note no musketry, what a load of BS that attempt to justify it was ). As well as hanging, he had some shot by firing squad. He broke the laws of war, he was barbaric and punished those innocent of the acts that infuriated him.

If he had been a general of an enemy of the United States, he would be reviled to this very day.

I am mainly disputing the statement that the Civil War was a perfect example of the winners writing the history. What you are really saying is that the winners get to apply the rules; Gen. Sherman was a bastard, but he was our bastard.

Federal war crimes in the Civil War is the subject of an entire website. Of course it makes no mention of Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest's actions at Fort Pillow, but Southern historians dispute whether a war crime was really committed there (I do not believe he was prosecuted).

There were absolutely bastards on both sides that should have been shot. I wasn't disputing that or trying to imply that there weren't. I was pointing out that someone who, even by the standards of his time, committed war crimes... yet he is considered a "hero" by the U.S..

Isilith wrote:There were absolutely bastards on both sides that should have been shot. I wasn't disputing that or trying to imply that there weren't. I was pointing out that someone who, even by the standards of his time, committed war crimes... yet he is considered a "hero" by the U.S..

Yes and Nathan Bedford Forrest was considered a hero in the South. In the case of Gen. Sherman, I think that was because his actions brought the war to an end. One quote of his stands out to me, from December 24, 1860:

You people of the South don't know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! You people speak so lightly of war; you don't know what you're talking about. War is a terrible thing! You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people but an earnest people, and they will fight, too. They are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it … Besides, where are your men and appliances of war to contend against them? The North can make a steam engine, locomotive, or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical, and determined people on Earth — right at your doors. You are bound to fail. Only in your spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with. At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, shut out from the markets of Europe as you will be, your cause will begin to wane. If your people will but stop and think, they must see in the end that you will surely fail.

All of this is rather to the point...most people are perfectly willing to violate the Law of War or whatever the era norm is (Eridani for the Honorverse) when the stakes are big enough in their minds.

American history in particular shows that the more society is brought in to the fight (or kept entirely ignorant of it), the more willing we are to waive what are otherwise moral standards. Indeed, the unthinkable rapidly becomes the heroic once nessecity is invoked.

You may recall that 4/5th of the American public disagreed with Lt. Calley's verdict over Mai Lai.

Colonel Tibbets, if I recall, recieved a DSC for bombing Hirsohima. And, regardless of where you stand on that debate, I think it is rather indicative of the thinking of the time that for a while he carried around "Flattened Hiroshima" Postcards which he would sign for fans.

All of which is to say two things:

1) Are we really surprised that the civil war ended with copious "war crimes" that were celebrated as "heroics" on both sides?


2) Why would we ever think the letter of the EE will matter without a backer?

tlb wrote:Of course it makes no mention of Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest's actions at Fort Pillow, but Southern historians dispute whether a war crime was really committed there (I do not believe he was prosecuted).

I doubt it talks about how Forrest founded the white sheets, the armed militia of the Democratic Party.

GloriousRuse wrote: Are we really surprised that the civil war ended with copious "war crimes" that were celebrated as "heroics" on both sides?

The US Civil War lasted 4 years and until recently was the deadliest war fought by citizens of States. From that point of view, "copious" seems an overstatement. You can find various lists of war crimes committed by both sides, here is one from Wikipedia listing 13:
Massacres in the Civil War

I am not completely certain that executing someone by hanging, instead of firing squad, really counts as more than a misdemeanor. Was the main difference that of status, hanging was for common criminals, while shooting seemed more military?

So, "copious" is a relative term. The war certainly didn't look like the Ostfront, but neither did it look like the gentlemanly wars of state of the mid 18th century.

Suffice to say enough of what we would deem criminal in the modern age happened, with both sides causing it, that anyone feeling partisan could fling monkey-sh*t at each other over how amoral each side was without running dry any time partiuclarly soon. Andersonville and Atlanta, mutilating blacks and raping belles under a blind or encouraging eye, so forth and so on.

That is a thought worht remembering when we address the EE; it is far more likely to be honored in the breach when left solely to the moral and ethical concerns of those involved. There is almost always a Cause or Circumstances that excuse some actions in the eyes of the victors.

Even Honor is a violator - the early books make it clear it is a commander's privilege to dump their data before surrendering. Honor at some point begins routinely demanding data not be dumped, under pain of death, during surrender neogitations. A modern equivalent might be telling a prisoner that if they do not give more than name, rank, and identification, you will kill them.

Is she a war criminal, or has what is acceptable moved past the codifications of the EE? Either way you answer, it does not speak well to the idea that simply updating the EE will make certain actions/horrors/crimes go away.

GloriousRuse wrote:So, "copious" is a relative term.

Even Honor is a violator - the early books make it clear it is a commander's privilege to dump their data before surrendering. Honor at some point begins routinely demanding data not be dumped, under pain of death, during surrender neogitations. A modern equivalent might be telling a prisoner that if they do not give more than name, rank, and identification, you will kill them.

Is she a war criminal, or has what is acceptable moved past the codifications of the EE? Either way you answer, it does not speak well to the idea that simply updating the EE will make certain actions/horrors/crimes go away.

--------------

Honor demonstrated to Tourville that she could take out his ships from outside his effective missile range and offered conditions to accept surrender without further loss of life.
If Tourville had attempted to escape, she could have intercepted with multiple RHN ships lost.
Turning over the data cores essentially made for a peaceable surrender

-- Stewart

To be clear, the surrender terms she offered were in explicit contradiction to what up to that point was the accepted law of war. I.e. surrendering forces get to wipe their cores. The moment she asked for a contravening term, she was in violation.

It would be the equivalent of telling someone today, under the Geneva convention, that you would only accept their surrender if they agreed to answer eve question you had about their force faithfully and accurately, and that you would not accept itelsewise. Also, that you would retro-a ticket consider the surrender null and void if anyone lied during debriefing, and then kill everyone.

That is not what we consider legal, though obviously it is something that in effect many regimes and organizations do.

Or, for another (more extreme) example, “you only get to surrender if you agree to be slaves” is not considered legal. Even if accepting an offer of slavery allows for a peaceable surrender that defuses the co flirt, and even if you really need slaves for the war effort, and even if you are making nazis in to slaves.

And so forth. You could also say, “you only get to surrender if we allowed to rape every third person in your unit. If anyone resists the rape, we won’t count you as having surrendered and will kill you”. There are many, many, ways where an offer of surrender can be quite illegal even if it ends the current shooting.

GloriousRuse wrote:So, "copious" is a relative term.

Even Honor is a violator - the early books make it clear it is a commander's privilege to dump their data before surrendering. Honor at some point begins routinely demanding data not be dumped, under pain of death, during surrender neogitations. A modern equivalent might be telling a prisoner that if they do not give more than name, rank, and identification, you will kill them.

Is she a war criminal, or has what is acceptable moved past the codifications of the EE? Either way you answer, it does not speak well to the idea that simply updating the EE will make certain actions/horrors/crimes go away.

stewart wrote:Honor demonstrated to Tourville that she could take out his ships from outside his effective missile range and offered conditions to accept surrender without further loss of life.
If Tourville had attempted to escape, she could have intercepted with multiple RHN ships lost.
Turning over the data cores essentially made for a peaceable surrender.

I think there are different circumstances involved in the core dump question. If the ship's captain is a free actor, then there is the possibility to dump the core prior to surrender; what you refer to is the understanding that the captain or crew would not be punished when that is discovered. Honor managed to set things up so that the captains called upon to surrender had no choice except to accept or die; essentially they were already prisoners and so required to follow legal commands - otherwise they were subject be punishment. This not the same as requiring answers to questions not permitted by the Deneb Accords. A open question is what would happen in the case where a captain had the core dumped anyway. Could the captain be legally executed? What about the officers of the watch? What about other crew members? But it never came to that, so we do not know. All we do know is that the captain at Hades that tried to bring the wedges up after getting Honor's commands had the ship destroyed.

Yes; outrage is relative, like the word "copious". After the Civil War Gen. Pickett was almost tried for executing captured Union soldiers, some by hanging and others by firing squad. These particular Union soldiers were Carolina natives, who had been conscripted into the Confederate Army and deserted to the Union cause. The trial did not occur because Gen. Grant argued that the terms of Gen. Lee's surrender of the Army of Virginia did not allow for war crime trials. Did Gen. Pickett commit a war crime or just act to enforce military discipline?

GloriousRuse wrote:To be clear, the surrender terms she offered were in explicit contradiction to what up to that point was the accepted law of war. I.e. surrendering forces get to wipe their cores. The moment she asked for a contravening term, she was in violation.

Show us the text that indicates what you say is in the Deneb Accords and we will accept your point.

I expect the accepted usage was that when the captain was a free actor (not in a position of having surrender demanded by an overwhelming force that is only holding off destruction while terms are accepted) and decided to surrender, then the order can be made to erase the computer cores with the expectation that there would be no retaliation. Otherwise when the captain is not a free actor, then everyone in the ship is essentially a prisoner already and must obey the captors' commands (which might include leaving the ship in functional order).