The Problem with Haven

I think that, once the new Pritchard regime has proven that they were nothing like the Committee, and had every intention of fighting the Second Havenite War with honour and in compliance with interstellar law, a lot of the existing Manticoran hostility towards Haven would have mellowed - not disappeared; after all, the two star nations were fighting a war. That would have been because, simply put, Haven was no longer a threat to the existence of the Star Empire. Rather, the war was being fought for clearly defined political reasons, with each side having clearly stated political goals in mind. There are plenty examples OTL of exactly the same thing happening between former combatants - just look at the 19th century rapprochement between the UK and France, for example.

Duckk wrote:Geez, I go to sleep for the night and the topic completely derails. Take it to the Politics forum, people.

Agreed.

BobG wrote:

Duckk wrote:Geez, I go to sleep for the night and the topic completely derails. Take it to the Politics forum, people.

Agreed.

It wasn't me who started it.

namelessfly wrote:It wasn't me who started it.

Umm, is there a reason why you're making that disclaimer? Should I be careful?

I will shock everyone by suggesting that given the circumstances, Haven was not only justified in resuming the war they were compelled to do so.

Haven had been through a few centuries of totalitarian, socialist rule. They accepted it in part because they had been conditioned to believe that their poverty had been inflicted upon them by other, wealthier star nations. (Sort of like a certain POTUS demonizing the 1%?). They had allowed themselves to be conditioned to accept conquest for loot as a legitimate economic stimulus package.

Things got so bad that Rob Pierre or someone like him HAD to overthrow the Legislaturists. More importantly, much of the tyranny imposed by the Pierre regime was absolutely needed to reform the economy. The plausible prospect that State Security goons were killing more Haven citizens than were being killed in the first war (probably less than one million war casualties verses may be a few hundred million to a few BILLION killed by State Security if normal totalitarian percentages are projected) illustrates the enormous price that Haven paid for reform.

Prichart and Tiesman overthrew Pieere at perhaps the perfect time to restore the Republic and exploited the pause in military operations to reform and rebuild their economy. They then attempted to negotiate in good faith with Manticore to end the war. The probable result of such negotiations would have been a series of Plebesites to determine the fate of the systems captured by Manticore and may be systems still part of Haven. Note that during the interwar
period, Haven fought a series of brutal civil wars to suppress rebellion by systems still controlled by State Sec goons. IMHO, granting these systems independence was not a viable option because they were governed by State Sec goons who would never allow them to live in peace. If only a few million people needed to be killed to suppress the rebellion in each system, the casualties are horrendous, again.

Haven needed a formal peace rather than a mere pause in military operations so that the resources and talented people that were being consumed by their ongoing military construction and operations could be redirected to their civilian economy.

Given the history of such carnage, Haven had every right to be livid about Manticore's apparent refusal to negotiate in good faith. All of the tampering of diplomatic correspondence aside, Highridge would have prolonged the phony war to justify delaying elections and the imposition of war time taxes. Haven had to do SOMETHING to force Manticore to negotiate a peace to avoid an economic collapse or a reversion to totalitarianism.

Do I sound like a damn liberal here?

hanuman wrote:

namelessfly wrote:It wasn't me who started it.

Umm, is there a reason why you're making that disclaimer? Should I be careful?

No. I am just the one who Duckk prefers to blame.

Who said I blamed you?

Duckk wrote:Who said I blamed you?

I'm so staying out of this discussion.

But...is there any factual basis for namelessfly's claim?

As I believe I mentioned at one point in the past, I let discussions go on in the hopes it will self correct. By the time it becomes necessary to stage an intervention, I really don't care who started it, just that it stops or goes to the appropriate forum.

Duckk wrote:As I believe I mentioned at one point in the past, I let discussions go on in the hopes it will self correct. By the time it becomes necessary to stage an intervention, I really don't care who started it, just that it stops or goes to the appropriate forum.

I have noticed that. And it usually results in quite an abrupt cessation of hostilities. Maybe Mr Weber should devise a doomsday weapon based on you...you know, so frightening that NO ONE in their right mind would dare attack the polity with that weapon in their arsenal.

Now we just need to decide upon a name for the weapon. My choice? The Duckk-mobile.