Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests

Straw Politicians in military fiction

For anyone who might want to have a side conversation...you're welcome here!
Straw Politicians in military fiction
Post by imperatorzor   » Tue Sep 06, 2016 11:12 am

imperatorzor
Lieutenant (Junior Grade)

Posts: 47
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2015 7:05 am

This trope that comes up in military fiction that can be very annoying: broad antagonism of civilian government. Making politicians out (or at least those who don't unquestioningly support the military) as being a bunch of hopelessly naive mush minded fools or corrupt fat-cats solely interested in lining their own pockets who always leave the country vulnerable by not letting the military solve everything, not giving the military all the funding it wants and so forth. Leaving aside the simple points that A: Civilian Leadership operates on very different principles than military leadership because military leadership has at it's core the idea that decisions need to be made quickly, obeyed and followed to the letter while civilian leadership has to discuss things, deal with conflicts of interests, resolve conflicts through mediation and persuasion, work out compromises and all that, B: Applying military thinking to civilian governments almost always ends badly, C: The Government has other duties beyond maintaining a military like running schools, building and maintaining infrastructure, environmental efforts, funding R&D, providing healthcare, providing police, providing support for the poor and courts and all that stuff and if it devotes most of the budgetary pie chart to the military they'll still end up with less funding in the end as the pie's radius will shrink as said nation would have a compromised economy (on top of all the other problems that would come) and D: the military brandishes around a lot of power and of course the solution to abuses in power is oversight.

On the same note the opposite which makes out all military leaders as a bunch of crazy warmongers who are always itching to blow stuff up is no better. Then again Strawmanning is a bad way to convey points in general.

Zor
Top
Re: Straw Politicians in military fiction
Post by MAD-4A   » Thu Nov 10, 2016 11:23 am

MAD-4A
Captain of the List

Posts: 719
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 4:48 pm
Location: Texas

imperatorzor wrote:... broad antagonism of civilian government. Making politicians out (...) as being a bunch of hopelessly naive mush minded fools or corrupt fat-cats solely interested in lining their own pockets...
aren't they? Ask most (normal) people about politicians & they will tell you "corrupt liar just out to line his/her pockets with tax dollars".
-
Almost only counts in Horseshoes and Nuclear Weapons. I almost got the Hand-Grenade out the window does not count.
Top
Re: Straw Politicians in military fiction
Post by Dilandu   » Thu Nov 10, 2016 12:27 pm

Dilandu
Admiral

Posts: 2541
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 1:44 pm
Location: Russia

Well, the oversimplification of complex problems never do any good... even in military sci-fi. And, unfortunately, this genre is specifically prone to oversimplification attempts. Not many authors could describe military conflict as more than "bad A attacked the good B and heroic struggle begun".

The problem is, that the war is always complex. And usually the reasons to war - excluding the colonial campaings against completely inferior opponent -are fairly complex also. The usual heroic attitude of military sci-fi usually could not comprexend the fact, that usually war is initated by both sides.

So, they simplified, and make "good side against bad side, but good side have bad civilian government. Oh, for Pete's sake, readers want to read about super-masculine Star Marines of Good Galactic Federation, who fought against Evil Tyrannical Warlord on planet XQ - not the long story about how the situation formed, and definitedly not about how the Good Federation aren't actually very good and Evil Warlord aren't actually very evil!"
------------------------------

Oh well, if shortening the front is what the Germans crave,
Let's shorten it to very end - the length of Fuhrer's grave.

(Red Army lyrics from 1945)
Top
Re: Straw Politicians in military fiction
Post by MAD-4A   » Thu Nov 10, 2016 2:12 pm

MAD-4A
Captain of the List

Posts: 719
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 4:48 pm
Location: Texas

Dilandu wrote:Well, the oversimplification of complex problems never do any good...
Not true, WWI was complex, Who was stomped on. blamed and massively extorted from for it? Germany! Germany had nothing to do with starting the war. WWI was about the King of Austria wanting justice for his brutally murdered son and daughter-in-law. All Germany did was fulfill its treaty obligations with Austria, knowing - due to the web of linked treaties that to do so would require wars with both Russia and France.

The Allies on the other hand sided with ... what??? ... A TERRORIST MURDERER!!! Yea, ultimately the US joined the Allies but that was after the initial issue no longer applied, we joined the side that we could reach and support, and weren't torpedoing our ships, or urging our neighbor to invade us. The UK entered for the same treaty issues as Germany (they didn't have to pay Germany reparations for their losses though).

Other countries (Italy, Japan) were opportunists. Italy wanted to take Austrian territory (and harbors) at the northern end of the adreatic, while Japan wanted to steal German colonies in the pacific (easier targets and less chance of intervention than British/French/Dutch holdings) without anyone interfering 'it's OK were at war with them.'

In WWII it was over-simplified - Germany & Italy were invading everyone and Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, cut-and-dry. Unless you look at the other side, Japan was suffering from sanction (because they wouldn't stop invading others - China) but that didn't help them (from their perspective) to secure the raw materials they needed. But including these does nothing to help the situation it was "Good Guys A" - Allies (including Russia at the time) Vs "Bad Guys B" - Axis (of Evil) invading and murdering everybody.

Dilandu wrote:...Not many authors could describe military conflict as more than "bad A attacked the good B and heroic struggle begun"...
That's the gendre. Its the standard blueprint (though I think David Weber & David Drake both do very good jobs to consciously )

Dilandu wrote:readers want to read about super-masculine Star Marines of Good Galactic Federation, who fought against Evil Tyrannical Warlord on planet XQ - not the long story about how the situation formed, and definitedly not about how the Good Federation aren't actually very good and Evil Warlord aren't actually very evil!"
Well duh I don't want to read a story where I side with 'side A' and get emotionally involved with them only to find that 'side B' was the 'good guys' and "my" 'side A' were the 'bad guys' - what fun is that.

If you like that then there's Battletech, everyone in Battletech is a 'good guy', & everyone is a 'bad guy' depending on which faction you get attached to. I am a long time FedCom advocate - I quit reading after the FedCom civil war where Prince Victor won, his 'evil' sister was exiled and he decided "I don't want to play any more" :( and split his realm between his other two siblings :?: :roll: :x , My second favorite (backup) was Wolf's Dragoon, but then Outreach gets nuked :!: :!: :!: well I guess they just don't want me as a fan anymore, but I have friends who are avid Clanners, Smoke jaguar, Wolf... Others Draconis Combine or Capellan Confederation etc... (both of whom I hate - old enemies of FedCom).

Actually, I've been tossing around a book idea for a while now, the basis is: the main character is a starship commander who is very good-just-compassionate, he commands his ship for the purpose of "protecting the helpless citizens" against the forces of "evil and anarchy" and maintaining "Law and order", one thing, his ship is an Imperial Class Star Destroyer. He fights to put down the 'evil', and illegal, Rebellion, "Rebel scum!"
-
Almost only counts in Horseshoes and Nuclear Weapons. I almost got the Hand-Grenade out the window does not count.
Top
Re: Straw Politicians in military fiction
Post by Dilandu   » Thu Nov 10, 2016 3:04 pm

Dilandu
Admiral

Posts: 2541
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 1:44 pm
Location: Russia

In WWII it was over-simplified - Germany & Italy were invading everyone and Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, cut-and-dry. Unless you look at the other side, Japan was suffering from sanction (because they wouldn't stop invading others - China) but that didn't help them (from their perspective) to secure the raw materials they needed. But including these does nothing to help the situation it was "Good Guys A" - Allies (including Russia at the time) Vs "Bad Guys B" - Axis (of Evil) invading and murdering everybody.


Only as long as you did not dig deeper) And start to ask questions.

For example:

- why Germany was allowed to re-militarize at all?
- who sabotaged all attempts to stop Germany in Сhezoslovakia?
- why Germany&Italy was basically allowed to tear apart the legitimate government of the Spain?

Start to ask such questions - and you would quickly came to the point, when it became obvious: while the conflict itself was indeed, Good against Evil, the Evil itself was created as a weapon, that some of eventual Good side wanted to use against others of the Good side - and this weapon they suddenly became unable to control.
------------------------------

Oh well, if shortening the front is what the Germans crave,
Let's shorten it to very end - the length of Fuhrer's grave.

(Red Army lyrics from 1945)
Top
Re: Straw Politicians in military fiction
Post by Michael Everett   » Thu Nov 10, 2016 4:11 pm

Michael Everett
Admiral

Posts: 2619
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:54 am
Location: Bristol, England

MAD-4A wrote:Well duh I don't want to read a story where I side with 'side A' and get emotionally involved with them only to find that 'side B' was the 'good guys' and "my" 'side A' were the 'bad guys' - what fun is that.

...I must counter your opinion with the story of DOCTOR DIRE, a villain out to change the world for the greater good! With power armour, minions and an inability to use the first-person pronoun, DIRE shall reign supreme and rule the world!
Or at least, that's her plan...
~~~~~~

I can't write anywhere near as well as Weber
But I try nonetheless, And even do my own artwork.

(Now on Twitter)and mentioned by RFC!
ACNH Dreams at DA-6594-0940-7995
Top
Re: Straw Politicians in military fiction
Post by MAD-4A   » Sat Nov 12, 2016 1:02 pm

MAD-4A
Captain of the List

Posts: 719
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 4:48 pm
Location: Texas

Dilandu wrote:Only as long as you did not dig deeper) And start to ask questions.

For example:

- why Germany was allowed to re-militarize at all?
- who sabotaged all attempts to stop Germany in Сhezoslovakia?
- why Germany&Italy was basically allowed to tear apart the legitimate government of the Spain?
The answer to that is simple, the same idiots who restarted the Manty/Haven war, Idiot politicians (like the ones you complained about being portrayed) who, after WWI took over France and England, cut the military budget to dump the money in their own pockets, stripped those countries (and the U.S. btw) of any real military. When Germany started rearming (and interfering in Spain/Сhezoslovakia) nobody (except Russia who was complacent since they were in on it with him at the time) had any military capable of doing anything about it. I spent most of my life disparaging Chamberlin but recently found that he really had no choice. What he did do was reinvigorate/revamp the British arms industry, so when Churchill stepped in he had something to work with (still a ticks hair from being too-little-too-late).
-
Almost only counts in Horseshoes and Nuclear Weapons. I almost got the Hand-Grenade out the window does not count.
Top
Re: Straw Politicians in military fiction
Post by Dilandu   » Sat Nov 12, 2016 2:20 pm

Dilandu
Admiral

Posts: 2541
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 1:44 pm
Location: Russia

MAD-4A wrote:The answer to that is simple, the same idiots who restarted the Manty/Haven war, Idiot politicians (like the ones you complained about being portrayed) who, after WWI took over France and England, cut the military budget to dump the money in their own pockets, stripped those countries (and the U.S. btw) of any real military. When Germany started rearming (and interfering in Spain/Сhezoslovakia) nobody (except Russia who was complacent since they were in on it with him at the time) had any military capable of doing anything about it. I spent most of my life disparaging Chamberlin but recently found that he really had no choice. What he did do was reinvigorate/revamp the British arms industry, so when Churchill stepped in he had something to work with (still a ticks hair from being too-little-too-late).


Simple - but, unfortunately, only partially true)

1) France spended quite a lot of funds on the army in 1920-1930s. They have best fortifications possible, quite good tanks and artillery.

Problem is, that army itself stuck to the defensive "total mobilization" doctrine, which became, essentially, dogmatic. All criticism of the doctrine was strongly discouraged - basically that's why only in late 1930s French Army started experimenting with mobile tank forces.

So, the problem was NOT the politics, but rather the doctrinalism and purblindness of most senior officers.


2) The France and USSR, actually, have a treaty with Сzechoslovakia. Problem was, that there was Poland in between, that went hysterical about the mere idea of allowing the transit of Soviet troops.

The reason was, that Polish Army at this time was prepared to attack Czechoslovakia, because Poland wanted parts of Czechoslovakia, too. The USSR was ready to move troops against Germany - but Poland bluntly refused to allow their transit on ANY terms, and Britain supported Poland. Without any guarantees of USSR support, France alone wasn't eager to start the war with Germany, especially considering uncertain British position.

3) In 1936, Britain allowed Germany to re-arm their navy without even bothering to consult with France on that situation.
------------------------------

Oh well, if shortening the front is what the Germans crave,
Let's shorten it to very end - the length of Fuhrer's grave.

(Red Army lyrics from 1945)
Top
Re: Straw Politicians in military fiction
Post by Jonathan_S   » Sat Nov 12, 2016 7:39 pm

Jonathan_S
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 2:01 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

Dilandu wrote:
MAD-4A wrote:The answer to that is simple, the same idiots who restarted the Manty/Haven war, Idiot politicians (like the ones you complained about being portrayed) who, after WWI took over France and England, cut the military budget to dump the money in their own pockets, stripped those countries (and the U.S. btw) of any real military. When Germany started rearming (and interfering in Spain/Сhezoslovakia) nobody (except Russia who was complacent since they were in on it with him at the time) had any military capable of doing anything about it. I spent most of my life disparaging Chamberlin but recently found that he really had no choice. What he did do was reinvigorate/revamp the British arms industry, so when Churchill stepped in he had something to work with (still a ticks hair from being too-little-too-late).


Simple - but, unfortunately, only partially true)

1) France spended quite a lot of funds on the army in 1920-1930s. They have best fortifications possible, quite good tanks and artillery.

Problem is, that army itself stuck to the defensive "total mobilization" doctrine, which became, essentially, dogmatic. All criticism of the doctrine was strongly discouraged - basically that's why only in late 1930s French Army started experimenting with mobile tank forces.

So, the problem was NOT the politics, but rather the doctrinalism and purblindness of most senior officers.


2) The France and USSR, actually, have a treaty with Сzechoslovakia. Problem was, that there was Poland in between, that went hysterical about the mere idea of allowing the transit of Soviet troops.

The reason was, that Polish Army at this time was prepared to attack Czechoslovakia, because Poland wanted parts of Czechoslovakia, too. The USSR was ready to move troops against Germany - but Poland bluntly refused to allow their transit on ANY terms, and Britain supported Poland. Without any guarantees of USSR support, France alone wasn't eager to start the war with Germany, especially considering uncertain British position.

3) In 1936, Britain allowed Germany to re-arm their navy without even bothering to consult with France on that situation.

Also even before the great depression of the 30s tanked most of the world's economies Britain and France were both struggling, in their own way, to recover from the damages WWI had done to their economies.

France did a somewhat better job for a while, with the UK going for major austerity measures in an effort to restore the pound to it's prewar gold rate. Economists later said this was very misguided because it essentially withered their economy by forcing significant deflation on it at a time when they needed to rebuild after the war. This wasn't helped by the games the US played with the world gold reserves. Basically the US was swimming in gold because of all the war material they had sold, and loans they'd extended, to the Allied powers during the war.
The US financial people knew that having that much gold, in a hard currency economic environment, should have more than doubled the money supply almost overnight - leading to rapid inflation. That would suck for the US for a while, but by driving up internal prices it would let the war ravaged (and now gold poor) countries undercut US workers suddenly inflated costs and start moving money out of the US through trade imbalance.
However instead the US simply "pretended" quite a lot of the gold didn't exist. They just didn't issue the additional gold notes to match the actual supply of gold - so the US dollar, in the 20s, didn't inflate like it "should have" with that much gold on hand.

Was there skimming by the Politicians? Probably. But I don't think that was the major reason their military forces were neglected through the 20s and early 30s.
Top
Re: Straw Politicians in military fiction
Post by dscott8   » Sat Nov 12, 2016 10:03 pm

dscott8
Commodore

Posts: 791
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2010 6:17 am

There is a trope in heroic fiction in which the lone outsider with integrity shows up the whole system as a sham, and everybody winds up agreeing with the lone hero and mending their ways. The system's insiders are always portrayed as venal or clueless. If Honor Harrington were real, she'd have wound up stationed on some backwater installation as Latrine Sanitation Officer, and would never have seen a promotion.
Top

Return to Free-Range Topics...