Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests

Do the Allies *need* to go on the offensive?

This fascinating series is a combination of historical seafaring, swashbuckling adventure, and high technological science-fiction. Join us in a discussion!
Re: Do the Allies *need* to go on the offensive?
Post by Peter2   » Thu Oct 27, 2016 7:13 am

Peter2
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 371
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2014 10:54 am

n7axw wrote:I am thinking about the rather unsatisfactory to WW I that in essence left Germany intact to fall into the clutches of Hitler and the Nazis . . .
[snip]

Don

-


So was I.

But it wasn't as simple as that. I had a very good friend in Germany years ago (now tragically passed away, and still greatly missed) who was a very good historian. I still remember listening to him one evening, over a couple of bottles of a gorgeous Frankenwein, while he laid out the historical threads that spun from a pragmatic political decision by the Emperor Otto I in the 900's and led with almost psychohistoric (thank you, Isaac Asimov!) inevitability to World War I. It was one of the most enlightening explanations I'd ever heard, and how I wished my history teachers at school had had his skills!

Briefly, and if I can remember aright, Otto's use of the Prince-Bishops created a ruling class with both civil and religious authority, and who governed lands belonging to both their families and the Church. When they died, their family lands descended to their heirs, but the Church lands reverted to the Church. Over the years, this led to an increasing fragmentation of land ownership, until it reached the point at which a guy who could legitimately call himself a Markgraf had authority over land no bigger than a couple of city blocks, and the reputation of the German aristocracy dropped through the floor.

Coupled with that was the fact that neighbours didn't always get on with each other, and there were usually a few local conflicts going on in various places. Eventually this low-level warfare led to the rise of professional soldiers to help with the fighting – the Prussians. As an aside it's enlightening to take a car trip through Southern Germany and see how many (partially) walled towns are still around.

Imagine the state of affairs when Bismarck came along. A country whose ruling class had been looked down on for centuries by the aristocracies of other countries was suddenly unified and powerful, and it had some scores to pay off. And it had a first-class army at its command with which to do it.

Apologies to those more knowledgeable if I've got it wrong, but that's pretty well what I remember of that evening.
.
Top
Re: Do the Allies *need* to go on the offensive?
Post by wkernochan   » Thu Oct 27, 2016 1:11 pm

wkernochan
Lieutenant (Junior Grade)

Posts: 44
Joined: Mon May 18, 2015 1:47 pm

Peter2 wrote:
n7axw wrote:I am thinking about the rather unsatisfactory to WW I that in essence left Germany intact to fall into the clutches of Hitler and the Nazis . . .
[snip]

Don

-


So was I.

But it wasn't as simple as that. I had a very good friend in Germany years ago (now tragically passed away, and still greatly missed) who was a very good historian. I still remember listening to him one evening, over a couple of bottles of a gorgeous Frankenwein, while he laid out the historical threads that spun from a pragmatic political decision by the Emperor Otto I in the 900's and led with almost psychohistoric (thank you, Isaac Asimov!) inevitability to World War I. It was one of the most enlightening explanations I'd ever heard, and how I wished my history teachers at school had had his skills!

Briefly, and if I can remember aright, Otto's use of the Prince-Bishops created a ruling class with both civil and religious authority, and who governed lands belonging to both their families and the Church. When they died, their family lands descended to their heirs, but the Church lands reverted to the Church. Over the years, this led to an increasing fragmentation of land ownership, until it reached the point at which a guy who could legitimately call himself a Markgraf had authority over land no bigger than a couple of city blocks, and the reputation of the German aristocracy dropped through the floor.

Coupled with that was the fact that neighbours didn't always get on with each other, and there were usually a few local conflicts going on in various places. Eventually this low-level warfare led to the rise of professional soldiers to help with the fighting – the Prussians. As an aside it's enlightening to take a car trip through Southern Germany and see how many (partially) walled towns are still around.

Imagine the state of affairs when Bismarck came along. A country whose ruling class had been looked down on for centuries by the aristocracies of other countries was suddenly unified and powerful, and it had some scores to pay off. And it had a first-class army at its command with which to do it.

Apologies to those more knowledgeable if I've got it wrong, but that's pretty well what I remember of that evening.
.


Germany was not left intact, realistically speaking, at the end of WW I. Here's an explanation that I passed by an economist who assured me it's basically correct:

In order to win the war, France and England borrowed huge sums of money from the US. When the war ended, both had two main objectives at Versailles: (1) make sure that Germany never again could make war on them, and (2) get from Germany the money to repay the US. Although they could not see this, the two objectives were not only contradictory but would make it more likely that they could not repay the US, as economist Keynes (who attended the assembly) wrote in his book The Economic Consequences of the Peace. When Wilson arrived and insisted that (1) was unacceptable, the result was a compromise that in many ways was worse: The French were given control not only of Lorraine (majority French, lost in 1870) but of Alsace (majority German), which contained the Saar, the coal mines that fueled most of German industry (btw, that's why Albert Schweitzer left Alsace for the Congo). Iirc, the control was provisional, until Germany paid off its debt in full, which France and England could pretty well guess would never happen. Meanwhile, Germany was required to pay off France's and England's debt on an unrealistically aggressive schedule.

The result was inevitable: Germany's new democratic government could come nowhere near paying off the debt, and yet France and England piled on the penalties. In desperation, the German government deliberately induced massive inflation, that essentially tried to fob off F&E with money that would become immediately worthless upon receipt. The message was received, at the price of serious suffering for the German middle classes: France and England eased their demands, and the German economy began to recover.

However, this left France and England in hock up to their eyeballs to the US. In a major display of shortsightedness, the US refused to forgive any part of the debt (President Coolidge is quoted as saying, "They hired [borrowed] the money, didn't they?"). The resulting stress on the English economy, transmitted to the US, is one of the major causes of the Great Depression.

But there was another bad decision causing the Great Depression and its bad effects on the US, France, Germany, and England: Winston Churchill (Chancellor of the Exchequer) and his insistence on adhering to the "gold standard." This required that the English currency trade at a fixed rate against the gold that nations guarded as an "international currency". This had been in effect over a long time, and became increasingly unrealistic, especially in the depressed conditions of the mid-20s.

Btw, we are accustomed -- and rightly so -- to think of Winston Churchill as a usually-right savior of Britain and the Allies, and during WW II he certainly lived up to that billing. However, any fair assessment of his performance up to the mid-1930s would conclude that he may have done GB more harm than good, including his handling of the Irish problem, Gallipoli, and his stubbornness about the gold standard, which Keynes, for one, was vociferous in denouncing. What appears to have changed him was in fact his magisterial historical writings in the early to mid 1930s, in which his research apparently changed his views on many things.

At any rate, the resulting Great Depression (exacerbated in the US by Hoover's refusal to add money to the economy even by paying the Bonus Marchers, and by Churchill's gold standard in Europe, but ameliorated in France by movement to more of a floating exchange rate) fell hardest on Germany, still crippled by loss of the Saar and in hock to some extent. The far-right nativist movements that spring up in such circumstances were therefore greatest in Germany, giving Hitler the opportunity to win nearly 40% of the vote in the election (but by no means a majority of the Parliament) and then pressure Hindenburg via his fervent-Nazi daughter to give Hitler the leadership role in the Weimar Republic.

Hitler then immediately embarked on a massive program of make-work jobs that also served the purpose of indoctrination. This would have failed (indications are that Germany was at one point within weeks of going bankrupt) except for one of the great ironies of history: right at that point the European Great Depression began to lift and French and English companies began to have money to invest in Germany, which in turn led to Hitler being able to pay his debts -- and you know the rest.
Top
Re: Do the Allies *need* to go on the offensive?
Post by n7axw   » Thu Oct 27, 2016 5:05 pm

n7axw
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5997
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 8:54 pm
Location: Viborg, SD

PeterZ wrote:Like WWI the jihad will leave several key issues unresolved. The Proscriptions and the Truth being the most important. No amount of military supremacy will persuade Safehold that their history is false. Unless that history is discredited, there will always be a significant segment of the population that will view technology as the devil's work. That segment will likely be a majority of Safehold at first and may never stop being a majority.

If loyalists remain a majority or large plurality, Safehold will always remain divided. I wonder if the Inner Circle will decide to wait for the return in order to discredit the Command staff and the false history of Safehold? Yes, that is risky. However, if the Inner Circle succeeds, defeating the Gbaba becomes easier. Not easy but easier.


I would agree that military supremacy will not persuade Safehold that its history is false. However, it will shake their assumptions that the COGA has been properly representing God. After all, if God had been on the jihad's side, Charis would not have won. Also as the horror of what happened in Siddarmark sinks in and the lies the church has told become exposed, the credibility of the COGA is going to take a real hit as it becomes glaringly apparent that there is a real difference between God and the COGA.

Don

-
When any group seeks political power in God's name, both religion and politics are instantly corrupted.
Top
Re: Do the Allies *need* to go on the offensive?
Post by Keith_w   » Thu Oct 27, 2016 5:21 pm

Keith_w
Commodore

Posts: 976
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 12:10 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

wkernochan wrote:
Btw, we are accustomed -- and rightly so -- to think of Winston Churchill as a usually-right savior of Britain and the Allies, and during WW II he certainly lived up to that billing. However, any fair assessment of his performance up to the mid-1930s would conclude that he may have done GB more harm than good, including his handling of the Irish problem, Gallipoli, and his stubbornness about the gold standard, which Keynes, for one, was vociferous in denouncing. What appears to have changed him was in fact his magisterial historical writings in the early to mid 1930s, in which his research apparently changed his views on many things.



Thus demonstrating that people who actually take a deeper look at things rather that relying on their beliefs or what they heard from someone else can actually improve themselves and lead useful lives. At least until the public decides they don't want you around anymore.
--
A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.
Top
Re: Do the Allies *need* to go on the offensive?
Post by PeterZ   » Thu Oct 27, 2016 5:25 pm

PeterZ
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 6432
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 1:11 pm
Location: Colorado

n7axw wrote:
I would agree that military supremacy will not persuade Safehold that its history is false. However, it will shake their assumptions that the COGA has been properly representing God. After all, if God had been on the jihad's side, Charis would not have won. Also as the horror of what happened in Siddarmark sinks in and the lies the church has told become exposed, the credibility of the COGA is going to take a real hit as it becomes glaringly apparent that there is a real difference between God and the COGA.

Don

-

That's a given, Don.

What isn't a given is that totally agreeing that the people in charge of the CoGA effed up badly means accepting their history was false. There is indeed a difference between God and man and God asked for the CoGA to apply the Proscriptions in accordance to His will. They failed and a new hierarchy needs to run God's church and facilitate His plan for Safehold as the Writ says.

I believe that arguments accepting a schismatic church will be accepted as a means of keeping the CoGA hierarchy honest. I do not believe that even reformists will accept the elimination of the Proscriptions. That will only happen if the creation myth of Safehold is discredited. Maybe a significant number of people will conclude that Creation did not happen as the Writ states. That number will likely never be a large majority.

So again we return to how the Command Crew will be discredited or at least the plans the Inner Circle are making to accomplish this goal. One thing they need to consider is how to take advantage of The Return.
Top
Re: Do the Allies *need* to go on the offensive?
Post by n7axw   » Thu Oct 27, 2016 11:06 pm

n7axw
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5997
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 8:54 pm
Location: Viborg, SD

PeterZ wrote:
n7axw wrote:
I would agree that military supremacy will not persuade Safehold that its history is false. However, it will shake their assumptions that the COGA has been properly representing God. After all, if God had been on the jihad's side, Charis would not have won. Also as the horror of what happened in Siddarmark sinks in and the lies the church has told become exposed, the credibility of the COGA is going to take a real hit as it becomes glaringly apparent that there is a real difference between God and the COGA.

Don

-

That's a given, Don.

What isn't a given is that totally agreeing that the people in charge of the CoGA effed up badly means accepting their history was false. There is indeed a difference between God and man and God asked for the CoGA to apply the Proscriptions in accordance to His will. They failed and a new hierarchy needs to run God's church and facilitate His plan for Safehold as the Writ says.

I believe that arguments accepting a schismatic church will be accepted as a means of keeping the CoGA hierarchy honest. I do not believe that even reformists will accept the elimination of the Proscriptions. That will only happen if the creation myth of Safehold is discredited. Maybe a significant number of people will conclude that Creation did not happen as the Writ states. That number will likely never be a large majority.

So again we return to how the Command Crew will be discredited or at least the plans the Inner Circle are making to accomplish this goal. One thing they need to consider is how to take advantage of The Return.


It was always going to be true that this was going to have to be a step by step process. Taking away the power of the inquisition and discrediting the COGA as God's representative is only step one. I have a fuzzy memory that RFC said that the next war will be over the proscriptions. The COGA will remain around for a long time as a form of fundamentalism in what will increasingly become an age of science.

Don

-
When any group seeks political power in God's name, both religion and politics are instantly corrupted.
Top
Re: Do the Allies *need* to go on the offensive?
Post by PeterZ   » Fri Oct 28, 2016 12:08 am

PeterZ
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 6432
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 1:11 pm
Location: Colorado

The Scientific Method is impossible under the current understanding of physics. The belief that the archangels cause all observable phenomena through the expression of their will is inconsistent with a system used to explain constant and universal physical laws. If water boils because an archangel wills it, it is more productive to understand the mind of that being than to test the impact of changes in the environment to how water boils. It is the mind of the archangel that changes when water boils after all not the changing conditions. So water may boil at a certain temperature in Telesberg, but tomorrow it may not should the archangel change his/her mind.

Science on Safehold will run into that over and over. Safehold isn't a clock created by God to run without constant input behaving in a predictable way. No it is the expression of divine thought to most Safeholdians. That has to change as well as the Proscriptions need to be removed. Yes, the next war will be fought over the Proscriptions. I do not believe it can be won without discrediting the Command Crew. So will the Inner Circle plan to confront the Sleepers? How? I eagerly await answers.
Top
Re: Do the Allies *need* to go on the offensive?
Post by Weird Harold   » Fri Oct 28, 2016 12:49 am

Weird Harold
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4478
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 10:25 pm
Location: "Lost Wages", NV

n7axw wrote:It was always going to be true that this was going to have to be a step by step process. Taking away the power of the inquisition and discrediting the COGA as God's representative is only step one. I have a fuzzy memory that RFC said that the next war will be over the proscriptions. The COGA will remain around for a long time as a form of fundamentalism in what will increasingly become an age of science.

Don

-


As long as the Orbital Bombardment System is neutralized, and the Inquisition is castrated, the Proscriptions are meaningless in any real and enforceable way. Charis can go its own way and teach heretical things like the scientific method and free-wheeling innovation. The rest of Safehold will have to "adapt or die."

If the next series is indeed a war over the Proscriptions (and COGA version of the Writ) it will be the "Luddites" losing jobs to "The Charisian Industrial Revolution" hiding behind religion to force an economic war.
.
.
.
Answers! I got lots of answers!

(Now if I could just find the right questions.)
Top
Re: Do the Allies *need* to go on the offensive?
Post by cralkhi   » Fri Oct 28, 2016 2:09 am

cralkhi
Captain of the List

Posts: 420
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 10:27 am

Weird Harold wrote:As long as the Orbital Bombardment System is neutralized, and the Inquisition is castrated, the Proscriptions are meaningless in any real and enforceable way. Charis can go its own way and teach heretical things like the scientific method and free-wheeling innovation. The rest of Safehold will have to "adapt or die."


It's not necessarily that simple - the people believe in the Proscriptions. In Old Charis, and maybe Chisholm etc. that could be weakened over time, but it would take a lot of time.

Cayleb and Sharleyan & the Inner Circle can't do anything that would turn their populace against them.

EDIT:
n7axw wrote: Also as the horror of what happened in Siddarmark sinks in and the lies the church has told become exposed, the credibility of the COGA is going to take a real hit as it becomes glaringly apparent that there is a real difference between God and the COGA.



In Charis, Chisholm, Corisande, Siddarmark sure. Elsewhere... I'm not so sure. Not all cultures automatically recoil from cruelty and brutality - consider Aztec human sacrifice or the Roman gladiatorial games - and the Punishment of Schueler is in their Holy Writ.
Top
Re: Do the Allies *need* to go on the offensive?
Post by Weird Harold   » Fri Oct 28, 2016 4:23 am

Weird Harold
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4478
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 10:25 pm
Location: "Lost Wages", NV

cralkhi wrote:
Weird Harold wrote:As long as the Orbital Bombardment System is neutralized, and the Inquisition is castrated, the Proscriptions are meaningless in any real and enforceable way.


It's not necessarily that simple - the people believe in the Proscriptions. In Old Charis, and maybe Chisholm etc. that could be weakened over time, but it would take a lot of time.

Cayleb and Sharleyan & the Inner Circle can't do anything that would turn their populace against them.


I don't think it will take as long as you think. Rumor has it that the next series/war is going to be twenty years or so after the end of this war. That's an entire generation of new blood that will have learned the scientific method and been primed for innovation.

There will still be a lot of Temple Loyalists and their children indoctrinated with Temple Loyalist devotion to the Writ, but not nearly enough to sway popular opinion in Charis and Chisholm. The benefits of steam power and other Proscription stretching technologies is going to go a long way to raising the standard of living in the whole Charisian Empire -- especially as compared to other countries that adhere closer to the Writ.

Those other countries are going to suffer in comparison the the CE and lose economically either because they ban imports of Charisian (machine made) goods or because they can't compete with Charisian goods. That's going to be the root cause of the next war no matter how much they couch it in religious terms.
.
.
.
Answers! I got lots of answers!

(Now if I could just find the right questions.)
Top

Return to Safehold