fallsfromtrees wrote:roseandheather wrote:Correction: Manticore has been in a shooting war for twenty years and a cold war for fifty with the People's Republic of Haven. Not the Republic of Haven. This distinction is critical. The Manticoran war with the Republic was a war no one wanted and a carryover from the People's Republic. Remember, both sides wanted to stop it well before the Second War began; it was meddling by Giancola and Mesa, plus the utter disaster that was the High Ridge government, that kickstarted the resumption of hostilities. Manticore most certainly isn't sharing technological secrets with its longtime enemy, because that enemy doesn't exist anymore.
I'm not saying there won't be mistrust and suspicion on both sides; frankly, I'd be disappointed if there weren't. It's bound to happen, after the toll the war has taken on both star nations. But it's highly unlikely that Haven and Manticore will turn on each other again, for the simple reason that they only turned on each other in the first place because of Mesa and the Alignment. There are far more advantages to an alliance than there are to a shooting war, and that goes for both nations; cold-blooded cost-benefit analysis alone means that they're almost certainly going to stay allies, even if they weren't already developing a warmer relationship. The "interstellar Athens" that Haven once was - and, I believe, will be again - is a natural ally for Manticore, being a strong, stable democracy who detests the slave trade. They are good for each other in every way - economically, militarily, and diplomatically. They have no reason to turn on each other, and every reason in the world to hang together.
And one more correction: Manticore isn't setting out to break up the Solarian League because it's evil and must be destroyed. The Solarian League is already falling apart. They're accelerating a process that is going to happen anyway, and they're doing it because the Alignment is using the SLN against them and they want to make sure the MAlign can't do that any more.
Granted, I'm well known on these boards as a Havenite partisan, so you're welcome to take my analysis with a grain of salt, but I believe in Haven, I believe in Eloise Pritchart, and I believe in the Grand Alliance.
And I believe that the future of the Honorverse will bear me out.
Strong opinions indeed. Also a very cogent analysis of the situation. Historically there are precedents for what you are saying. True democracies rarely initiate a war. As an example, in the 75 year period from 1870-1945 there were three major wars between France and Germany. In the 70 years since there have been none. The major difference is that subsequent to 1945, the Allies imposed a democratic government on Germany, and stayed long enough to ensure that it got well established. Granted, the inclusion of Germany in the economic system of Europe helped immensely, as the Germans have very little incentive now to attempt to expand using military means.
Another example - in the 1840's there was an ongoing dispute between the UK and the US over the northern boundary of the US/southern boundary of Canada west of the Misissippi - one popular campaign slogan in the US was "54-40 or Fight", which would put the northern US border well up into what is not British Columbia. The UK was looking to hang onto most of what is now Oregon and Washington. Instead of going to war, a comprise was reached which set the border whee it is today.
There are many other examples, but a general rule of thumb is the autocracies tend to regard military action to defend their honor as a first course of action, democracies tend to talk first.
Tying Manticore and Haven together via trade and alliance will help to alleviate some of those hard feelings, and build the reservoir of trust that may well be required in the future. Certainly if you can make it more costly to go to war then to talk about your problems (not just for the governments, but for the merchants and citizens), then in a democracy talk will tend to get done first.
While I agree that Rose has a good analysis, I can't agree much with fallfromtrees. I do like the last paragraph though. Unfortunately, the rest of it is looking through rose-colored glasses.
Peaceful democratic governments? What gave you that idea?
The US negotiated the 1846 Oregon Treaty
while it was at war with Mexico. The government didn't want to fight two territorial wars at the same time. The 54-40 line was the southern limit of Russian Imperial Territory, which the US bought later (Alaska). If the US had made that the border, Canada (became a Nation in 1870) wouldn't have had a west coast at all.
True democracies don't instigate wars? Where did you get the drugs? First, there are no true democracies. Second, autocracy/oligarchy and such have been the government of every group since farming started; it isn't the nature of the government, it is the will of the people running it. It is wrong to criticize people in earlier societies for not sharing your values--when did they get the same education you have?
1870--Franco-Prussian War. Germany wasn't yet a nation, but a group of principalities joined in an economic relationship with Prussia (Zollverein, customs union). Most of what became the empire were the states involved in a "Confederation of the Rhine"-- a construct of the Napoleonic French Empire designed to restrict the influence on the local germans of both the Prussians and the Austrians; by 1870, Prussian economic and industrial advances were leading others into various sorts of treaties, which would eventually lead to the German Empire. What sealed the deal was the speed of victory in war with France.
Post WWII Germany--or Europe as a whole--wasn't a consequence of the US or the West imposing democracy on a defeated enemy. Peace was a result of the fact that there was NO PEACE TREATY ending WWII. And that the US and Russia did not want to fight a war. Local governments didn't go to war because there were two large occupying armies taking up a lot of the landscape--the NATO Alliance (mostly the US) and the Warsaw Pakt (Mostly the Soviets, since the DDR, Hungary, and Czechs had all attempted to revolt). Peace was a result of the Cold War, not democracy; and we certainly did instigate wars. In Asia, Africa and Latin America. We called them "prpxy wars" and "police actions" and "peacekeeping".
A bit more on the canadian border--when we bought Alaska, there was a lot of ambiguity as to what was included, and a commission was set up with reps from the UK, US, and Canada. The UK was at war in South Africa, and needed US supplies; consequently, the Canadians got hosed out of most of the good fishing grounds and livable islands.
Rob
