My Tolwyn Essay

[Raptor]

Originally posted by LeHah
How many people are you willing to sacrafice? One? Two? A dozen? Lives will be lost, Raptor, and if you can't take that, then I think you should tell us now and be done with it.

The whole idea is to sacrifice as *few* as possible. You don't wipe out the bulk of humanity now in the hope that it will give you fewer losses later, anymore than a surgeon chops of a leg because you've got gangrene in your little toe, or performs a radical double mastectomy when a lumpectomy will do. We rejected Tolwyn's madness and still won, with far fewer losses than we would have taken under him.

(I'd also like to point out that if it wasn't for Tolwyn, we wouldn't be around to fight the Nephilim, now would we? Plus we don't know what happened to the rest of the GE soldiers from his skunk projects. I imagine they were used in a more covert fashion during SO.)

Tolwyn was a soldier who did his job during the war, and did it well. That makes him no differant from all the other heroes Confed produced during the war, from Blair on down. It does *not* give him the right to select who lives and who dies afterwards, anymore than a docotor or firefighter does. And, yeah, I'm sure that the Black Lancce were were the ones who secretly saved the day, because of course we sub-humans aren't capable of helping ourselves.

Best, Raptor

 

[Penguin]

Probably what Im going to say has already been discussed before. But I think that perhaps Tolwyn's actions would not be all in vain if we can learn one thing.

Tolwyn was in the Kilrathi war since the very beginning. That's like 4 decades of action. No matter how long one would live, 40 years is a big chunk of one's life, perhaps too big to be dedicated to any one profession. And therein lies the problem. He spent so much time fighting, that he forgot how to live. The same thing happened to Blair. After the war he became an alcoholic, a virtual recluse and his relationship with Rachel failed, because of him. Who knows what would've happened to Blair if he'd never been called back into the service.

Therefore I think there comes a time when a person's got to be put out to pasture. It'd be nice to think one could pilot fighters or ride carriers forever, but that's not realistic. There has to be a limit to how much Confed can demand of a person. Yes, right to the end, Tolwyn served Confed well. Heck Confed might not have survived without him. But Confed was almost destroyed by him as well. For it is well known that we sow what we reap and in this case Confed made so much use out of Tolwyn that service to Confed became his sole purpose for existence. He ceased to be a human but became an appendage of Confed. Therefore in his eyes his survival became inextricably intertwined with Confed's survival. Any price was well worth paying to ensure Confed's survival because Confed was the last thing remaining that had any real meaning to him.

What did this mean? Tolwyn had lost so much of his humanity that not only did the slaughter of the innocent become acceptable in his eyes, but he justified it by making Confed's survival dependent on it. Consequently he was making Confed into an image of himself, a giant monolith that had existence, but not life. Something that enslaved humanity, not served it.

In sum I think the lesson to be learned is that we can't demand the world from someone. You can only contribute so much before ultimately you end up hurting those you really love because you've lost sight of what really mattered. Therefore in this case military personnel ought to be discharged before the military becomes all they got. Because there's got to be more to life than just fighting, otherwise what's the point in trying to survive?

My 2 cents.

 

[LeHah]

Originally posted by Raptor
The whole idea is to sacrifice as *few* as possible.

Don't be silly. The idea is to win. Dirty fighting can equal a quick victory and thats what counts.

You don't wipe out the bulk of humanity now in the hope that it will give you fewer losses later, anymore than a surgeon chops of a leg because you've got gangrene in your little toe, or performs a radical double mastectomy when a lumpectomy will do.

A doctor you (and I) are not. My grandfather had a wound in his foot that refused to heal for 2 months, so they removed his left leg from the knee on down.

We rejected Tolwyn's madness and still won, with far fewer losses than we would have taken under him.

A good and fair assumption, but it's still an assumption.

Tolwyn was a soldier who did his job during the war, and did it well. That makes him no differant from all the other heroes Confed produced during the war, from Blair on down.

Yes and no. Tolwyn was just a solider in some ways but he also was Confleet's "Finest fighting admiral" during a 30 year war. That's definitely saying something too.

It does *not* give him the right to select who lives and who dies afterwards, anymore than a docotor or firefighter does.

An unfair comparison. You forget that the Fire Marshall sends men into fires well knowing they could die and sometimes even sending them in knowing they will die. You forget that even Tolwyn cried for the sacrafices made but in the end, he would've been victorious none-the-less. I think that you just don't like the ugly thought that people have the gall to order other people to their deaths altogether. After all this talking, I assume you're one of the people that hates Douglas MacArthur?

And, yeah, I'm sure that the Black Lancce were were the ones who secretly saved the day, because of course we sub-humans aren't capable of helping ourselves.

I didn't say to that extreme. Meerly that they were probably used for covert operations. Humans are repeatedly incapable of helping ourselves. If we could, would there still be war? ("Sterile conjecture", as Sanski would put it.)

 

[Nemesis]

Originally posted by Bob McDob
He could abide anything, except knowing he had killed his race. He deserved the same punishment his miscalculation would visit on them.

- The Price of Freedom

Raptor’s point about the tense of “would visit” is a good one.

But in addition we should ask what this “miscalculation” was that Tolwyn refers to. It was not his realization “that the entire race need not be brought up to genetic standard”. I don’t read that statement as a moral or ideological insight (as I think Bob does), but only as a practical implication of the actual miscalculation stated just before it: “He had pushed The Plan too quickly, he saw that now. He should have waited, bided his time.” (Emphases added.) Tolwyn further drives the point home by noting that for the populace as a whole to remain “the dregs” while “the fighting elite” was to come from GE stock “wasn’t an ideal solution, of course, but it was workable.”

No, he never stopped believing in the essential "rightness" of The Plan; he never retracted his last exchange with Blair: “The end has to justify the means.”

But at least it was a noble end he was trying to achieve, the same one he had always striven for.

 

[LeHah]

I do like your thoughts, Nem.

 

[Raptor]

Originally posted by LeHah
Don't be silly. The idea is to win. Dirty fighting can equal a quick victory and thats what counts.

So it would have been better if we had beaten the Nephilim in half the time, but killed billions of our own beforehand to get to that point? And how is it fighting dirty to kill most of us before the enemy has a chance to do it? That's fighting stupid, maybe, but hardly fighting dirty. I know that if had to go war with someone, I would much prefer that he had exterminated most of his pople before we even had to fire a shot.

A doctor you (and I) are not. My grandfather had a wound in his foot that refused to heal for 2 months, so they removed his left leg from the knee on down.

A doctor I might not be, but I spent the past seven odd years studying and working with them, so I have a fair idea how they think. No doctor in his right mind performs unncessary surgury that impairs his patient more than is needed. (First, do no harm, remember?) And he certainly doesn't do it without that patient's consent. Any doctor who did that would not only loose his license but find himself on criminal charges.

That's what gets me about Tolwyn. He decided that all the people on Telamon, on the ships his forces destroyed, on the planets he was planning to use the Gen-Select, all deserved to die on no authority but his own. He was acting outside the laws of the Confederation, using weapons it had banned, without a mandate from its people or its government. He decided that people should die simply because he thought it was right, and he had the power to kill them. That makes him no differant from Hitler or Mao or Pol Pott, who all slaughtered people because they thought it was right, and the ends justified the means.

A good and fair assumption, but it's still an assumption.

No, just simple mathematics. The widespread use of the Gen-Select, which Tolwyn had ordered his forces to carry out, would have killed billions. (That's even accepting your argument that the people of Telamomn were the genetic dregs of the galaxy. When you really think about it, I guess the people of Telamon should really apologise to Tolwyn for dying in such huge numbers, and needlessly blackening the name of his great plan, shouldn't they?) And that's even counting the casualties we would take from the *Nephilim*, who must have been killing themselves laughing as they wtached us save them trouble of killing us.

Yes and no. Tolwyn was just a solider in some ways but he also was Confleet's "Finest fighting admiral" during a 30 year war. That's definitely saying something too.

And as an Admiral, he was a good one. If he had been content to stay in the role that he was placed in by a democratic society, his story would have had a much happier ending. But since he decided he was so great and wise that he could decide what was good for humanity (without consulting the rest of humanity how they felt about it) he went from being a soldier to being a murderer and a traitor.

An unfair comparison. You forget that the Fire Marshall sends men into fires well knowing they could die and sometimes even sending them in knowing they will die.

But those are men who have volunteered to serve, knowing the risks, and Fire Marshalls who have been given that responsibility by the people they protect. The people Tolwyn killed in WC4 never volunteered for anything but the chance to live their lives, and Tolwyn hadn't been given the authority to decide who should be murdered by his forces or which part of humanity deserved to live. That's why he was convicted of crimes against humanity.

You forget that even Tolwyn cried for the sacrafices made but in the end, he would've been victorious none-the-less. I think that you just don't like the ugly thought that people have the gall to order other people to their deaths altogether.

And I'm sure that Tolwyn's tears would have been a great comfort to the familes of those who died on Telamon and elsewhere. And for the record, I don't like the ugly thought that people would have the gall to plot the death of billions of people based on their ideas of master race or some great ideal. I know it happens because we've seen it before (Hitler's Final Solution, Mao's Great Leap Forward, Pol Pot's Year Zero) but no, I don't like it.

After all this talking, I assume you're one of the people that hates Douglas MacArthur?

No, just one of those people who hates fascistic mass murderers.

I didn't say to that extreme. Meerly that they were probably used for covert operations. Humans are repeatedly incapable of helping ourselves. If we could, would there still be war? ("Sterile conjecture", as Sanski would put it.)

So you're saying the Black Lance are something other than human? Much as I dislike them, even I wouldn't go that far.

Best, Raptor

 

[Saturnyne]

As someone who has not read the novels, I have a limited scope as to what Tolwyn was thinking in terms of his plan to play God and evolve humanity to his specifications.

As such, the only motives I get for his actions are through his appearances, dialogue and behavior that I've seen in WCIV.

From what I get, Tolwyn did want to make Humanity strong and ready to face the next threat that might oppose it. Though, I find that this makes something of a paradox, because he tells the Black Lance that humanity will survive, even if they have to weed out some "choice elements". To me, that implies that Tolwyn intended to make sure humanity was the strongest species in the universe, and yet wanted to thin it out extremely at the same time. This extreme thinning would occur because he did plan to put his bio-tech weapon to use and get rid of the 'genetically inferior' people of the human race.

Seeing others' arguments, yes Tolwyn's intentions were noble. Wanting to ensure the survival of his race, after having seen it face extinction many times during the Kilrathi war seems like a natural reaction to me. But the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and Tolwyn's method was flawed. You can't just take people - people with brothers, sisters, lives, jobs - and wipe them out for your own means. Even in our day and age, society frowns upon genocide, and I find it hard to believe that genocide on the scale that Tolwyn was willing to press it to could ever be justified or accepted.

We're human beings, we're not weeds. We deserve to live. That is why, in my opinion, he did not get what he wanted.

So in conclusion... yes, I admire his motives. I despise his methods.

 

[Nemesis]

That makes him no differant from Hitler or Mao or Pol Pott . . .

While I too (and, really, who doesn’t) condemn Tolwyn’s actions or his “means”, I think that to then analogize him to Hitler and the like only stifles rather than stimulates understanding of his character. I mean, labeling someone a “Hitler” is just an oversimplification unless you’re really prepared to compare specific motivations and actions. And on that score, Tolwyn is a lot closer to Hamlet than he is to Hitler.

 

[LeHah]

Originally posted by Raptor
So it would have been better if we had beaten the Nephilim in half the time, but killed billions of our own beforehand to get to that point?

Smash the enemy into submissive standpoint using all facilites available to prevent them from coming back is what war is about. We tried the half-assed deal after WWI and what did we get? WWII!


That's what gets me about Tolwyn. He decided that all the people on Telamon, on the ships his forces destroyed, on the planets he was planning to use the Gen-Select, all deserved to die on no authority but his own. He was acting outside the laws of the Confederation, using weapons it had banned, without a mandate from its people or its government. He decided that people should die simply because he thought it was right, and he had the power to kill them. That makes him no differant from Hitler or Mao or Pol Pott, who all slaughtered people because they thought it was right, and the ends justified the means.

No, just simple mathematics. The widespread use of the Gen-Select, which Tolwyn had ordered his forces to carry out, would have killed billions. And that's even counting the casualties we would take from the *Nephilim*, who must have been killing themselves laughing as they wtached us save them trouble of killing us.

Again, conjecture. Personally I think the death toll could have easily been 30 or 40 billion lives under Tolwyn's plan but considering it was Tolwyn and that even Tolwyn felt pity for what he was doing meant that even he might've tried keeping deaths to a minimum.

And, to go astray for a second, the Nephs were pretty powerful, I'll grant you that but their invasion strategy was seriously flawed. Artifical jump points? Close the jump point and you cut them off (Admittedly, they could make more, but I'm sure ConFleet could whip up some type of alarm system based around "possible" anomalies suddenly becoming active). I think if Tolwyn was still around, he'd have wiped the floor with them in one, quick stroke!

And as an Admiral, he was a good one. If he had been content to stay in the role that he was placed in by a democratic society, his story would have had a much happier ending. But since he decided he was so great and wise that he could decide what was good for humanity (without consulting the rest of humanity how they felt about it) he went from being a soldier to being a murderer and a traitor.

I agree with you here until the last part. He didn't decide he was great and wise, just thought he found nessessity in changing the genes and strengths of humanity. He went from a soldier to an overzealous patriot if anything. Even Patton punched shell-shocked soldiers.

But those are men who have volunteered to serve, knowing the risks, and Fire Marshalls who have been given that responsibility by the people they protect. The people Tolwyn killed in WC4 never volunteered for anything but the chance to live their lives, and Tolwyn hadn't been given the authority to decide who should be murdered by his forces or which part of humanity deserved to live. That's why he was convicted of crimes against humanity.

Anyone doing Frontier work is probably aware of the possibility of Pirates, Raiders, Kilrathi dissanants or an unknown species coming down from the sky and blowing their facilities to hell.

Tolwyn does have the ability to decide who should be murdered and not. This is a war-driven man we're talking about. He's asked hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, to their deaths! Remember the threat he gives Arestee in "Pilgrim Stars"? I'm wondering why you never brought that up yet, considering it's FAR worse since it's a much simpler version of genocide.

(I'll continue to comment on this thread when I get home from work, so this'll have to do until then)

 

[Battler Hawke]

Originally posted by Nemesis


While I too (and, really, who doesn’t) condemn Tolwyn’s actions or his “means”, I think that to then analogize him to Hitler and the like only stifles rather than stimulates understanding of his character. I mean, labeling someone a “Hitler” is just an oversimplification unless you’re really prepared to compare specific motivations and actions. And on that score, Tolwyn is a lot closer to Hamlet than he is to Hitler.

the base differnce betten hitler and the rest is that hitler used modern metheds to kill(around them up in camps to kill them all). The rest used the old ways( go in to town kill a fill and scare the rest out of town). I do not like ether methed.

 

[Raptor]

Originally posted by LeHah


Smash the enemy into submissive standpoint using all facilites available to prevent them from coming back is what war is about. We tried the half-assed deal after WWI and what did we get? WWII!

We got World War II because of the harshness of Versailles, the sharemarket crash of '29 and the depression that followed, the rise in the support of the Nazis from those factors, the weakness of the League of Nations, the remembered horrors of WW1 that lead the Allies towards appeasment rather than confrontation, and a whole lot of other things besides. It's a lot more complicated than going "half assed" or "fully assed". That's not even condidering the fact that two of our enemies in WWII (Italy and Japan) were our allies in WW1, so it would have been a little hard to go fully assed on them.

Besides, we're not talking about the enemy here, but our own people, fellow human beings, citizens of the Confederation. It's one thing to be ruthless towards the enemy, another to buther your own in cold blood. One is war, and the other is murder.

Again, conjecture. Personally I think the death toll could have easily been 30 or 40 billion lives under Tolwyn's plan but considering it was Tolwyn and that even Tolwyn felt pity for what he was doing meant that even he might've tried keeping deaths to a minimum.

And how exactly, is the 30 or 40 billion that we would have lost under Tolwyn's Plan better than the few million we lost in WC and SO? And as I said before, that's not even counting the level of casulaties we would take from the *Nephilim* after we had gone with Tolwyn's plan and saved the Nephilim the trouble of killing billions of us.

And, to go astray for a second, the Nephs were pretty powerful, I'll grant you that but their invasion strategy was seriously flawed. Artifical jump points? Close the jump point and you cut them off (Admittedly, they could make more, but I'm sure ConFleet could whip up some type of alarm system based around "possible" anomalies suddenly becoming active). I think if Tolwyn was still around, he'd have wiped the floor with them in one, quick stroke!

As opposed to the way we wiped out two invasion fleets and cut off their jump points in WC and SO? And the way we've mapped the possible anomolies at the end of SO through which the Nephilim could invade? We seem to be doing pretty darn well without Tolwyn.

And while we're talking about conjecture, let's talka about your assumption that we would automatically do better under Tolwyn. in WC, Confed is united, standing shoulder to shoulder to the Border Worlders and the Kilrathi, and our population unharmed by the Gen-Slect. Would those outweigh the advantages of a population geared towards war, but much smaller, with no allies, and the Kilrathi and Border Worlders as restless subjects or active enemies? Given the the rather pathetic performance of the Master Race against much weaker enemies in WC4, it seems to me that you shouldn't be throwing stones about conjecture.

I agree with you here until the last part. He didn't decide he was great and wise, just thought he found nessessity in changing the genes and strengths of humanity. He went from a soldier to an overzealous patriot if anything. Even Patton punched shell-shocked soldiers.

There's something of a differance between punching a man out and turning both him and his family into slimy goo. And as I said before, it would be very hard to make patriotism equate with subverting your government, slaughtering its people, and destroying all the values of peace and freedom that Confed is meant to stand for.

Anyone doing Frontier work is probably aware of the possibility of Pirates, Raiders, Kilrathi dissanants or an unknown species coming down from the sky and blowing their facilities to hell.

As anyone who lives in a big city would be aware of the risk of rapes, serial killers, car accidents and so on. That doesn't justify dropping a bio-weapon on them. If there's one group that the colonists had to the right to expect that wouldn't massacre them, it's the Confed military, who according to their own oath "As I light the fire of peace, I will hold life sacred, for it is my duty to rise against evil." What Tolwyn did was a betrayal of everything Confleet and the Confederation itself stands for.

Tolwyn does have the ability to decide who should be murdered and not. This is a war-driven man we're talking about. He's asked hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, to their deaths!

And in all those cases, he was a soldier operating in a chain under, under his lawfully elected government. That's the way it's mean to be in a democracy. (And just as well, because Tolwyn isn't infallible. He thought Grecko's plan to board the Hakagas was insane and would never work, and he didn't do that well taking out a rag-tag bunch of Border Worlders flying ships that were decades out of date.) In WC4, he was acting on no authority but his own, substituting his own judgement for the rest of humanity.

Remember the threat he gives Arestee in "Pilgrim Stars"? I'm wondering why you never brought that up yet, considering it's FAR worse since it's a much simpler version of genocide.

I didn't for the simple reason it slipped my mind, by I thank you for bringing that to my attention. The fact that Tolwyn was prepared to wipe out an entire people en masse for the actions of a few rebels shows that his judgement is far from perfect.

(I'll continue to comment on this thread when I get home from work, so this'll have to do until then)

No problem. I know how it it is, juggling work and real life with WC. Luckily though, I just finished the last of my internship exams, so I have more time to do the really important things.

While I too (and, really, who doesn’t) condemn Tolwyn’s actions or his “means”, I think that to then analogize him to Hitler and the like only stifles rather than stimulates understanding of his character. I mean, labeling someone a “Hitler” is just an oversimplification unless you’re really prepared to compare specific motivations and actions. And on that score, Tolwyn is a lot closer to Hamlet than he is to Hitler.

If Tolwyn was really like Hamlet, he would have spent all of WC4 talking to himself, procrastinating endlessly, and never getting anything done. I see Tolwyn as the opposite of Hamlet in many ways. Tolwyn's downfall was that he backed his decisons over choices made by the rest of humanity, and commited an unforgivable and irreversible act. Hamlet's downfall, OTH, was that he was so indecisve that he could never act, even against the clear and present danger posed by his step-father.

As for the validity of analogy, I agree that any analogy (by definition, as anology compares one thing in terms of another) is never 100 percent accurate. However, when there are disturbing similarities between one case and another (such as being prepared to carry out large scale genocide to create a Master Race) then it's valid technique.

Best, Raptor

 

[Thymerlord]

Let us not forget if he was more like Hamlet he would have spent some time talking to a skull. And no matter what the outcome of Tolwyn's plan, Raptor is correct there is a large diferrence in punching one shell-shocked shoulder and turning most of a planet into mushey,goo. And going against your oath is an act that is highly despicable and shows the man he had become, it's kind of like killing your neighbor because you don't like his hair color. And times of great stress(not just combat) usually bring out the best in people so I don't think the "Master race" would have done that well, after all Seether is supposed to be their best and look how easy he dies, by the time he finished running his mouth the bugs would have toasted him.

 

[Saturnyne]

Originally posted by Raptor
If Tolwyn was really like Hamlet, he would have spent all of WC4 talking to himself, procrastinating endlessly, and never getting anything done. I see Tolwyn as the opposite of Hamlet in many ways. Tolwyn's downfall was that he backed his decisons over choices made by the rest of humanity, and commited an unforgivable and irreversible act. Hamlet's downfall, OTH, was that he was so indecisve that he could never act, even against the clear and present danger posed by his step-father.

I must argue this and say that Hamlet was VERY decisive in that play... when his father's ghost appears before him in the opening and tells him who murdered him, Hamlet decides right away that he's going to take revenge, and how he's going to go about it. He then bears the responsibilities of that decision. The backfire in Hamlet's case was that he was suspicious that his stepfather might use Ophelia against him, and in trying to get her to escape to someplace safe, she mistook his intentions and killed herself.

I have to say... Tolwyn is nothing like Hamlet. Tolwyn just decided he was right and went from there.

 

[Nemesis]

If Tolwyn was really like Hamlet, he would have spent all of WC4 talking to himself . . .

You mean like in False Colors?

. . . procrastinating endlessly, and never getting anything done.

You nicked a point there. But just what was Hamlet’s underlying problem? (It’s coming up.)

I see Tolwyn as the opposite of Hamlet in many ways.

I would not describe barely one as “many”.

Tolwyn's downfall was that he backed his decisons over choices made by the rest of humanity. . .

You just condemned democracy and pluralism. (Let’s hold those reins a bit tighter, shall we?)

. . . and commited an unforgivable and irreversible act.

Yes, the killing of Polonius . . . no, wait, you were talking about Tolwyn right?

Hamlet's downfall, OTH, was that he was so indecisve that he could never act, even against the clear and present danger posed by his step-father.

But what was the cause of that so-called indecisiveness? Hamlet was informed by the ghost of his father and invoked to avenge his murder. The goal was noble, to be sure. But Hamlet’s only recourse under the circumstances was to kill a king in turn and commit what others had to see as outright murder. In short, he would be achieving an honorable end by ignominious means. And he had to wonder about taking the word of a ghost besides, especially given his own prejudices against his uncle. At one point, he questions, “Is this my own ambition, my own vanity . . .”

No, wait, I’m doing it again. That’s Tolwyn in False Colors, the part where he’s mulling over how he was informed by the thoughts of a dead philosopher and thereby came to understand that the only way he could fulfill his oath and duty to protect and save humanity was to . . . well, you know the rest.

The theme’s the thing. The tussles with truth, duty, morality. And all the angst. You do Tolwyn an injustice to overlook his angst.

As for the validity of analogy, I agree that any analogy (by definition, as anology compares one thing in terms of another) is never 100 percent accurate. However, when there are disturbing similarities between one case and another. . .

But you keep pointing to just one similarity, and a trivial one at that. (Mind, I did not say a trivial fact, but a trivial similarity.)

. . . such as being prepared to carry out large scale genocide to create a Master Race . . .

True, as far as it goes. But Tolwyn’s sights seemed genuinely fixed on the less ambitious goal of ensuring survival rather than seeking domination. And so even the one similarity you claim to find between Tolwyn and Hitler rings hollow.

Regardless, my main criticism is that the analogy is self-defeating. We don’t need it to tell us that Tolwyn is responsible for genocide and mass murder and that we should feel moral outrage over the fact. Its only effect then, given how often Hitler has himself been analogized to the devil incarnate, is to discourage any further thought about why Tolwyn acted as he did and how we can best take account of his triumphs and failures and make sense of his life.

Let us not forget if he was more like Hamlet he would have spent some time talking to a skull.

Without question, he wondered over many.

 

[Raptor]

Fine, Nemesis, I concede that one point, there are similarities between Hamlet and Tolwyn. What I don't agree with though, is that either his angst or his intentions in any way mitigate what he did, and what he planned to do. It's not any comfort to the familes of those he slaughtered to know that the it was for some noble ideal (at least in his own mind, seeing how humanity seems to survived perfectly well after rejecting the solution he offered) or that he was angst ridden about it. The means used are just as important as the end goals, and that's something that's far too often overlooked. Genocide committed for a "good" reason is still genocide.

PS: I won't keep refering to Tolwyn as Hitler anymore. I'll call him that genocidal mass murdering maniac from WC4.

Best, Raptor

 

[LeHah]

Hamlet? I see more of MacBeth than Hamlet.

 

[Nemesis]

What I don't agree with though, is that either his angst or his intentions in any way mitigate what he did, and what he planned to do.

I never said anything about mitigation. We’re nowhere near being able to take up that “tall order”. We’re still struggling with just understanding. It’s the same problem Schwarzmont notes in the foreword of his novel: “In the eight years since the ending of the Kilrathi War . . . [t]o even attempt to discuss him in a balanced manner is now all but impossible . . .”

But it’s important to try (which we’ve been doing). And in that regard I think I understand why you wanted to make an analogy to Hitler. You feel (and you’re clearly not alone) that there is “something” that is profoundly disturbing about Tolwyn. Something that the term “genocidal mass murdering maniac” just doesn’t capture either. But in rereading your earlier posts I think you did capture it (though you were making a general comment)
. . .

[A]s I said before, it would be very hard to make patriotism equate with subverting your government, slaughtering its people, and destroying all the values of peace and freedom that Confed is meant to stand for.

The thing is, despite its hardness, Tolwyn succeeded; he somehow made that transition.

That’s what’s so disturbing about him and what is really at stake (or purely fascinating) about his story. And so it begs for a full explanation, a complete understanding that–the “Schwarzmonts” and the many others in the WC universe can only hope–will carry with it some degree of inoculative power to prevent the same thing happening to anyone else put in charge of the Confederation or its military.

Again, we’ve been trying to attain that understanding and I hope that continues. (It’s not an unhealthy pastime in the context of our own reality after all.) But to simply conclude that Tolwyn must have “decided” he was right, or to rationalize (albeit in other words) that there are good reasons to have term limits or retirement ages, or to render his personal history into a building crescendo of life-and-death decision-making . . . none of that so far is convincing or satisfying enough IMHO. (Though I certainly wouldn’t claim to be familiar with all that has been posted on the subject.)

 

[Bandit LOAF]

Interesting that we fixate on Telamon -- Tolwyn killed far more Kilrathi during the war, and no one seems to mind <G>

 

[LeHah]

Originally posted by Raptor
And while we're talking about conjecture, let's talka about your assumption that we would automatically do better under Tolwyn.

Well, Tolwyn has a pretty goddamned good track record. So my assumption is a fairly safe one to make.

There's something of a differance between punching a man out and turning both him and his family into slimy goo.

Agreed. Personally, I'd go with the latter. The "Keyser Soze approach", as it were.

I didn't for the simple reason it slipped my mind, by I thank you for bringing that to my attention. The fact that Tolwyn was prepared to wipe out an entire people en masse for the actions of a few rebels shows that his judgement is far from perfect.

Actually, Tolwyn's threat reminded me of something I heard on the radio. A deer hunter was a guest, as deer hunting season started around this time. Before he even took any calls, he said "If I get a single phone call from someone that says I'm a murderer or the like, I'll kill one more deer in your name and it'll be all your fault that it died."

I actually agreed with Tolwyn's threat. You might blame him on murdering millions upon millions of Pilgrims, but what kind of leader was Aristee when she wouldn't attempt to save them?
Who's more at fault?

 

[Raptor]

Well, Tolwyn has a pretty goddamned good track record. So my assumption is a fairly safe one to make.

But as you keep saying, only an assumption. Tolwyn's track record wasn't all that good towards the end, what with thinking Grecko's paln to board the Hakagas would never work, losing the Behemoth, failing to take out a pretty rag-tag bunch of Border Worlders, and so on. Not only that Tolwyn is only one man, and a pretty old one at that. Who's to say that he would even be *alive* when the bugs attacked?

Agreed. Personally, I'd go with the latter. The "Keyser Soze approach", as it were.

The mass murder approach, it's called where I come from.

Actually, Tolwyn's threat reminded me of something I heard on the radio. A deer hunter was a guest, as deer hunting season started around this time. Before he even took any calls, he said "If I get a single phone call from someone that says I'm a murderer or the like, I'll kill one more deer in your name and it'll be all your fault that it died."

I actually agreed with Tolwyn's threat. You might blame him on murdering millions upon millions of Pilgrims, but what kind of leader was Aristee when she wouldn't attempt to save them?
Who's more at fault?

Both would be at fault, but if Tolwyn had killed those pilgrims, then he would have been the murderer, not Arestee. Killing all Pilgrms for the actions of a few rebels is like killing all Catholics for the actions of the IRA, or all Palestinians for the actions of Hammas. No-one is responsible for the actions of others just because they share the same race or religion, and killing people en masse because they happen to be of a particular race or reilgon is genocide, pure and simple.

Besides, just what do you think would have happened to Confed when the immensely powerfull "lost" Pilgrim fleet arrived, and found Tolwyn had just slaughtered their people. A major ass kicking would have been the least of our worries.

Originally posted by Bandit LOAF Interesting that we fixate on Telamon -- Tolwyn killed far more Kilrathi during the war, and no one seems to mind <G>

That's because we Kilrathi gave as good as we got, Terran.

Best, Raptor