War And Consequences
01/04/2003 . Source: Geoff Willmetts 

Tick!...Tick!...Tick! Picture this: A standard SF situation. You travel into the past to kill a dictator. Usually it’s Hitler cos he’s the most easily recognised despot, before his rise to power, and so thus prevent World War Two.

Hello everyone

Picture this: A standard SF situation. You travel into the past to kill a dictator. Usually it’s Hitler cos he’s the most easily recognised despot, before his rise to power, and so thus prevent World War Two. As there are so many permutations, there’s been enough variations on the theme over the years as to what happened next to fill a library of books. Probably has even if I haven’t seen or read them all. It’s a classic SF scenario to prevent a major war happening.

Would Japan have dared take on the USA without conflict in Europe? If they didn’t, then the atomic bomb would never have been used to stop a war. Without Hitler’s genocide plan, would the Jews have been given Israel or be content to be spread across the globe?

Conversely, would the unrest in Germany have created another dictator later who could have been even more dangerous than Hitler? Would our time traveller have to come back and eliminate him as well? All unanswerable questions really and that’s only three major points that could radically change the world.

We can speculate on the consequences in fiction but no one knows for sure whether the world would be better or worse. If it was a greater evil then heaven help the reality we would now be living in that could have been created by such a change.

One thing that hasn’t been explored in stories - although correct me if I’m wrong - but happening right now is cutting down a dictator before he re-powers his military might sufficiently to become a serious threat to his part of the world. It’s not quite the same as removing a dictator before coming to power but pretty close.

In this case, said act has not been aided by a time traveller coming into the past or even alien ambassadors wanting a more peaceful world before establishing open contact...at least as far as we know. We are dealing with our own reality as it is and a consequence of previous actions. To act or not act, especially at the right time, and all the red tapes that entails.

Even the solutions aren’t exactly predictable. Too many permutations with little enough knowledge to make up any decision that isn’t likely to change in the next news broadcast.

There is a far greater difference between fiction and reality. Neither side is playing strictly to one plot or set of rules. With stories, even if a global situation is revealed, the centre of action concentrates on only a few people close to the significant action rather than global ramifications. Often as not, the latter tends to be covered in a few lines before going back to the nitty-gritty that you want the reader to focus on.

Anything else is seen as an irreverence from what is regarded as the most significant event. The problem is concentrating on what the writer considers important and anyone else is either cannonfodder or can be generalised and left at the side of the plate as not being important. Indeed, the news media does that even in our reality.

They always look for the extreme level or human-based suffering stories cos they know this will stir their readership or viewers up the most. Good news alone rarely sells newspapers or gets you watching the TV news.

No civilised person really wants war. It might be the fodder of fictional films, TV, books or even computer games but no sane person really likes war for its own sake although the majority of people want to know what’s going on. A demonstration of human ancestry and/or mindset, at least in the Western world. No doubt some psychologist will probe a lot deeper than this editorial can at this time - although give me a chance to think about it and I’ll probably draw up some conclusions to debate.

One consequence is that war invariably means the loss of life on both sides. Happens in any war although not always thrown in your face. Like 9/11, we’re getting to see the faces behind the names of the dead. They cease to be numbers but often faces with stories you’ve never seen before without wishing to appear callous.

With only one life each, it has to look pretty precious especially if it’s liable to get cut short early whether military or civilian. Unlike films or TV, the people involved can’t get up and go home afterwards. It brings home the case that death is for real with all the grief that it entails.

No wonder it scares people who’d rather it didn’t happen at all. With some people unable to differentiate between real and fake as well, it can be far scarier when faced with reality. With the media up close in this particular war, there is a stark reminder of its realities that will have more bearing in any future fictional representation - too many people will know the difference.

Saying that, I tend to think part of the reason why governments are letting so much be shown as events happen is to drive home the need for a lot of nations to take heed the consequences of not staying peaceful than anything to do with fiction. At least we might be spared a Hollywood glamorisation of such events for a while...famous last words!!!

Everyone has a viewpoint of any war. Some wish that it would never happen and only want a peaceful existence. It’s not directly affecting our nation, so why should we be involved joins the ‘Not In My Backyard’ brigade who are all for ecological sound alternatives as long as its not put next to their house? Peace never comes without some price to pay and protests are quickly suppressed in such nations.

The desire to stop one dictator inflicting pain or death on his own people and just idly let it go on doesn’t bode well for nations who’d rather ignore this grim reality. Ensuring two nations come to peaceful terms before a bigger conflict also makes a lot of sense. Sometimes, this also means other nations have to step in and forcibly break them up at a risk to themselves siding with one side or other. We live in a volatile world.

To some it is seen as a means to allow such an opportunity to release a suppressed nation before something even worse happens. With a nuclear arms race now developing in some of the lesser but more volatile nations, the fewer distractions from even smaller nations taking advantage when attention and manpower is directed elsewhere has also to be considered especially when they are also controlled by despots.

Even more nerve-wrecking for the nervous amongst you is a third world war developing if no one is on the ball to stop it happening. It isn’t just North Korea but also attitudes of India to Pakistan and any number of other threats just waiting to boil over that make even al-Qaida small in significance, although they would take advantage of the situation. If they weren’t practically lining up in order, we’d be in a bigger mess still. Either kismet’s operating in the real world or nations are just lining up waiting for their opponents to be ready.

Some of both sides of this argument also fret about the consequences in the aftermath of any war. Sorting out one dictator as a warning to other dictators to clean up their act also means looking at their affairs as well. It’s a hornet’s nest where one can’t really pick and choose. To do otherwise would question our own motivation for getting involved. How far can such action go before anyone not conforming to a particular viewpoint is examined and found wanting?

It isn’t helped by the fact that the global wars developing now are based more on ideology than territory and as such drawing many nations to pick sides. At least when there were two super-power nations, no side was prepared to risk open conflict.

Nothing is ever in black and white. Everything is in shades of grey and balancing out any decision with all its consequences. Considering that every question has a multi-choice answer hasn’t really got many people considering that all the answers might be correct at some level or other and a re-think of the question asked is far more important. Linearity of answers only happens in a simple world and this reality is far from simple.

The news media and how quick information is passed around the world has increased individual awareness of events. Something that really hasn’t been fully explored in SF either...yet! SF is the genre of examining consequences after all. Everyone is or can be better informed about the decisions that are made should they choose to be allowing a greater diversity of opinion. Unlike dictatorial-run nations, we at least have the privilege of expressing such views or changing our leaders at the next election.

What is important is what is done with such news either diplomatically or as a last resort, war. For other nations to dip their heads in the sand seems as crazy as those who resolve to do something decisive to stop such things or bringing dictatorships to task. No one ever said the solutions to these problems would be easy or when the bottom line steps from talks to direct action.

The only real problem is that the woes of this planet’s population can’t be sorted out in one swift manoeuvre that encompasses all. The fate of this planet and everyone on it is in our hands not some omnipresent being looking down from afar.

Peaceful solutions require the co-operation of both sides in a conflict. Guaranteeing honesty on both sides is a matter for intelligence, diplomacy and politics - you choose the order of importance. To rely on historical disagreement, religion, racism or distrust shouldn’t be the vices of the modern world. When people can’t be brought around a negotiation table, war tends to erupt.

When one nation is preparing to attack or invade a neighbouring nation then I would prefer it to be sorted out before such conflict happens than tidy up the mess afterwards. Reality doesn’t always allow such an option or if it does, draws it out to buy time for other skullduggery. Bridges have to be mended before they can be walked across. Hopefully, war will return to being the last resort.

Looking over this editorial, I can’t help thinking it looks like I’m straddling the fence here or even agreeing with both sides of the pro and anti-war argument. Then again, I probably have all the makings of a born diplomat and able to look at both sides of any conflict with some objectivity. Peace tends to come at a price, usually in lives, but hopefully it has to mean something or it would be a worthless effort. Now that would be equally bad.

Be happy. Be safe. Negotiate your differences when you can get people to talk to you about them. Enjoy the rest of the website.

Thank you and good night

Geoff Willmetts

editor: SFCrowsnest.com

PS For those keeping up with my health. No wonder my lack of desire to travel far has been heightened lately. My cheek sinuses are clogging but not permanently blocked but explains why I feel a little seasick when travelling far.

(Less Serious) Thought For The Month: With all the super-hero films that have come out over the years, and not just the Marvel ones, have you noticed the high fatality rate amongst the villains? What kind of message do you think this gives our less than law-keeping neighbourhood villains? If you’re bad, you’re dead. So much for the penal system in the super-hero film world.

PPS: For those keeping track, I’m still about 18 months (early June 2001 now if you’re still thinking I’m just repeating the same message every month) behind with going through the ebook samples. Thank you for your patience but let me know if you’ve sold elsewhere so I can reduce my pile or if you’ve changed address, especially e-mail address.

I’ve looked through a few recently who’ve vanished. This isn’t much of a repeat, just to show you’re not forgotten. Those sending in samples, be prepared for a wait and read the Guidelines elsewhere on this website. They are there to help you do some of the right things and reduce the number of times I’m repeating myself over silly grammatical errors.