Jump to content
  • entries
  • comments
  • views

An interesting parallel




We tried that in GW1, it took us 3 years to recover from that mistake. If someone is already determined to dominate/kill no amount of touchy feely will change that, the only way to deal with such is harshly. If an alliance will not reform of their own initiative you take away their ability to threaten you.

This has been revisited again and again over the years, but I thought I'd point out again for the sake of posterity that the conditions under which the GPW came to a close were born of practicality, rather than morality. I would go into it, but Im frankly no historian.

That being said, I do agree with the rest of the quoted comment. My question is, however, how do you determine what constitutes a sufficient reformation? At what point does it stop being a legitimate criteria, and become just an excuse to find a convenient target?

The reason I ask is not a slight against my good friend (as soon as he adds me) Typoninja, but rather because, as a former Pacifican, that very reasoning was the internal justification used for a lot of Pacifica's curbstomps after the Second Great War. Specifically the War of Retribution and VietFAN.

I think this is a fascinating parallel, and only hope that the new leaders of the world do not fall into the old habits of hegemony. That being said, where do you, the audience, draw the previously mentioned line of reformation?



Recommended Comments

Those looking at the GPW and its aftermath need to realise that the second and third great wars didn't occur because the Order is evil, but rather precisely because of the attitude TypoNinja has taken here. We were excluded from normal diplomatic relations and attacked at every turn by those seeking to keep us down, thus pushing us towards a different group of allies and a hostile posture. The end result of this was inevitably a great war, as it would have been regardless of the alliance involved.

Four years on and people are still making such elementary errors in their political analysis.

Link to comment

What does reformation have to do with that at all?

If an alliance will not reform of their own initiative

Specifically that. He gave it as a criteria for not being treated as a hostile entity, so Im wondering how that gets defined.

Also, hello Vladimir.

Link to comment

The idea behind Typo's post is that some are inherently far gone to the point of no reformation. I wouldn't argue that GATO of the GW2/3-era or any of the other key League/AEGIS were any different, but I would argue that:

1) NPO started hitting allies and lost the ability to differentiate.

2) They started creating and making up threats.

Wiping out immediate threats is valid and practical, conjuring them up and doing so is ridiculous - even moreso when you're the uncontested superpower and everyone is basically cowering [see; Q]. I don't think anyone would, or could, argue that the ex-Hegemony aren't a security threat. I think TOP/IRON demonstrated this rather perfectly with their pre-emptive. Given a proper excuse and a slim hope of success, they will find a reason to attack. That ends the debate in my head for whether they're reformed.

Link to comment

2) They started creating and making up threats.

Well said. Frankly Xiphosis has a point about made up threats. I think it is also worth noting that the Initiative (and the Hegemony) became more and more paranoid as these imaginary enemies were created, to the point where they were intervening in situations completely beyond their influence.

Link to comment
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...