How bad of a tyrant was Khan Noonien Singh?

[Damian]

Not the way it appears in the episode, McCoy (quickly and gleefully) is jumping on Spock's wrong statement.

Spock: "World war."
McCoy: "Eugenics war."
Spock: "Of course."

Spock wrongly referred to it as a "world war," McCoy corrected him, Spock conceded the mistake.

I have to admit, I never quite saw it that way but I like it--even better that it happens to fit the later continuity that has them as separate conflicts

 

[JonnyQuest037]

Not the way it appears in the episode, McCoy (quickly and gleefully) is jumping on Spock's wrong statement.

Spock: "World war."
McCoy: "Eugenics war."
Spock: "Of course."

Spock wrongly referred to it as a "world war," McCoy corrected him, Spock conceded the mistake.

I rewatched the scene before I posted. Again, McCoy NODS before he responds to Spock. His tone is also perfectly cordial. He doesn't get cross until Spock attributes the war to the entire human race rather just a rogue group of scientists. McCoy isn't correcting Spock, he's expanding on his statement. And Spock then acknowledges that Earth's last World War was also known by the name "The Eugenics Wars."

I really think that the TNG era retcon that the Eugenics Wars and WWIII were two different events is warping people's perceptions here, and you're seeing what you want to see. When TOS was made, they were intended as one & the same thing. And if the Eugenics Wars weren't meant to be the last of Earth's World Wars... Why even bother introducing that element? Why confuse your audience with extra fictional history that isn't even relevant to the plot? What possible benefit does that serve?

In "Space Seed", the Eugenics Wars are the same thing as World War III, just as World War I was also called "The Great War" or "The War To End All Wars." Later Trek changed that as real world history caught up to the 1990s, but the intent in TOS was that they were one and the same.

 

[FederationHistorian]

And hell, even today we have Holocaust deniers. It's not too tough to imagine that there's some equivalent of those in the 23rd century, some two to three centuries after the fact. (Please realize that I'm not saying that Scotty was one of those people. Just that there might not have been a historical consensus on all of Khan's crimes.)

Kirk says "We can be against him and admire him all at the same time," about midway through "Space Seed", but I doubt there was a whole lot of admiring of Khan going on when the episode was over. And I think the fact that Khan tried to asphyxiate the entire bridge crew and then torture them all one by one when they defied him shows his true nature effectively enough. Hell, look at how horribly he treated Marla McGivers, and he loved her.

I don't think Scotty would have been a denier at all.

I think the fact that Khan was seen as another Alexander the Great or Napoleon greatly influenced how they perceived him. Their accomplishes are more revered than anything Hitler did. Even today that is the case: Alexander & Napoleon are the great military strategists and legendary conquerors, while Hitler is the genocidal madman and synonymous with a really dark chapter in human history.

If Khan isn't committing any genocides, he isn't trying to expand his borders, and his actions are perceived to be sane, there's no reason for anyone to oppose him, even though he is an authoritarian figure.

It's not remotely canon, of course, but IDW comics did a Khan miniseries around the time Into Darkness came out and showed a pretty ugly take on the Eugenics Wars. Essentially Khan and his fellow Augments declared war on a chaotic world and ultimately seized power after detonating several strategically-placed nukes across the globe (surviving nations, be quiet or you're next). If only the rest of humanity hadn't wanted that freedom nonsense, there would have been total order under Augment rule...

Which is a possible explanation of one wants to explain how Khan's state exceeded the size of the British Empire at its height.

So Khan's realm almost certainly included Egypt, and might have included some or all of Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Sudan, Djibouti, & Somalia, and possibly parts of other African countries. So possible maps of Khan's realm could vary a lot in how much of Asia and Africa, and which regions of those continents, are included, though Khan would probably always rule more of Asia than Africa.

It would definitely have to be the Greater Middle East interpretation, since even when all the nations in the region are taken into account (including North Africa, Central Asia & Transcaucasia), it only adds up to 35 nations. Which would mean that the rule of Khan & the Augments included the entire Indian subcontinent (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Maldives), and possibly Greater India (Afghanistan, Burma, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Southern Vietnam, Maylasia, Singapore, Brunei, Indonesia, Philippines & maybe even Tibet & Yunnan province in China).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_subcontinent

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_India

Note that groups of young supermen took power in over forty nations in 1993, the year after Khan gained power in his realm in 1992. I don't know where those supermen were in the spectrum between enemies of Khan and followers of Khan, but apparently the countries they ruled remained independent of Khan's state. Khan's realm was not one of those over forty nations, but was separate from them.

It entirely possible that they divided their rule by region (North Africa, Middle East, Indian subcontinent, Central Asia, Transcaucasia, Southeast Asia), which helps to explain why the Augments turned on each other in spite of being aware that Khan was the de facto leader: a desire to own their share and not enough to go around, considering there seemed to be far more Augments than nations.

So why do members of Kirk's crew have some admiration for Khan while Picard compares him to Hitler in some way, probably in the disastrous results of Khan's actions?

It may be a change in attitudes several generations later. And in my opinion it may be due to Khan "pushing the button" in the war in which he was overthrown. Khan's radar may have detected hundreds of missiles with atomic warheads headed for his cities and Khan may have launched a strike with tens or hundreds of nuclear warheads in retaliation.

And possibly members of Starfleet in Picard's era think that such actions are more horrifying than Starfleet members in Kirk's era did, when Starfleet had a General Order 24.

I think that also depends on how long General Order 24 was in effect. It's never really been used outside the TOS time period of the late 2260s, to our knowledge.

 

[Timo]

I rewatched the scene before I posted. Again, McCoy NODS before he responds to Spock. His tone is also perfectly cordial. He doesn't get cross until Spock attributes the war to the entire human race rather just a rogue group of scientists. McCoy isn't correcting Spock, he's expanding on his statement. And Spock then acknowledges that Earth's last World War was also known by the name "The Eugenics Wars."

Except in-universe, where he is contradicting Spock, cordially, because the two are friends.

Not that Spock would need to be utterly wrong. He may be speaking from a Vulcan viewpoint, and will learn better by the time of "Bread and Circuses". But he's wrong about the Eugenics War(s!) being the same as the last World War, in-universe - that isn't a viewpoint issue but an outright contradiction of known pseudo-facts. And there's nothing wrong with him being wrong. Everybody is, at one point or another - and intriguingly, everybody is, in the teaser for "Space Seed".

I really think that the TNG era retcon that the Eugenics Wars and WWIII were two different events is warping people's perceptions here, and you're seeing what you want to see.

And? Of course we're seeing what we want to see. That's why we watch, instead of turning off the telly.

Spock is wrong because the writers were wrong. In this particular case, they weren't wrong because they were stupid (unlike, say, when they make Spock say idiotic things in "DDM" or the like), but simply because they didn't know better. We have no reason for caring; writers are just tools for giving us what we want to see.

When TOS was made, they were intended as one & the same thing.

You mean when "Space Seed" was made? "TOS" isn't a thing: by the time of "Bread and Circuses", they wouldn't have given a flying fuck about "Space Seed". It was a whole different universe in that episode, not even bothering to retcon that which theoretically came before, in that another universe with some similarly named characters . That part, creating actual continuity retroactively, indeed came later, when continuity became a thing.

And if the Eugenics Wars weren't meant to be the last of Earth's World Wars... Why even bother introducing that element? Why confuse your audience with extra fictional history that isn't even relevant to the plot? What possible benefit does that serve?

What possible relevance would that whole DY-500 vs DY-100 thing have? It's all meaningless make-believe to create a mood.

However, it is an interesting point inside the dwarf universe of "Space Seed": would there be significance to all war ceasing to be after Khan's nastiness? Is this "end of all wars" the reason Earth would have been so prone to collapsing were Khan's survival made public?

Here, Spock may speak of Earth finally learning not to wage war. But in "Bread", he rattles off figures of three world wars and then asks "Need I go on?", as if he could proceed through WWIV and WWV to WWVI. Elsewhere in Trek, Khan isn't the final entry in lists of bad guys: we get sequels by Li Quan and Colonel Green at least. The dwarf universe of "Space Seed" doesn't survive in the wild without adapting and bowing to general continuity. And I don't see much dramatic significance to the possibility that Earth stopped fighting altogether after Khan, either within the episode or within Star Trek.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[JonnyQuest037]

You mean when "Space Seed" was made?

Oh, stop pretending to be obtuse. You know damn well what I meant.

by the time of "Bread and Circuses", they wouldn't have given a flying fuck about "Space Seed". It was a whole different universe in that episode, not even bothering to retcon that which theoretically came before, in that another universe with some similarly named characters . That part, creating actual continuity retroactively, indeed came later, when continuity became a thing.

Bull. As I've pointed out on the BBS several times before, Star Trek (also known as TOS, BTW) made a greater than usual effort to keep its continuity straight than most other series did at the time. Kirk's brother Sam, the Enterprise's previous Captain Christopher Pike, Harry Mudd, the Enterprise's previous journeys to the galactic barrier & Janus VI, the Organian Peace Treaty... they kept ALL of that stuff straight from episode to episode and season to season and did callbacks when they didn't have to. The series' occasional continuity errors were the exception, not the rule.

However, it is an interesting point inside the dwarf universe of "Space Seed": would there be significance to all war ceasing to be after Khan's nastiness? Is this "end of all wars" the reason Earth would have been so prone to collapsing were Khan's survival made public?

Nowhere in "Space Seed" or anywhere else in the series does Spock say that Earth never had any wars after the Eugenics Wars. He says that it was Earth's last World War. Not the same thing.

Again, you're seeing & hearing what you want to, rather than what was actually in the show.

Elsewhere in Trek, Khan isn't the final entry in lists of bad guys: we get sequels by Li Quan and Colonel Green at least.

Li Kuan is another person who's referenced in more than one TOS episode, BTW. So that's another example of TOS displaying continuity when it didn't have to.

And I don't see much dramatic significance to the possibility that Earth stopped fighting altogether after Khan, either within the episode or within Star Trek.

You're arguing a point I never made, and you're assuming as fact something that was never said within the episode itself. Nowhere in "Space Seed" is it said that Earth stopped fighting altogether after the Eugenics Wars. Hell, "Balance of Terror" alone contradicts that, as it refers to the Earth-Romulan War of 100 years before.

 

[Tenacity]

McCoy NODS before he responds to Spock

McCoy (nodding) yep Spock, once more crap's coming out of your mouth, and again I get to point out what a fool you are.

 

[Damian]

McCoy (nodding) yep Spock, once more crap's coming out of your mouth, and again I get to point out what a fool you are.

I'll never look at that scene the same way again.

 

[Timo]

Oh, stop pretending to be obtuse. You know damn well what I meant.

And what I wrote I did because I think you are dead wrong, not because I'd want be "obtuse". In TOS, continuity was an accident rather than an effort, and it isn't relevant whether this one-eyed show was the king of the blind or not.

If an episode refers back to another, look at the writing credit, not at the person in charge of continuity, as there really was none.

Nowhere in "Space Seed" or anywhere else in the series does Spock say that Earth never had any wars after the Eugenics Wars. He says that it was Earth's last World War. Not the same thing. Again, you're seeing & hearing what you want to, rather than what was actually in the show.

No. I'm speculating and asking for opinions. Mine is "no, the writer didn't mean all wars ended, and no, no other writer took it that way, either". But also "we fans really owe nothing at all to the writers in this respect and can make our own conclusions". And, finally, "no, I don't think war ended with Khan's deposing". You gave yours on at least two of those, namely the first two. Does it also mean that you personally prefer to think that war did not end in 1996?

Because, and I emphasize, TOS is extremely divided on that. Kirk himself has bouts of referring back to a history of constant conflict, and then bouts of speaking of violence as a thing of the distant past. It's almost as if his words were being dictated by different voices in different weeks... Except on some weeks, the voice doing the dictating is the same. Again, writing credit.

You're arguing a point I never made

Yup. So? Should I dedicate a separate thread to it or what?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[JonnyQuest037]

You're arguing a point I never made

Yup. So? Should I dedicate a separate thread to it or what?

How about just stop doing that in general when you're debating someone? Moving the goalposts rather than responding to what someone actually said is really annoying.