City on the Edge of...uh oh

[Timo]

Adolf Hitler never did a single thing in his life because he felt obligated to do so.

Okay, sorry, a bad formulation for what I meant to be more like "Hitler felt psychologically obligated to get his piece of the action at that juncture". Not contractually so, because breach of contract was a standard military maneuver for him and several other prominent WWII leaders.

Hitler certainly wanted a war with the United States, preferably at a timepoint of his choosing; not merely the defeat of the US (perhaps to be handed to him on a magic silver platter without a war), but also the political convenience of having Roosevelt placed in the corner of being in declared war against Germany. That e.g. made it easier for him to fight the Atlantic battle, as the flow of ships to the British isles was rather efficiently disrupted by striking at the soft and unprotected American side of it.

However, let's not forget that the Leader was an opportunist beyond belief. If the interior and exterior policies of the US developed to his liking during the late 1930s, a war against the US might well become unattractive. If there was no Roosevelt there, itching to go to war against Germany as soon as another Lusitania could be invented, then Hitler's best bet in keeping Churchill starved might have been to declare war on Japan instead. Or, a US government sympathetic to the German cause might be persuaded to leave Japan in peace despite its Chinese and Indochinese exploits, giving the Japanese a better theoretical chance to hit Stalin at Hitler's behest, and thus perhaps even actually plunging Japan to this suicidal undertaking despite their natural disinterest.

The important thing here is that our "What if?" exercise begins well in advance of the actual war. Things start to change during the Great Depression, or as Spock puts it, circa 1930 (but potentially a bit earlier, as IIRC we don't actually see printed dates confirming Spock's guess). This allows for several key differences in prewar escalation and diplomatic doctrines. It even predates the Japanese expansion to the continent, allowing that to go differently.

Since Spock had recorded both timestreams and basically did a compare between them it would make sense to identify the first difference as the point of change.

But Keeler's peace movement would hardly be the first difference. It would be something nicely observable several years after the divergence point, yes. And once one observed it, one might notice that the kingpin person involved happened to be somebody from the city where McCoy and his friends were meddling with time. But other changes would no doubt take place as well, and any of them could, should and probably would lead Spock astray in his search.

(I wonder, how come Spock knows this much about Earth history in the first place? In "Space Seed", he seemed to have trouble comprehending what humans mean by Third World War...)

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Ssosmcin]

Edith Keeler had to die, and not just because of dramatic necessity.

But wouldn't her absence from the 1930's have served as well as her death?

In other words, once Spock had determined Edith's effect on history, and once Edith had displayed an optimistic and intuitive sense of how man would go to the stars, why not sit her down and tell her everything, find McCoy and go home with Edith in tow? "Excuse me, Guardian, transportation for four people, please. "

When McCoy went into time, all Kirk and Spock knew was that McCoy "somehow changed history." They had no idea he prevented a beautiful woman from dying when she should have. Their aim was to go back and find McCoy before he could do "something." So, it's not like they would have thought of not killing her before they left.

Now, note this key exchange:

KIRK: "Guardian…if we are successful..?"
GUARDIAN: "Then you will be returned…"

Repairing the timeline was the only way they were coming back. There was no way for Kirk and Spock to call the Guardian for retrieval. This isn't The Time Tunnel. They even told the rest of the landing party to try, and even if they failed, they'd be alive in the past somewhere. Anything less than ensuring Keeler's death made this a one-way trip.

So even if Kirk thought of keeping Edith alive and taking her into the 23rd century, it couldn't have happened because the Guardian wouldn't bring them back. As long as Edith is alive in her own time, there was a chance she could influence the timeline. Keeping her alive after her original death alters history. So, unless Kirk held her prisoner until the window of opportunity for her to make the change passed, nothing would have been achieved.

And, what, you think Spock would have a great time in 1930's New York City? Or McCoy? Having the two of them wait it out in the 30's because Kirk can't let some broad take one for the team is really an awful choice.

So, no, there was no other alternative. This was a solid time travel story because there really aren't a zillion ways to solve the problem. One way there, one way back. If Kirk and Spock failed, they were stuck. Beautiful.

EDIT: Skylark said the same thing way upthread just - well - shorter.

 

[Ssosmcin]

Actually the city is never mentioned by name in the episode, though many fans assume it's New York.

It's not an ssumption. There's a shot of the Brooklyn Bridge in the episode.

 

[Warped9]

(I wonder, how come Spock knows this much about Earth history in the first place? In "Space Seed", he seemed to have trouble comprehending what humans mean by Third World War...)

Timo Saloniemi

He didn't have any trouble at all. He says "your third world war" and McCoy chimes in "The Eugenics wars." It isn't a correction but McCoy agreeing with him just as someone saying "The Great War" and WW1 were different names for the same thing.

This is trotted out to try to rationalize TNG's claim WW3 was in the 21st century.

 

[Myasishchev]

(I wonder, how come Spock knows this much about Earth history in the first place? In "Space Seed", he seemed to have trouble comprehending what humans mean by Third World War...)

Timo Saloniemi

Well, I guess he's their go-to guy, since just about anybody would know more than their historical officer, whose greatest contribution to anything was, upon seeing a beardless guy with trimmed hair, declaring that he was probably a Sikh. This is roughly on par with seeing some guy's uncircumsized wiener and assuming he's Jewish.

(Also problematic is referring to Sikhs as "the most fantastic warriors,"* which is arguable if sort of true but regardless comes off as a bit chauvinist, possibly just because no white person has ever defined any people other than maybe the Spartans as "great warriors" without being condescending. Hell, it was condescending when the Romans said it about the Gauls--"They can't build an aqueduct but they sure can run at you in an undisciplined mass!")

*It is ideally riffable, however: "But surprisingly bad bodyguards!"

 

[FormerLurker]

Not wanting to throw the thread completely off track, but Marla McGivers recognized Khan the instant she saw him.

 

[Myasishchev]

At this point most of the on-topic stuff is about WW2 counterfactuals and/or why Hitler attacked the United States.

My point is that no remotely competent historian would ever say those things. Heck, anyone who was awake during a screening of Inside Man would never say those things.

Anyone competent who could have said those things would never say those things, because anyone who knows enough about Sikhism to know it originated in northern India also should know that it's not an ethnic group per se and that its most defining feature in the public eye is its injunction against body modification taken to the bizarre level of prohibiting the cutting of hair.

So unless in the far-off future of 1996, mainstream Sikhism has done away with the prohibitions and requirements of the Five K's, it's not just being wrong, it's just not caring.

It even ties into this thread more than tangentially, because the theme is the same: the made-of-fail nature of the history in City on the Edge of Fatherland, I mean Forever, is similar to the critical research failure in Space Seed.

But at least Space Seed is redeemed by an excellent performance and cool action.

 

[T'Girl]

He didn't have any trouble at all. He says "your third world war" and McCoy chimes in "The Eugenics wars." It isn't a correction but McCoy agreeing with him just as someone saying "The Great War" and WW1 were different names for the same thing.

This is trotted out to try to rationalize TNG's claim WW3 was in the 21st century.

Spock actual said; "The mid 1990's was the era of your last so-called World War. " Hell, from the perspective of the mid 1960's, the audience might have expected by the 1990's the world easily could be on it's fourth world war.

Perhaps the war in the 21st century was nuclear but, strange as it might seem to say, wasn't large enough or wide spread enough to be considered a "World War."

 

[Timo]

On the issue of how the 23rd century defines the Sikh, let's remember that by that time, their most significant contribution to world history would probably be "the cultural group from which Khan Singh emerged".

When we think of "German" today, we see a funny little man with a neatly trimmed moustache shouting his lungs off while blonde 6'2 men march in the background with their larger-than-life jaws set to the east. Long gone are older "definitions" of German, including the idea that each and every one of them wore a moustache too wide to fit through most doorways (a point of personal pride that did govern fashion for a large part of the population for a century), or the strict cultural mores arising from the position of Germany as bastion of Protestantism or Catholicism, depending on the time and place.

Perhaps the Sikh culture after Khan (and possible other Sikh-associated supermen) would have been forced into the same sort of self-censorship as the German one, with the side result that the stereotype established by Khan would be the only cultural image surviving in public consciousness? It's not implausible to think that a certain ruling elite associated with Khan would have adopted his fashion sense while also remaining associated (at least loosely) with the Sikh culture, thus giving rise to the stereotype that the Sikh would be stuck with for the next few centuries.

None of that is intended to say that the writer of "Space Seed" would not have been clueless, of course. I'm just doing the usual in-universe shtick, is all.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[T'Girl]

^^ As any self-respecting modern German could tell you Timo, Hitler was of course AUSTRIAN, not German.

 

[Timo]

...Which is another good point: you'd certainly need to be "modern German" to do that. And people would still look at you oddly, pondering whether they should kill you for trying to wiggle out of your complicity to Nazi crimes, or merely punch you in the face.

For the world at large, Hitler remains archetypically German. And archetypically Aryan, and never mind the hilariously blatant contradiction. It wouldn't be difficult to see Khan doing a similar disservice to the Sikh culture, I guess, even if he happened to be 3rd generation Pakistani emigrant from a very secular EastEnder family, and simply "repatriated" himself in Punjab for the duration of his rule.

Although from the sounds of it, Khan didn't appear to be a notorious tyrant, but more like a Napoleon-style celebrity. A sort of a reverse Genghis Khan, I guess: loved by the majority even though there'd be a vocal minority going "Get real and face the facts".

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Stompy]

Actually the city is never mentioned by name in the episode, though many fans assume it's New York.

It's not an ssumption. There's a shot of the Brooklyn Bridge in the episode.

I always thought they were in Mayberry...

 

[scotpens]

Perhaps the war in the 21st century was nuclear but, strange as it might seem to say, wasn't large enough or wide spread enough to be considered a “World War.”

Not strange at all. If a nuclear conflict WAS large enough and widespread enough to be called a World War, there'd be nobody left to study it as history.

When we think of “German” today, we see a funny little man with a neatly trimmed moustache shouting his lungs off while blonde 6'2 men march in the background with their larger-than-life jaws set to the east.

Speak for yourself. When I think “German,” I think expensive but well-engineered cars, superfast highways, and Claudia Schiffer.

. . . As any self-respecting modern German could tell you Timo, Hitler was of course AUSTRIAN, not German.

Same language, same culture, same food, same waltzes. To-may-to, to-mah-to.

 

[FormerLurker]

And I still say Marla McGivers knew exactly who he was the first time she laid eyes on him. At that point, it doesn't matter what she says about him, or how accurate it is in comparison to the culture or religious background that culture is supposed to represent. She could have described him as a fluffy bunny, for all it mattered. She knew exactly who he was, and she was so turned on she couldn't keep her hands off him.

 

[Myasishchev]

Perhaps the war in the 21st century was nuclear but, strange as it might seem to say, wasn't large enough or wide spread enough to be considered a “World War.”

Not strange at all. If a nuclear conflict WAS large enough and widespread enough to be called a World War, there'd be nobody left to study it as history.

Except for the vast majority of the human race (certainly more than 75%) which would survive any plausible nuclear conflict. A 1980s NATO-WP exchange wouldn't kill more than about a billion even if it somehow magically killed everyone in the respective belligerent nations, and a countervalue exchange between the US and PRC would only kill so many because of China's large population, but would not directly cause many casualties in ROTW.

*Although there's not much need to involve countervalue targeting in a US/PRC conflict, since the imbalance in size and sophistication between the two suggests that a counterforce first strike would be achievable, and that a Chinese leader would have to be absolutely batshit insane to attack a US city (even if he or she were physically able).

Same language, same culture, same food, same waltzes. To-may-to, to-mah-to.

Is true. The Austrians probably even only have their own country today because of the Battle of Mohacs (also, if one wants to include Anschluss Austria, the Battle of Moscow).

 

[scotpens]

. . . Except for the vast majority of the human race (certainly more than 75%) which would survive any plausible nuclear conflict.

Yeah, but of that 75%, how many would become radioactive, mindless, plague-carrying cannibal mutants?

In any case, we'd save Australia. Don't want to hurt no kangaroos.