Starfleet vs. Klingons (who wins)

[Rojixus]

If this point has already been mentioned, hey I'm sorry. Please bear with it though.

In Yesterday's Enterprise, the destruction of the outpost on Narendra III is what led to the war between the Federation and the Klingon Empire. As far as I know, the exact chain of events that led to war was never revealed. However, I always assumed anyway that the Federation was blamed for complicity of some kind, while in the restored time line, the sacrifice of the Enterprise-C undermined belief in such complicity.

Therefore, it is entirely possible, is it it not, that in the alternate timeline of YE, the Klingons could have gained allies against the Federation, because they too perhaps even reasonably believed that the Federation was complicit? It is not established in YE whether allies have shifted from the Federation to the Empire, not only because they are afraid of the Klingons, but also because they no longer believe in the morality of the Federation.

This is why the circumstances of the cause of a war between the Federation and the Klingon Empire are important to the question. It's also why using YE as a benchmark isn't accurate, except maybe to resolve the question with respect to similar triggers which could have undermined belief in the Federation's good intentions.

There is no evidence at all to support either the Klingons or the Federation having allies in the war. From what we see in the episode, it was just Klingons vs. the Federation and the Federation was loosing. On the whole, I would say Yesterday's Enterprise is an accurate benchmark on what a sustained Federation-Klingon war would be like. It doesn't matter how the war started, it only matters that the war happened.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Hey look.

Right back at you: There's nothing in Yesterday's Enterprise to suggest that the same outcome would occur if war were to break out between the Federation and the Empire in another hypothetical episode.

So there.

 

[Rojixus]

Hey look.

Right back at you: There's nothing in Yesterday's Enterprise to suggest that the same outcome would occur if war were to break out between the Federation and the Empire in another hypothetical episode.

So there.

By that logic, anything and everything is possible. In this multiverse where the Borg can conquer the Federation and the Bajorans can overpower the Cardassians, literally anything remotely conceivable is possible and indeed, has likely already happened. This, of course, renders any speculation we do here null and void.

So there.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

This, of course, renders any speculation we do here null and void.

It absolutely does. The only purpose to posting our different theories here in this thread is not to "win" this therefore unwinnable argument. Rather, it's to have fun presenting our different theories and observations, and maybe learn more about the Trek universe in the process. Also, I wouldn't doubt that some readers might take the ideas here and use them as the basis for fanfic.

 

[Rojixus]

Agreed. On that note, I believe the Klingons would have the edge because while the Federation feels the need to design class after class of starship, the Klingons stick with a few good designs and sticks with them. Also, Klingons seem to be the most united when they are fighting an external enemy. The Federation, on the other hand, would probably fracture if they were forced to fight a sustained war with the Klingons.

 

[doylem1]

The war in YE itself doesn't make sense as it was the Romulans who attacked Narendra III therefore they declared war on the Klingons. As we know the Klingons wouldn't tolerate Romulan aggression against the Empire and would attack them.
Only thing i can think of is either the Rommies managed to implicate the Feds did it or the Empire did go to war with them got their ecomomy at full war production the Romulans succeeded some terrority and the Klingons turned on the Federation with their industry at full time war capacity and the Federations at peacetime.

 

[Rojixus]

I doubt the Romulans tried to implicate the Federation in its attack. If that were the case, the sacrifice of the Enterprise-C wouldn't have mattered one bit.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Maybe the issue in the alternate timeline isn't complicity per se, but rather whether the Federation will fight to defend the Empire.

With no wreckage in the alternate timeline, the story could stick that the Federation refused to aid the Klingons to fight the Romulans, and just stepped aside to let the Romulans attack, or ran away. Wreckage of the Ent-C could prove that the Federation would fight to defend the Empire.

 

[wakachukie]

This all boils down to:

How would the Fed react?

 

[Saito S]

As to the issue of how the Ent-C's disappearance during the Narendra III incident sparked the war in the alternate timeline, my take has always been... it didn't. It didn't directly CAUSE anything.

Rather, war between the UFP and the Empire had become an inevitability at some point shortly before or shortly after the Romulans attack the colony. The peace talks, ongoing in some form ever since the events of TUC, were failing, tensions were rising... and in the prime timeline, the Ent-C was seen trying to defend Narendra, which turned the tide, eventually leading to an alliance. But in the alternate timeline, from the Klingon perspective, Narendra III was attacked and destroyed by Romulans. That's it. They don't know anything about the Ent-C showing up and beginning to fight the Romulans, then disappearing. The Federation has absolutely nothing to do with the incident, in the eyes of the Klingons, in the alternate timeline.

In other words, the Ent-C disappearing from the battle before the Klingons saw her didn't cause the war. The Klingons witnessing the ship's attempt to defend the colony was the only thing that could prevent it.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Based on what I know, that sounds really good, Saito S. I like how your long view takes into account TUC.

I guess the only thing I don't know that could possibly contradict your otherwise pretty good idea would be the dates for treaties between the Federation and Klingons. Of course, how much weight to give such dates would be a function of whether the source were on screen in some way or just from TrekLit.

 

[T'Girl]

I always assumed anyway that the Federation was blamed for complicity of some kind

That isn't my read of the story. The Enterprise Cee disappeared twenty-two years in the past. The war is repeatedly referred to as beginning twenty years in the past, while the start of the war might have been "rounded off," if we go by the years stated, it makes it sound like the Klingons waited two years to attack.

The Klingons witnessing the ship's attempt to defend the colony was the only thing that could prevent it.

Kind of my take on it as well. The Federations supposed failure to step in and defend the colony isn't, in of itself, what started the war. It was later when the cause of the war occurred that the Klingons remembered the honorable act of that one starship, and that honorable act mitigated the cause of the war, resulting in no war.

The Klingons basically "forgave" the Federation whatever the provocation was.

-----

Are we all making an assumption here? That it was the Klingons who made the initial attack?

------

It doesn't matter how the war started, it only matters that the war happened

I disagree, how the war started (or didn't) and the Enterprise Cee place as a pivotal piece in that occurrence is at the core of the episode. How the war started, and how it progressed over the course of twenty years would also bring us to whether or not Picard was blatantly lying to Garrett about the supposed defeat of the Federation.

If the Federation were holding it's own, or gradually winning the conflict, then Picard was lying in order to possibly save billions of lives.

If the Federation were in fact losing, then Picard was being honest.

On Earth, in the twentieth century, the people who started the major wars were usually the losers.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Sounds good.

 

[wakachukie]

does anyone know what that initial provocation by the Federation was?

 

[Paradon]

The question is how resourceful the Klingons are if against the Federation. Anybody could fight to the death when their homeland is being invaded. Even the Jews, against all odds, fought off the invading Arabs when they were fighting for what they believe is right. But to keep the war going as long as they can, that's another story. It would probably test how resourceful a culture is...just like when the U.S. was at war with the Native Americans.

 

[Rojixus]

Are we all making an assumption here? That it was the Klingons who made the initial attack?

Yeah, I'm just going to assume right now that the Klingons struck first. The Federation just doesn't seem the type to strike first. If they were, I'm pretty sure the Romulans would be in really bad shape by the 2370s.

the people who started the major wars were usually the losers.

"Usually" being the keyword here. Last I checked, America started the Spanish-American War and cleaned Spain's chronometers.

 

[cwl]

Are we all making an assumption here? That it was the Klingons who made the initial attack?

Yeah, I'm just going to assume right now that the Klingons struck first. The Federation just doesn't seem the type to strike first. If they were, I'm pretty sure the Romulans would be in really bad shape by the 2370s.

the people who started the major wars were usually the losers.

"Usually" being the keyword here. Last I checked, America started the Spanish-American War and cleaned Spain's chronometers.

Spain didn't stand a chance. Unequal contest, which is why America started it.

 

[T'Girl]

On Earth, in the twentieth century, the people who started the major wars were usually the losers.

"Usually" being the keyword here. Last I checked, America started the Spanish-American War and cleaned Spain's chronometers.

The Spanish-American War (El Desastre) started when the Kingdom of Spain declared war on the United States of America. The war was brought on by Spanish atrocities against the Cuban people who the America people had sympathy for, and the suspicious destruction of a American battleship in a Spanish port.

Also Rojixus, the Spanish-American War was in the nineteenth century, not the twentieth.

 

[Rojixus]

On Earth, in the twentieth century, the people who started the major wars were usually the losers.

"Usually" being the keyword here. Last I checked, America started the Spanish-American War and cleaned Spain's chronometers.

The Spanish-American War (El Desastre) started when the Kingdom of Spain declared war on the United States of America. The war was brought on by Spanish atrocities against the Cuban people who the America people had sympathy for, and the suspicious destruction of a American battleship in a Spanish port.

Also Rojixus, the Spanish-American War was in the nineteenth century, not the twentieth.

1898, close enough. If that example doesn't do it for you, how about the Russo-Japanese War. It took place in the 20th century, Japan started it, and Russia lost.

 

[cwl]

The US battleship was an excuse by American imperialists to conquer the remnants of the Spanish Empire.