Was John Gill insane?

[Knight Templar]

A new book about the mental problems of major national leaders including Churchill and Abraham Lincoln suggests that the Hitler of the 30s turned in part to the monster of 1939 and onwards in part thanks to the massive doses of drugs he was taking.

 

[Gary7]

As for the swastika... I think it's actually a good thing that people see that and shudder or feel sick. We should. "Lest We Forget" isn't just something for Remembrance Day; we need to remember every day. Otherwise we won't have learned a thing.

I don't suggest not remembering. I'm just touching on the mindset of John Gill. I thought it very callous for the character to introduce that symbol. He could have had a different symbol used while the story still got a sense of Nazi fascism, no less unnerving.

 

[horatio83]

The Third Reich did end the austerity malaise and put people back into work because the nazis have basically been the first Keynesians. But despite the economic boom the people have not really been better off as all the extra GDP went into weapon production. When the war started another economic aspect was the looting, making it all a bit of a Ponzi scheme, i.e. you gotta steal to produce the very means to steal.

About the political side, like the Stalinist show trials the nazi campaign in the East had a carnevalesque element so speaking of a rigid and structured society that ended the 20s Weimar decadence is a bit misleading.

If one wanted to pick an "honest" authoritarian (i.e. without this big party, ethical holiday dimension) leader whose politics actually worked Lee Kuan Yew would be the obvious choice. Not that I wanted to live in Singapore but if you do not care about political freedom and certain pleasures we are used to from liberalism it is probably not a bad place to live.

 

[Knight Templar]

The Third Reich did end the austerity malaise and put people back into work because the nazis have basically been the first Keynesians. But despite the economic boom the people have not really been better off as all the extra GDP went into weapon production. When the war started another economic aspect was the looting, making it all a bit of a Ponzi scheme, i.e. you gotta steal to produce the very means to steal.

About the political side, like the Stalinist show trials the nazi campaign in the East had a carnevalesque element so speaking of a rigid and structured society that ended the 20s Weimar decadence is a bit misleading.

If one wanted to pick an "honest" authoritarian (i.e. without this big party, ethical holiday dimension) leader whose politics actually worked Lee Kuan Yew would be the obvious choice. Not that I wanted to live in Singapore but if you do not care about political freedom and certain pleasures we are used to from liberalism it is probably not a bad place to live.

I've wondered if he was the "Lee Kuan" mentioned by Spock in a list of Earth "conquerors" or if the name was simply a coindence?

 

[Emperor Norton]

I think you can only blame it on the writers. It seems to come from a rather immature, pop culture idea of history and how things work (and such ignorance seems prevalent in perception of the WW2 era especially; this is where you get popular ideas like that the Nazis could conquer the world, that the Japanese could defeat the US, that the Depression was wholly ended by the war or that war is good for an economy in the long run, that the Germans were light years ahead of everyone scientifically, and so on, and so on and so on).

Fascism had many pratfalls to efficiency. For one thing, you had a number of insane pet projects going on all the time, and funding and positions were all based on the whims and personal affiliations of the Dictator. For another, the pseudo-science and bigotries of the state and ideology were always undercutting things. Part of the reason the Nazis failed to make an a-bomb is because much of the knowledge of it was labeled "Jew Science" which was not real Science to the Nazis, and which they ignored or replaced. And for another, Nazi Germany's success and recovery was very hollow. Without constant war and expansion, the economy would have collapsed, along with any other progress. So, in short, it eats itself.

If Nazism were efficient, the line of thought would be somewhat reasonable on Gill's part of having a Nazi style state, but not having it be a bigoted state. But it's not so.

 

[horatio83]

The Third Reich did end the austerity malaise and put people back into work because the nazis have basically been the first Keynesians. But despite the economic boom the people have not really been better off as all the extra GDP went into weapon production. When the war started another economic aspect was the looting, making it all a bit of a Ponzi scheme, i.e. you gotta steal to produce the very means to steal.

About the political side, like the Stalinist show trials the nazi campaign in the East had a carnevalesque element so speaking of a rigid and structured society that ended the 20s Weimar decadence is a bit misleading.

If one wanted to pick an "honest" authoritarian (i.e. without this big party, ethical holiday dimension) leader whose politics actually worked Lee Kuan Yew would be the obvious choice. Not that I wanted to live in Singapore but if you do not care about political freedom and certain pleasures we are used to from liberalism it is probably not a bad place to live.

I've wondered if he was the "Lee Kuan" mentioned by Spock in a list of Earth "conquerors" or if the name was simply a coindence?

Good point. I checked the script and while Spocks names only conquerors he merely talks about absolute power:

MCCOY: It also proves another Earth saying. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Darn clever, these Earthmen, wouldn't you say?
SPOCK: Yes. Earthmen like Ramses, Alexander, Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler, Lee Kuan. Your whole Earth history is made up of men seeking absolute power.

I am not aware of any other Lee Kuan so I guess it is meant to be him.

 

[Albertese]

Captain -- Excuse me -- LORD Garth also mentioned Lee Kuan.

--Alex

 

[Neumann]

I think you can only blame it on the writers. It seems to come from a rather immature, pop culture idea of history and how things work (and such ignorance seems prevalent in perception of the WW2 era especially; this is where you get popular ideas like that the Nazis could conquer the world, that the Japanese could defeat the US, that the Depression was wholly ended by the war or that war is good for an economy in the long run, that the Germans were light years ahead of everyone scientifically, and so on, and so on and so on).

Fascism had many pratfalls to efficiency. For one thing, you had a number of insane pet projects going on all the time, and funding and positions were all based on the whims and personal affiliations of the Dictator. For another, the pseudo-science and bigotries of the state and ideology were always undercutting things. Part of the reason the Nazis failed to make an a-bomb is because much of the knowledge of it was labeled "Jew Science" which was not real Science to the Nazis, and which they ignored or replaced. And for another, Nazi Germany's success and recovery was very hollow. Without constant war and expansion, the economy would have collapsed, along with any other progress. So, in short, it eats itself.

If Nazism were efficient, the line of thought would be somewhat reasonable on Gill's part of having a Nazi style state, but not having it be a bigoted state. But it's not so.

Oh rrrrreally? What about the american economy post ww2-- How did they manage? please enlighten me

 

[Emperor Norton]

I think you can only blame it on the writers. It seems to come from a rather immature, pop culture idea of history and how things work (and such ignorance seems prevalent in perception of the WW2 era especially; this is where you get popular ideas like that the Nazis could conquer the world, that the Japanese could defeat the US, that the Depression was wholly ended by the war or that war is good for an economy in the long run, that the Germans were light years ahead of everyone scientifically, and so on, and so on and so on).

Fascism had many pratfalls to efficiency. For one thing, you had a number of insane pet projects going on all the time, and funding and positions were all based on the whims and personal affiliations of the Dictator. For another, the pseudo-science and bigotries of the state and ideology were always undercutting things. Part of the reason the Nazis failed to make an a-bomb is because much of the knowledge of it was labeled "Jew Science" which was not real Science to the Nazis, and which they ignored or replaced. And for another, Nazi Germany's success and recovery was very hollow. Without constant war and expansion, the economy would have collapsed, along with any other progress. So, in short, it eats itself.

If Nazism were efficient, the line of thought would be somewhat reasonable on Gill's part of having a Nazi style state, but not having it be a bigoted state. But it's not so.

Oh rrrrreally? What about the american economy post ww2-- How did they manage? please enlighten me

Formally taking a place as foremost producer of goods globally consumed, across the board, coupled with a recognition for quality, as well as the factor of foreign competition being handicapped either by the war recovery issues within their nation, or by the simple fact that the United States had the position of foremost global producer and economic power as the western Superpower, while the other nations had seen their power wain and lessen in the post-war environment as they recovered from the war, lost colonies, saw the United States (always the rising great power) finally and totally leave isolation, and entered the modern period.

Do not forget too that WW2 also lead to things like the 1948 Recession, or that -for example- Britain faced decades of rationing and other problems, or that the powers would spend the 40s and 50s repairing themselves and their infrastructure (rather remarkably quickly).

 

[Timo]

A new book about the mental problems of major national leaders including Churchill and Abraham Lincoln suggests that the Hitler of the 30s turned in part to the monster of 1939 and onwards in part thanks to the massive doses of drugs he was taking.

This is something of a persisting fad in certain cultures. I wonder if there's a word for it... Classically, it has been popular to claim that an enemy leader had syphilis, as it can point to an immoral lifestyle for the purists, or to creeping insanity for the less uptight, and in either case hits the man where it hurts the most. Ultimately, though, the medical condition or other personal qualities of a leader would appear to play a minuscule role in his conduct of leadership, as "acts of leadership" of note would only come to be after the person had established his power base, and from that point on it would be the power base rather than the person that dictated the outcome.

As said, we get precious little information on what John Gill was like, as we never see him in possession of his faculties. However, we have no particular reason to think he didn't possess those faculties originally, as his ultimate fate is clearly stated to be the result of Melakon's brutalizing of his body and mind. Whether Gill was insane or not, or whether Melakon was, doesn't appear to affect the issue much, as the very point of erecting the pseudo-Nazi regime is that the regime can then do the work regardless of the specifics of the leadership. Which is exactly what an outside meddler would want, regardless of his motivations for meddling, because he is but one man and needs to build this personality cult in order to get things done. And once the cult gets going, the person becomes superfluous and interchangeable, which may also be desirable for the meddler if he wants his work to continue after he himself is gone.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[horatio83]

I think you can only blame it on the writers. It seems to come from a rather immature, pop culture idea of history and how things work (and such ignorance seems prevalent in perception of the WW2 era especially; this is where you get popular ideas like that the Nazis could conquer the world, that the Japanese could defeat the US, that the Depression was wholly ended by the war or that war is good for an economy in the long run, that the Germans were light years ahead of everyone scientifically, and so on, and so on and so on).

Fascism had many pratfalls to efficiency. For one thing, you had a number of insane pet projects going on all the time, and funding and positions were all based on the whims and personal affiliations of the Dictator. For another, the pseudo-science and bigotries of the state and ideology were always undercutting things. Part of the reason the Nazis failed to make an a-bomb is because much of the knowledge of it was labeled "Jew Science" which was not real Science to the Nazis, and which they ignored or replaced. And for another, Nazi Germany's success and recovery was very hollow. Without constant war and expansion, the economy would have collapsed, along with any other progress. So, in short, it eats itself.

If Nazism were efficient, the line of thought would be somewhat reasonable on Gill's part of having a Nazi style state, but not having it be a bigoted state. But it's not so.

Oh rrrrreally? What about the american economy post ww2-- How did they manage? please enlighten me

Formally taking a place as foremost producer of goods globally consumed, across the board, coupled with a recognition for quality, as well as the factor of foreign competition being handicapped either by the war recovery issues within their nation, or by the simple fact that the United States had the position of foremost global producer and economic power as the western Superpower, while the other nations had seen their power wain and lessen in the post-war environment as they recovered from the war, lost colonies, saw the United States (always the rising great power) finally and totally leave isolation, and entered the modern period.

Do not forget too that WW2 also lead to things like the 1948 Recession, or that -for example- Britain faced decades of rationing and other problems, or that the powers would spend the 40s and 50s repairing themselves and their infrastructure (rather remarkably quickly).

Yep, some foreign competition was literally destroyed. But the two more important factors have been that the average American worker has been the best educated and thus the msot efficient worker on the planet and that guys like Eisenhower had no problems with top marginal income tax rates of over 90% to reduce the deficits and finance a modern state.
It has been a middle-class society, that's why it has been growing so much. Emphasis lies on has been.

 

[Doug Otte]

As has happened with so many other threads, this one prompted me to rewatch the episode last night. It's also very low on my rewatch list. In addition to the ridiculous idea of replicating the Nazi state, right down to the swastikas and anti-Semitism ("Zeons") etc., it is just too cookie-cutter in its formula, and we're just not emotionally involved with the characters.

However, as an aside, I wonder if some of the sets were reused from M:I. I guess the exteriors were backlot, and have no doubt been used in many shows and movies. Some of the interiors (the tunnel/ladder they used to get to the insurgents' hideout, or the interior hallways and rooms) would seem ideal for Europe-centered M:I episodes.

I also noticed that the hole by which they entered the hideout was a reuse of the Horta tunnel from Devil in the Dark.

Doug

 

[Hartzilla2007]

There was no suggestion in the episode I am aware of that Gill was insane.

This is TOS and he was a highly regarded person by Kirk and co. wasn't the enough?

 

[Knight Templar]

Something worth considering. Kirk was one of John Gill's students and knew him well enough to be on a first name basis with him.

Yet.

After the nuclear warhead explodes when phasered by the Enterprise, Spock remarks that the technology was beyond either Zeon or Ekos.

Kirk seems to glance at the image of John Gill and remark "Maybe they had help"

So despite Kirk's former connection to Gill and obvious liking for him, Kirk is very quick to consider the possibility that Gill has committed a gross violation of the Prime Directive and given nuclear technology to the Ekosians.

Something tells me that the only reason Kirk would make that leap so quickly would be that Gill in his teachings and writings in the past expressed an admiration for various 20th century cultures and nations

 

[scotpens]

I don't suggest not remembering. I'm just touching on the mindset of John Gill. I thought it very callous for the character to introduce that symbol. He could have had a different symbol used while the story still got a sense of Nazi fascism, no less unnerving.

Of course, the real-life point of using Nazi symbols and regalia was twofold: to save production costs by using stock WWII uniforms and props, and to hook the viewing audience so they’d stay tuned. “Nazis in space? WTF??” (The Earthlike Planet of the Week hadn’t quite become a Trek cliché at that point.)

 

[Timo]

Something tells me that the only reason Kirk would make that leap so quickly would be that Gill in his teachings and writings in the past expressed an admiration for various 20th century cultures and nations

Or then Kirk feels a close connection with Gill and can imagine a dozen scenarios where it would be prudent for the benevolent Federation cultural observer or starship skipper to introduce technology or ideas to the savages for their own good. Or for the greater good. Or for any of the other reasons Kirk himself used as an excuse when meddling.

we're just not emotionally involved with the characters.

One feels the characters themselves might not be particularly involved emotionally, either. The Nazi thing was glued on to the Ekosian society, so of course the Ekosians would enact it like an amateur troupe doing an elaborately costumed but sketchily written play. The party responsible for the gluing would stay detached, too. And Kirk and pals would see right through the make-believe, perhaps even feeling sorry for all these people who were kicking their victims solely because the script told them to.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[BillJ]

You know, even in the worst episodes there are redeeming features. One for me was the cool escape using the transponder and the piece of metal from the bed creating a laser to cut the lock.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Kirk is very quick to consider the possibility that Gill has committed a gross violation of the Prime Directive and given nuclear technology to the Ekosians.

It's Occam's Razor, nothing more.

Givens:

- Ekos and Zeon did not have nuclear capability.
- Neither did they have any contact with other races who did.
- The only contact they DID have was with John Gill.

The only conclusion possible is that John Gill was responsible for giving the Ekosians nuclear technology.

 

[Timo]

One for me was the cool escape using the transponder and the piece of metal from the bed creating a laser to cut the lock.

That's in the worst McGyver tradition, though: why jury-rig something like that when they should have been able to simply beam up with the help of those transponders? What good did they do if they weren't capable of that?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

why jury-rig something like that when they should have been able to simply beam up with the help of those transponders?

They probably didn't want Isak to see them beam out.