YE: How could the UFP be losing the Klingon war?

[Jerikka Dawn]

"How could the UFP be losing the Klingon war?"
Did you see the size of those Birds of Prey?

 

[Non-Beard Riker]

the German analogy doesn't exactly fit though. Germany was already the strongest military power in WWI, so all they had to do to was re-arm between wars, while the victorious Allies disarmed. It's easy to be successful when you're arming to the teeth while your opponents are doing the opposite.


In contrast, we'd never previously seen that the UFP was so overmatched by the Klingons, in fact it seems to contradict much of what we see in TOS.


Chalk it up to dramatic license.[/QUOTE]

Ehh.. the allies did not disarm at all and the German army of 1939 was perhaps only on par with the French. What do they tell you in history class?

 

[Knight Templar]

the German analogy doesn't exactly fit though. Germany was already the strongest military power in WWI, so all they had to do to was re-arm between wars, while the victorious Allies disarmed. It's easy to be successful when you're arming to the teeth while your opponents are doing the opposite.


In contrast, we'd never previously seen that the UFP was so overmatched by the Klingons, in fact it seems to contradict much of what we see in TOS.


Chalk it up to dramatic license.

Ehh.. the allies did not disarm at all and the German army of 1939 was perhaps only on par with the French. What do they tell you in history class?[/QUOTE]

Addition to that.

Germany was not occupied after World War One. For that matter its territory had suffered relatively little physical damage. Remember this was before strategic bombing as in WWII.

Basically, from Germany's standpoint killed a bunch of soldiers and wiped out a generation of poor military thinkers who had led them to defeat in the first place.

From the first war, the German military was basically given a chance to get a "clean start" on the next one while the U.K, France, and others suffered "victory disease".

 

[sonak]

the German analogy doesn't exactly fit though. Germany was already the strongest military power in WWI, so all they had to do to was re-arm between wars, while the victorious Allies disarmed. It's easy to be successful when you're arming to the teeth while your opponents are doing the opposite.


In contrast, we'd never previously seen that the UFP was so overmatched by the Klingons, in fact it seems to contradict much of what we see in TOS.


Chalk it up to dramatic license.

Ehh.. the allies did not disarm at all and the German army of 1939 was perhaps only on par with the French. What do they tell you in history class?[/QUOTE]


reference? I'm pretty sure that the Allies did disarm after WWI at least to an extent, and that Germany was indeed the most powerful country militarily in Europe.

 

[Knight Templar]

the German analogy doesn't exactly fit though. Germany was already the strongest military power in WWI, so all they had to do to was re-arm between wars, while the victorious Allies disarmed. It's easy to be successful when you're arming to the teeth while your opponents are doing the opposite.


In contrast, we'd never previously seen that the UFP was so overmatched by the Klingons, in fact it seems to contradict much of what we see in TOS.


Chalk it up to dramatic license.

Ehh.. the allies did not disarm at all and the German army of 1939 was perhaps only on par with the French. What do they tell you in history class?

reference? I'm pretty sure that the Allies did disarm after WWI at least to an extent, and that Germany was indeed the most powerful country militarily in Europe.[/QUOTE]

Actually, Germany was militarily weak in the aftermath of World War One due to the massive losses to their army toward the end of the war and the utter destruction of their fleet when it was scuttled at Scapa Flow.

And the allies did impose heavy reparation requirements on the Germans (which the Germans finally finished paying to France in 2010 IIRC) and limits on the German military.

When Hitler took over, the Germans slowly at first, but faster later began rearming. But even as late as 1938, the Germans were no match for the French.

 

[yenny]

Picard said, That half the fleet have been lost since the start of the war. If nothing is done? The federation council will have to sue for peace or surrender with in six month.

We have to assume that starfleet will withdraw from a battle that they're losing. While the Klingons will not withdraw, but fight to the death.

So, if starfleet had lost half of the fleet in 22 years of warfare? It's more likely that starfleet could fight the war for another 22 years. While the Klingons themself can't. We have assumed that the Klingons had lost a lot more ships in the same time period.

 

[BriGuy]

In the episode "Yesterday's Enterprise" the alternate reality had it that the Federation was only a few months from losing the war with the Klingons. But how could this be? Decades previous, the destruction of Khitomer had devastated the Empire to such a degree that it was forced to sue for peace with the Federation, and to basically beg for food and aid and the (non-canonically sure) evacuation of Kronos. And Colonel West had said that the Federation could clean their chronometers. The disappearance of the Enterprise-C would not change those factors since it took place after them. But now it was to Federation itself, which suffered no event like that, which was losing and was going to fall in short order.

I know Star Trek 6 came out after this, but canonically, this has always confused me. Could the Klingons have really rebounded to such a degree by when the Enterprise-C disappeared that when war erupted, they were so tactially better than the UFP?

It may have already been said, but...

Perhaps in the YE timeline, the Praxis incident didn't happen?

 

[BriGuy]

Good question. Plot hole for dramatic effect? After all, they couldn't make it too easy for them to be able to send the ENT-C back in time. It might have been better if they made the Romulans the ones at war with the Federation. Frankly, I didn't quite get how the disappearance of the ENT-C led to war between the Klingons and Federation in the first place but it was such a good ep, I tend to overlook these flaws.

It wasn't so much the disappearance of the Ent-C that started the war, it was its PRESENCE that prevented a war. I see a difference there.

By being there, defending the Klingons and dying in the course of doing so, they committed an honorable act recognized by the Klingons.

By being pulled out of the battle, that didn't happen. Or, worse, they were seen as tucking tail and running from a fight.

 

[BriGuy]

You guys are missing the obvious.

Captain Picard lied to the Captain of the Enterprise-C.

After all, look at the context of the discussion. He is trying to persuade her to take the ship and its crew back in time and face certain death and destruction. She is understandably reluctant. Picard can't force the issue anyway, so he pulls out the "one ship could've prevented this war (and saved the Federation)" argument.

Naturally, she immediately agrees to Picard's request.

Remember, we have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING beyond Picards statement about the way the war is going as evidence of how the war is going.

For that matter, Riker near the end refers to what was apparently a significant victory by the Enterprise crew "the pasting we gave them on Archer IV"

I wouldn't buy that - Picard lying to her - for a second.

 

[Knight Templar]

You guys are missing the obvious.

Captain Picard lied to the Captain of the Enterprise-C.

After all, look at the context of the discussion. He is trying to persuade her to take the ship and its crew back in time and face certain death and destruction. She is understandably reluctant. Picard can't force the issue anyway, so he pulls out the "one ship could've prevented this war (and saved the Federation)" argument.

Naturally, she immediately agrees to Picard's request.

Remember, we have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING beyond Picards statement about the way the war is going as evidence of how the war is going.

For that matter, Riker near the end refers to what was apparently a significant victory by the Enterprise crew "the pasting we gave them on Archer IV"

I wouldn't buy that - Picard lying to her - for a second.

People lie for far less noble reasons than this.

 

[BriGuy]

You guys are missing the obvious.

Captain Picard lied to the Captain of the Enterprise-C.

After all, look at the context of the discussion. He is trying to persuade her to take the ship and its crew back in time and face certain death and destruction. She is understandably reluctant. Picard can't force the issue anyway, so he pulls out the "one ship could've prevented this war (and saved the Federation)" argument.

Naturally, she immediately agrees to Picard's request.

Remember, we have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING beyond Picards statement about the way the war is going as evidence of how the war is going.

For that matter, Riker near the end refers to what was apparently a significant victory by the Enterprise crew "the pasting we gave them on Archer IV"

I wouldn't buy that - Picard lying to her - for a second.

People lie for far less noble reasons than this.

But is that Picard? Is that in his character? I don't think so or see it. Combine that with the way he said it, to a fellow captain, and the presence of supporting evidence backing it up, and the lack of evidence supporting that it was a lie.

Picard isn't written as someone who tells lies, especially to allies.

 

[yenny]

Good question. Plot hole for dramatic effect? After all, they couldn't make it too easy for them to be able to send the ENT-C back in time. It might have been better if they made the Romulans the ones at war with the Federation. Frankly, I didn't quite get how the disappearance of the ENT-C led to war between the Klingons and Federation in the first place but it was such a good ep, I tend to overlook these flaws.

It wasn't so much the disappearance of the Ent-C that started the war, it was its PRESENCE that prevented a war. I see a difference there.

By being there, defending the Klingons and dying in the course of doing so, they committed an honorable act recognized by the Klingons.

By being pulled out of the battle, that didn't happen. Or, worse, they were seen as tucking tail and running from a fight.

That's true. If a federation starship came to a Klingon world being attack and fought the attackers until they repulse or destroy them or they get destroyed in the progress of defending the Klingon world. That will help in the peace progress they were working on.

 

[Maurice]

I think the explanation is simpler than a lot of these theories. Imagine that the Klingons got their hands on a lot of military intelligence and pulled a Pearl Harbor on an unimaginable scale, taking out multiple Starfleet shipyards and decimating much of the fleet and/or the infrastructure to support it.

 

[BriGuy]

I think the explanation is simpler than a lot of these theories. Imagine that the Klingons got their hands on a lot of military intelligence and pulled a Pearl Harbor on an unimaginable scale, taking out multiple Starfleet shipyards and decimating much of the fleet and/or the infrastructure to support it.

Even simpler than that... the Klingons are a warrior culture/race; their ships are first and foremost for fighting. They don't fear death, they embrace it. Starfleet is about peace and exploration.

Starfleet forges alliances and unity, seeking partners; the Klingons conquer and subjugate.

In the long run, the oppressed will rise against an iron fist. In the short run, the iron fist destroys.

 

[Knight Templar]

I think the explanation is simpler than a lot of these theories. Imagine that the Klingons got their hands on a lot of military intelligence and pulled a Pearl Harbor on an unimaginable scale, taking out multiple Starfleet shipyards and decimating much of the fleet and/or the infrastructure to support it.

Even simpler than that... the Klingons are a warrior culture/race; their ships are first and foremost for fighting. They don't fear death, they embrace it. .

So was World War II era Japan and they didn't come remotely close to winning against the United States.

 

[Emperor Norton]

I think the explanation is simpler than a lot of these theories. Imagine that the Klingons got their hands on a lot of military intelligence and pulled a Pearl Harbor on an unimaginable scale, taking out multiple Starfleet shipyards and decimating much of the fleet and/or the infrastructure to support it.

Even simpler than that... the Klingons are a warrior culture/race; their ships are first and foremost for fighting. They don't fear death, they embrace it. .

So was World War II era Japan and they didn't come remotely close to winning against the United States.

True, but the Klingons are more like Soviets to the UFP's USA than Japanese to the UFP's USA; they other great super power.

 

[Xerxes1979]

My theory is that the elder Duras became Chancellor in the alternate timeline and with the implicit help or assistance from the Romulans the Federation was outmatched.

If the Enterprise-C never showed up, knowledge of the Narendra attack might have been unknown to the empire(assuming it was not a grab for territory).

Since opinions of the Romulans would not have been as sour, Duras may have been more sucessful in covering up his treachery at Khitomer if that later event even occurred.

 

[Phily B]

Yeah, I've always assumed that the Romulans were involved, succeeding in their plans to break up the Federation/Klingon Alliance and saw the Federation as the stronger of the two powers while continuing to give them supplies to help keep up their offensive.

 

[USS KG5]

I've always figured the Klingons were allied with the Romulans. This has been a reality before and a war like that on two fronts would be a huge challenge for the Federation.

If you also assume that the war started with a very successful surprise strike, that took out Federation border defenses, and the Federation did not have any warning or defenses in depth set up, then they could instantly have been on the back foot.

Material superiority does not guarantee victory in a war. It was very possible that Germany could have won WW2 even fighting the might of the USA, USSR and British Empire put together if 1942 had gone better for them.

 

[USS KG5]

So was World War II era Japan and they didn't come remotely close to winning against the United States.

To be fair though they lacked even a percentage of the resources to do so. The Japanese fleet at the start of WW2 was powerful, but they needed to already be building like crazy for the inevitable losses they would suffer, even if they did well. They couldn't do this as the war was all about trying to acquire such resources, which the USA already had. Basically the Japanese were stupid to even try, as Yamamoto basically said himself.

The Klingons on the other hand have an Empire already to fall back on, so might be in a much better position, especially with Romulan support.