We die for the One, we die for the One.

[GKarsEye]

Warren,
Ok, let me re-phrase this:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR> The Japanese paid for their stupidity and learned the hard way. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To say this:
The Japanese political and military leadership paid for their stupidity and stubborness.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing but the utmost respect for the Japanese. Heck, I went to what was considered the "smartest" high school in New York City, and 60% of the population was Asian, many of whom were Japanese. I'm very familiar with the Japanese sense of pride in their work, dedication, and focus, and some of it rubbed off on me.

World War II, however, is a black mark on the history of Japan, like all countries have their black marks. Since then, Japan has made a complete 180 on their policies- so much so, that they recently had to debate like mad with each other to contribute one ship to the anti-terrorism fight of the US and its allies. Japan has learned, from WWII, to embrace modernity and compromise if they are too remain a nation of plenty, while still maintaining their rich cultural tradition.

Oh yeah, and ninjas kick ass.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR> When, in the last thousand years, was the minbari fleet outgunned? Often, all they had to do was to show up, and the enemy would go home (see Point of No Return). In this atmosphere, this kind of pragmatism doesn't develop often. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, right, and? You're talking about major military conflicts. Totally different situations than Rangers, who operate in small numbers, very discreetly. The Rangers will find themselves outgunned. My point, and the point of others, is that the refusal to retreat in any situation is foolish. Sometimes you have to. It's just common sense, and I'm surprised that the Rangers operate on a policy that lacks such common sense. I always got the impression that the Rangers were about using your head, thinking your way out of a nasty situation, and minimizing the loss of life.

------------------
"You do not make history. You can only hope to survive it."

 

[Kitaro Sasaki]

I just wanted to say that I have enjoyed everyone's message posts!

I commend your intellectual thoughts!\

The intelligence is extremely high on these boards! A+

You guys have alot of great analytical input to this particular thread subject...and it is absolutely awesome!

Keep up the "Great Debate"

I love it...

Cheers! -Warren-

------------------

 

[RW7427]

Warren,

Well said! You are right, mankind has lots of differences. But inspite of those differences, we can still come together for good. This board is a good example of that. You have people coming here from the U.S., Canada, Britain, Estonia, Australia, all over the world. And there are people of all ages, beliefs, occupations, and such. But this site has brought us all together to talk about B5, the Rangers, Crusade, and to have fun. I have made lots of friends here, and have got to "meet" some of you from the cast. I can say that this has been a very good thing for me, and for us all.

------------------
Dulann: You don't solve your problems by hitting them.
David Martel: Yeah, well, it made me feel better.

 

[*Sigh*]

if you gave up every time the odds were in favor of the other person, where would we be?

------------------
"it goes like this, the 4th, the 5th the minor fall, the major lift."

[This message has been edited by *Sigh* (edited January 22, 2002).]

 

[Kitaro Sasaki]

Sigh,

There is a simple answer to that question...

10 feet under the ground! With a nice headstone to mark the spot!

Cheers! -Warren-

------------------

 

[GKarsEye]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by *Sigh*:
if you gave up every time the odds were in favor of the other person, where would we be?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And if you rushed headlong to your death everytime the opportunity came up, would you be better off?

Why do people insist on living with an "always" mentality? "Never give up"- well sometimes, you have to give up. You do no one any good by dieing for no gain. An intelligent, effective person can read each situation on its own.

Too bad the Rangers don't do this... yet.



------------------
"You do not make history. You can only hope to survive it."

 

[PsionTen]

Hmmm, i know jack about military tactics, but it does seems strange to remove a range of options from the table.

I can think of many situations in which retreat can be used in other ways that simply saving one's ass. It would be one hell of a way to lay a trap if you knew that the enemy was going to pursue. I'm actually surprised that more humans didn't score victorys against the Minbari -- despite their superior firepower, cause it definitely seems that we aren't as limited as they are strategically.

------------------
"Dawn's in trouble? Must be Tuesday." -- Buffy Summers, "Once More With Feeling."

 

[**DONOTDELETE**]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>I'm actually surprised that more humans didn't score victorys against the Minbari -- despite their superior firepower, cause it definitely seems that we aren't as limited as they are strategically.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Minbari didn't score more victories because they had vastly superior weaponry. Plus.... that ain't the way JMS wanted it to be. In the end, he's The One Who Decides.

I do know about military tactics, and there are always a range of options, but it can be limited by one's cultural background, biases, taboos, the situation itself, your resources, etc. You'd be hard pressed to find as large a group of Americans willing to die for a cause as there were Japanese willing to die for the cause during WWII. Without having a clear understanding of the culture, it's incomprehensible to us outsiders.

As old as the Minbari are, and having been a spacefaring race for so long, they don't seem very open to change. IMHO.

------------------


[This message has been edited by fanuilh (edited January 23, 2002).]

 

[PsionTen]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>The Minbari didn't score more victories because they had vastly superior weaponry. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay, either I didn't make myself clear, you misunderstood or I'm misunderstanding you.... I was saying that I was surprised that the Humans didn't score more victories, despite the Minbari's vastly superior weaponry.

------------------
"Dawn's in trouble? Must be Tuesday." -- Buffy Summers, "Once More With Feeling."

[This message has been edited by PsionTen (edited January 23, 2002).]

 

[PsionTen]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR> You'd be hard pressed to find as large a group of Americans willing to die for a cause as there were Japanese willing to die for the cause during WWII. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Okay, I'm getting pretty sick and tired of people alluding that Americans are weak willed, stupid, lazy, or worse. To begin with, that above quote is one of the most absurd things I've ever read ... especially since I have had family members lynched, beaten and jailed because they dared to think that they had the same rights as white Americans.

There are lots of causes that I would die for, but crashing my plane into a boat on Emperor Hirohito's say-so simply ain't one of them.

------------------
"Dawn's in trouble? Must be Tuesday." -- Buffy Summers, "Once More With Feeling."

 

[Nukemall]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by *Sigh*:
if you gave up every time the odds were in favor of the other person, where would we be?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It depends on how much the odds are in the other person's favour (I believe the scale would run from 'I fancy my chances' to 'You've gotta be f*@%ing joking!'

).

I think that G'Kar is right - there is too much of and emphasis on dying, probably mitagated by the Minbari tradition of never retreating from a fight and the aforementioned Ranger mantra despite these two not being equivalent.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>
They had lost the war, yet continued to kill themselves. Why? Honor? Pride? Tradition? Foolishness. They forced the United States to commit one of the most horrendous acts of violence in all history, dropping the A-bomb, because not doing so would have been even worse. The Japanese paid for their stupidity and learned the hard way.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think that the Japanese had any inkling of scale of destructive power the US possessed before Hiroshima. If the US was not in possession of the A-bomb, I think their commanders would have been daunted by the human cost of invading the Japanese islands.

Also, consider the Battle of Britain: Hitler was allied with or had conquered most of mainland Europe, and wanted to invade Britain (who were pretty much isolated at this point), yet their stubborness and refusal to surrender helped turn the tide in the war.

OK, maybe this is a bit of a superficial counter-example, but I ain't great at verbal reasoning so please excuse my shallowness

.

------------------
"And you, madam, are ugly. But I shall be sober in the morning." - Winston Churchill
--
yan@ranger.b5lr.com

 

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Should other factors cancel each other out, leaving only a justified fight with no promise of victory, the Minbari would see retreat as disgrace, choosing to fight with any means (including engines).

They try to avoid such situations. Minbari try to avoid futile loss, and do it more carefully than Humans -- because of their code of honor. They conduct their operations in a manner where they:

A. Do not have to retreat.
B. Can retreat while continuing to fight.
C. Can retreat without getting shot in their back.
D. Can take the enemy with them.

Escaping because the weapons are down would be no excuse. If weapons are gone and you are being fired at, an attempt to retreat will most likely be get you killed, while the enemy stays unharmed. If you will die anyway, why not make the enemy pay for it? Ramming would also get you killed. The loss would be equally sad, but meaningful.

Getting killed while running is not honorable. Letting a Shadow Vessel collapse your jump point is not meaningful. Retreat is honorable only if you can ensure that you live. In most cases, this includes a commander considering the chances, giving the order to retreat, and telling another ship to cover the one retreating.

Am I immensely wrong to guess that the Ranger Council didn't really discuss retreat in general -- but a particular case of retreat, with extremely high chances of getting shot in the back? Because the Minbari are quite capable of retreating -- if the retreat will not give the enemy undue advantage.

Such an approach is accepted in many, if not most Human cultures. Most armies have nothing against retreat in general. But this has to serve a purpose. You may run if ordered to run, and may run if you can ensure that you will not get shot in your back. A soldier may retreat to gain a better chance of resistance, a unit may retreat if most of its members gain a better chance of resistance. In a situation where retreating means getting killed, most armies expect their soldiers to fight, and get killed in a sad but meaningful way.

The Minbari think similarly, but given that Ranger traditions originate from the last Shadow War, their traditions are likely to be more rigid than the average Human approach.

---------------

I will try to explain it with an example. In the episode "Lines of Communication", several White Stars get into difficult situation.

They are parked at the side of a Drakh carrier, with Drakh ships around them. Having learned that the person they negotiated with is Delenn (someone who they consider responsible for the Shadows' defeat) the Drakh prepare to destroy the White Stars as these prepare to leave. There is no fighting chance inside a swarm of Drakh vessels. There would be two solutions:

1. Fight anyway, destroying the Drakh carrier, but getting destroyed by its raiders.

2. Flee in a way that allows survival, and gaining a better position. Use the Drakh carrier as a cover against its raiders.

Given that the first option would result in certain death, but the second would cost less lives, Delenn decides to try the latter. The tactic succeeds. The Drakh are unable or reluctant to fire at their own carrier. White Stars accelerate towards their escape along its surface. Some are destroyed and one crashes into the enemy, but most make it to hyperspace.

Was the loss futile? Until now, yes.

The Minbari code of honor does not allow this. Hence after escaping, Delenn chooses to take the ships back into battle, this time from a better position. This time the White Stars attack, stay as a cohesive unit and take advantage of their weapons. They suffer losses, but destroy the Drakh carrier.

Was the loss futile? No longer. They escaped and tolerated being shot in the back -- to ensure that they could counterattack and pay back.

[This message has been edited by Lennier (edited January 23, 2002).]

 

[hypatia]

I'm not sure if spoilers are needed for this, but it has to do with Valen (from the original B5 series) and I don't know if it has been shown yet so:


<table bgcolor=black><tr><td bgcolor=black><font size=1 color=white>Spoiler:</font></td></tr><tr><td><font size=2 color=black>One thought came to my mind that I don't think has been brought up yet. Sinclair brought an advanced space station back in time 1000 years to save the Minbari situation in the last Shadow war. That kind of gave the Minbari an edge over everyone else. They might have gotten used to having that edge, and thus the "never retreat" philosophy might be a bit more practical. </font></td></tr></table>

I like a lot of the ideas being brought up in this thread, however. That the Minbari were fighting a ruthless enemy (the Shadows) and they have 3 different castes, only 1 of which is warrior. Perhaps it is more of a code that the strong will not fail to defend the weak.

And JMS does like to remind us from time to time that we are dealing with ALIENS. No big news flash that they might just be a bit different from us. Personally I’ve always liked the quote “he who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day”. As others have said, it is only practical.

But who knows what the Minbari found to be “practical”


<table bgcolor=black><tr><td bgcolor=black><font size=1 color=white>Spoiler:</font></td></tr><tr><td><font size=2 color=black> again, especially if they had a 1000 year boost to their science and military defenses. </font></td></tr></table>



------------------
"The Bible is a book: it is a good book, but is is not the only book" - Inherit the Wind

"I do not believe that the same God who
has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."—Galileo

hypatia@b5fan.b5lr.com

 

[**DONOTDELETE**]

As for Nukemall, your remarks are well placed and adequate. They remind me of several matters which haven't been fully considered. They remind that people are subjective, people are people. What one may consider a situation justifying retreat, another may see as a situation justifying resistance.

During their quite desperate defense (of areas both seized and their own), the Japanese military did not know that the US possessed *the* bomb. Expecting their enemy to possess conventional weapons, they may have easily believed that their desperate tactics had a purpose. They may have easily believed they could cause enough loss to give their government a favourable negotiating position.

The same applies to Britain, with the difference that they didn't invade anyone in the first place, which made their motivation greater and fight fully justified. Given that Germany did not possess the weapons and expertise to break RAF, resistance no matter what turned out to be justified.

A soldier is expected to retreat if the retreat is justified. There has to be some reason. Usually this is enough certainty that you will live, returning to battle with better chances. Or orders from people who are trusted to decide sanely (which is a subjective matter, as enough people have trusted leaders who have wasted millions of lives).

Retreating in a situation where you *will* be shot in the back is considered dishonorable almost everywhere. They key is this: how do you recognize which situation is which? People are subjective.

------------------
"We are the universe, trying to figure itself out.
Unfortunately we as software lack any coherent documentation."
-- Delenn

[This message has been edited by Lennier (edited January 23, 2002).]

 

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Examples of Minbari retreating:

<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>The Minbari Federation surrendering to Earth Alliance after destroying all Earth forces at the Line.
<LI>Warcruiser Trigati retreating from a stand-off after failing to provoke a response from Babylon 5.
<LI>Lennier instructing the White Star to escape -- in case the ship is attacked but the crew fail to respond.
<LI>Delenn retreating from the Drakh to strike back from a better position.
<LI>Delenn trying to retreat from the Centauri vessels which attacked a formation of White Stars in hyperspace.[/list]

--------

So in the end, we may say that Minbari do retreat -- when this seems like the best choice. It is simply that the Ranger Council didn't share David Martel's ideas about best choice. Given their likeliness of being conservative old farts, this can't be a surprise.

[This message has been edited by Lennier (edited January 23, 2002).]

 

[*Sigh*]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR> And if you rushed headlong to your death everytime the opportunity came up, would you be better off?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


that is matter of opinion.


besides.....you're looking at this from a human point of view. you have to look at from a Minbari point of view. it may not make sense, but that's from a human pov.

------------------
"You are child of the universe, no less than the tree and stars, you have a right to be here, and whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should." --Les Crane--

 

[bakana]

A point to counter Hypatia's spoiler:

<table bgcolor=black><tr><td bgcolor=black><font size=1 color=white>Spoiler:</font></td></tr><tr><td><font size=2 color=black> When Sinclair took B4 back in time, he took Human tech with it.
The Minbari of 1000 years ago were already more advanced than that.
For instance, they already had Anti-Gravity.

What Valen brought them was the Station itself. They needed a meeting place, but didn't have time for the major construction effort needed to Build one.

But, more important than the Station, Valen himself was the factor that turned the war.
Up to that point, they were Losing.
Valen became the Leader who inspired the Minbari, but his more important role was to create an Alliance that defeated the Shadows by working together.

After That war, the alliance was allowed to be forgotten.

But, Valen was so revered that he became a messiah figure.

And, as was revealed in the Comic "In Valen's Name" not just for the Minbari.
</font></td></tr></table>


As far as the kamikaze question, the comparison to the Battle for Britain isn't a good parallel.

The British HAD no possible retreat.
If they lost, the Nazis would have been in their Homes.

The kamikaze were an Offensive force, not a defense. If they had succeeded, the American navy would have been crippled, buying Japan a Lot of time.
Plus, the individual pilots were not told just how desperate teh war had become.
The Generals who started the war lied to everyone pretty much till the last.
There is a lot of evidence that they didn't even notify the families when soldiers or sailors were killed in order to conceal just how many casualties they were taking.
Notifying every crewman's family when a ship is sunk is a total givaway, so they started keeping ship losses a secret by not telling them.

The Japanese general staff had let the antiAmerican propeganda get so bad by the end that, when the war ended, there were incidents similar to one at a girls school where the teaching staff led the entire student body in a mass suicide because they were convinced the American soldiers had a Policy of Raping every female they came across.

I understand that one of the stories was that every US Marine was Required to kill his Closest Female Relative as the final part of his training in order to prove his dedication was to The Corps instead of to his Family.

The Generals were planning a "To the Last Man, Woman, Child" defense of the mainland that would have made the kamikaze look like a girl scout outing.

Luckily for Japan, Hiroshima & Nagisaki gave the Emperor the excuse he needed to bring the generals down.

One of the more interesting things about the politics of Japan (pre WW2) was that the Emperor was often a Figurehead, revered as next to a God, but totally at the mercy of the Military staff. The Shoguns.
The WW2 generals were trying to set themselves up as successors to the Shoguns.

If they had succeeded, the World would be a vastly different place today.



------------------
Do not ascribe your own motivations to others:
At best, it will break your heart.
At worst, it will get you dead."

 

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Bakana:

Your remarks are valid. Perception of the enemy is an important factor in decisions between retreat and resistance. This factor is also the easiest to manipulate, given suitable social and historic conditions (isolation, war, propaganda). While your examples originate from extreme cases, they are adequate nevertheless. Given suitable conditions, people can forget that there are people on the other side too.

But in case of Rangers, we are not dealing with perception of the enemy. David Martel and the Ranger Council perceived their enemy similarly. Their opinions split only when it came to evaluating immediate threat and determining the best course of action.

Martel thought that the retreat was safe enough, allowing the crew to be saved and the ship repaired. The Council believed that the escape greatly increased chances of futile loss (getting destroyed while escaping) and considered fighting the right choice.

[This message has been edited by Lennier (edited January 24, 2002).]

 

[bakana]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR> Martel thought that the retreat was safe enough, allowing the crew to be saved and the ship repaired. The Council believed that the escape greatly increased chances of futile loss (getting destroyed while escaping) and considered fighting the right choice.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't recall the Council giving that much of an explanation for their attitude.
They just seemed angry that the ship and crew broke off combat.
I guess a Ranger ship is supposed to keep a bucket of Rocks handy just in case your weapons go down.

What I thought was being ignored was the Intel they brought back:
Evidently they had been Ambushed by the raiders.
Which means that the Raiders are getting Very Bold.
Also, judging by the Number of raiders, someone is bankrolling them Big Time.
That was way too many fighters in one place for the type of piracy and sneak attack raiders specialize in.

So, the Raiders deliberately went after a Group of Ranger ships in strength enought to destroy them.

That implies a Plan and a Sponser working against the Alliance.
And a Spy or two.



------------------
Do not ascribe your own motivations to others:
At best, it will break your heart.
At worst, it will get you dead."

 

[**DONOTDELETE**]

I've read all the discussions so far and I think a number of points are missing or need addressed further.

1) The Japanese comparison - I am no expert on Japanese culture but Americans consistently misunderstand kamikazes and so-called "banzai" charges. To the Japanese the Emperor was God and Japan the holy temple. Under the code of Bushido to surrender or retreat was dishonorable, an insult to everything the warrior stood for and was supposed to respect. Many of the kamikaze pilots were not raging fanatics, but saw such missions as their duty. They had the privilage of being born Japanese and when called upon were honor bound to pay off that debt. Also keep in mind the Kamikaze tactic was one of pure desperation. The military knew Japanese pilots could not longer conduct traitional attack missions against the United States fleet. They simply did not have the experience pilots and the necessary fuel to create well trained pilots. Necessity and expediency created the Kamikaze, not sound military tactics.

The Japanese Army often conducted "suicidal" charges against American forces in the Pacific. The Japanese Army, until WW2, had never been defeated. Then they were defeated by the Russians in 1937, but easily walked over Anglo forces in early 1941. They were not trained to retreat. No army like to back down from a fight, but most are trained on how to properly disengage from the enemy. The Japanese were never trained to do so because it went against their warrior traditions. When they did retreat, it was more of a route, but often they just kept attacking so they could die for their Emperor. Not the soundest of tactics, but ones that had worked until they met massive American firepower. Once you are in a war, it is incredibly hard to change the way things work.

Heck, throughout WW2, Korea, and Vietnam the American army brought combat units up to strength by sending in individual replacements to replace casualties. It was noted over and over and over again that this was the worst possible way of handling combat losses. What it mostly resulted in was the death of the new replacement, basically needless casualties. It also went against American experience in WW1 and German practices. The German army was the best led, best trained and toughest army, despite losing the war. It wasn't until the 70's that this stupid policy was adandoned. So I don't think Americans should try to sound so superior all the time.

2) Comparisons between humans, Minbari and RAngers. Again, you can't accurately compare the three. Humans maybe more flexible in their thinking, but the Minbari were undefeated since the last Shadow War. That is a long winning streak. Why change what works? Besides when you are speaking of Minbari, are you talking about the Warrior Caste, the Religious Caste or the Worker caste? Most of the Minbari we saw during B5 were the Religious and worker caste who may have different ideas of fighting than the Warrior caste. There is simply too little information on Minbari fighting styles and military thought to make an accurate comparison.

Finally you have the Rangers who are not a true military organization. They were created too keep an eye on the Shadows and to fight them. A ranger was facing a foe that allowed no mercy and asked for none. Actually fighting to the end was more a requirement than an option. On intelligence gathering missions the Rangers certainly"ran" because their information was far more important than sticking around to fight. Rangers are also warrior-priests and that makes them very different than a traditional military organization. I like to think of them as a version of a paladin, someone who will sacrifice all to right a wrong, protect the innocent and serve the greater good regardless of the cost. And that cost is usually high.

Now the Shadows are gone and the Rangers are performing tasks they were never expectedto perform. Not only that, a Minbari organization is accepting humans, Narn, Drazi, Pak'ma'ra and other alien species with very different ideas of fighting. It takes time to change and Minbari are so used to being superior it will take them even longer to change.

Personally I think the Rangers are so used to dying for the One, because against the Shadows that is what they mostly did. An honorable death became very important. In a new age, where resources are scare and threats are many, husbanding of resources is becoming important and requires new thinking. Probably for the first time Rangers are being asked what it means to actually "live" for the One, not just how to die honorably. What kind of example are they setting? What is their greater purpose now that their main focus is gone? How are they and their teaching relevent in a new age?

The Ranger Council is grappling with these very difficult questions and, unsuprisingly, having a hard time of it. That is why someone like G'Kar is important. G'Kar is well known to have a different view about the universe. He is a true seeker and the Minbari respect that. In a sense he embodies the ideals of both the Religious and Warrior castes of the Minbari and therefore is able to present a perspective that encompasses both honor and pragmatism. G'Kar's little speech, plus other concerns, got the council thinking in new directions and allowed then to grudgingly keep David. Its a small seed that will undoubtably grow if the series takes off.

I guess to sum up, we really don't know all we think we know about the Minbari and the Rangers. We see bits and pieces of their puzzle and assume we know the whole. We don't and never did, likely never will.

------------------
Lyta lives!