Daenerys: The Incompetent Mad Queen

[Oana_Mika]

Funny how people say Dany did nothing to improve Meereen, while Martin says he found it fascinating to write about how Dany deals with the situation there : 

 

 

What does that mean, he ruled wisely? What were his tax policies? What did he do when two lords were making war on each other? Or barbarians were coming in from the North? What was his immigration policy? What about equal rights for Orcs? I mean did he just pursue a genocidal policy, “Let’s kill all these fucking Orcs who are still left over”? Or did he try to redeem them? You never actually see the nitty-gritty of ruling.

I guess there is an element of fantasy readers that don’t want to see that. I find that fascinating. Seeing someone like Dany actually trying to deal with the vestments of being a queen and getting factions and guilds and [managing the] economy. They burnt all the fields [in Meereen]. They’ve got nothing to import any more. They’re not getting any money. I find this stuff interesting. And fortunately, enough of my readers who love the books do as well. - http://observationdeck.kinja.com/george-r-r-martin-the-complete-unedited-interview-886117845

[Hugorfonics]

On 12/24/2022 at 4:01 PM, Aldarion said:

Yeah, it wasn't crushed

In Germany it most assurdly was

On 12/24/2022 at 4:01 PM, Aldarion said:

. And while Stalin may have declared "socialism in one country", fact is that various socialist groups and terrorist organizations were fairly active all across Europe in the interwar period

Whole world. Asia, Americas, presumably Africa. Yet only the Germans succumbed to nazisim (a few others, fascism. Although Italy took their country by force, Spain too) which is how we know the threat of commie revolutions was propaganda and nothing more

On 12/24/2022 at 4:01 PM, Aldarion said:

I am not fabricating excuses

You are. You brought up the depression, like being poor = acceptance to nazism. And anyway, whole world was hit.

On 12/24/2022 at 4:01 PM, Aldarion said:

And USSR failed to press into Europe only because Poland was in the way.

Poland is part of Europe.

On 12/24/2022 at 4:01 PM, Aldarion said:

I was specific enough: USSR actively cooperated with Germany on their weapons development. This started already with the Weimar Germany and continued into and throughout the Nazi era, and was quite extensive: already in 1922. Germany and USSR signed the Treaty of Rapallo which set foundations for their joint weapons development as well as the later partition of Poland, and also allowed German tank and air units to be trained in the USSR. And when Germany started rearming, plans for factories and rearmament programmes were drawn with Soviet help. German Panzer crews in fact had a dedicated training centre near Kazan, while Luftwaffe personnel were trained at Lipetsk, both in the USSR.

There are books on this (Poland Betrayed, as noted), but the article I linked to previously has a short overview of the German-Soviet cooperation.

USSR also provided Germany with raw resources such as wheat, iron ore and oil all the way until Germany actually invaded USSR.

All and all, Hitler's "little adventure" of 1939. - 1945. will have been flat-out impossible without Soviet support. And that was actual state-sanctioned support, rather than some individual businessmen doing business and ignoring morals while at it.

Everyone did! America spent a shit load of money in reamping Germany. Probably the imperial british and republican France too, but on the individual shady business level. And for the millionth time, all of these trade agreements fall very short in the growth of rearming Germany when compared to their million plus slave labor!

On 12/24/2022 at 4:01 PM, Aldarion said:

Considering the changes ongoing in the Russian Empire just before the First World War (rapid modernization and even democratization), White victory in 1920s will have been the best possible outcome for Russia, for various reasons.

Oh yes, the progressive world of Rasputin. What are you saying man? Witte boom? Fucking, freeing the serfs? All were deeply unpopular with the Czar, even more so with the aristocracy and was in the process of being reversed during WWI.
White army victory would probably be worse then nazi occupation

On 12/24/2022 at 4:01 PM, Aldarion said:

Also, White Army were actually a collection of Tsarists, parliamentary monarchists and outright republicans. Don't act as if all of them wanted a return to absolute monarchy no matter what (nevermind that even the absolute monarchy would have been better than the Communist rule).

Its not. And they did lol (ask the history books and theyll say anyone whos not bolshevick was white, so mensheviks, anarchists, socialst revolutinarys, anarchists, and republicans. But they werent.) Progressive world of Rasputin and now the progressive world of Cossacks?
(I was impressed with how your image of the Mongolian invasion of Hungary was so far removed from what Ive learned and read about, but now I see reimagining history is a hobby of yours)

On 12/24/2022 at 4:01 PM, Aldarion said:

Xenophobia has almost never been used to justify genocide/slavery until the Nazis.

What? 

On 12/24/2022 at 4:01 PM, Aldarion said:

European colonialism was either not justified at all and quite upfront ("we want your land/gold etc."), or was justified under "white man's burden" of "civilizing" the "barbaric" societies (now remind me what Daenerys is doing...).

It was justified by spreading the faith. Most of these characters, like Columbus and Cortez, were knights like Jorah and Oakheart. They are convinced they are good people and justify themselves accordingly when they commit barbarism.
Slavery was most definitely justified by racism, same with taking Indian land.
White mans burden is later, like 19th cent plus. And it is pretty disgusting, even when justified, but its not slavery or genocide (usually).

On 12/24/2022 at 4:01 PM, Aldarion said:

Communist genocides were always justified by class warfare and "liberating the oppressed classes" from their oppressors.

You can not genocide the bourgeoisie any more then genoicding slavers, as they are professions and not who you were born as. But this thread has convinced me your unable to process the difference between mass murder and genocide. 

On 12/24/2022 at 4:01 PM, Aldarion said:

Romans didn't genocide peoples unless they caused trouble, and if they did cause trouble, Romans didn't exactly care who or what they were.

lol so they did genoicde? And exactly, they didnt care as long as you weren't Roman. Rome didnt have a caste system like say, new granda had, everyone was just under roman. That goes for the italians, greeks, carthoginians, etc. Eventually they started letting people come in but that Roman exceptionalism always remained. Roman triumphs in particular always struck me as type white supremacy, but roman supremacy lol, which im sure they would have just loved to hear

On 12/24/2022 at 4:01 PM, Aldarion said:

Yes, the US settlers did kill the natives... but the US government intentionally sent smallpox-infected blankets to natives to exterminate them en masse.

Which was a trick used by the British which was a tick they came by from an American frontiersman in the 7 year war.
(and no doubt, the indians really only went away in the east after Andrew Jackson/Van Buren and the in the west after Andrew Johnosn/Grant. Because the govt is just that much more powerful then an individual. Still, the root of the problem is xenophobia not like, too much control in Washington)

On 12/24/2022 at 4:01 PM, Aldarion said:

That is not something even Cortez and Pizarro did.

They didnt think about it. Im sure they would have.

On 12/24/2022 at 4:01 PM, Aldarion said:

. Conquistadors merely wanted gold and killed people to get the gold... destruction of Native societies was pretty much accidental

They put whole cities to the torch... whoops? 

On 12/24/2022 at 4:01 PM, Aldarion said:

combined with the rather tyrannical nature of native empires which meant that Conquistadors ended up causing revolutions against the governments by their mere presence.

They didnt know what they were getting into.
Besides, most revolutions happened after threats, lies and most assuredly, propaganda. However your more likely to eat up the lies then look on the actuality of events

[SeanF]

It’s hard to say what a White Russian victory would have looked like, because their aims were so diverse.

The Reds themselves, could not have won without the backing of thousands of Tsarist officers.

[Aldarion]

8 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

In Germany it most assurdly was

Germany isn't even the most of Europe, and definitely not the world. And even then, various Communist organizations remained active in Germany

8 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Whole world. Asia, Americas, presumably Africa. Yet only the Germans succumbed to nazisim (a few others, fascism. Although Italy took their country by force, Spain too) which is how we know the threat of commie revolutions was propaganda and nothing more

Firstly, I have already explained that established democracies were not vulnerable to such panic. That automatically excludes USA, UK, France, Switzerland, Scandinavia...

Secondly, your focus on Nazism is blinding you to what was really going on. Yes, Nazis were the worst of the bunch. But Communist threat has caused a slide into authoritharianism everywhere: Nazism in Germany, Fascism in Italy, military dictatorships in Hungary, Bulgaria, Spain (and later you had Franco too), Greece, Poland, Portugal, Yugoslavia, Romania... it wasn't just Germany. Germany was merely unique in how bad it was, but the basic effect was the same everywhere. Outside Europe, you had military dictatorship in China (and Japan, but that one had nothing to do with Communism).

9 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

You are. You brought up the depression, like being poor = acceptance to nazism. And anyway, whole world was hit.

I'm not. You are just trying so hard to find excuses for Communism that everything that even implies Communism was not perfect looks like Nazism to you.

9 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Poland is part of Europe.

Yes, and they were stopped there. Had Poland fallen, Red Army will have continued onto Germany, Hungary and Austria, and then onto France and Italy.

9 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Everyone did! America spent a shit load of money in reamping Germany. Probably the imperial british and republican France too, but on the individual shady business level. And for the millionth time, all of these trade agreements fall very short in the growth of rearming Germany when compared to their million plus slave labor!

American businessmen did business with Nazi Germany, yes. And that is true for everybody else. USSR is the only place where it was an actual governmental policy.

9 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Oh yes, the progressive world of Rasputin. What are you saying man? Witte boom? Fucking, freeing the serfs? All were deeply unpopular with the Czar, even more so with the aristocracy and was in the process of being reversed during WWI.
White army victory would probably be worse then nazi occupation

And now I know that you have no clue. Worse than Nazi occupation? What world do you live in?

The entire reason why Communists were so desperate to start the revolution when they did was because Russian Empire was modernizing, which would have removed the window of opportunity. Everything Communists claimed they did with the USSR? Was already being done by the Tsarist administration. Communists merely continued Tsarist policies, and when the inertia of Tsarist modernization ran out, USSR began to fall behind.

Also, serfdom in Russia was abolished in 1861.

9 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Its not. And they did lol (ask the history books and theyll say anyone whos not bolshevick was white, so mensheviks, anarchists, socialst revolutinarys, anarchists, and republicans. But they werent.) Progressive world of Rasputin and now the progressive world of Cossacks?

Your ignorance is impressive. You are aware that the Russian Monarchy had already been overthrown by the time Communists actually took power? Communists participated in the revolution against the monarchy, yes, but their main uprising was not against the monarchy, they rebelled against the democratic Provisional Government because they didn't want to share power.

9 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

(I was impressed with how your image of the Mongolian invasion of Hungary was so far removed from what Ive learned and read about, but now I see reimagining history is a hobby of yours)

Not my fault you have done your reading and learning by raiding the childrens' picture book section of the library. If you read actual literature and research documents, you will find that a lot of what you know from popular entertainment history is simply wrong. Mongolian invasion being the prime case of that.

9 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

What? 

Greeks were extremely xenophobic yet they never went onto a campaign of genocide. Romans were xenophobic as shit, yet they let conquered peoples be so long as they paid taxes and didn't start trouble (of course, if they did start trouble, Romans had no qualms about exterminating the entire tribes).

Learn some actual history.

10 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

It was justified by spreading the faith. Most of these characters, like Columbus and Cortez, were knights like Jorah and Oakheart. They are convinced they are good people and justify themselves accordingly when they commit barbarism.

Spanish colonialism, maybe. British tended to have different justifications.

10 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Slavery was most definitely justified by racism, same with taking Indian land.

90% of historical slavery was done against people of the same race, usually even the same ethnicty, as the enslavers.

You are taking an exception to the rule and making it into a rule.

10 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

You can not genocide the bourgeoisie any more then genoicding slavers, as they are professions and not who you were born as. But this thread has convinced me your unable to process the difference between mass murder and genocide. 

Please take a pause from finding excuses for genocidal assholes and learn some history. Even if we accept your definition of what genocide is, Communists did that as well.

https://cla.umn.edu/chgs/holocaust-genocide-education/resource-guides/holodomor

10 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

lol so they did genoicde? And exactly, they didnt care as long as you weren't Roman. Rome didnt have a caste system like say, new granda had, everyone was just under roman. That goes for the italians, greeks, carthoginians, etc. Eventually they started letting people come in but that Roman exceptionalism always remained. Roman triumphs in particular always struck me as type white supremacy, but roman supremacy lol, which im sure they would have just loved to hear

"Roman" to them meant "citizen of the Roman Empire". After citizenship was extended to all free inhabitants of the Empire in 212 AD., it basically meant "inhabitant of the Empire".

10 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Which was a trick used by the British which was a tick they came by from an American frontiersman in the 7 year war.
(and no doubt, the indians really only went away in the east after Andrew Jackson/Van Buren and the in the west after Andrew Johnosn/Grant. Because the govt is just that much more powerful then an individual. Still, the root of the problem is xenophobia not like, too much control in Washington)

Root of the problem is that Europeans didn't stay in Europe.

10 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

They didnt think about it. Im sure they would have.

Yes, because you are God and know what they would have done.

Conquistadors wanted gold. That was all. They weren't interested in exterminating the natives, and even later Spanish colonizators mostly let the natives be and even incorporated them into a semi-feudal society. Basically all casualties among the natives in the Latin America were caused by the diseases.

10 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

They put whole cities to the torch... whoops? 

If you are referring to Tenotchtitlan, that is literally no different from what they did to any European city that was besieged and refused to surrender. And the entire reason why the Spanish were so successful was because Aztecs were assholes and everybody else hated them.

Seriously, learn your history.

11 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

They didnt know what they were getting into.

They didn't. Nor did they intend to destroy the Native civilization. That is just how the stuff happened.

11 hours ago, Hugorfonics said:

Besides, most revolutions happened after threats, lies and most assuredly, propaganda

True. Although, when it comes to Aztecs specifically, they hardly needed any propaganda against them. They were plenty terrible by themselves.

[SeanF]

@AldarionThe Romans had no qualms about pre-emptive genocides (Caesar is pretty matter of fact about it).  But, they rarely used race or religion as a justification.

The one big exception was Hadrian’s anti-semitism.

TBH, I could see wiping out an entire class, regardless of its members’ behaviour, as a form of genocide (even if it is not designated as such).  I think the massacre of the professional classes of Liberia, dekulakisation,  and the Khmer Rouge’s murder of the city dwellers of Cambodia ought to be viewed as such.

But, I don’t view the killings at Astapor as such.  The victims were targeted because of their involvement in horrific abuses.  Do I think some people died who did not deserve it?  Yes.  That is the case in every fight.  But, not the majority. And, while they had traded away the Unsullied and Uncut boys, there is no way they would willingly have freed the 40,000 civilians who left with Daenerys.

[Craving Peaches]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the Spanish wanted the native peoples of Mexico not dead so they could be used as a labour force? Queen Isabella issued a declaration at some point ordering the people exploiting the native people for labour to treat them less harshly.

[Aldarion]

37 minutes ago, Craving Peaches said:

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the Spanish wanted the native peoples of Mexico not dead so they could be used as a labour force? Queen Isabella issued a declaration at some point ordering the people exploiting the native people for labour to treat them less harshly.

Correct. Spanish never actually engaged in any intentional genocides in the New World. Spanish diseases, on the other hand...

[Ser Lepus]

On 12/26/2022 at 11:13 PM, Oana_Mika said:

Funny how people say Dany did nothing to improve Meereen, while Martin says he found it fascinating to write about how Dany deals with the situation there : 

 

 

What does that mean, he ruled wisely? What were his tax policies? What did he do when two lords were making war on each other? Or barbarians were coming in from the North? What was his immigration policy? What about equal rights for Orcs? I mean did he just pursue a genocidal policy, “Let’s kill all these fucking Orcs who are still left over”? Or did he try to redeem them? You never actually see the nitty-gritty of ruling.

I guess there is an element of fantasy readers that don’t want to see that. I find that fascinating. Seeing someone like Dany actually trying to deal with the vestments of being a queen and getting factions and guilds and [managing the] economy. They burnt all the fields [in Meereen]. They’ve got nothing to import any more. They’re not getting any money. I find this stuff interesting. And fortunately, enough of my readers who love the books do as well. - http://observationdeck.kinja.com/george-r-r-martin-the-complete-unedited-interview-886117845

I don't think George R. R. Martin is any better than Tolkien at worldbuilding and at portraying real administration and economy... I mean, ASoIaF is full of plot holes... How do people even survive the long winters? Are there crops that can grow during winters in the south? How can pear trees, peach trees, cherry trees and apple trees even give fruit, if they depend of the regular alternance of cold and hot seasons in order to bloom and produce fruits? How can crops grow far north, if there is snow all year round every year? How can the wildlings multiply so much? How come merchants, guilds, bankers are  so unimportant in Westeros? Are there educated people among the commoners? who do rich merchants and guildsmen go when they need a healer or a teacher or a scribe or an accountant? How does the administration work? How are tax collectors/tax farmers selected? Where do you find a person with a good enough education to become a tax collector or treasurer? Are there septons and septas with a decent education? How come there haven't appeared educative institutions to service these needs? Why has the retarded piratic Ironborn culture been allowed to survive so long? Why are the Dothraki soo primitive and stupid?

And there are the teleporting ships...

George R. R. Martin sorta scratches the surface, and he is satisfied with it, he doesn't try to make sense of it.  The only difference with Tolkien is, George likes political intrigue and backstabbing, even when it doesn't make sense, while Tolkien likes a Confucian style "if a king is virtuous, everybody becomes virtuous, and everything goes well" idealistic mindset...

[Ser Lepus]

On 12/27/2022 at 3:06 PM, Aldarion said:

Correct. Spanish never actually engaged in any intentional genocides in the New World. Spanish diseases, on the other hand...

The problem is, the crown didn't really had control of the colonization of America until well into the XVI century, and even then their control was quite weak. For a long time, it was adventurers who did all the work on their own, and royal magistrates and soldiers only arrived much later. Technically speaking, Native Americans had the same rights as Spanish subjects, and it was illegal to enslave them, but in practice, the colonists did whatever they wanted, and they could not be punished because there was no real law enforcement to do it, and even when there was, they couldn't fight the colonists without having the colonies collapse, so they had to compromise.

In 1516 three monks were sent as co-governors of Santo Domingo (then called La Española) with orders to protect the natives, and that same year Fray Bartolome De Las Casas was made Universal Protector of the Indians by the crown... and the encomenderos just ignored them. Bartolome De Las Casas was later made bishop of Chiapas and given power to protect the natives, and he was driven away...

Luis de Velasco y Castilla, twice viceroy of Mexico and once viceroy of Peru disliked slavery (both of Africans and of Native Americans), but he couldn't outlaw it without destroying the colonies, and all he could do was to try to better the treatment of the natives. He later adviced king Philip II of Spain to not allow slavery in Philippines, since he could see it had screwed American society forever and he didn't want that model to spread around the world...

The problem is, people who got into a ship to sail to America weren't planning on becoming farmers or fishermen or artisans once they were there... At that time, crossing the Atlantic Ocean felt like traveling to another planet, you were leaving everything you knew and loved behind, maybe forever, there was like 50/50 chances you would die of some tropical disease, and you knew you would probably need to fight and kill and maybe die... nobody takes these chances, faces these risks so they could grow cabbages in the New World... They took these risks because they expected to become filthy rich, they wanted to loot as much gold as they could and come back home, and if that wasn't possible at all, to seize a piece of land and become lordlings over it... that was the kind of people who made the first wave of Spanish colonists... they were adventurers, with a mindset similar to corsairs and mercenaries... "get rich fast using violence".

And for a long time, these were the only people willing to make the trip to America. And not only they were violent, dangerous people you couldn't rein on easily, you also needed to appease them and work with them, because, without them, there was no colony. And the crown had more important stuff to focus its efforts on, like literally fighting every major and medium power in Europe, Africa and Middle East simultaneously, so in the end, the crown often resigned itself to let the colonists do as they wanted, so long as the money they needed to bankroll their wars kept coming...