Reinhard: Our paths have crossed before. Do you remember the Battle of Astarte, three years ago?

Yang: I received your Excellency’s message. You wished me well, until the day we met again on the field of battle. Thanks to that, I’ve made it through some bad times.

R: You didn’t respond to my message.

Y: That was rude of me. Pardon me.

R: That is not what I want from you. How about it? Won’t you come and serve me? We understand that you’ve been appointed fleet admiral. I, too, wish to raise you up to be an Imperial Fleet Admiral. Surely that title would have more weight if you came over to our side?

Y: This is a great honor, but I must refuse.

R: Why?

Y: I don’t believe that I can be of much assistance to you, your Excellency.

R: Is that true? Or did you really want to say that I am not a charismatic enough master?

Y: No, that’s not it! If I had been born in the Empire, I would have volunteered to serve your Excellency, even if you hadn’t asked. But I didn’t grow up drinking the same waster as the people of the Empire. I hear that drinking water one’s not used to is not good for one’s health.

R: I don’t believe that your water necessarily suits you. Do you not feel that, with all your valiant accomplishments, you’ve been subject to persecution more than you’ve been rewarded?

Y: I feel that I’ve been amply rewarded. Besides, I like the taste of that water.

R: Do you want to say that your loyalty is reserved for democracy?

Y: Yeah, well…

R: Is democracy such a great thing? Didn’t the Galactic Republic give birth to Rudolf and his Galactic Empire? Wasn’t the one who delivered your beloved nation into my hands your own ruler, chosen by the free will of the people of the Alliance? Democratic rule is the body chosen by its citizens in free will which subsumes the power and spirit of self.

Y: If you could pardon my rudeness, your Excellency, your words are as if they value of fire should be denied, simply because arson exists.

R: Hmm… That may be true, but wouldn’t you say that the same applies to dictatorship? You cannot deny the efficiency of government by a strong leadership simply because tyrants to exist.

Y: I can.

R: How?

Y: The rights to violate the rights of the people belongs to the people. In other words, when the people gave power to Rudolf von Goldenbaum, or an incomparably smaller man like Job Truniht, the responsibility belongs to the people. It belongs to no one else. That’s the important point. The sin of dictatorship is that the people can push off the failures of government onto one man. Compared to that cardinal sin the accomplishments of a hundred wise rulers seem small. In addition, your Excellency, a ruler as great as you is exceedingly rare. It’s only natural that your accomplishments and your failures also stand out.

R: I feel that your ideology is bold and novel, but a little extreme. I can only agree in principle. Do you mean to turn me to your point of view?

Y: No, not at all. I can only offer a counterpoint to your ideology. I believe that an ideology, seem from another side, must give rise to a counter-ideology. I merely point out that such a counterpoint must exist. That was what I wanted to say.

R: So no ideology is supreme, and no ideology stands alone? Is that your conviction?

Y: No, that’s just what I was thinking. I wouldn’t call it a conviction. Perhaps, in this universe, there exists a solitary, absolute truth. Perhaps it clarifies every question. But that’s beyond the reach of these short hands.

R: Then my hands are even shorter than yours. I don’t believe that the absolute truth is necessary. I only need the power to freely accomplish my dreams. One could say that it’s the power to not have to take orders from those one despises. Have you ever thought that way? Aren’t there people you dislike?

Y: I despise those who hide in safety while they glorifying war and patriotism and send other people to the battlefields while they relax behind the lines.

R: It is a difficult thing to live with those people under the same flag.

Y: You are different from them. You’re on the front lines. Please pardon my words. It’s admirable.

R: I understand. It was the only thing you approve of in me, after all. I’m honored. I had a dear friend, once. Long ago, when we swore to seize the universe together, we also made another oath; that we would never emulate those despicable noblemen and would stand at the fore and fight, and seize our victory. I was ready to sacrifice myself for that friend, no matter when, no matter where. But, in the end, the one who was sacrificed was him. I always relied so much upon him, but he gaze up even his life for me. If that dear friend were still alive, the one before me now right now would not be you, but your corpse. The admirals who occupied your capital have received a message. The Fleet Commander-in-Chief, your superior officer, perhaps, has asked that he be allowed to assume sole responsibility, and that I not visit my wrath on any other.

Y: That sounds lot like Admiral Bucock. But I beg your Excellency to refuse his request. Please, sir, it would be unworthy of us to let him bear the whole burden.

R: Admiral Yang, I am not a vengeful man. True, I did bear a grudge against the nobility of the Empire. But I merely think that you are a worthy opponent. Placing the one most responsible, the high commander, under arrest, was unavoidable. However, as the fires of war die down, the meaningless spillage of more blood is unnecessary, from my point of view. If I give you your freedom, what will you do now?

Y: I’ll retire.

R: Democratic rule is a body chosen by its citizens in free will which subsumes the power and spirit of self.

Colonel Christian: Have Jessica Edwards brought here.

Jessica Edwards: That won’t be necessary. I’m right here. We’re holding a peaceful public rally. Why have you come barging in, waving your guns?

Christian: We’re here to restore order.

Edwards: “Order”? Aren’t you from the National Salvation Military Council, the people who disturbed our “order” with a violent coup? Just what kind of “order” do you have in mind?

Christian: We will decide what order is. We restored order to the degenerating Alliance and eliminated mob rule. Anything necessary to achieve that is order.

Edwards: What arrogant conceit!

Christian: Line up ten people here.

Edwards: What do you think you’re doing?

Christian: I’m going to make sure these people, who say they advocate pacifism, are serious. You citizens all claim to have lofty ideals. You claim that peaceful discussion is better than violence, correct? Are you sure?

Civilian: That’s right. [Christian pistol whips him]

Edwards: What are you doing?

Christian: You there. Do you believe that too?

Civilian: Forgive me. I have a family. Please don’t kill me.

Christian: Hahahah! [pistol whips him] Brave words for people afraid to die. I dare you to contradict me. Peace can only be maintained by military might. There is no peace without weapons. Try and say otherwise! Well, talk!

Edwards: Stop it!

Christian: What?

Edwards: Do you think it’s all right to commit any atrocity as long as you’re prepared to die? Do you think it’s all right to commit horrible, stupid acts as long as you have conviction? How can you justify coercing people to your own personal view of righteousness through violence? That’s how Rudolf built the Galactic Empire. Just as you would like to, Colonel! There’s no difference between you and Rudolf! You’re not fit to give orders! Get the hell out of our stadium!

Christian: Shut up! [he pistol whips her] You bitch… [he stomps her]

* * *

I have to say, this was one of my most favorite scenes of the series. Jessica Edwards is so badass. She challenges military authority right off the bat by presenting herself, a nice and subtle feat of agency. Edwards easily sees through the discursive farce of “order” as established by martial law – the same martial law which reeks horrendously of “mob rule”. The best part is when she call his Rudolf, or at least in a Rudolfian vein of thought. She’s subverting his masculinity by positioning all masculinity within despotism thus marginalizing it within the very political ideology the FPA seeks to unravel. So yeah, the fact that she’s a women is just icing on the cake, but it’s terrifically effective. And of course the brief revolt is awesome.

←[81]

Fork: The objective is to strike deep into Imperial territory with a large force. With that alone, we will make the blood of the citizens of the Empire run cold.

Ulanfu: Then you mean we are to invade without fighting, and then withdraw?

Fork: That’s not the case. We must maintain a high degree of flexibility and react to events as the situation demands.

Ulanfu: Please be a bit more specific. That’s a little abstract.

Bucock: He means we’re supposed to look for a good chance.

Fork: Is there anything else?

Yang: May I?

Sitolet: Go ahead, Admiral Yang.

Yang: I want to hear the reason why it was decided to invade the Empire at this time.

Bucock: Isn’t it for the upcoming election?

Fork: In war, there are opportunities. If we miss this opportunity, we are at fate’s mercy.

Yang: So what you’re saying is, now is our chance to take the offensive against the Empire?

Fork: It’s not just an offensive! It’s a great crusade! Using Iserlohn Fortress as a bridgehead, we’ll invade deep into Imperial territory. Faced with that, the Imperial Fleet will panic, and not knowing what to do, the unprecedented, massive fleet of the Alliance will advance, flying the flat of righteousness for the FPA. There can’t be anything other than victory!

Yang: However, in this operation, our supply lines will be very long. It will cause difficulties with supplies and communications. Furthermore, by merely attacking our long, thin flank the enemy can easily cut our forces apart.

Fork: Why do you stress this possibility? The enemy will then be caught between our fleets. Trapped from front and rear, we’ll bombard them from all sides. There is no doubt we will deal them a crushing defeat. What Admiral Yang imagines is an insignificant risk.

Yang: No. The commander of the Imperial Fleet will probably be count Lohengramm. Considering his demonstrated military genius, we must draw up a little more cautious plan.

Greenhill: Admiral yang, I know you think highly of Count Lohengramm, but he’s still young. He may also fail.

Yang: That may be. But if we make a biggest mistake than he does, then he’ll win and we’ll be destroyed.

Fork: That’s no more than speculation, Admiral Yang. I’m afraid you overestimate the enemy. As a warrior, that’s disgraceful. Furthermore, you lower our allies’ moral, weakening their resolution. I think you’re helping the enemy.

Bucock: Commodore Fork! You’re being rude.

Fork: How so?

Bucock: Accusing anyone who questions your ideas, or advises caution, of aiding the enemy – that’s impolite.

Fork: I’m speaking generally. I didn’t intend to slander anyone. Well now – the goal of this noble cause is to liberate 25 billion citizens of the Galactic Empire who are oppressed by its totalitarian government. Anyone opposing this can’t help but be seen as aiding the Empire. Can anyone say I’m wrong? Suppose they have a geographical advantage or even have a new weapon beyond our imagination; we must not shrink from our duty! If we act for a just cause, as a liberation force, the citizens of the Empire will rush to greet us, cheering and aiding our advance! And then…

* * *

I don’t think this rhetoric is dissimilar to Truniht’s saccharin pandering affairs of episode three. As Bucock pointed out later, Fork relies on eloquence (something us monoglots won’t understand) to make his point instead of actual convincing rhetoric as Ulanfu indicates with his remark “[p]lease be a bit more specific. That’s a little abstract.” The problem with this entire meeting is that Fork’s plan is never clarified to any degree of compelling precision (within the clip that is; he goes off with ellipses in the anime but we don’t see the real adjournment). His most detailed tactical point is that “[t]he enemy will then be caught between our fleets. Trapped from front and rear, we’ll bombard them from all sides.” And even that is fairly ambiguous as to how such a tactic will be approached, executed, if there are any backups, and so forth.

Fork’s statements are also highly charged with binaries as he forces his audience to choose between one option or another, essentially picking right or wrong:

“In war, there are opportunities. If we miss this opportunity, we are at fate’s mercy.” In this case the logic is broken down into miss or do not miss, though I don’t think fate’s mercy would discriminate between options.

“There can’t be anything other than victory!…Why do you stress this possibility?” Fork divides his strategy into win/lose, though he attempts to reject even the slightest possibility of defeat. That’s why Yang’s seemingly overly cautious speculation comes off as a rather anomalous category that doesn’t conform to the rigidity of Fork’s discourse.

“Anyone opposing this can’t help but be seen as aiding the Empire. Can anyone say I’m wrong?” This is the significant part where he politically frames his wording to align his opposition as aiding the Empire. Even if someone accuses this statement in itself of being illogical or incorrect they are thus situated within the diametric political ideology, the Empire. It becomes futile to argue against the density of his logic; you could say Fork is quite an excellent Sophist. Of course Bucock got around him, but any attempt to steer the strategy away from Fork was pyrrhic from the start since it was the government’s decision to invade.

“[W]e must not shrink from our duty! If we act for a just cause, as a liberation force, the citizens of the Empire will rush to greet us, cheering and aiding our advance!” Just icing on the cake. Fork furthers the framing of his binaries by piling on additional patriotic ideologies – duty, justice, liberty – implicitly framing his opposition as antithetical to these ideologies (lethargy, corruption, suppression).

A recent discussion in the MAL club went like this:

“Im arguing against Julian because of one thing. The war he started was needless and ANYTHING gained by it will be lost in time. You can say seeds where planted, but we are talking about a empire with 1000′s of planets. All the Empire’s citizen see is how the Free Planet Alliance attacked their god-like kaiser, and not to forget all the propaganda. How could they ever agree to a democratic government form that brought ALL wars that ever happend to them in existence in the first place.”

…

“Hmmm, I’d disagree. One thing Yang was always referencing was history – he was a “scholar” after all, and Julian his biographer. Perhaps those planted seeds of constitutionalism were not realized within the political reality of the Empire, but, as those “fourth wall” historians were indicative of, the simple historical fact of political struggle keeps alive the respective political philosophies that need only exist in record that can, some day or another, revitalize their own mobilization.

So that brings up an interesting paradox of pragmaticism: does an historic victory count as a strategic victory? Actually, an historic victory probably wouldn’t discriminate against any kind of victory since it would all be recorded, lest conservative historians neglect certain events, but it seemed that the LoGH universe was a rather historically utopian microcosm in that the viewer was essentially this omnipotent entity that was guided by those historians and the narrator.

So in some ways I think the element of history in LoGh was one of the most significant: to say that war is entirely, inherently and inextricably futile to the point of total avoidance suggests that its everlasting effect on the history of human thought is worthless. So I’m not really saying we should go to war just so future generations can read about it and watch gory movies (ironic eh?) moreso than how the historical value of war and its purposes (i.e. to “historicize” constitutionalism) cannot be disregarded. Do the ends justify the means? I dunno, but I did like Oberstein.”

It’s exactly as Julian notes.

Gathered citizens and soldiers! What is the purpose of our having gathered in this place today? It is to console the souls of the 1,500,000 departed who fell in the Astate Starzone. They sacrificed their honorable live protecting the freedom of their motherland. They were good spouses, good parents, good children, good lovers. They deserved to have happy lives. But they gave up that privilege and gave up their lives. Citizens, I dare to ask! Why did 1,500,000 soldiers die? There is only one answer. They gave up their lives to protect the freedom of their motherland! Do you suppose that this is worthy of a noble death? My friends; here we must bear in mind. The motherland and freedom; these things are worth protecting. This mighty motherland is free. Friends, don’t be afraid of death! We will fight for the sake of our free motherland! We must fight for our motherland! Love live the Alliance! Long live the Republic! Down with the Empire!

Our weapon is the unified will of all our citizens. This is a free country and being a part of a democratic republic, you have the freedom to oppose national policy. However, if you citizens are people of good sense, you must understand that in order to advance toward true freedom you must be one with the nation! Friends!

Secretary of Defense, I am Jessica Edwards. I am the fiancé of 6^th Fleet Staff Officer Jean Robert Lap who died in battle at the Astate Encounter. No. I was his fiancé.

That’s…that’s regrettable. But…

You don’t need to console me because you say that my fiancée achieved a noble death protecting the motherland.

I see. Well, you are a person who must be called a model for the surviving women and children.

Thank you very much. I only came to ask you one question, Secretary of Defense.

What kind of question is it? I hope it’s a question I can answer.

Where were you?

Huh? What?

My fiancée went to battle in order to protect the motherland, and now he’s gone – Secretary of Defense! – Where were you? Where were you who glorify the war dead?

Miss..

Where is your family? I offered my fiancé as a sacrifice. So where is your family, who preach the necessity of citizen sacrifice. Are you practicing what you preach?

Guards, this woman has lost her composure. Take her into another room.

Let me go! Let me go!

Regrettably, grief invites madness. However, we citizens of the Free Planets Alliance must not be defeated by grief. We must commit ourselves to sanity. Victory in freedom! The military band, the national anthem! Play the national anthem!

Typically Trunhilt crafts a speech sewn of non sequiturs (unified will? political opposition?) and pathos provoking rhetoric. Interestingly, he never explicitly says that citizens have freedom. They have, as he put it, the freedom to oppose national policy, but as Yang pointed out later that episode, the greatest freedom is “the freedom to not get involved.” What Trunhilt does explicitly state is that the nation is free – the freedom of the motherland. Like many democracies, the ideology of freedom is often appealed to as a legal reality, but legality doesn’t always take into consideration the social conditions under which such legal rights are enacted and used: you can oppose national policy but you’ll have the government’s “secret police” (PKC) up your ass.

The fact that “in order to advance toward true freedom, you must be one with the nation,” does stir up quite a deal of trouble. To dissent is to go against the nation, so Trunhilt’s juxtaposition of freedom and unity is frighteningly paradoxical. The rhetorical deployment of the nation, specifically the essentialist ideology of national absolutism – that the nation’s subjects are all the same (seen one, seen ‘em all) – opens up for viewing the heterogeneity of political nation-states and cultural nations. Rhetoricians under the banner of democracy will use this as a discursive device to establish hegemony, the sense that the social structure of the nation is egalitarian, and it’s funny to see how the Empire never says anything about a “nation” (I think?), though in a sense they are a nation of monarchial ideologues. I remember somewhere, someone (in the anime) saying that democracy was just a means for the few to dominate the many. The difference between the rulers of the Free Planets Alliance and the Empire is that the latter are more aware of their hegemony and the sheer power they have, while the former (most of them, Trunhilt was quite calculating) are rather ignorant of their power and subsequently fall subject to their very own hegemony – I’m thinking particularly of the officials at Yang’s inquisition around episode 34 when the graceful Yang verbally out-maneuvers them and exposes that power and political position (and intelligence) aren’t always coextensive.

←[77]