Admiral Kirk 1 Posted February 4, 2004 In Yesterdays Enterprise Picard told Captian Garret that the Federation would surrender in 6 months. If the timeline had not been fixed what do you think would have been the fate of the UFP after its surrender. I think Earth would have been occupied and Klingon governors would have been assigned to the major federation worlds. The UFP would probably ceased to exist and would have been annexed into the Klingon Empire. What are your thoughts? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
welfconfed 2 Posted February 5, 2004 The empire would execute all political and military leaders and assign imperial overseers to the former federation worlds. That assumes an official surrender that the various federation member worlds obey,but I think this unlikely,as after two decades of unceasing war with the klingons,everyone would know what surrender would mean:utter enslavement and mass murder. If the situation had gotten that bad then it would most likely be every world for its self. I would expect those worlds near the core of federation territories like Earth,vulcan,Tellar,and Andor to be about the only ones effectively under UFP council control and some of those might not obey the surrender. I can easily envision a scenario where some worlds would submit while others fight to extinction and some divided over the decision. The chaos and violence could last years if not decades and lead to destruction of not only the federation but of the klingon empire as well, as I'm sure the exhausted empire would be an irresistible target for the romulans,cardassians,breen, etc. With out the stabilizing effect of the federation and with the balance of power up-ended the alpha and beta quadrant might deteriorate into complete anarchy! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
prometheus 0 Posted February 5, 2004 What I never got was why the Klingons launched a war of the Federation just because they failed to help out at the attacked outpost. Because if you look at it, it was the Romulans who were doing all the attacking: why didnt they wage war on them? And even if they did, they wouldnt have had enough resources to wage war of the Federation as well. At the end of Star Trek 6, the Klingons were on the brink on annhilation. Now all of a sudden they are in the position to destroy the Federation all because they werent around to save their skins!!! Anyways, HAD the Klingons beaten the multi - planey, highly organised Federation, then the Federation would have been in tatters and then there would be an uoprising after about 50 years and a re-building into a less powerful, fragmented Federation type organisation after about 100 years. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
welfconfed 2 Posted February 6, 2004 What I never got was why the Klingons launched a war of the Federation just because they failed to help out at the attacked outpost. Because if you look at it, it was the Romulans who were doing all the attacking: why didnt they wage war on them? And even if they did, they wouldnt have had enough resources to wage war of the Federation as well. At the end of Star Trek 6, the Klingons were on the brink on annhilation. Now all of a sudden they are in the position to destroy the Federation all because they werent around to save their skins!!! Anyways, HAD the Klingons beaten the multi - planey, highly organised Federation, then the Federation would have been in tatters and then there would be an uoprising after about 50 years and a re-building into a less powerful, fragmented Federation type organisation after about 100 years. The war between the federation and the klingon empire makes sense if you consider the nature of their relationship from 2293(the first khitomer accord) to 2344 (the attack at narendra III). In "Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country",as the conspirators get ready to assassinate the federation president, we hear the president giving a speech in which he mentions the 50 year time frame for the repairs to the empires economy/infrastructure. I believe that the first accord was a non-aggression pact that was to last for the 50 years and then the empire,back on it's feet,could negotiate an 'honorable peace' with the federation. This I think is the reason for the conspiracy. The federation conspirators would see it as wasting the chance to end the empire and helping them rebuild themselves into a threat again,while the klingon conspirators would see it as a grave dishonor for the whole klingon race as they crawl to the federation for mercy and hand-outs instead of fighting for survival or an honorable death. In "yesterday's enterprise" Lt. Castillo mentioned that the federation was negotiating a peace treaty with the klingons when they left their time (2344) which would be the second accord (as the first would have ended in 2343),so I think that at this critical time,when the klingon chancellor (a young k'mpec?)must decide if the empire was to embrace peace or war (to regain honor and avenge the humiliation of having to ask for help)with the federation,the honorable sacrifice of the enterprise-c was the symbol that was needed to demonstrate that the federation was worthy of not only peace with the empire but that it would make an honorable ally as well. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
prometheus 0 Posted February 6, 2004 And what about the Romulans? The Klingons and them weren't on good terms either. After that open attack - a sign of brutality, why not launch war on them? Why attack someone who has helped you get back on your feet instead? It makes no sense. They can't attack both either. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
welfconfed 2 Posted February 7, 2004 And what about the Romulans? The Klingons and them weren't on good terms either. After that open attack - a sign of brutality, why not launch war on them? Why attack someone who has helped you get back on your feet instead? It makes no sense. They can't attack both either. Quite frankly, I agree with you, the romulans were the logical target, but war is seldom logical and when you throw klingon pride and passion into the mix, logic really takes a back seat! We have to remember that the narendra III attack wasn't in itself a major incident,as border raids were not uncommon. In fact in the TNG episode "Aquiel" (2369)it is mentioned that there hadn't been a klingon raid against the federation in seven years(2362),only two years before the first season of TNG, when the federation had been an ally for almost twenty years! From a klingon point of view narendra III was important not because the enterprise-c was defending the klingons from a major attack but because they proved themselves as warriors by battling four warbirds (impossible odds) and fighting to the death rather than retreat or surrender. The incident also helped changed the perception of the federation as weak by the klingons. This might seem strange, after all the federation had aided the empire,but again from a klingon perceptive, the diplomats,politicians, and some star fleet officers that they had met only served to reinforce klingon stereotypes of federation citizens as weaklings with out (klingon)honor and paralyzed by sympathy, generosity, and cooperation(none of which are klingon virtues). So ironically, while the federation was probably stronger militarily, the perception that 'federations' were a weak and timid people, made them seem the easier target. The romulans may be honorless dogs,but they are strong(willing to fight to the death,rarely taking prisoners,giving nor expecting quarter in battle). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
