I need time to get started on a slew of reflections on another big thing in LOTGH, so let me start with something a little easier. Information gathering. Espionage. There are many instances where both the Alliance and the Empire made use of covert missions to gain an edge in the war and I think that there’s something really interesting that I had noticed. When Yang’s protégé, Julian Minci, was sent away on an expedition to Earth and everyone left him a parting message, a veteran from information gathering gave him some good advice: every piece of information is coloured in a bias and in order to decipher these biases, trace it to who gains from it. Those who stand to gain from a particular information most likely added in their own twist or threw in a few red herrings for misdirection.
It makes sense, logically, but I can’t help but question that rule even though I am far from some information expert. Of course, those who have a motive will be most tempted to spin a certain narrative, but what if people take advantage of this “common knowledge” and use this to conceal their part in the grand scheme of things? For example, I don’t necessarily have to have the worst cards to want to wash my hand, I might simply have a mediocre hand and want to change it up to increase my chances. Spreading disinformation could be that chance to rewash the situation and perhaps to some players changing it up is in itself enough of a “gain”.
This just somehow got me curious as to how we process information. In “What the Dog Saw” by Malcolm Gladwell, he noted that the way the US military processed incomplete information on certain attacks was the determining factor in the outcome: did they choose to act upon a false warning, did they choose inaction when in the off chance the warning was a legitimate threat? In the same way, learning to have a gut instinct to sieve for information is important to the outcomes of our lives, not just on a strategic level, but perhaps also on our interpersonal lives. Working with a time-proven assumption (that all information is biased by the actor who stands to gain the most from it) is dangerous because we start forgetting that there was an assumption and overlook the basic premise. Information we are looking for could be staring at us in the face and we could miss it.
On to the big ideas that Reinhard had impressed upon me. I think that in the sphere of human resource management, LOTGH believes that to go far, one needs to keep by his side both an insidious snake and a loyal dog. What I mean is, utilitarianism, or Machiavellianism (which the anime had called it), can only get you so far, and the same applies to idealism or just pure “goodness” of heart. Regardless of which side of the scale we personally lean towards, we need someone to present both of these voices to us. This is most interestingly demonstrated in the character writing of Reinhard’s two closest advisors, his platonic soulmate Siegfried and his political and military advisor Oberstein. I mean, there’s also Frauline Marindorf (his sorta aid and advisor in government) but I think she’s not as interesting in the frame of this discussion.
Let’s talk about Siegfried Kiercheis first. He grew up with Reinhard and shares dreams, aspirations, fears and everything in between with Reinhard and the two of them respect and hold each other dear to their hearts. Reinhard holds the highest regard for Siegfried and also trusts him to be the guiding voice in his conquest. In the metaphor I have previously made, Siegfried is like the loyal dog, good-natured at his core and someone who is more than an advisor – a companion. Siegfried is great and all, but because of his inherent goodness, he chooses the path with the most resistance simply because the easier options goes against some inviolable morals. That is important in itself because he is a grounding reminder to Reinhard that never once should he allow himself to retrace the bloody and misguided path that the previous Goldenbaum dynasty had taken. Siegfried is like a talisman to remind Reinhard to never become what he hates no matter how much power he wields.
On the other hand, we have the insidious snake, Oberstein, who arguably is the most interesting character in the entire anime. Oberstein was born with defective eyes and extremely self-aware of the fact that under an old dynasty, this defect would have cost him his life. Throughout his first few meetings with Reinhard, he promotes himself to be of value by being able to do the things that Reinhard is too good to do. He pledges his loyalty because he believes that only the world under Reinhard’s vision would he be able to be rewarded for his merits and given the right to live. Indirectly, he owes his life to Reinhard. Oberstein describes himself as the necessary shadow to the brilliant light that is Reinhard, and in perfect alignment to that, his presence is one that is gloomy and disliked among the rest of Reinhard’s key staff. Oberstein is Machiavellian to the tea and many other generals hold him in contempt for his underhanded tactics – but cannot deny that as ruthless as it is, they are effective.
To me, he is the perfect advisor because he has no self-interest and protects Reinhard by garnering all the hatred to avoid internal discord (he even said that he would dethrone Reinhard if he deemed him unsuitable to the good of the empire, because the Kaiser will die but the dynasty lives on); and is constantly ahead of everyone. For example, he anticipated the terrorist and political detainers revolting, as well as the final parting to deal with Terraists. As Frauline puts it, there is always value in having someone who possesses a different view on things.
In Chinese there’s a saying that we should be grateful to have met just one person who understands us (Siegfried), but I also do think that finding someone who challenges and is willing to absorb the negativity directed at you is equally rare (Oberstein). These two people are each a guardian angel in their own ways. This point illustrates Yang Wenli’s quote on how people follow people and not the bid ideologies: why else would Siegfried not challenge Reinhard’s position for power when he was equally capable, and why else would Oberstein devote his life to Reinhard instead of harbouring personal ambitions like Reuntal (another one of his key personnals)?
I felt super touched watching these two characters, and I honestly hope that in my lifetime I would be able to meet more and more people and see this kind of devotion in real life. Either that, or I would be able to be this kind of support for someone who can convince me of the vision they see. Perhaps it’s the spirit of service demonstrated in two different capacities that really moved me, because I hear the word “service learning” and “servant leadership” so many times I have forgotten what it meant. It’s such a nice reminder to have, that service still elicits some tender and resolute commitment (in my mind what emerges is the sheer human force behind the words “I will render you my service”, an image of an old butler who bows graciously and lets the sunlight through.)
Both Siegfried and Oberstein come together to support their leader, who is wise and benevolent and inspiring, and I cannot imagine how it is like a dream come true for a subordinate to serve a brilliant leader. But LOTGH also asks questions about the flipside of the coin: what happens when we are placed in a position where we do not agree with the leader, or worse still, find them incompetent or undeserving of respect? When Reinhard makes a decision that the rest of the higher echelons disagree with, they will have to swallow their sense of self and do as told. On the Alliance side of things, the sheer incompetence of the superiors makes me wonder how they managed to put up a fight against the Empire for the past 150 years and Yang Wenli’s genius went to waste so many times because his superiors are fools. How do we cope with this kind of regimentation and power structure?
The answer comes much more easily if we look at it as the person holding the power. Listen, embody the change that you wish to see, become the kind of leader that you would have followed if you were a follower. Do not let our stupid pride get in the way, even if it gets harder and harder to remember that the higher up we go. Reinhard demonstrates that in his willingness to seek counsel from his subordinates and he is different from the past incompetent rulers because he is able to avoid building an echo-chamber.
The difficulty comes in if we try to think as the subordinate who can see so clearly that the crash is coming but is unable to do anything about it. The frustration comes from the fact that you know that the power structure is necessary to any organisation, but at the same time the underlying assumption behind this power structure (ie. faith in the decision-making of the superiors) is not there. We get offended personally too, and a decision starts taking on a personal problem (ie. the superior must have a grudge against you). I have seen that happen with people around me. I have experienced it myself. And as such I don’t have an answer myself. Reinhard’s answer is one that we are more familiar with. He harbours the anger quietly and deals with the bullshit he is dealt with, waiting to rise through the ranks and gaining power to change the situation from the inside. It is nice to know that, but I do think that Yang Wenli’s attitude is one that we could model after in the face of such conflicts. He understands that there are only two real options: suck it up or leave. What helps him digest the frustration is not the “I will change this someday” attitude, but the awareness of his miniscule importance in history (this value is something that I am trying to learn). If his superiors screw up, they will look for a scapegoat and he will have to be responsible for cleaning up the mess they made. But who cares? There will be consequences, but he is not as conceited to believe that his interjection would alter the flow of history forever; there are only so many things within our control and we only have to be satisfied with doing those to our best. If “our best” was to at least vocalise our objection without it having a tangible effect on the ultimate decision, then so be it. I do think that it is a form of conceit to believe that we are responsible for more than what we are actually capable of.
The final point on human resources is how we choose to make alliances. It really struck me because of how different the implications were from the kinds of alliances I was familiar with. In our childish understanding, alliance is based on convenience. I think of “war games” and orientation mass games kind thing, where a few major groups have to win by eliminating each other. Alliance was borne out of need to outnumber enemy and nothing deeper than that. Now LOTGH has gotten me thinking beyond that. I am aware that an alliance of convenience will not last (American and Soviet Union during World War 2 anyone?) and an alliance that only accepts a singular winner is one that has been hollowed of trust. For example, when we make an alliance and agree on an uneasy truce between say the Yellow and Green team, ultimately when the others are eliminated, it goes down to a head to head match for that “winning team” title. It is destructive and competitive and completely shuts out our options of cooperation.
And here’s what LOTGH taught me: an alliance is effectively useless if there isn’t a compelling advantage to be gained from it. Alliances are not all good and honourable, it is a game of mutual manipulation to fit our self-interests. This is demonstrated in the alliance between Phezzan and Reinhard. Phezzan is a neutral territory that occupies one of the two corridors for the Empire’s invasion of the Alliance and it was an assumption that Phezzan will always remain non-aligned in order to protect their political sovereignty. That proved false because the Phezzan head of state struck a deal with Reinhard to allow them to use the Phezzan corridor to completely take over the Alliance in return for economic rewards after the Empire has unified the entire galaxy under one single economic body. In the “war games” logic, that is good enough, but in real life, Reinhard realised the schemes beyond that, because what happens after the enemy (aka Alliance) is gone? We will start turning against our allies. The Phezzans fell for Reinhard’s schemes because they thought that they were the sure winners of the alliance and failed to see how Reinhard could potentially gain his own advantage from this alliance. In essence, the loser in an alliance is the one who fails to see that ultimately it is a mutual process of “making use of each other”.
The other thing I gathered from this is how alliances have to be weighed in the longer-term scheme and how it would disrupt the power balance. A triad power structure is much more stable than two giant superpowers. This is illustrated in LOTGH’s universe, as well as our world’s geopolitics (Thucydides traps, Superpower rivalry) and even in the seemingly childish wisdom of finger games (it’s Scissor-Papers-Stone for a reason). It is stable because the knowledge that “an enemy of my enemy is my friend” is there to safeguard some kind of stability. Upsetting this power structure by making an alliance can be bad for longer term prosperity.
The final thing about allies (high time to bring this post to a close) is that we need to learn how to look past the mutual competition part of it. It’s no longer a zero-sum game. I feel like this phrase is thrown around a lot more often but I truly do believe that a more productive way forward is not to tear each other down, but to build upon each other. During the few meetings between Yang and Reinhard, they talked about the possibility of a collaboration, and at the close of the anime Yang’s protégé proposed a coexistence to Reinhard. Why must allies be made for the offensive? Why can’t it be forged on goodwill and mutual coexistence? Holding on to this view requires a healthy dash of optimism and idealism, and perhaps as we grow older this just seems unrealistic. Nonetheless, I hope that even 40 years down the road I will still hold on to this belief because it is about time humans learn to maximise the potential in each other and evolve out of the pettiness that brought us much happiness in the past.
Updates 
Leave a comment