CT Was the Rebel Alliance really the bad guys?

As a historian and history teacher I will respectively say that IMO those documentaries you watched were wrong. You would be surprised at how many things the History channel screws up, it drives me crazy. The Japanese were taught to live by a code, never surrender, fight to the end, and if you are not killed by the enemy take your own life. If you surrender you dishonor your family even your ancestors. They were training their women, children, and old men to fight off the American invasion they knew was coming.

As for the Empire, they probably spun it as some kind of first strike against Alderaan. Propaganda that said the Rebellion was based on Alderaan and were planning an attack on the Empire (they blew up any and all evidence). That's what I would do, instead of the Rebellion looking like freedom fighters, make them look like terrorist. They attacked an imperial base and stole secret documents, so before they could attack the Empire and it's citizens the Empire struck first. Most of the things the Rebellion did in the CT could be called terrorism, at least from the Empires point of view.

 

That is exactly what Adolf Hitler did. After seeing the PT, I think that what happened to Germany in the 30's is the closest thing in the real world to what happened to the Republic. This was not clear in the CT because we didn't really know how Palpy became emperor. Another good comparison is how Julius Caesar became emperor in Rome, and a Republic was dissolved.

 

Strictly, he became "Dictator for life" - then a bunch of Senators murdered him.

It was his successor Augustus who became Emperor.

Still - Caesar has a lot in common with Palpatine.

 

Isn't "Dictator for life" and Emperor pretty much the same thing? They even called all the Emperors that followed Caesars. Too bad the Senators didn't murder Palpy, nobody had big enough b***s. In fact, were there many assassination attempts on Palpy? I know I read about a lot on Vader but not Palpy.

 

There were a few - Darth Vader & the Ghost Prison has one - the Empire & Rebellion comic series had another.

After the fact, Palpatine portrayed Mace Windu's actions and Yoda's as assassination attempts.

The rank of Emperor was, in theory if not in practice, hereditary.

 

I agree about Hitler, though it must also be pointed out that Germany was hardly a stable long-time democracy (and that includes the possibility of a 'false flag' attack on the Reichstagg leading to measures being passed for 'homeland security') . As for Caesar....no comparison. First, the Senate was not an elected and representative body (and one of the reasons the Senators who killed him despised him really for curtailing their rights - a very narrow mandate. For evidence of this see Cicero's private letters; what Cicero said in public was often overturned by the revelation of his personal views to his friends). Second, Caesar was ready to go off to confront Parthia and was trying to put a power structure in place...all of it was ad-hoc. I don't think Caesar knew what to do with the power structure in Rome. He knew he was mortal but he also sensed that things could blow up in everyone's face if a vacuum were to be left at that time... We have to give Augustus his due. The Principate was his solution. Not Caesar's.

 

I was simply trying to point out that Rome was a Republic that turned into a Dictatorship, much like what we see in the PT. Caesar used the military to gain control, and Augustus gained power and control using more political methods (he would use force when he needed to though). If you combined the two then you would have Palpy IMO.

 

That's a pretty fair summary. Palpatine is not a "military man" - but he uses the military to get what he wants.

 

Right. But was what Hitler or Caesar or any other dictator did legal? No. Because they were breaking the laws of the very government they were dismantling in their own quest for unlimited power.

 

You've hit the nail on the head with regards to the story of Star Wars, and the distinction with these other historical figures. In terms of Caesar - nobody seemed to be following the law; the law had become irrelevant, so that even a pretence of legality was gone (and it should not be forgotten that this was not the first civil war in Rome, Caesar himself had only avoided becoming a victim of the proscriptions of the last one by means of having friends in the right places - in fact one of the leaders of that war might be more akin to Palpatine...)

In terms of Germany it was a young nation, with a young constitution - though any opposition was silenced through theat; assassination, or just the relentless pressure of being seen as a traitor in some way to 'Greater Germany'. Hitler is probably the closer but, he always preached hatred and might. He never pretended to believe in democracy.

 

That's why the Senate pods would float away from their docking station and move to eye level with the Chancellor's podium, so that they could speak directly. As to getting business done, it's implied in TPM and more so in the pre PT EU and the post OT EU, that any business was dealt with in a timely manner. But more and more as the Trade Federation and its future allies gained political power, the Senate's ability to govern became more and more of a joke.

 

It's really scary when you think about it. People think that what happened to Rome, Germany, and the Rupublic in SW couldn't happen today. We are too civilized now, but it could happen to the U.S. or the UK, anywhere really.

 

It is indeed frightening. I try explaining to people that the 'rights' we have are not assured, are not intrinsic to living in 'a certain kind of country', but have been fought for over the years - the only rights we have are those we work to keep and those we fight to have. Handing over power over any aspect of your life for security, safety, stability...whatever, comes with dangers and everyone needs to be wary of anyone, or any organisation that appears to have an urge to collect those powers, and more, from us. One of the greatest warning signs is when any power seeks to limit the right to dissent - either through legislation, violence or declaring you in some way an 'enemy within' - "..you're either with me or you're my enemy."

I am getting to a Star wars point here; this is why - and this may seem obtuse - I believe that the rebellion in the OT is a better representation of democracy than anything we see in the PT, because they are active in seeking to overturn the powerlessness of their dissent.

 

But they took power through legal means, they did sieze power from unwilling people. Neither did Palpatine.

 

No. In terms of Caesar, there was no legality on either side. In terms of Hitler, he utilised a private army (which he had no legal right to have) to intimidate and terrorise, and may well have organised a false flag attack on the Reichstag in order to get powers acceded to his office (an act of treason).

 

sluggo1313 I think the misunderstanding that we have been having throughout the is that you seem to think that if the people (or representatives of the people) are happy with somebody seizing power then that makes it legitimate or legal or whatever. Please try to reconsider this notion. In Star Wars, Chancellor Palpatine assumes power. He quite literally says look at me, I'm Emperor now. The representatives of the people (the senate) go along with him. Many of them think it's a positive step. But does this make it legal? No.

 

One the same token legal doesn't equal moral. Neither side as presented in SW is sound. Both the Empire and the Rebels are wrong in certain aspects and often in the same ways.

 

No, several wealth and powerful businessmen pititioned the German government to apoint Hitler as leader of the government after he lost 3 elections. The man who did, von Hindenburg did it to form a majority government (his supperts plus Hitlers). He later got a law passed that gave him and his party full legistivate powers for 4 years (sound familiar?). He used a recent billed passed (allowed the government to detain people without a trail) to keep out people who would vote against him. One he had full control and power he squashed all opposition.

 

Palpatine created many of the problems he is presenting the Empire as a "solution to" though - the whole Clone War thing.

And by the time of the OT - we have strong hits the the Empire has become a "reign of terror".

 

Except he does it within the confins of the law. Which does make it legal.

He did things that are/were illegal to put himself in that position, but those don't hav ea baring on what he did inside hte Senate.

Think of it this way - Sidious did illegal things to manulipate the system. Palpatine acted within the confines of the law.

 

And they are the same guy. Thus - Palpatine can be arrested for Sidious's treason against the state.

 

It doesn't excuse answering terror with terror though and that's exactly what the Rebels did. Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

Rather - they responded to the building of a terror weapon by destroying it. As far as we know, they did not then go on to destroy an Imperial planet as "reprisal" for Alderaan.

 

You're cherrypicking. The Rebels are terrors just as the Empire elements were. The Death Star strike was a reprisal.

 

Actually, at that point - it was self-defence - if they hadn't destroyed it - it would have destroyed the Rebel base.

The reason they sought out the plans in the first place though, was that it was easy to predict how it would be used - to keep the galaxy in line through fear: "misbehave and we blow up planets"

By short-circuiting the Empire's plan - they revealed the Empire for what it was - a tyranny.