CT Was the Rebel Alliance really the bad guys?

Julius Caesar used intimidation and coercion. "The people" supported Caesar, but Caesar also bribed them with wealth looted from Gaul. The senate was very much opposed to Caesar and labeled him a traitor. The plebeians by no means had the same stake in the matter that the senate did. We don't really know how the common man perceived Palpatine, all we know is that the senate adored him and that he seemed to be without competent political opponents. Those like Bail and Padme are sheep that petition him to lay down his power and then whine when Palpatine becomes Emperor. They are not the Catos of the Star Wars universe that would take up arms against Palpatine or seem to have any kind of passion in their aims for the Republic.

IMO, Palpatine's rise to power was pretty absurd. And he doesn't really parallel any historical figure strongly IMO, instead borrowing from several and meshed in such a way that it's less compelling than any of those historical figures taken individually.

Augustus Caesar was different in that the senate wanted him to hold greater power, but this was following years of war and civil strife following the death of Julius Caesar and the breakdown of the second triumvirate.

Both Julius and Augustus had to get their hands dirty, while Hitler had his own personal army of sorts and stirred up feelings of nationalism by scapegoating Jews, communists, and the republicans that were accused of backstabbing the country during WWI.

Palpatine's rise is way too "neat" IMO. The man doesn't have any kind of strong political opponents, he never gets his hands dirty, he never opposes the senate, he doesn't really scapegoat anyone except the Jedi (and that just comes out of nowhere, unlike Hitler it wasn't shown to be a longstanding prejudice). Instead Palpatine gets elected based on sympathy, he is given emergency powers because war is looming and the senate is filled with incompetent senators that give away their authority because they're incapable of reaching an agreement among themselves, and then they applaud Palpatine's climb to the position of Emperor when the Republic is still more or less fine and the war is over; unlike Augustus there weren't other figures posed to create chaos should Palpatine step down, except for maybe the Jedi (in the senate's eyes) but again, their "treason" just comes out of left field and the senate accepts it without question, which to be is ridiculous.

In the case of Augustus, the threat of continued lawlessness was a very real threat, not something fabricated.

And in the case of Hitler, propaganda fabricated threats, but this also reflected longstanding attitudes of prejudice towards Jews and fear of Communism. These weren't fabrications made overnight i.e. "The Jews cost us WWI *applause*" these were racist attitudes that were festering for decades.

The Palpatine character kind of straddles several different historical figures' rise to power, and they're meshed in a way that IMO is not at all believable.

 

I would agree that Palpatine's raise doesn't mimic anyone one historical figures, Lucas just used those examples since those dictators/Emperors didn't use Military might in bloody coupes to take power.

 

Let's ask the Alderaanians who the bad guys were.

Oh, wait, we can't.

 

While I'll grant you the Old Republic wasn't pure good - it was a far cry from a dictatorship that the Empire was. How many worlds did the Republic blow up? They killed everyone on Alderaan simply to punish Leia. Seems pretty friggin evil to me.

Yes...it offered jobs to people who like to build weapons... How many people across the galaxy do you think want to do that for a living?

All dictatorships say that.

People were ready for change? They didn't know that the change was going to be a dictatorship that had a giant moon-sized planet killer. Plus, Palpatine was taking advantage of the rampant nationalism that was gripping a war-ravaged Republic. During times like that, the people are much more frightened and willing to sacrifice a little liberty for security. The Republic didn't realize how much liberty they were about to sacrifice. Plus - I wonder if those same senators would cheer if they knew that somewhere in the future Palpatine would dissolve the Senate. hmmmmmmmmm....

Again, I'll grant you that the Republic was by no means "good" either. That was a major plot point that led to the rise of the Empire. The Republic had clearly stagnated into a corrupt, decadent, and immoral organization. Doesn't make the Empire good and the Rebel Alliance potentially "bad".

Not everyone wants the job of building doomsday weapons or to be in the military. I'll grant you I find it peculiar that Luke wanted to join...

That's like saying "Notice how there aren't that many slave rebellions? Maybe slavery isn't that bad..." The reason the Rebel Alliance wasn't over flowing with volunteers is the Rebels are highly disorganized when we first meet them. Maybe not everyone knew of them? Plus, when a planet is conquered by the Empire with hundreds of garrisons, it is hard to create a rebellion on that planet. Plus, Imperial propaganda probably worked over time to make it seem like the Rebels were terrorists, baby killers, blood drinkers, and are about to be put down any moment know by Imperial "heroes". And to be blunt - most people aren't fighters. Most people are scared to pick up a gun and revolt against the Empire because they don't want to die.

I'm all more moral relativism. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. But you didn't really give a good reason as for why you think maybe the rebels are bad. Your reason for the Empire being good is..."jobs and protection"?

What makes you think the Rebel Alliance could potentially be the real bad guys? I'm generally curious about that.

 

This comes up all the time - the 'Academy' that Luke wanted to go to (and which Biggs attended) was an instructional facility that had trained star pilots for years. With the Empire in charge of everything, yes, it was now an 'Imperial Academy', but it wasn't a military academy just yet. Luke just wanted to learn how to fly starships, not join the Imperial Fleet - although Biggs does mention (in the deleted scene) the risk of being drafted into military service.

 

Oh wow - I didn't even know those details. Thanks for explaining that. Makes much more sense. Because as it stood, it seemed like Luke wanted to join the Empire while simultaneously being mystified by the rebel alliance. haha

Oh...and on the topic of the Empire being potentially "good" - I forgot one other point against that. When the Emperor dies and the Empire falls into disarray - notice how it shows multiple worlds, including the Imperial capitol itself, celebrating this. Surely that kind of quashes the argument that the Empire was good and the Rebel Alliance were the true villains. Maybe?

 

He thought a lot about Nixon as we'll. Nixon had said on a couple of occasions that he thought he should be allowed to run for a third term, and the law needed to be changed back the way it was before FDR. Nixon said America had too many problems going on in the world to change Presidents. Then Watergate broke and the rest is history, thank goodness! Palps is a mixture of many dictators, emperors, presidents, and the Dark Lord Satan himself. Lucas did an outstanding job creating this super villain.

 

And right after that we'll ask all the people who were on the Death Star.....

They are rebelling against the rightful government and Emperor, put into power by the elected government. If Texas started attacking the rest of the USA because they didn't like Affordable Heath Care act, and view Obama in a negative light for forcing it on the people would you view them as the good guys because they are fighting against a government they see as wrong and socialist?

Lets use your Obama example, when he was re-elected lots of people were upset about it, does that reaction prove he is a bad president or did bad things while in office?

 

So the Rebel Alliance was never allowed to strike against a weapon that can destroy entire worlds because the people on the said doomsday weapon would be killed? So what were their options? Just sit back and smile while their worlds were destroyed?

This kind of reminds me of the Matrix when Morpheus is explaining to Neo about their struggle. He is talking about the people they are trying to "save" from the Matrix. However, as long as they were plugged into the Matrix, they were part of the system and that makes them their enemy. Those people on the Death Star, even the supposedly innocent plumbers, were working for the Empire. It is unfortunate they died in the blast, but it was either their deaths or allow the Empire to have the most powerful weapon in the galaxy...

"rightful"? "elected"? Both are dubious prospects in regards to the Empire. First of all, it wasn't "elected". Palpatine gained extraordinary powers due to the Clone Wars (which he started). It pretty much gave him unilateral powers from that moment on. Then he crowned himself Emperor. No one elected him. As for the "rightful government"? How so? Because they took power? Palpatine's Empire was forged out of the Clone Wars and the last remnants of a corrupt Republic. How many senators that cheered him were on his payroll? How many senators were ultra-nationalistic and loved the idea of a dictatorship? How many of them simply went along with it out of fear or pressure? How many of them believed Palpatine's BS story that the Jedi tried to overthrow him because they wanted to take over the Republic? None of Palpatine's claim to power were legitimate.

But let's take your claim that Palpatine was rightfully elected and the Empire was the legitimate government in power. Does that justify him turning the galaxy into his little kingdom that he rules with an iron fist? Curtailing rights? Murdering any dissenters? At what point is the Rebel Alliance justified in rebelling against the Empire without being labeled "villains"?

As for the Obama example...

If Obama began blowing up countries with a some naval equivalent of the death star? Sure....?

I'm not really sure what the connection is to Obama and Palpatine. There are a lot of reasons people dislike Obama, some legitimate and some absolutely absurd.

The Rebel Alliance didn't rebel against Palpatine because they didn't like his politics or because he tried to give them healthcare. They rebelled because of numerous good reasons. Bail Organa and Mon Mothma, architects of the Alliance, realized that Palpatine was evil. They knew the story about the Jedi trying to "rule" the Republic was BS. They knew that Palpatine killed Jedi for his own nefarious reasons. They knew that Palpatine's Empire was based on a lie and that he was a dictator. I'm not sure how much they knew about him being a Sith Lord - but they may have known about that too. At least maybe Organa did since he was part of Yoda and Obi-Wan's inner circle. He probably knew that Palpatine orchestrated the Clone Wars to bring down the Republic and wipe out the Jedi Order. There is nothing really comparable to real life politics. Palpatine is not meant to be this morally grey character that has his own reasons for doing what he did. He is meant to be evil and is portrayed as such.

Lucas never really made the OT or...the PT really to be morally grey. In Star Wars, there is a clear distinction of good and evil. It is obvious that the Empire is meant to represent all the bad things, while the Rebel Alliance is meant to represent the good things. The EU might dilute this a bit and that's fine. But within the context of the movies? Clearly the Empire is evil.

Once again - I want to know why you all think the Rebels are potentially the villains. Even with the while "one man's terrorist..." application, it doesn't work here.

 

Closest equivalent to the Death Star would be a weapon that renders a small region uninhabitable to all life, for all time (or as good as). No-one will ever be living where Alderaan is again, without spacesuits.

Something like an anthrax bomb or a cobalt bomb, only worse.

Used on a town in his own country.

 

Haha good point...that probably works a bit better than my example.

 

Just because one is your enemy does not entitle one to murder. The Rebels are no better than the Empire. The Empire no worse than the Alliance. Both do unjust and heinous things and neither is justified.

And right after that we'll ask all the people who were on the Death Star...

Bravo. Well said, Sluggo1313! Nice to see someone else acknowledges that the beings on the Death Star are valid too.

 

It does entitle one to "self-defence" or "defending others from an attack" though.

In the Death Star novel - the gunner, Tenn Graneet - is massively troubled by the atrocity he's committed through "Obeying Orders".

This is the explanation given for why he says "Stand by" twice at Yavin but only once at Alderaan - he's stalling, in the hope that the Rebels will win before he's relieved of duty and someone else takes the controls.

 

What's your definition of murder? Is any killing murder to you? Are all soldiers murderers? Self-defense killing makes one a murderer? I'm curious.

What did the Rebels do that was on par with the Empire? What unjust and heinous things did they do? I will grant you that I am approaching this from strictly the movies. So...if the Rebels are depicted as morally grey in the EU - then I apologize. But in the movies? There is nothing they do that is equal to that Empire's evil.

Not justified? Again, I noticed this question is ignored by the Pro-Empire crowd. What can the Empire get away with before the Rebels can be "justified" in fighting back. The Empire is not a group you can negotiate with peacefully to reach a mutual and beneficial treaty.

I don't understand what the Rebels were meant to do other than fight...

 

I'm amazed at many of the response on this thread. It seems many of you would fit in quite well in Stalinist Russia, Hitler's Germany, and Mao's China. They certainly 'made the trains run on time'.They had their side of the story as well, but that doesn't make it legitimate or any less evil. It seems moral relativism has reached new highs. It's actually a bit depressing to read responses here. Only a few you seem to get it.

 

And the Empire is not allowed to strike at a planet who's leaders are in open Rebellion against them? Its unfortunate people not involved in the Rebellion died on Alderaan, but maybe they shouldn't have stayed on a planet and supported a leader who was committing treason.

Palpatine was elected was he not? And the Senate voted him emergy powers......decision made by elected officals. And what was their reaction to Palpatine becoming Emperor? You may not like it but Palpatine played the system and got power through legit means, and to "thunderous applause"

And yes the US military does and has caused termendous damage (both in lives and property) in other countries, and has violated the rights of US citizens, and pushed throw laws (namely health care) that many people disagree with. And the connection between Obama and Palpatine - both the legit leaders, both doing things that many people don't like.

So its up to you to determine what good reasons for open rebellion, treason and terrorism are?

As I said, if you look at star wars as a story, there are clear cut good guys and bad guys. If you want to look at it through the "real world" prism, its not so cut and dry because in the real world there is no such thing as "good guys" and "bad guys" simply different sides with different perspectives. Can the rebels committing treason and acts of Terror be viewed as the villain, of course they can.

 

To my understanding they did not actually make 'the trains run on time' but changed the record so it looked like they were on time and people that complained were ignored or disappeared

"real world" prism? Why would you do something like that to Star Wars? If you want realism I recommend that you go and watch something else

 

You are mistaken, Sirs. I would not fit in with or condone any of what you mention/accuse of. I am simply one that believes you are to submit to authority and strive for peace no matter the seeming futility of it. Murder is to me any intentional taking of life. Thus, for me the Rebels aren't noble. They are merely making things worse by prolonging the conflict. I am simply saying war/murder solves nothing.

 

I disagree

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
John Stuart Mill

 

Heinlein's characters might disagree:

"Anyone who clings to the historically untrue — and thoroughly immoral — doctrine that 'violence never settles anything' I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of The Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms."

In the context of Star Wars (TCW) - Lucas has consistently portrayed pacifists as characters who are dangerously naive and end up suffering as a result:

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Lurmen
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/New_Mandalorian

 

And the Empire is not allowed to strike at a planet who's leaders are in open Rebellion against them? Its unfortunate people not involved in the Rebellion died on Alderaan, but maybe they shouldn't have stayed on a planet and supported a leader who was committing treason.

Palpatine was elected was he not? And the Senate voted him emergy powers......decision made by elected officals. And what was their reaction to Palpatine becoming Emperor? You may not like it but Palpatine played the system and got power through legit means, and to "thunderous applause"

And yes the US military does and has caused termendous damage (both in lives and property) in other countries, and has violated the rights of US citizens, and pushed throw laws (namely health care) that many people disagree with. And the connection between Obama and Palpatine - both the legit leaders, both doing things that many people don't like.

So its up to you to determine what good reasons for open rebellion, treason and terrorism are?

As I said, if you look at star wars as a story, there are clear cut good guys and bad guys. If you want to look at it through the "real world" prism, its not so cut and dry because in the real world there is no such thing as "good guys" and "bad guys" simply different sides with different perspectives. Can the rebels committing treason and acts of Terror be viewed as the villain, of course they can.

 

Thats how I read the O/P of this thread - applying real world logic and rules etc... to Star Wars, aren't the Rebels villains.

I wouldn't and haven't said the REbels aren't justified in their Rebellion, just that they are also killing people and doing things which we would generally consider "villainous".

When the Rebels started their campaign agains the Death Star (stealing the plans) they hadn't been attacked yet, and they went after the 2nd Death Star before being attacked. And given that Alderaan and its rulers were in open rebellion, doesn't the Empire have the right o defense itself?

 

I am inclined to agree with you. I mean - I do enjoy a spirited debate. I also appreciate people playing Devil's Advocate. But this pro-authority, justify any warcrime arguments are pretty disheartening. Luckily, we're only talking about a fictional trilogy. Right everyone?

The death of billions of people are "unfortunate"? Huh? So because some of the leaders on Alderaan are part of the rebellion, everyone deserved to die? Plus - that wasn't the reason they blew it up. They did it because:

1 - They wanted to demonstrate what the Death Star could do
2 - To pressure Leia to give up the location of the rebel base. She did and they STILL blew it up because Dantooine was too "remote" for a proper demonstration. In other words - planets won't fear us if we blow up some no name planet in the outskirts of the galaxy. Let's blow up this one to make a point.

"Oderint, dum metuant." - Let them hate as long as they fear

Palpatine...was not elected to be an Emperor. He was elected to serve as the Supreme Chancellor. I've already given the reasons for the "thunderous applause" scene.

They voted to give him emergency powers because of the war. A war he started...

Yes, I'll grant you he played the system. What does that have to do with his legitimacy?

We can discuss real world politics and if the United States is a force for good or evil in the world. But none of what Obama has done is equivalent to Palpatine.

Not up to me. But you made the connection that there are people that dislike Obama. Just like they dislike Palpatine. On the one hand - people dislike Obama solely for his skin color, his political orientation, his upbringing, etc. On the other hand - people dislike Palpatine because he is a murderer, liar, dictator, and genocidal maniac. So yes - one is morally grey set of reasons the other are flat out GOOD reasons to dislike a leader. I think hating Palpatine for the evil things he has done is a good thing vs. hating Obama because he was "born in Kenya". That's what I meant by "good".

Well of course. As Obi-Wan said, it's all about your point of view. To King George, the Founding Fathers were terrorists. But that would mean you follow the point of view of a monarch that wants to curtail people's right to independence. In the case of Star Wars - sure you can view the Rebels as terrorists, but you are adopting Palpatine's view on the matter. And to be blunt, his view is not "Oh no - these people want to ruin my benevolent kingdom!" It's more akin to "These people are trying to de-throne me and restore the democratic Republic and the Jedi Order." Not as morally grey as you make it out, IMO.

I understand where you are coming from. The more pacifistic model. You're not wrong, perse. It just doesn't work in the GFFA conflict. If a Gandhi tried to stand up to Palpatine, he'd simply kill him. What do you do against a foe like that?

But I am slightly perturbed at the notion of "submit to authority". No offense meant. Just being honest.

 

If Alderaan had been in "open rebellion" Leia would not still have been a Senator at the start of A New Hope.

Alderaan's leader was in "covert rebellion".

When a town's mayor is covertly funding a rebellion, it's not "self-defence" to drop a bomb on the whole town.

 

Even though I don't really agree here - this is a more fair point on the Rebels engaging in "villainous" acts. A slight stretch in the word villainous, but...war is hell no?