Star Wars, Highly Illiogical Captain

[Admiral X]

I think most of them have started out that way. Communism especially has in the Latin American countries.

[TGLS]

Contras in Nicaragua, FREs in Iraq, Taliban in Afghanistan. The Nazis attempted this with Werwolf.

[The Romulan Republic]

Just as a personal opinion, I would have liked to see the roles reversed from the original trilogy between the good guys and bad guys in The Force Awakens. Make the First Order an underground movement that engages in guerrilla warfare, while the New Republic is is the superpower of the galaxy.

Probably would have been perceived as an obvious War on Terror analogy, and heavily politicized, for better or worse.

Of course, given events of the last year in America, I'm not sure "space Nazis lead by an insecure white male murderer, vs. female and black leads" is any less politically sensitive.

Anyhoo, the title of this thread makes me want to read a commentary on the Star Wars films by Spock, where he comments on all the illogic of the series. I wonder if anyone's ever done a fanfic where the Enterprise crew watches the Star Wars films... probably.

Edit: Ah, remember the good old days, when "Nazis are the bad guys" was completely uncontroversial?

[Dînadan]

Anyhoo, the title of this thread makes me want to read a commentary on the Star Wars films by Spock, where he comments on all the illogic of the series. I wonder if anyone's ever done a fanfic where the Enterprise crew watches the Star Wars films... probably.

Just imagine if TVTropes survives to the 23rd century and Spock being a troper.

Edit: Ah, remember the good old days, when "Nazis are the bad guys" was completely uncontroversial?

Pepridge Farm remembers.

[Karha of Honor]

I think most of them have started out that way. Communism especially has in the Latin American countries.

I doubt they explicitly fought for a dictatorship from general to guerilla.

[Madner Kami]

Forcing someone to do what you want by threating their lives and with arms, seems fairly dictatorial to me.

[Karha of Honor]

Forcing someone to do what you want by threating their lives and with arms, seems fairly dictatorial to me.

I assume the American revolution did some of that along with the North in the civil war, Japan was occupied, Germany was under the same. Pretty sure every tax collecting state does that to some extent. Does not mean you are executing a dictatorial project.

[Crowley]

Just as a personal opinion, I would have liked to see the roles reversed from the original trilogy between the good guys and bad guys in The Force Awakens. Make the First Order an underground movement that engages in guerrilla warfare, while the New Republic is is the superpower of the galaxy.

Any IRL dictatorships had similar movements?

I think most of them have started out that way. Communism especially has in the Latin American countries.

I was thinking more of something like the movements to restore monarchy in post-revolutionary France or Cromwell's England.

I assume the American revolution did some of that along with the North in the civil war, Japan was occupied, Germany was under the same. Pretty sure every tax collecting state does that to some extent. Does not mean you are executing a dictatorial project.

That's something that came to my mind the first time I read about the Tarkin Doctrine, specifically "Rule through the fear of force rather than through force itself.". Isn't that in a way what every single government in the world does? I don't think there is a single regime in the history of the world that could suppress a large enough uprising through direct use of force, even with the caveat that every single member of military and law enforcement remains loyal to the government.

[GandALF]

I assume the American revolution did some of that along with the North in the civil war, Japan was occupied, Germany was under the same. Pretty sure every tax collecting state does that to some extent. Does not mean you are executing a dictatorial project.

That's something that came to my mind the first time I read about the Tarkin Doctrine, specifically "Rule through the fear of force rather than through force itself.". Isn't that in a way what every single government in the world does? I don't think there is a single regime in the history of the world that could suppress a large enough uprising through direct use of force, even with the caveat that every single member of military and law enforcement remains loyal to the government.

Well that's the point of the social contract: the people obey the government so long as it respects and protects their rights, if the government infringes on their rights then the people are no longer obliged to obey the government and will overthrow it.

Palpatine's plan was to use the Clone Wars to create enough chaos and exacerbate the Republic's flaws to the point that the fearful people would be willing to give up their freedoms in exchange for safety. The Empire never goes full on fascistic, (the Sith already tried that and it didn't work) instead it presents itself as an "upgraded" democracy for a "safe and secure society", they even keep a toothless senate around for a while like in Augustus' Rome.

[The Romulan Republic]

Just as a personal opinion, I would have liked to see the roles reversed from the original trilogy between the good guys and bad guys in The Force Awakens. Make the First Order an underground movement that engages in guerrilla warfare, while the New Republic is is the superpower of the galaxy.

Any IRL dictatorships had similar movements?

I think most of them have started out that way. Communism especially has in the Latin American countries.

I was thinking more of something like the movements to restore monarchy in post-revolutionary France or Cromwell's England.

I assume the American revolution did some of that along with the North in the civil war, Japan was occupied, Germany was under the same. Pretty sure every tax collecting state does that to some extent. Does not mean you are executing a dictatorial project.

That's something that came to my mind the first time I read about the Tarkin Doctrine, specifically "Rule through the fear of force rather than through force itself.". Isn't that in a way what every single government in the world does? I don't think there is a single regime in the history of the world that could suppress a large enough uprising through direct use of force, even with the caveat that every single member of military and law enforcement remains loyal to the government.

To an extent, sure.

And yes, one of the basic truths of politics throughout all of human history is that no government can function and maintain power if it entirely loses the support of the people, or even if it earns the open hostility of a majority of the people. You have to have at least a core of loyal followers, and a large majority of the population that is, if not devotedly loyal, at least not angry enough to risk rebellion. Until some unspeakably twisted person invents a way to mind control the entire populace from a room somewhere, that will remain a basic reality of politics.

That doesn't mean that all government can be reduced to the Tarkin Doctrine, however. Governments throughout history have many tools to maintain order- use of force, threats of force, economic incentives, propaganda of various types, the "bread and circuses" approach, etc.

Tarkin's mistake (besides being a callous bastard) is that he focussed entirely (or at least disproportionately) on shows of force. That's dangerous because, if you piss people off enough to rebel in spite of your threats, then either they'll call your bluff... or you'll have to start blowing up large chunks of your own country. And if you lose the ability to act on your threats, then you're in trouble, because you've given the people no reason to be loyal to you other than fear.

Tarkin was clumsy idiot, in addition to being a power-hungry sociopath.