Quote from taulover
1. Japan refuses to surrender even in dire odds. No matter what the Emperor thought during this time (all evidence indicates he had zero desire for peace until maybe unfortunately close to the bombings), his military leaders would refuse the idea of a surrender if it were proposed (it wasn't).
2. The USA drops two atomic bombs after sending a vague warning to the Japanese government (which it promptly ignores). The bombs fall on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, two industrial cities that probably would have been targeted by the equally destructive firebombing campaigns that already ravaged Tokyo and that had killed double the number of people that the atomic bombs would.
3. Directly because of this, the Emperor forces the military command to obey him and Japan surrenders. There's a reason the sentence "The enemy has, for the first time, used cruel bombs" leads Hirohito's speech to his own people on Japan's surrender, and it's not because he just found out what an incendiary bomb is. The bombs ended the war, plain and simple.
I'm not going to debate the morality of the atomic bombings right now (we already had a whole discussion about it a few months ago), but I would like to challenge the narrative you present here.
Japan's surrender was not solely due to the atomic bombings. The Soviets declared war on Japan and invaded Manchuria, breaking the Non-Aggression Pact signed in 1941, on the same day that the Americans bombed Nagasaki. Some historians, such as Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, argue that, much like it had borne the firebombings, Japan would still fight on in the face of the nuclear bombings, and that the atomic bombings were largely an act of strength against the USSR. Others, including James Maddox, support the traditional narrative you described. I personally cannot claim expertise in this field, but I think the Soviet declaration of war had at least some impact on the Japanese decision to surrender, even if it's debatable how much of a role it played.
Like in the above thread, I'll also link here this rather excellent read about the surrender of Japan, especially with regards to the atomic bomb.
However, this doesn't account for Rey's enslavement in the very beginning of Episode VII, nor does it account for the atrocities that the Sith have (maybe? Canon is confusing) committed in the past while fighting the Jedi (although the Jedi do have their fair share of child soldiers and brainwashing).
Could you elaborate on why Rey's peonage is relevant here? I don't quite see the connection. In particular, the current vagueness regarding how she got abandoned on Jakku makes it difficult to ascribe the actions there to any particular sect, whether it be First Order, New Jedi Order, or something else.
For the sake of convenience, let's ignore everything "canon"
before Episode I and focus on what we can see in/deduce from the movies.
Are you sure about that? They're not the Empire, but they definitely seem pretty Sith-y to me, especially with that Snopes guy and Kylo's reverence for Vader.
There is nothing canon before Episode I currently. The canon wipe of April 25, 2014, means that anything published before that date, with the exception of the six films and TCW, is non-canon and under the "Legends" branding. The old canon has as such been shoved off into an alternate universe (though I personally prefer Legends).
Also, Dark Siders and Sith are two different things. The Sith are a group of people who follow a particular set of ideologies, in addition to practicing the Dark Side of the Force. In the new canon, from what we know, the Rule of Two is also a key part of being Sith.
EDIT: But as far as can be surmised (since analysing movies that run for two hours doesn't leave much room for depth, compared to actual history), the Death Star would serve pretty much the same purpose. The war with the rebels must have been long and bloody for both sides.
I'll just quote what the wiki has to say:
From the very beginning of its design process, it was intended that the first Death Star be capable of destroying entire planets, but most Imperial strategists were certain that the threat alone would be enough to keep most worlds in line.
Tarkin felt differently; as he saw it, the Rebels were growing bolder, and only a very public demonstration of the battle station's power— against a Rebel target—would succeed in giving them pause. His argument convinced Palpatine, and so the Emperor approved, in advance, the destruction of the peaceful world. In addition, Alderaan was already considered a priority target for providing political or strategic aid to the Rebel Alliance.
They don't sound as neutral as you seem to think.
You say you're analyzing the movie, but you quote a Legends Wookieepedia article that is clearly drawing information from the EU. Huh?
In any case, if we use Legends canon as a source, we come up with lots of nice things, including: a secret military base operated by the Royal House Organa, a rebel fleet showing up to defend Alderaan against the Death Star, Alderaanian funds clearly going to the Rebellion, etc.
What evidence is there for that, actually? The same thing that led Anakin to betray the Jedi, also led him to betray the Sith: his intense love for, and need to save his family members.
EDIT: The Jedi would have had him basically become a murder monk, not allowed to feel anything. The Sith just seemed to get caught up in the wrong emotions: hatred, greed, and lust for power.
As far as I can tell, the new order that has risen up in Episode 7 seems to embrace the Jedi creed a lot more than the Sith one. It was a test of Obi-Wan's devotion to the Jedi order (and in their mind, the light side) when he had to kill Anakin. Likewise, something similar seemed to happen when Ren killed his father.
So if the Jedi would deny all emotion, and the Sith are governed by the wrong ones, what's to stop someone from bringing balance by focusing on the positive?
Palpatine manipulated Anakin's love for his wife by convincing him that the Dark Side of the Force was the only way to save her. As he did so, however, he "fell" to the Dark Side, ensuring that Palpatine would have control over him as Palpatine provided his only avenue towards the power he now needs.
The Jedi also weren't emotionless robots. We see them in the prequels: they advocate compassion, they show humor, etc. Nevertheless, it's pretty clear that their philosophy has been warped by millennia of complacency and turned into something hypocritical.
Like some people argued in the /r/MawInstallation thread I linked above, I feel that Sith philosophy definitely works for non-Force users, but it is highly dangerous for Force users. There's nothing truly evil about the Dark Side, but, much like a drug, it seems to be highly seductive in the way it behaves. Also like a drug, it becomes much more difficult to not destroy your life and others' when you're harnessing its power to greater heights.
Shit, I just spent an hour writing this up. I really need to start doing some work.
I've put your quote in the spoiler so as not to ruin everyone's day by having such a long one posted twice on the same page.
Anyway, you are correct, that was a piece of info gleaned from Legends, but I'm not going to pretend to like how it all got thrown out the window. Disney decides it's not canon, so I just have to accept it? Fuck that.
Beyond that, I used it to support my view from the movie, I didn't base my entire view on it. I got the feeling that something like that might have been the reasoning behind its use long before I had any clue about the EU material or wikis. That may have been a leap based purely on speculation at the time, since I can't fathom why destroying neutral planets could be something anyone would want to do just for shits and giggles, but still. The movies don't go into any sort of depth as to why exactly that planet had to be destroyed. Nor can I remember anyone claiming the planet was actually neutral.
As for your assertion that the Dark Side corrupts, it's going to be difficult to convince me of that based only on the movies (but you may find success if you bring in The Clone Wars, because I've never watched it, and probably never will). We have a sample size of, what, four people in the entire first six episodes who actually wielded the Dark Side? We know next to nothing of Maul, when considering only the movies. That other guy from the second movie seemed incredibly confused, not actually evil. And Palpatine was... well, we all know what Palpatine was like. Additionally, they were all Sith, and all under the control of an exceptionally skilled manipulator. Who's to say other users of the Dark Side with a different philosophy (and under better leadership) would have been corrupted in quite the same way? Anakin seems to have lost his way more because of Palpatine's machinations than the actual dark side. The way he did end up restoring balance to the Force (for like, the next five years, anyway, before the need for new baddies in this mega money-train of a franchise led to the formation of the First Order), and fulfilling the prophecy of his birth, was precisely because he rejected the creeds of the Sith and Jedi, and brought the two aspects of the Force, that probably never should have existed in isolation from each other in the first place, back together. He could not have done it by following the Light or the Dark.
And yes, I realise I've just crushed my own argument by showcasing that exclusive use of either side leads to all sorts of shit. Sue me. This is how we learn.
