On Star Wars Episode II and History by Mark Croft

      Star Wars Episode II is clearly aimed at entertainment and a youthful audience 
(putting aside the profit motive).  The plot, and social/governmental structures in the 
movie provide parallels in history.
      One has an Empire, ruled by a Senate and presided over by Chancellor.  The 
Chancellor aspires to the absolute power of an emperor and domination of the Universe, 
as he knows it.  He is moreover not simply ambitious but deeply evil.
      The Chancellor's faction manufactures a sinister plot against the republic and a 
violent provocation.  This provides the pretext for the Chancellor "reluctantly" and 
temporarily assuming special "doctorial" powers to meet the crisis.  The political system 
appears to have been an alliance/confederation of independent states governed by the 
Senate but with no constitutional authorization for maintaining a centralized military.  
The Jedi Knights appear to have acted as a small police force to keep minor disputes in 
the Galaxy in check.  The special powers granted the Chancellor explicitly included the 
creation of a powerful central army for defense of the federation from the threat he had 
fabricated.

Analogy I
      In Jan. 1933 Hitler became Chancellor of a Germany that had been decimated by 
the economic and social aftermath of loosing World War I.  Strict limitations on the 
German military had persisted since peace treaty ending WWI.   In Feb. 1933 the 
Parliament building (the Reichstag) was burned down in an arson fire.   Hitler and his 
Nazi party blamed the fire on the communists and indeed a Dutch citizen was convicted 
of setting the fire.   Over the year it has often been said that the Nazis set the fire to 
provide a pretext for Hitler to assume dictatorial powers, however more recently 
information has been cited as evidence that the convicted arsonist acted alone.  Whatever 
the cause Hitler used this incident to push through enactments of special emergency 
powers, and suspension of individual/parliamentary rights that essentially left him as an 
absolute doctor.  Hitler used his position to begin an escalating military buildup that 
eventually positioned German arms well beyond other nations in the world.  Through 
intimidation of this military enabled Hitler to carry out a series of bloodless of 
annexations of territory. Finally of course when threats and ultimatum did not work the 
military was used for outright invasion of Poland (in 1939) and WWII ensued
      The evil/ambitious Chancellor, the strict constitutional limitations on the military, 
the manufactured crisis to gain power, the overwhelming military buildup, and the war of 
empirical expansion are elements of SWE II.  Indeed the "clone army" is one of great 
efficiency, absolute obedience to authority, and a machine like organization/functionality, 
not unlike the German military in WWII.  Even the helmets of the troopers and Darth 
Vader are shaped like the German battle helmets of both WWs.
      Of course the deeply evil character, and the ideas of mass killing (the death star) 
are the most striking analogy between the Evil Empire and Nazism.  In fairness the 
Emperor in Star Wars, while having total disregard for life in pursuit of power, appears 
fixated on absolute power (over all species) and the genocidal character of Nazism 
appears absent.  

Analogy II
      Institutions and imagery from ancient Rome also runs through the Star Wars (SW) 
saga.  The Empire ruling over many far-flung peoples is similar.  The sophisticated 
society, architecture, and technology of the capitol compared to utter barbarism tolerated 
in the outer provinces is analogous to Rome.  The Emperor, the Senate and the Army as 
the central institutions of the Empire are also analogous.  It should be noted that the 
Roman Republic and Empire rose by military conquest of other peoples, while in SW the 
central government appears to have been be a confederation of independent states, united 
for mutual protection and maintenance of order (which is then internally taken over and 
comverted into an Empire).  The regional autonomy and prohibition of a central standing 
army, in the confederation phase, are understandable under these circumstances.  The 
toleration of the institution of slavery (indeed it's seemingly unquestioned acceptance) in 
the such a highly advanced civilization seems odd, however the absolute autonomy of the 
local members in the confederation could be considered as the source of this anomaly.  In 
the Empire stage of the saga, the Roman notion of allowing regional autonomy, as long 
as the obedience and monetary tribute to the Empire are met, apparently holds.  The 
coliseum spectacle in SWEII, where prisoners of the state face execution by being 
feeding to exotic wild beasts, is unmistakably reminiscent of Roman custom.  In fairness 
it should be noted that the coliseum scene occurs not in the capitol, but in one of the 
barbaric provinces. 
      The crossover from Republic (dominantly ruled by the Senate) to Empire 
(dominated by an emperor/ dictator for life) also parallels Rome.  The Roman Senate had 
been known to appoint temporary dictators to deal with emergencies but they had a 
traditional revulsion with lifetime/hereditary kings/emperors.  In Shakespeare's "Julius 
Caesar", in a public display Caesar was "thrice offered a kingly crown and he hath thrice 
declined it".  Caesar was no fool; he had to assume absolute power more subtly.  In the 
end, of course, the tradition hatred of dictatorship (loss of Senatorial power) is the basis 
of the plot and assassination of Julius Caesar.  In Julius Caesar's case, the perception that 
his ascendancy over the Senate would probably been an improvement in government, 
facilitated the Empire founded by Augustus Caesar.  The efficient civil service and Army, 
established in the early empire, enabled the Empire to survive under the 
deranged/incompetent and to flourish under the capable leader at the top.

      [Aside:  It is interesting to note that some commentators view with skepticism the 
expansion of the governmental power and prerogatives that have followed from the 
9/11/02 attacks.  The author takes no side in this debate but it is important to recognize 
the terms of the debate.  Specifically: the suspension of habeas corpus (the power to hold 
prisoners without charge), the expansion of the right to search individuals without 
warrant or probable cause; the expansion of the degree of police surveillance; and an 
increased emphasis on governmental secrecy.  The possibility of trials in which witnesses 
testify or evidence is presented in secret (to preserve informant channels) has also been 
suggested.  An "adequate defense" has traditionally been based on access to all evidence 
and the right to confront and cross-examine or impute one's accusers.  The more frequent 
suggestion that criticism of governmental actions are "disloyal" or "unpatriotic" has also 
been noted.   Similar criticisms were leveled at Lincoln and FDR for emergency powers 
acts during the Civil and Second World Wars.  Clearly we are in an emergency that needs 
to be met forcefully.  As always one must carefully consider (when enacted) and 
reconsider (when the usage emerges) such emergency powers.]