Skallagrim
Well-known member
That's not what happened. That's not even what Bel Iblis said happened. He wasn't kicked out, he left. Not because of suicide missions, but because he believed that Mon Mothma was going to become a centralist post-war. The issue was that she was acting without consulting others, and he believed that she was going to rule unilaterally ("another Palpatine") if the rebels won.Keep in mind that Mom Mothma went on to kick Bel Iblis out of the Alliance for refusing to send his troops on suicide missions just because she said so, and subsequently assumed unilateral control over the Alliance.
The Thrawn Trilogy makes it clear that she didn't do this, that Bel Iblis knew that he'd judged her to hastily (mistaking her actions as a rebel leader in war-time for her behaviour as a civilian leader in peace-time), but was too proud to admit it. Meanwhile, Mon was stung by his earlier decision to leave, and didn't want to invite him back. They reconciled when prompted.
So you're basically projecting Bel Iblis's fears of what Mon Mothma would be and treating them as fact, even though the opposite is true. Unless you stop doing that, this discussion is pointless, because you're just projecting your fanon onto canon.
That's purely your interpretation. I've given a key reason why sticking together would make sense (an economic motive), and I've described the canonical facts (decentralism; legal right to unilateral secession) that would and did make this route attractive to those who might otherwise have balked.All in all, the EU's New Republic only stuck together out of blatant plot railroading. There is literally zero sensible reason that *any* of the major systems should have joined the New Republic at all, much less stayed in it once the political corruption started seriously rearing its head.
The fact that you don't consider a reason convincing, or alternatively the fact that you waqnt to ignore that reason and pretend your fanon is true instead, doesn't make your personal opinion into fact.
By the way, since I've named canonically established facts underpinning my reasoning, could you give some evidence of the political corruption that you claim reared its head? When was this? Where did this occur, and when it did, was it the NR government doing it, or was the NR government actively fighting local corruption? I can cite evidence of the latter, but I'm not aware of concrete examples of the former.
In fact, central government corruption only became an issue when Caedus seized power. And then it did, in fact, lead to secession.
You keep talking about "plot-railed". This seems to be your term for "anything something happens in canon that doesn't fit my fanon". The fact is, Caedus abolished the principles of decentralism and secession when he seized power. While I'll happily grant that entire book series sucks, it's not somehow "plot-railing".Canonically on paper, but also canonically plot-railed out of existence.