Quote:
Originally Posted by htperr6565
In Nazi Germany, Hitler made all military decisions and acted as general. His 'civilian' title as furher and his military title as furher were one in the same.
|
Hitler's title of "Fuhrer" was NOT military. His only military title was "corporal" (or whatever the German equivalent is -- somethinggruppenfuhrer, I think), which is the rank he earned in World War I. His standing in German society came entirely from German civilian politics, not the military.
Quote:
|
In Japan, the military hijacked control of the government against the will of a weak and scared emperor. While technically he had the last 'say', evidence shows he was not in practical control of policy.
|
Japan actually was a military dictatorship at the time, which is, as I noted, the exception to the rule. (BTW, for the emperor to be a figurehead was the norm and had been for centuries. Emperors using their nominal absolute power and making things happen was rare. It happened when Meiji insisted that the country modernize in the 19th century, and again when Hirohito ended World War II. Most of the time, the actual running of government was done by less lofty figures, Shoguns during the medieval period, the military during World War II, and the elected leadership today.)
Quote:
In any case, Hitler was neither elected as furher and the military government of Japan nor the emperor were elected by their people.
Each used force to acquire their legitimacy. Placing blame on civilians for this unfortunate situation is as self righteous as it gets.
|
No, here we disagree. No government EVER rules its own people solely by force. A conquered other people, yes, sometimes, but its own, never. It's not possible. Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence only got it half right. Governments derive their powers,
just or unjust, from the consent of the governed, or at least of enough of the governed to constitute a working consensus.
What happens when a government, even a nondemocratic, autocratic police state, loses the consent of the governed? See the Soviet Union in 1991 for an example.
The German people supported Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. Their party was voted into a plurality in the Reichstag and put a working coalition together with a couple of other small parties, which is standard procedure in parliamentary democracies when no party has an outright majority. Hitler became Chancellor according to the terms of the constitution, and then assumed dictatorial powers again according to the terms of the constitution after the Reichstag fire. Although there were no more elections after that, the indications that Hitler continued to have strong public support were there, until the Germans began to lose the war.
Yes, the German people of the time were to blame for putting Hitler in power. He could not have done it alone. You have to qualify the blame when it comes to the Holocaust, which was carried out in secret, but less-drastic antisemitic measures did have public support. (I'm thinking the Holocaust would not have, or it wouldn't have been secret; Hitler was no political dunce.)