Well, part of that, though, was because high government officials who disagreed with Hitler and leaders of other parties found themselves dead, in exile, in prison, or silenced in fear of their lives. The American democracy allowed somebody like Daniel Boone or Davy Crockett to publicly criticize the government’s policies safely. Nazi Germany didn’t allow that. So it’s not really the same thing.
Susanann, this might be of interest.
The major opposition to Hitler in the government itself came from the Leftist parties, which were suppressed after the burning of the Reichstag. There were also Rightist groups that considered Hitler dangerously popular and plotted to assassinate him.
Of course, there wasn’t any government official who disagreed with Hitler, since he had chosen them all. That’s why it was a DICTATORSHIP, not a DEMOCRACY . Do you notice the difference?
But what happened to all the leaders of other political parties when Hitler rose to power? Are you under the belief that he left them seating in the Reichstag? Or that he appointed his opponents as ministers? Or that they suddenly joined the nazi party? From where people like the first post-war chancellor Adenauer came from, according to you?
One might argue that no dictatorship can exist without the implied consent of its citizens. This consent may take the form of passive acceptance, but it’s consent none the less.
That wasn’t the issue. ** Susannan ** stated that no governement official disagreed with Hitler and that it proved that no german leader was opposed to his views re. the nazis. There was obviously not the slightest chance that a german political leader opposed to the nazis would end up in Hitler’s governement (or anywhere than in a prison or a concentration camp, for that matter). That’s was my point.
And as for arguing that dictatorship = passive consent of the citizens, if we assume it’s true, then it’s equally valid, and even much more so for the american policies re. the amerindians. These policies where not only passsively but even actively (since they could have voted out their proponents) endorsed by the citizenry.
First of all, Hitler was elected.
Secondly, every country has leaders, and former political leaders. Everyone in Hitlers government and from the former government did not have their tounges removed, they all were fully capable of speaking out against the extermination of the jews if they disagreed with it - yet not one of them did. Lots of people in Hitlers government disagreed with him on various issues, but not on the issue of getting rid of the jews.
Davy Crockett and Daniel Boone always spoke out and worked to have the indians treated with respect, and to live peacably with them, while in office or not.
Lastly, someone famous said a long time ago that “no government can exist without the consent of its people”, and that is still true today. Even a dictator cannot go against the will of its people- that is why revolutions and coups exist. A dictator can say anything he wants to say, but if the citizens(and the citizens who are in the army) dont agree, they will get rid of him. There are probably more dicators in history who were forced out of office(or killed) than died peacably in their sleep remaining in power until old age.
I found interesting things about ** Susannan ** 's hero Davy Crockett and the indians. Like here for instance :
That’s a great example of a defender of the amerindians, indeed.
And? Does the fact that he was elected mean t he had no opponent?
Two different categories :
-member of the governement of a dictator have ZERO chance to be oposed to his view. He choose them BECAUSE they agreed to his view. Can you get it?
-other politicians opposed to him. You’re joking, right??? You stated that they didn’t have they tongue removed. No, sure. They just were arrested, under house arrest, deported, executed , etc… if they opened they mouth (and even if they didn’t open it, quite often) . Are you believing they were allowed to speak out against him? Nobody was. Who were the political deported in the concentration camps, according to you? Fervent supporters of Hitler?
Sure. See my quote above about your beloved Davy Crockett (who also supported the texans when they were pissed off because the mexican government wanted to abolish slavery…decidedly a man worthy of admiration)
And it’s even more true in a democracy, where people have just to cast a vote if they disagree with the policy, rather than risking their life to speak out. So, this statement means that the americans agreed with the policies re. the indians. Without even the need to impose it on them by force. It doesn’t help your case.