|
Edited on Tue Mar-30-04 04:07 PM by happyslug
Each dictatorship throughout history has been different. Most have used the executive power as the base for Power, other have used the Army, the most powerful have used the Power of the Legislature.
For example, Rome. Rome was not built in a day, it took centuries and if you look at Roman History the biggest expansion occurred under REPUBLICAN Rome not IMPERIAL Rome (and even in Republican, Rome the biggest expansion took place BEFORE the advent of a mercenary army in 90BC).
The Mercenary Army was the result of the refusal of Roman Citizens to fight wars that did not benefit themselves or Rome, but did benefit the Roman leadership. To solve this problem of refusal Maius decided to raise the First Roman Army where the Roman Citizens were PAID to fight, he used this to defeat German invaders of what is now southern France. Within a few years the very Rich Roman Senators had their own armies, which lead to the Dictatorship of Caesar and the Rule by the Emperors (Who by defeating all the other Senator's Armies left only his legions which the Emperors kept as their "Personal" legions till the time of Constantine).
Thus the Roman Empire was based on the fact that the only source of force was in the hands of the Emperor, who used that force as he saw fit (Including massacring his own people if the Emperor thought that was needed as Justinian did during his reign).
Nazi Germany was a little bit different, the Army supported Hitler, but he was NOT their pet, nor did he control the Army. Both the Army and the Nazis wanted the same thing i.e. a Strong Germany, but in any conflict between the Army and the Nazis, the Army would have backed the Army (Which it had done in 1918 when a choice had to be made between the Kaiser and the Army, the Kaiser lost and was exiled). Furthermore the Army knew it needed the German nation to support the army, thus any conflict between the Kaiser and the German Nation, the Army would support the German Nation, thus the Kaiser left Germany even before the armistice of November 11, 1918.
The German Army and the German people while NOT the same thing, but where interconnected so that you can not defeat one without defeating the other. It was the lost of control over the German people that saw the German Army overthrow the Kaiser in 1918, it was Hitler's control over those same people that saw the German Army fight to almost to the last man in 1945.
Unlike the Roman Emperors, Hitler's power was in the Nazi party and its control over the population (Much like how Stalin Controlled Russia, i.e THROUGH THE PARTY CONTROL OVER THE PEOPLE NOT THE ARMY'S CONTROL OVER THE PEOPLE). While the Early Emperors claimed the Veto power of the People's Tribunes, were "First Senator" of the Senate and High Priest of Pagan Rome, the Emperor's true power was the Control (and Support) of the Army and his right to make laws AND veto any law proposed by the Senate (The Legislative Power of the Old Republic)..
Under either System opposition was crushed (Through Under the Roman System they was more a tendency to permit opposition to exist provided such opposition did not come out of the Army or sought support out of the Army). An example of this tolerance is the early Christian Church. The early Church was anti-military and thus permitted to thrive for it made little or no attempt to recruit members of the Military (and the few ex-military people it did recruit tend to leave their comrades in the Roman Army behind, thus not a threat to the Emperor's control of the Military).
On the other hand the Early Church was a political organization that had it existed under the Nazis as it did under the Emperors (i.e. as a minority Church as opposed to the majority church the church was under the Nazis) the Nazis would have persecuted and stamped out this minority church as a potential threat to the power of the Nazis(As the Emperor Diocletian tried to do when he decided to switch the base of power of the Emperors from one of Military might to a more political based system).
The problem you have is Rome solved its political problem by going first to a mercenary Army and than to rule by the person who controlled that army. This rule by the Roman Army was only possible if the army was kept small and well paid no matter what happened to the Roman People. Thus you see the drop in the size of the Roman Army from almost 1 million men under arms at the Time of Hannibal (When Rome controlled little more than modern Italy), to about 90 legions (270,000 men) in the time of Caesar to just 30 legions (about 150,000 men) under Augustus (When the Empire had its richest).
This drop in personal is amazing, in the mid-1700s Frederick The Great of Prussia could not understand HOW Rome could control such a large empire with so few men (He had more men under arms and controlled less than 10% of the area). The key to Rome's power was by the time Rome switched to a mercenary army, all of its potential enemies were either defeated or hopelessly weak. Thus Rome did not need more than 30 legions to defeat any potential enemies and 30 legions were enough to keep its poor in line.
With Diocletian and Constantine you finally had two enemies that could produce enough troops to challenge Roman power (The Goths and the Persians). Thus the later Empire needed larger and larger armies to fight off the Goths and the Persians. This larger army brought with it demands for more taxes to pay for these larger armies (and this problem of keeping a larger army and higher taxes was the key to the fall of the Empire in the West).
The Later Roman empire's permitting the various German invaders to STAY in the Empire(even as the Invaders where defeated by Roman Arms) is better understood if you understand that the Roman's elites preferred this solution (German Barbarians helping them rule) than to the solution of arming their own poor. If the ruling elites had done the later (i.e. armed their poor), the Romans would have easily defeated ALL OF THE INVADERS. The problem was such a solution meant addressing the needs of the poor. The chief need of the poor being land reform, something the Roman elites hated more than sharing power with the German Invaders (Through the Invaders adopted Arming the Poor as the best defense against other invaders including the Arabs and other Germans which lead directly to the "dark ages").
As one historian said, the "Dark ages" are only dark if you are use to looking at the product of the top 5% of the Population, if you look at the other 95% the Dark ages is the best time in history till the 1800s . People's health improved, products were introduced to improve the life of the 95% of the population who where poor (The Heavy Plow, the Water wheel into western Europe, improved iron making, Horse Collar, bearings, hay, etc) and people could move about to improve their own situation (An example of this freedom of movement is the movement of Peasants from "Roman" Britain to "English" Britain do to the greater rights the poor had under "English" law than "British" Law. This lead to the complete abolishment of "Britain" by 800 AD and the Establishment of "England" as it has been know ever since).
The Barbarian Invaders had to agree to the above (or at least leave it happen) for they needed the support of the poor in their fights with other barbarians, Romans and Arabs. The rights the poor gained during the Dark Ages stayed and than stayed the law for centuries through restrictions started to be added about 1100 and again during the Renaissance. My Point here is the Roman system could only survive if they was no enemy that could challenger Rome's Power. Once Rome's Power was challenge, it had to fall or reform (It did both, fell in the West where reform was the weakest and reformed in the East where it adopted a type of Universal Military Service under Herculius at the time of the Arab Conquest).
Under the Nazis, The German Army was already an Universal Service Army army, this was the European solution to the problem Rome had with raising troops. The problem with a Universal Service Army is it can only be sent to fight for things the people (who is the Universal Service Army) want. Unlike a Mercenary Army, a Universal Service Army can not be used to suppress one's own people and the Nazis never attempted to use it as such (The Army was used to Suppress other people, but not Germans, and even in this duty the Nazis preferred its SS to do the job. The SS was made up of volunteers to do the Nazis dirty work).
Thus the Nazis strength was its POLITICAL control over the people, a control the Nazis fought to keep even as the US and Soviet Armies was cutting into Germany. Only with the Total Defeat of Germany did the Nazis lose their Grip on Power (and this as the German Army still existed enough to formally Surrender).
The Present US Army is a "Voluntary" army much like the Roman Army during the Early Emperors (and unlike the German army under the Nazis). As such it is possible for someone to use the Army to stay in power, but while the US Army is Voluntary, it is NOT the personal property of the President (Which the Roman Legions were). At the same time what the Army wants and what the people want are two different things (Unlike the German Army of WWI and WWII).
Thus the issue is NOT will any future dictatorship follow Rome or the Nazis, but how will it differ. The biggest difference is the above background, our Military is NOT the property of the President but at the same time NOT the same as the people. While I do not see the Military being used to OVERTHROW an elected Government, I do see it supporting any body who gains control in a coup on the needs for "Peace". Thus the Dictatorship will be more Political than military based (i.e. more like the Nazis than the Romans) but with out the check of an Universal Military Service Army. Thus it will be deeper (in the sense of influence in the country) than the Nazis were in Germany. With modern Television it will be easy to spread the word of the need for the coup to "save America" and to sermonize any opposition (Calling any opposition Followers of Al Queda, Communists etc)).
The support from the army will slowly weaken as the need for more men brings with it the Draft (This is based on an assumption of expanded military operations in the Mid East to secure "our" oil fields). As you get more and more people into the military who oppose the dictatorship the Army will become more and more "neutral" With this neutrality the Dictatorship will embrace the expansion of the Police and police power. Like the Nazis the police will be the base of their support and the Country will become more and more a police state.
The big fear for the Dictatorship will be the expanded Army, (To many liberals in the Army, you have to draft Liberals who oppose the war and the mean fact they are in the Military will change the military making it more liberal).
Like Rome, the Dictatorship would prefer a small army it has complete control over, not a large army loyal to the country. Like the later Empire the Dictatorship will prefer to anything than to sharing power at home. The problem is the Dictatorship will be based on the need for war (i.e. oil in the Mideast). Thus the seeds for the destruction of the Dictatorship is in its own formation. To have the Dictatorship, it must be based on fear. To answer that fear, the army will be expanded. The Expanded Army will cease being a bastion of Conservative thinking and become more and more liberal (Based on the draftees coming into the Army). As the Army become more liberal (It will still be more conservative than the Democratic Party, but will cease to be Right even of the Republican Party) the Army will becomes harder to use for suppression (See what the French Army did during the French Revolution).
The next question is how long will the people accept the above? To maintain power the Dictatorship will have to continue any war just to stay in power. The war will be part of its propaganda campaign to keep itself in power. Once the war is over, the Dictatorship is done and it knows it so the war must never end. The war expands the army (and the Army's trend to liberalism). Any serious reversal or peace will result in a revolt (The peace after 1783 was the key to the French Revolution, no war, but crisis remained, the Famine of 1785-86 brought the problems of France to a head and you have the revolution 1789).
Military defeat can also result in Revolution, England's Charles I's failed wars lead to a weakening of his Power and the English Civil War of 1640 (More a revolution than the American Civil War was).
Thus Defeat or Victory are both dangers to the dictatorship, it first choice would be a continuous war that never ends for the Dictatorship can not long survive either a military defeat or Victory (Once either occurs the need for a Dictator dies with it).
It is this internal conflict that has ended most dictatorship since Rome. The Roman Emperors survived so long do to the small size of its army and no need to expand its army (This was the result of the failed dictatorships of Sulla and Caesar between 90 BC and 45 BC and that the First Emperors called themselves representatives of the people not the upper classes).
The Nazi's Survived until it attacked the only country it could still attack (The Soviet Union). The problem was the USSR was to big for Germany to conquer. The Nazi than used the pending defeat to stay in power as military defeat followed military defeat. Hitler could not surrender for peace would lead to his removal. Thus Hitler had the Germans fight for three years longer than they should have.
Like Germany under Hitler, Rome also abolished its legislature (Except for the Senate) when Rome ceased to be a Republic and became an Empire (The Roman People's assembly gave its power to the Emperor including the right to Veto acts of the Senate). Thus the "Emperor's" power was legislative not Executive (Through the Emperor Controlled the Army). The executive power remained in the hands of the Roman Consuls (Through de facto appointed by the Emperor not elected by the People as their had been under the Republic). It was the legislative power (along with control of the Army) that made the Emperors all powerful not the executive power.
The same with the Nazis it was control over how to make laws that give the Nazis power, for with that power the Nazi controlled the people and as long as the Nazis controlled the people the German Army could not move against the Nazis. The German people never gave such power to the Kaiser but retained it in its Diet, but did give such power to Hitler.
Any American Dictatorship will follow the same logic, it is one of the reason for the fight over Supreme Court Nominees (The power of the Court if allied with any Dictatorship will secure the power of the Dictatorship).
You will thus have a ongoing war, bringing with it a highly police state, increase in the size of the Army (for the war) but increase fear of that army by the rulers (The rulers will want to expand the most loyal sections of the army with the best equipment, i.e. the Special Forces and maybe the Marines). Any group not allied with the Dictatorship will be suppressed (and that includes things like little league unless it is formed by agents of the Dictatorship). The Dictatorship will try to control everything. It will even go after the Churches (providing the Churches are not brought into Alliance with the Dictator, which is one of the reasons for "faith Based" actions of this administration. i.e. to Corrupt the church by making them dependent on the dictatorship). What the Dictatorship can not control or corrupt, the Dictatorship will attack for it will fear any and all opposition.
Sooner or later peace will break out (Probably when the US runs out of money than any military defeat). With the end of the War, any need for a Dictatorship will also end. The Dictatorship will than try to use its power (The Police and party) to defeat the attempts to remove it from power. Given that the Country will be broke, the Dictatorship's survivability will depend on its ability to keep its paid police paid. Once the police will no longer be paid, the dictatorship will fail, but one last warning from Rome. The Western Empire tried one last trick to say in power, giving the power to police to the Barbarians as long as Barbarians agreed act as police on the poor Roman Citizens in exchange the barbarians were given land.
The same with the Dictator, once money is gone, they will give the Police property (including the people who is on such land) as payment for their services. This is another two edge sword for the Police come from the poor and as such ruthless to the poor, but sooner or later the land grant becomes permanent and with permanence the Police desire to have peace. This is what the Barbarians did to the later Western Empire, they took the land, settled on the land and slowly merged with the peasants. Sooner or later even the Barbarians knew the only real way to have peace was land reform (which the barbarians implemented).
The same with the Police, they will want to keep their land and have peace, the only way to have that will be to end the dictatorship and they will do so. This is what happened to Richard Cromwell in 1660 and that happened in Latin American in the 1980s. The police slowly realized peace was worth the price of giving up power to the people. The police will give up the power even if that means overthrowing the Dictatorship. In many ways Venezuela's trip over the last 30 years is the movement of its Military from one to suppress the peasants to be one with the peasants, the same trip the Police in the US will have to make if they want to have peace.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
