Talk:European interwar dictatorships

Estonian question

an editor changed the table by reducing the period of Estonian Pats’ dictatorship from June 17, 1940, to January 1, 1938. As far as I could tell by the comments made, it is mostly because individual opposition candidates were allowed to run in elections. No references have been provided.

I believe this to be a rather arbitrary and one-sided edit.

As this brief review of dictatorships demonstrates, they assumed various forms and formats. In many countries usually considered dictatorships not only individual opposition candidates were allowed to run and they have even managed to get some seats in parliaments, but also entire parties were allowed to field their lists (Bulgaria, Poland, Hungary). However, I presume few scholars would argue that because of this, Bulgaria of Boris III in the late 1930s, Piłsudski’s or colonels’s Poland and Horthy’s Hungary were not dictatorships.

I admit that there are few scholars to remain somewhat ambiguous as to categorization of the 1938-1940 regime in Estonia. They refrain from definite statements and offer judgements which do not offer easy labels.

• “No oppositin parties were allowed, but opposition candidates could stand without party labels. On this basis, a small number of opposition candidates managed to get elected”, see here
• “In practice Pats continued to reserve many powers to himself and did not end the ban on parties or lift press censorship”, see here
• “subsequent measures taken by the government show that Pats’s aim was very probably the permament establishment of an authoritarian state” but also “in spite of Pats dominant position, Estonia was not an authoritarian dictatorship” and “[since 1938] the regime nonetheless increased in Estonia the readiness to violate the basic principles of democracy”, see here

Some make some explicit suggestions that since 1938, the regime was more democratic, though I have not found anyone claiming that the regime became democratic and dictatorship ceased:

• “formally returned to a democratic system”, see here
• “partial return to democracy under Pats”, see here

However, some authors are pretty explicit and consider the regime set up in 1938 just another format of Pats’ dictatorship:

• „The regime’s claim that the new constitution was a return to the path to democracy is unconcinving”, see here
• [constitution was intended] „to cover the Pats dictatorship with the fig leaf of democracy”, see here

It is not unusual to find general sweeping references to Estonian dictatorship as lasting until the end of Estonian independence in 1940:

• “political instability gave president Pats a pretext to rule as dictator from 1934 to 1940”, see here
• “Pats’s authoritatian regime”, see here

To summarise: I have not found a single scholar who claims that the dictatorship ended in Estonia in 1938. Some make ambiguous comments. Some tend to suggest that changes of 1938 mattered little. Some clearly maintain that the dictatorship lasted until the Soviet takeover. Reverting the end-date to 1940. Regards, --Hh1718 (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

someone has edited back to end date of 1938, with no feedback on this talk page. Reverting, --Hh1718 (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Danzig question

Hello, Braganza. I have noticed you had inserted a row for Danzig, which I think was indeed missing. However, I have some doubts as to the start/end dates and the leadership.

As far as I can tell, most historiographic works tend to admit that since the mid-1930s the ruling practice in Danzig was increasingly undemocratic, even though formally the regime operated according to rules set up by the League of Nations. The works I have seen seem to suggest that implementation of NS domination was gradual and cummulative, with no specific date stated as the moment when Danzig turned into a Nazi dictatorship.

• one author claims that though the Nazis won the 1933 elections, “Gauleiter Albert Forster could not reproduce Hitler’s dictatorship in the free city”, and that was only in November 1934 that the Nazis removed Rauschning, with rigged elections and intimidation following afterwards, see here
• here the author claims that in 1933 Danzig merely entered the path towards dictatorship, “der Weg Danzigs in die NS-Diktatur schien unaufhaltsam”, on which it proceeded then on, see here
• here the chapter titled “Auf dem Weg zur Diktatur” begins with 1935, which sort of marks the 1935 elections as entering the path towards dictatorship, see here
• here the author refrains from bold statement even for the year of 1937, as he writes that “when he [Sean Lester, the League commissioner] left the Free City early in 1937, the democratic constitution was seriously undermined and the legal system of a constitutional state had practically ceased to exist”, see here
• Polish sources claim vaguely that since the mid-1930s Danzig was getting increasingly Nazified and dictatorial, „Jest to w polityce wewnętrznej Wolnego Miasta okres budowania totalnej , nie osłoniętej dyktatury hitlerowskiej” refers to the late 1930s, see here, or “Lata trzydzieste w Gdańsku to narastająca faszyzacja i terror”, see here
• and here a 1939 annual states almost explicitly that Danzig is a dictatorship, “as the the [sic!] Government of Danzig, following the model of the Hitler Dictatorship in Germany, has suspended all parties other than the Nazi Party...” the Senate is fully controlled by the Nazis, see here

Hence, I would be grateful for advice as to why you set June 30, 1933, as the beginning of the dictatorship. The sources I found seem to single out either Rauschning’s removal from office in 1934 or the 1935 elections as sort of the turning point.

Another issue is the leadership question. You have put Arthur Greiser as the leader, which I believe is controversial. First, I have never seen any work which claims that Greiser was Danzig’s dictator. Second, to single out Greiser seems to be a major oversimplification to me. You have sort of invited the controversy by putting June 30, 1933 as the starting date: this was actually the day when Hermann Rauschning was elected the president of the Senate. Then, there are authors who point to Albert Forster and the key man of the regime in Danzig, compare "Nazi leader Albert Foerster thus became Danzig's dictator”, see here. The issue is also related to the end-day of the dictatorship, which you have set at August 23, 1939; this was the day when the Danzig senate issued a legislation which passed supreme authority from the senate president to the newly created the post of Staatsoberhaupt, assumed by Forster. Which begs the question what about the period between August 23 and September 1? Why isn’t it listed in the table? And then, I think it is fairly clear that the person who was pulling the strings was Adolf Hitler, as all Rauschning, Greiser and Forster were his party subordinates.

So what? My suggestion is as follows:

• 1) re-classify the dictatorship as “collective”;
• 2) change Head of State and Head of Gvt flags to n/a;
• 3) put as start-date 24.06.1933, when the Senate adopted Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Staat (legislation which allowed the Senate to issue extremely broadly defined decrees, which in turn opened the legal path to dictatorship);
• 4) put as end-date 01.09.1939.

I will leave a week or so and if no objections, will edit the entry accordingly. regards, --Hh1718 (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

sounds fine Braganza (talk) 15:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

done --Hh1718 (talk) 08:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Original research

It seems like this list is constructed largely from original research. The copious footnotes in the article are largely explanatory, to the extent of over-explaining obvious things (such as what a head of state is) or poorly explaining unclear concepts (such as with "Parliament" and "Party System"). Of the few citations that exist, some of them even directly contradict the inclusion of certain items in the list, such as those listed for the Second Spanish Republic. Not to mention that it sometimes drops its own inclusion criteria, including a number of dictatorships that existed during World War I (Sidonio Pais) or World War II (Ion Antonescu), but not in the interwar period.

At the very least, this list needs a lot of work in clarifying and sourcing its statements. Grnrchst (talk) 10:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

have removed the "dubious" tag, put against the Republican Spain. As the editor above doubts most categorizations in this article, I see no reason to single out Republican Spain. Besides, two tags put at the top give enough of a heads-up. Regards, --Hh1718 (talk) 12:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

even though I was the one who wrote this article (or rather constructed the table), following reflection upon comments from Grnrchst I agree that he/she is right. This entry does not meet the criteria for WP verifiability and should be deleted. I think I will mark it for deletion. Regards, --Hh1718 (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I have marked the article for deletion as above. I am not surprised to see my marking has been deleted, which happens. However, I am utterly surprised that there is no trace of the whole process altogether. There is neither any trace of my marking nor any trace of someone removing my marking, nor any discussion on deletion taking place. I am not sure about the rules of the deletion process, but my understanding is that WP strives to be entirely transparent, so that it is visible who did what and when. The magic about marking, unmarking and disappearing traces of it is something I can not reconcile with the transparency policy and which I think is abuse of powers by anonymous individuals, who are even impossible to trace and be asked why. Sure I might be all wrong and dut to my ignorance I have simply failed to find the footprint of actions taken; in this case would be grateful for a hint. --Hh1718 (talk) 09:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)