Talk:Military dictatorship

Bad article

This article needs a lot of work. No Roman Empire? The most famous military dictatorship in history? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.200.127.217 (talk) 04:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

United States

I don't think America is a dictatorship. Or is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spb10 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

American has a state of emergency and dictatorial powers under the so-called Patriot Act, but does that mean America is a military regime? I don't think so. Though the use of illegal military "courts", and the military overriding the civilian president (such as when Obama tried to cancel the assassination of Bin Laden, and was overriden), could suggest that it is a military regime. I think a better description is a civilian dictatorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 08:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Every dictatorship isn't a military dictatorship

What the hell? Nazi Germany? Francoist Spain? People , common. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.59.99.97 (talk) 13:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it needs work. But Nazi Germany was not really a military dictatorship. The Nazi's were elected to power by the people of Germany. Also, the Wehrmacht held very little power and most of it despised Adolf Hitler. The SS was not a regular army, it was more akin to the praetorian guards of Rome. The civilian 'reich' decided policies, not the army. Nazi Germany is best described as a Totalitarian Stratocracy... mostly. . 198.200.127.217 (talk) 04:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

CIA

How come there isn't a single reference to CIA influence and action in these dictatorships (particularly in Latin America)? --190.31.122.96 (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

typo? vandalism?

Although there are squirrels, military regimes usually have little respect for human rights and use whatever means necessary to silence political opponents, who are viewed as opposing the army as enemies.

Squirrels? I might not understand an alternate meaning of the word, so if that is the case I don't think I would be the only one and more explanation is required in the article. My instinct is that it is silly vandalism, but I just wanted to bring it up in case I was wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.36.61.73 (talk) 14:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The Case of Iran

I think it's clear now that Iran has changed from an Islamic Republic to a military dictatorship. Effective political control has shifted from Islamic clerics and the popular vote to the Revolutionary Guard, the elite armed forces of the country. Notable commentary would seem to agree. I move that Iran be included on the present-day list. Lothar76 (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

No. The Revolutionary Guard is part of the clerical power elite, not the army. Power lies with the hardline clerics. Iran is a clerical dictatorship, not a military regime.

5/1 Revision

Mostly I cleaned up grammar and miscellaneous wording stuff. However, I did delete the sentence:
Few Communist regimes are military dictatorships, and controlling the military so that it cannot challenge the party has been a persistent concern of these regimes.
Not because it was innacurate or controversial, but because it is basically repeated later in the article and it destroys the flow of the article where it was.
--Xinoph 23:03, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

Argentina

Argentina under Juan Domingo Perón (1946-1955) was not a military dictatorship, Peron was elected by the people of Argentina in elections everyone recognized as fair. Malau1

This is the debate that I think should be addressed in wikipedia, WHEN IS A PERSON A DICTATOR. I am Venezuelan, and I beleive that even when Hugo Chavez has been elected he is indded a dictator who does what he wants in my country. Wikipedia , alas, will not call him for what he is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.79.222.123 (talk) 03:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you think that Chávez is a dictator because he does what HE wants? I strongly disaagree: if Chávez won so many fair elections, it must be because he does what he and most of the people want. In a true dictatorship there are no fair elections, there are no opposition media, journalists who criticize the Govt. are imprisoned (or killed), opposition parties are banned, right of strike is suspended, etc etc. Sebasbronzini (talk) 12:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

This question is irrelevant. The article is for military regimes, not civilian dictatorships. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 08:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The Confederacy

Why is the Confederate States of America listed as a military dicatorship? It had a democratically elected government which was in power until the end of the American Civil War. --203.52.130.138 02:19, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The article does not give a clear distiction or definition of stratocracy. The wikidictionary link provided defines stratocracy as military government.

---

I have moved the stratocracy link out to the Wikipedia article on this. It's not much better, though. Mgw854 (talk) 21:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The Confederacy did not have a military dictatorship, but the Union held a military dictatorship over it during the Reconstruction. Perhaps that was what was meant by the person who put it on there. - Woverdude —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woverdude (talk • contribs) 16:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Pakistan

Why is Pakistan listed as a military dictatorship under its present form. Despite their being a coup in '99, the Supreme Court of Pakistan has since recognized Musharraf as the president and a referendum was held and extended his current executive power for five more years. Read the note under "Executive Branch" [1]. Pepsidrinka 04:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

As I understand immediately after coup in '99 all Supreme Court Judges had to take the oath again to confirm faith in new rulers..I remember that time one judget refused and he was sacked .So recognition of Musharraf by the Supreme Court does not carry much weight.About referendum many dictators get themselves "elected" .One recent example is of dictator of Belarus.

In military dictatorship there are two words .Militray -Yes Mussharaf is uniformed chief of army staff .Dictatoship - we need to find what poewrs does he have .We know he himself has made the law as who can contest elections and who can not( denied n Shariff and Bhutto to contest elections) ,who are eligible to vote and many more laws .He has power to dismiss the prime minister -he selected a new prime minister a few years back , he has all executive powers in practice , he receives all foreign dignataries ( recently Pakisitani PM was nowehere to be seen when President Bush visited Pakistan) and he has a constituted body which has military people in majority and that body can overule any decision of cabinet .So all in all it is dictatorship .And Military dictatorship to be specific. Shyamsunder 12:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Not only does the Chief of Army Staff hold, in practice, all executive power, serving army officers are running many of the civil institutions of Pakistan. Much recent legislation was through presidential ordinance as well. Parts of that which were of a constitutional nature have gone through parliament as well, but since parliament is nowhere near free from military pressure, this hardly constitutes a democratic act. I think Pakistan should stay on the list. --82.41.33.42 10:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC) Salman

Portugal

Estado Novo

Portugal was not a military dictatorship from 1933 to 1968. It was ruled under a civil constitution, the Estado Novo.

--MiguelFC 04:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Nonetheless, it' still a military dictatorship. From the article:

"Like any dictatorship, a military dictatorship may be official or unofficial, and as a result may not actually qualify as stratocratic (some military dictators, like Panama's Manuel Noriega, are nominally subordinate to the civil government). Mixed forms also exist, where the military exerts a very strong influence without being entirely dominant." Evenfiel 05:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Armed Forces Movement

Portugal was not a military dictatorship between 1974 and 1976. In fact, those were the first times there were free elections in Portugal, a lot of political parties were formed, all political prisoners from the fascist regime were set free and political refugees were allowed to return. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.95.16.122

Burma

One part of the article says that Burma's been under a military dictatorship since '62, while another one gives it a two-year hiatus. I'll change that hiatus one, since I think it's a misrepresentation of events in the country. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Pakistan

I won't give my opinion on this, but Pakistan's entry in the "Nations with a legacy of military dictatorship(s)" section, Pakistan lists "Pakistan (1958-1971; 1977-1988; 1999-present)" yet it does not appear in the list of countries currently under military dictatorship. This is inconsistent. --A Sunshade Lust 19:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Democratic Republic of the Congo

Was not a military dictatorship under Mobutu. The military never became the government. Aside from Mobutu, virtually every member of the government during his rule was a civilian. And while Mobutu relied on the military to remain in power, true power was vested in the country's sole political party, the MPR, and himself, rather than in the armed forces. [2] Josh 21:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hitler

wasn't Nazi Germany a Military dictatorship. -Mrsanitazier

No. Josh 07:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The article needs to be re-written. Nazi Germany was NOT a military dictatorship. The military was strictly subservient to the civilian authorities. Many military officers were Nazi's, but many were not.203.184.55.172 (talk) 04:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Help, please!

We have a young Wikipedia contributer named User:Shark kid, who has been adding a lot of material to military articles, including this one just today. He means well, but he seems to have no idea what is appropriate and what is not. In this article on Military Dictatorship, he has just added a large and inappropriate section on "Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich". I have already deleted too much of his material, and I don't want to stalk him. If you folks who pay attention to this article see fit, please edit or delete his addition, and leave a note in his user page. —Aetheling 18:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok. -Evenfiel 20:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Latin America and Cold War

The end of the Cold War didn't had much to do with the end of military dictatorships in Latin America. By the time Gorbachev started his government, there weren't that many dictators in Latin America and the fact the remaining few became democracies had a lot more to do with internal problems than external. For example, in Brazil the slow democratization process started way back in the 70s.

Poland

There is a wrong years. During interbellum there was a military dictatorship since 1923 (May Coup) till 1939 not 1935. In 1935 marshal Piłsudski died but his protégé successors drifted toward even worst authoritarianism. Another mistake is giving years 1981-1989. Martial law in Poland, only time of military dictatorship during communist period was in 1981-83 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pszeszczep666 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Authoritarianism is not military rule, necesaarily. Poland did not have military government in the 1980's. It was still a communist regime, with martial law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 08:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Egypt

In the section on countries with a legacy of military dictatorship, Egypt is listed with the date as to present. If this is so, shouldn't it be in the list of countries currently ruled by a military dictatorship? If it no longer is then presumably the date needs amending.Crana (talk) 23:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Cuba

How is Cuba NOT a Military dictatorship??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.93.117.192 (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Just because Fidel liked to wear a uniform shirt, didn't make him part of the military. Cuba is giverned by the Communist Party of Cuba, not by its military. --dashiellx (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes it's a Single-party dictatorship (of cause they use the military, every dictatorship does) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.239.161 (talk) 12:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan

It is NOT a military dictatorship. There is a National Assembly, which is strongly against PRESIDENT Musharraf. Get your facts right, wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.7.203 (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Zimbabwe

Why is Zimbabwe listed as a military dictatorship? Dictatorship or not, it has a civilian government. Josh (talk) 02:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

North Korea

This list just screams a need for North Korea to be listed. I can't believe we missed that one. Tubularbells1993 (talk) 00:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, I meant on the Current Cases list. Tubularbells1993 (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

North Korea, just as Cuba (see comments above) is governed by it's communist party, not by its military. Tom Paine (talk) 17:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This is absurd. North Korea is a Communist dictatorship. It is not a military dictatorship! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 08:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The inclusion is problematic. For one thing, the article says, "One very different pattern was the one followed by Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq and Kim Il-sung's regime in North Korea, both of which began as one-party states, but over the course of their existence turned into military dictatorships as their leaders donned uniforms and the military became closely involved in the government." However, Kim Il Sung originated as a military leader and took on a civilian role. While he continued to be the Marshal, I don't think I've seen a picture of him in uniform in later years. Then, the article claims that North Korea became a military dictatorship in 1998, after Kim Il Sung's death. It states that this was when "The National Defence Commission of North Korea declared itself the highest authority", but really it was just declared the highest military authority. While Kim Jong Il and Kim Jong Un have had nominal military positions, they are not normally depicted in military uniform, nor did they have military careers before taking power. While the military has always had a key role in North Korea, I don't think it's easy to argue that it has replaced the Workers Party at any point. For these reasons, I'm removing this material.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I think the content from Military junta should be merged into this article. After that the other page should be replaced by a redirect. The two articles are both used in serveral country infoboxes. --Stephantom (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - A dictatorship is defined as absolute rule by an individual. A junta is a committee of military leaders; while it is likely this committee will have a head of state, it leaves the possibility open of the council as a whole overriding their leader in a decision depending on the government's laws (much as the U.S. Congress may override a veto of the President). As stated in the article, the terms are not synonymous. The article just needs meat--examples, for instance, of how a junta operates. DerekMBarnes (talk) 04:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose-for the same reasons as DerekMBarnes, above.Veritas Omnia Vincit (talk) 10:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - A bunch of grapes is not the same as one grape. Similarly, a military dictatorship can consist of either a (military) junta, or of one single strongman in charge; and they are not, cannot be, the same thing. Stephantom ought to ask himself, "Can a junta be composed of just one man?". --AVM (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

YES MERGE IT

I SAY MERGE IT THEY'RE BOTH MAINLY THE SAME.

TOMASIO9768.80.102.205 (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Europe: Russia, USSR, Nazi Germany

Russia up to 1917 was an authocracy (Czar), USSR's government a one party rule (communist), Nazi Germany was a totalitarian dictatorship with extensive civilian support. None or them proceded from a coup started from military ranks. Tom Paine (talk) 17:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Ladies and Gents, Nazi Germany was put back into the list of countries with a military dictatorship. I have removed it. Before Germany in any form is added again, there should be discussion here of why exactly it should be there. So far as I know, Germany has never had an indigenous military government (between 1945 and 1949, Germany was under military governments from the armed forces of Britain, the US, the Soviet Union and France). It had an attempted military coup (July 20, 1944), but has never had an actual military government.

Hitler and his party were civilians. Military personnel were not allowed to join political parties of any description after 1919. Keitel was presented with an honourary Gold Nazi Party Badge, but that was it. Hitler's regime was a civlian government. The fact that they wore paramilitary uniforms is irrelevant. Anyone can parade around in a gay costume. CMarshall (talk) 13:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hitler was a german military leader Category:German_military_leaders

Head of the Nazi regime and head of the german army. What is that if not a military dictatorship?

--Csendesmark (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Presidents of the most countries are also heads of their armies (like the USA, for example). The position of the commander of army usually comes in pair with the position of head of state. HeadlessMaster (talk) 11:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Hitler was discharged from the German Army shortly after World War 1. After becoming Fuhrer and Chancellor, he appointed himself to several military positions. This is not a military dictatorship, it is a civilian dictatorship. Hitler did not draw his power from his leadership of the Wehrmacht, but from his position as leader of the Nazi Party, and Chancellor of the Reich. CMarshall (talk) 12:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Protectorate of England

As described in The Protectorate, shouldn't the Commonwealth/Protectorate be on the list of past Military Dictatorships? JuliusNero (talk) 22:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, as it was ruled by Cromwell and the Roundheads. Zolstijers (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC).

Mauritania

Mauritania is not a military dictatorship at this time. Military administration was transformed into a civil administration. President was elected by popular vote.The military junta removed from power. As in the Sudan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.125.87.2 (talk) 11:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Nicaragua

Can Nicaragua be classified as a military dictatorship? Under the Somozas it was more of an authoritarian family dynasty/quasi-dictatorship in which the Somoza family and their allies/associates held the reins of power, not the armed forces. Josh (talk) 10:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible false info?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_dictatorship#Current_cases

Did something happen recently to Canada, or is this info false?

Military rule

This was a disambig page, which was originally a redirect here years ago. it really works better as a redirect in my opinion, as the disambig page didnt list uses of "military rule", just phrases from a thesaurus, essentially.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Dictatorship in Uruguay

I've corrected the starting year of the regime in Uruguay to 1973, a well-known fact. Inquisitorial officials are kindly invited to verify so here and there and everywhere. --Izmir2 Let's talk 05:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

This article is fundamentally wrong

Most of the listed military dictatorships are nothing of the sort. They may be civilian dictatorships, or single party regimes. But most are not military regimes. I propose to delete the references to those that are not clearly military regimes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 08:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

References?

The only reference this page has is an identical page on a different website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frisbii (talk • contribs) 19:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Central African Republic

I think that CAR is not a military dictatorship; who is in power is not the army, but a former rebel group. Yes, can be argued that these former rebel group is a kind of "army", but, by this criteria we should consider "military dictatorships" all case when an armed rebellion takes power - like Mao in China, Fidel in Cuba, the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Khmer Rouge in Cabodja etc, etc. I think usually the expression "military dictatorship" are only used when it is the "official" army who seizes power.--MiguelMadeira (talk) 00:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Definitions and related articles

The differences between military junta, military dictatorship, and stratocracy are unclear, based on the definitions in the introductions of those articles. They may overlap, but if so, that overlap should be clarified. Also, there are no citations establishing who is claiming they are different terms. That would be helpful in validating these claims, and an example or two would clarify immensely. -- Beland (talk) 00:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Saddam Hussein

"A different pattern was followed by Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, which began as a one-party state, but over the course of its existence turned into a military dictatorship as Saddam donned a uniform and the military became closely involved in the government."

If anything, I think the Saddam government was exactly the opposite - reducing the Revolutionary Command Council, who could be considered a kind of military junta, to a almost pure decorative body, whil3 the true power was concentrated in the civilian Saddam (note that in the section about "past cases", the military dictatorship ends in Iraq in 1979). I admit that this can be considered "original research", but, exactly for that, we should remove the passage about Sadam's Iraque becoming a military dictatorship.--MiguelMadeira (talk) 11:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I removed the reference to North Korea from the sentence (see above), but I wasn't knowledgeable enough about Iraq. I think it's true that Saddam started wearing a military uniform later on in his rule, but that doesn't make him a military dictator.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Saddam Hussein wasn't a military dictator. He was a civilian politician who adopted military uniforms later.

Further on the topic of Iraq, The Republic of Kuwait wasn't a military dictatorship either. It was a puppet regime setup by Ba'athist Iraq, which occupied Kuwait at the time. It is equivalent to the Vichy regime in France. CMarshall (talk) 08:41, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

North Korea

Yes, the chairman of the National Defense Comission is the highest office in the country; but the chairman is a civilian, and is (formally and informally) choosen by civilian bodies - in theory, it is elected by the Supreme People's Assembly, and in practice the office is occupied by the First Secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea.

More - Kim Jong-ill died at 17 December 2011; Kim Jong-un assumed the office of First Secretary at that day, and only becomes chairman of the NDC at 13 April 2012. However, I think that there is not much doubt that, between 17 December 2011 and 13 April 2012, Kim Jong-un was already the political leader of North Korea. Then, I think that the chairman of the NDC being the highes office does not make North Korea a military dictatorship - it is simple a "job title" that the (civilian) leader of North Korea gives to himself.

Another point - I think that removing a "citation needed" tag without provinding the citation (but instead refering in the summary to a citation source in another article) does not make much sense - the correct should be inserting the citation in the article--MiguelMadeira (talk) 16:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, as discussed above. As discussed at the North Korea page, there are many different descriptions of the DPRK government.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

List

What is the source for this elaborate list?--Antemister (talk) 12:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, it lacks lots of verification. Looking back at the history, I see that it has been built up gradually over the years rather than introduced all at once. I'd therefore suggest that rather than looking for a single source, or, worse, deleting it entirely, as has been done a few times recently, we should look to start verifying the list entries individually. --David Edgar (talk) 11:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

A lot of work has gone into this list over several years, and I don't think it should just be deleted.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN at lot more work needs to go into it before it can be restored - like, oh sources to verify any of the claims. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Junta

A junta is different. It should not have been merged - see discussion above.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I think we'd benefit from a wider discussion about this - I only see a few comments above. If it is determined to be different, the difference should be clearly identified in both articles, since the concepts are so closely related. --David Edgar (talk) 10:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

By definition, dictator is one person; a junta is a group. It's simple.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

As far as encyclopedia coverage , that difference would make...? We can cover such a distinction in a sentence in the lead. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

It depends what the content of this article is. If it is just one-sentence definitions, then it would be a very short article. If it contains examples, then the examples of juntas would be different from the examples of dictatorships. If it discusses the character of these regimes, then the articles would be quite different. Dictatorship by its nature is bound up with one man (very rarely a woman). The dictatorship reflects the personality of this man; a "personality cult" can develop. The dictatorship cannot survive the death of the dictator. None of this is true for a junta. I can understand people not being fussed about the difference, but I don't understand writing a encyclopedia with that kind of attitude.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

When the sourced content is such that there is sufficient content to illustrate any of the items you are talking about, then child articles can be spun out. Until such time, there is no value in having 3 bad articles.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, then have a general title like Military rule or Military regimes.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

All military juntas are military dictatorships, but not all military dictatorships are military juntas (some are collegial - the juntas - and some are unipersonal)--MiguelMadeira (talk) 11:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

No, a dictatorship is one person, a junta is a group.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Hitler

I have removed this:

For instance, Zhelyu Zhelev has argued that fascist regimes such as Nazi Germany had its power run by the party and its various civic instituitions, and that a military coup against Hitler was unlikely.Желю Митев Желев (1990). Фашизмът: тоталитарната държава. Изд-во на БЗНС. Retrieved 5 April 2014.

It's not an instance of something discussed, and it doesn't relate to a military dictatorship. In any case, there was a military coup attempt against Hitler (the July bomb plot), so this source doesn't seem reliable.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I've removed this again. It's a non-sequitur.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:16, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Uzbekistan

Why "Uzbekistan (1992-1995; 2005)"? As far as i know, the civilian Islan Karimov has had in power without interruptions since independence--MiguelMadeira (talk) 11:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

how do we properly define a military dictatorship?

Defining the term is a major issue in this article. I reverted an edit claiming that nazi germany was a military dictatorship, when it wasn't - the wehrmacht and SS were subordinate to the civil authority of the Nazi Party; I think we can agree on that. However, there are other inclusions which are problematic, such as Francoist Spain, Vichy France, Fascist Italy, Communist East Germany, etc. A dictatorship is not necessarily a military dictatorship. Where do we draw the line? Is it enough for a dictator to hold a supreme military rank? Or does the government have to be clearly military in character and organization, with all civil authorities in subordination? eta: I've removed the questionable inclusions until a consensus is reached. Bigdan201 (talk) 16:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

A lot of heads of state are commanders in chief of the military, almost all I expect, but we do not class those governments as military governments. Likewise, just because a dictator holds a supreme military rank, as Hitler did, we do not call them military dictators. Military dictators are military officers before taking becoming dictators. I don't think there's any exception to this.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Germany in 1941 Hitler (already having supreme command as head of state) made himself chief of the OKH, witch effectively gave him operational control over the eastern front theater of war. This despite not being a member of the German military since his demobilization and being unqualified. The point is to have civilians filling a generals billet, Himmler as an army group commander being another example, would be indicative of not being a military dictatorship, but for an military that is weakened in it's institutional power.

A good characteristic for a military dictatorship would be having military officers in nominally civilian positions and involved in matters of primarily non military nature, as well as the use of security and intelligence services directly belonging to the military for internal security purposes (Contemporary Japan comes to mind).

I could go on but the thing is, that we should not draw a line on what exactly what a military dictatorship is because:

A. that would be likely OR.

And B. a simple binary division of dictatorships into military and non-military ones would be pretty uninteresting for any other purpose than having a list of military dictatorships, and a list of non-military dictatorships.

C. Likely result in endless discussion if any specific historical example fits into either category, based on attempting to fit an rigid but subjective categorization.

89.15.223.96 (talk) 18:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

It seems that we're in agreement on this. My purpose is not to be pedantic, but to have a general rule of thumb on what a military dictatorship is, as there were non-military dictatorships included as examples. Bigdan201 (talk) 11:21, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

=========MEXICO

Mexico under PRI was NOT MILITARY JUNTA, it was a party dominant pseudo democracy or quasi-dictatorship, but it's completely wrong to put it in the same category of Argentina, Chile, Brazil etc...military dictatorships

Proposed merge with Military junta

These two articles basically cover the same subject. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 06:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

They both include similar content, and can cause confusion between which article to read. Wolferpedia18 (talk) 12:42, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I have just edited the military junta article to more clearly distinguish. A military junta is just one type of military dictatorship. Neutrality^talk 17:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Noriega Portrait.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Croatia & Yugoslavia

I can not figure by which criteria those 2 countries are in this list, so I deleted them. N3k1ma1l (talk) 12:57, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Italy and San Marino

The Mussolini regime was not a military dictatorship; and calling the Fatti di Rovereta episone in San Marino a "military dictatoship" seems ridiculous.--MiguelMadeira (talk) 02:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

"Era of Trumpism"

So apparently someone added the USA from 2017-2021 as military dictatorship. This seems incorrect to me since Trump was democratically elected. The Congress/Parliament remained functional during his administration and opposition wasn't oppressed, nor there has been a national state of emergency to empower military rule.

I would like to know other opinions so we can get to a conclusion.

~~ Lugrasio (talk) 18:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I removed it before seeing that you'd started this discussion. It was added by an anonymous user and isn't backed up by any sources. Standardorder (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)