Jump to content

Talk:Military dictatorship: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Military dictatorship/Archive 1) (bot
Grenada: new section
Line 59: Line 59:


Every dictatorship is not bad. Every dictator is not Stalin or Hitler. As someone who loved Atatürk very much, I think he was a dictator and that doesn't have to make him a bad leader. The one-party rule between 1923 and 1946 was not democratic. (I don't think it should have either.) Considering that almost all cadres are soldiers, that makes it a military dictatorship. [[User:Mefekimya|Mefekimya]] ([[User talk:Mefekimya|talk]]) 15:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Every dictatorship is not bad. Every dictator is not Stalin or Hitler. As someone who loved Atatürk very much, I think he was a dictator and that doesn't have to make him a bad leader. The one-party rule between 1923 and 1946 was not democratic. (I don't think it should have either.) Considering that almost all cadres are soldiers, that makes it a military dictatorship. [[User:Mefekimya|Mefekimya]] ([[User talk:Mefekimya|talk]]) 15:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

== Grenada ==

The [[People's Revolutionary Government (Grenada)|People's Revolutionary Government of Grenada]] was a classical marxist-leninist one-party dictatorship, not a military dictatorship; unless we count only the 6-days regime of the general Hudson Austin (19 - 25 october 1983).--[[User:MiguelMadeira|MiguelMadeira]] ([[User talk:MiguelMadeira|talk]]) 21:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:43, 23 April 2022

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)

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.

Possible false info?

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

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

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This article seems to consist almost entirely of original research. Three prose sections only contain one inline citation between them, solely in the "Comparison with civilian dictatorship" subsection, leaving nothing in the "Creation and evolution", "Justification" and "Comparison with monarchies" sections. As for the list part of the article, there are only two citations, referencing the Shogunate and Shōwa Statist periods in Japan. Every single other entry is lacking in citations. This is pretty bad for such an important article to the understanding of systems of government. I'm asking people that contribute to this article to please cite your sources. I can try and help find some, where possible, but I have no idea where to even start with the prose sections. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is Atatürk a Dictator

Every dictatorship is not bad. Every dictator is not Stalin or Hitler. As someone who loved Atatürk very much, I think he was a dictator and that doesn't have to make him a bad leader. The one-party rule between 1923 and 1946 was not democratic. (I don't think it should have either.) Considering that almost all cadres are soldiers, that makes it a military dictatorship. Mefekimya (talk) 15:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grenada

The People's Revolutionary Government of Grenada was a classical marxist-leninist one-party dictatorship, not a military dictatorship; unless we count only the 6-days regime of the general Hudson Austin (19 - 25 october 1983).--MiguelMadeira (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]