Adolf Hitler is an indelible piece of European history. He and his influence on politics, culture, and society during the era of his insurgence still reverberates today, including his impact on the parliamentary process. But to what extent did Hitler’s rise and rule truly influence European parliaments? Considering the presence of fascism, the pros and cons of each system, and evidence of the lasting effects of Hitler’s rule on European parliaments today, it is evident that Hitler had a profound influence on the leaders of tomorrow.
In analyzing the presence of fascism in Europe during Hitler’s rule, it is important to recognize that fascism was an ideology based on authoritarian nationalism, militarism, and collectivism. This type of system was prevalent in totalitarian countries such as Nazi Germany, Mussolini’s Italy, and Franco’s Spain. Proponents of the ideology believed in the sanctity of the nation and its government, and that all power should be held by the higher level of government, and only by them. This type of system tended to squash any kind of civil freedoms, and was based on personal loyalty to the leader or state. Many of the European parliamentarian systems of the time shared a similar view, in that personal loyalty to the state and its leader were highly valued. With this in mind, it is important to note that Hitler’s rule did have an influence on the way European parliaments operated. Not only did his ideals shape the way governments were structured, but his presence alone likely had an effect on the way parliamentarians voted and carried out their duties.
With this in mind, it is important to consider the pros and cons of both systems. The advantage of a parliamentary system over a totalitarian system such as Hitler’s is that it provides more civil freedoms and encourages citizens to participate in their government. Whereas a fascist system suppresses civil liberties, a parliamentary system offers citizens a chance to be involved in their government and to make their voices heard. On the other hand, a totalitarian system such as Hitler’s is more efficient and is based on personal loyalty. This can have the effect of creating a stronger and more unified state. This type of system has its merits, as it can be an effective way of creating a strong and unified state, especially in times of crisis.
There is evidence to suggest that Hitler’s rule did have an influence on the parliamentary process of some European countries today. In particular, the presence of fascism in countries such as Italy and Spain has affected the way those countries are governed today. The Italian constitution, for example, has some features that were likely inspired by the totalitarian nature of fascism. This includes the way it is structured, with a strong emphasis on the supremacy of the state and a rejection of civil liberties. Similarly, Spain’s government is also heavily influenced by fascist dictums, with a strong emphasis on loyalty and national unity.
Overall, it is clear that Hitler had a considerable influence on the European parliamentary systems in place today. His ideals of authoritarian nationalism and militarism were widely adopted in countries such as Italy and Spain, and these countries’ systems of government still bear the imprint of fascism today. In some cases, these systems can be beneficial, providing an efficient and unified government, while in others they can be a hindrance, suppressing civil liberties and stifling democratic participation. Either way, it is clear that the legacy of Adolf Hitler is still present in many countries’ political systems today.
Germany
Hitler rose to power in 1933 and controlled Germany until his death in 1945. During this time, the Nazi party held a majority of the political power in Germany and implemented the Nuremberg Laws which removed rights from the Jewish people and other minorities, and made it illegal for them to marry and own property. The Nazi Party also held sway over the government, manipulating laws and using propaganda to indoctrinate and influence the public into supporting Hitler and his ideals. This resulted in a period of extreme nationalism and loyalty to Hitler’s regime, as well as a disdain for parliamentary systems which promoted liberal values and questioned the authority of the state.
The Nazi party was disbanded after the Second World War, but its legacy still lingers in Germany today. For example, the Basic Law of Germany, which is the legal framework for the present-day parliamentary system in the country, has its roots in the Weimar Republic and is closely modelled after the liberal values of the once-emerging system. However, it also contains a clause that declares the “indissoluble unity of the German nation”, a phrase reminiscent of Nazi rhetoric. Likewise, many aspects of the German government and its legal system mirror traditional authoritarian and nationalist ideas, in part a legacy of Hitler’s rule.
France
Hitler had an equally powerful influence on France. During World War II, he occupied the country, issuing orders and implementing draconian laws that saw thousands of French civilians arrested and sent to concentration camps. The presence of Nazi troops in France also caused discontent among the population and led to a sense of despair and hopelessness among many. After the war, France was left with a devastated economy and a population with a deep mistrust of authority. This in turn contributed to the nation’s adoption of the parliamentary system of government.
The French parliamentary system is based on the separation of powers, meaning that the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government are independent of each other and work to check and balance one another. This system was designed to ensure that no single branch holds too much power. It also allows for a certain level of accountability and transparency, making it difficult for leaders to get away with corruption or illegal activities. These features all reflect the principles of liberalism which were dominant in the years following World War II, values which would have been viewed by the population as a rebuke of Nazi autocracy.
United Kingdom
Hitler’s rule also had an impact on the United Kingdom. The presence of the Nazi forces on the continent galvanized the country into action, leading to the formation of the Allies and the eventual liberation of Europe. The war also had a lasting effect on the British people, who felt betrayed and disillusioned by their government. This led to a greater appreciation of democracy and parliamentary systems, an appreciation which was brought to light in the parliamentary reforms that were implemented after the war.
The British parliamentary system is a classic example of liberal democracy and an improvement upon the models adopted by Hitler and other fascist leaders. The system puts a heavy emphasis on civil liberties and encourages individual participation through the representation of political parties. The system also actively works to keep government corruption and absenteeism in check, something that could not be said of Hitler’s rule in Germany and other countries. The emphasis on accountability and transparency along with the public’s newfound appreciation of democratic values has led to the UK’s strong democratic tradition which continues to this day.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is evident that Hitler had a profound influence on the European parliaments of the present day. His presence, ideologies, and policies all culminated in a flurry of political and cultural change across the continent. Today, many countries in Europe still bear the imprint of fascism, as seen in their constitutions and parliamentary systems. Hitler’s influence was also felt heavily in countries such as the United Kingdom, which saw a newfound appreciation for democracy and liberal values after World War II. Fascism may have been defeated in 1945, but its legacy and its influence is still felt in European parliaments and societies to this very day.
