There's an interesting debate on the amount of Nazi leaders, government officials and capitalists that were allowed to stay in their positions of power in western Germany after the Nazi were defeated. As a Spanish person, I myself sadly see the legacy of fascism in the Spanish institutions, and believe that the transition to democracy was way, way, way too lenient with fascists and fascism. That said, it's useful to refer to countries whose systems of governance have changed drastically over time, by the system of the time you're referring to, it's not exclusive to Germany.

[–] dwindling7373@feddit.it 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I'm not so convinced you can even talk about a "transition". Fascism and its nazi derivation, brewed and rised within democratic countries. And, lo and behold, they are still among us in our democracies so much so that they are ruling a number of countries.

Fascist Spain is Spain. Fascist Italy is Italy. Fascist Japan is Japan and Nazi Germany is as clearly just Germany.

Denying that is dangerous and doesn't give you the tools, as a country, to change.

[–] volodya_ilich@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Again, I agree that the fascists weren't properly tried for their crimes and removed from the institutions (they were in east-germany). I'm just saying that there's a consensus nowadays about using those terms to refer to countries that changed their regime at least in theory. If you want to make the argument to change that consensus, you'd be better understood explaining from the start your issues with the terms because of the lack of renovation of people in power and power structures, rather than just saying "there's no other Germany".

[–] dwindling7373@feddit.it 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Considering the context I priorityzed brevity. I'll make a note and include that as a chapter in my magnus opum.