It isn’t quite as simple as that. Take Germany, as an example. After WW2 there was the whole denazification process. Just about everyone knows about the Nuremberg trials, but the concept continued further into the era of the divided Germany. The Soviets in east Germany were much harsher in their densification process. One would think the result would be less problems with Nazism or fascist ideology in the former East. In fact, it’s quite the opposite, Nazism and other fascist ideologies are much more alive and well in the former East than in the former West.
(Not trying to defend Johnson, by the way, just trying to show that harsh punishments don’t always get the results one would expect)
The situation with nazis in Germany wasn’t that simple all over, as I recall on both sides of the iron curtain a lot of nazis still worked for government, sometimes very high up.
This is absolutely true. For example: in the East people with ambitions would get Party recommendations from high-profile members to ‘prove’ they were never Nazis. This obviously has problems and it wasn’t hard to game the system unless one was famously a Nazi.
While punishment doesn’t inherently create better outcomes, the point of such punishments is generally to defang the elite of their former power.
As Germany post-WW1 was left in charge of its own punishment, effectively, the elite ensured that the punishment was distributed in such a way as to minimize its influence on their power. Not a great choice, obviously.
As for East Germany, the notion that the Sovs were ‘harder’ on German society in the east does not really stand up to scrutiny. In West Germany, the notion of national guilt was pushed hard, which eventually resulted in the student movements in the 1960s decisively rejecting Nazism. In East Germany, overwhelmingly the idea that was pushed was that the German proletariat had been kept repressed by the Nazis, rather than active and enthusiastic participants in their crimes. There’s a whole host of additional reasons, mind, why the far-right sees more success in the former GDR.
Also, if you’re going to try and have rule of law, treason has to be dealt with harshly imo. You can’t be soft on the elites who inevitably attempt to claim the powers and/or privileges of kings.
It isn’t quite as simple as that. Take Germany, as an example. After WW2 there was the whole denazification process. Just about everyone knows about the Nuremberg trials, but the concept continued further into the era of the divided Germany. The Soviets in east Germany were much harsher in their densification process. One would think the result would be less problems with Nazism or fascist ideology in the former East. In fact, it’s quite the opposite, Nazism and other fascist ideologies are much more alive and well in the former East than in the former West.
(Not trying to defend Johnson, by the way, just trying to show that harsh punishments don’t always get the results one would expect)
The situation with nazis in Germany wasn’t that simple all over, as I recall on both sides of the iron curtain a lot of nazis still worked for government, sometimes very high up.
This is absolutely true. For example: in the East people with ambitions would get Party recommendations from high-profile members to ‘prove’ they were never Nazis. This obviously has problems and it wasn’t hard to game the system unless one was famously a Nazi.
There are some notes which must be made here.
While punishment doesn’t inherently create better outcomes, the point of such punishments is generally to defang the elite of their former power.
As Germany post-WW1 was left in charge of its own punishment, effectively, the elite ensured that the punishment was distributed in such a way as to minimize its influence on their power. Not a great choice, obviously.
As for East Germany, the notion that the Sovs were ‘harder’ on German society in the east does not really stand up to scrutiny. In West Germany, the notion of national guilt was pushed hard, which eventually resulted in the student movements in the 1960s decisively rejecting Nazism. In East Germany, overwhelmingly the idea that was pushed was that the German proletariat had been kept repressed by the Nazis, rather than active and enthusiastic participants in their crimes. There’s a whole host of additional reasons, mind, why the far-right sees more success in the former GDR.
Also, if you’re going to try and have rule of law, treason has to be dealt with harshly imo. You can’t be soft on the elites who inevitably attempt to claim the powers and/or privileges of kings.