| 摘要: | 以軍隊為主要核心的武裝力量，至現代已成為多數國家政治體制不可或缺的重要部份。此種從事暴力運用的組織化集團，具有多重的政治意義，其不僅為軍事領域的主導者，政治體制內的重要勢力，同時為既存政治體制的最終守衛者，亦可能成為國家內部的菁英階層。軍隊成員與他者於各層面互動所構築的文武關係，因而成為軍事政治學所關注的議題。
值得注意者在於，軍隊在許多狀況下並非國家境內的唯一暴力持有者。就國家自身所掌控的合法暴力而言，近現代國家為滿足「對內警備－對外國防」的功能需求，發展出以警察機構與軍事機構為核心的內外分工關係，運用合理性和合法性預防暴力的失控。除設置強度不同的暴力裝置外，刻意地建構強度足以匹敵軍隊的武裝力量，由於可剝奪既存軍隊對於高強度暴力的獨占性，因而被認為是削弱軍方政治權力的可行方式，此為部份文武關係學者共同抱持的看法。此外，即使國家宣稱自身應為境內暴力的獨占者，但當政治體制控制能力出現衰退時，「應然」與「實然」發生落差的可能性亦隨之上升，其結果可能演變為其他組織化暴力與合法暴力並存的狀況，即暴力的溢出。因此多重武裝力量的並存狀況，固然如過往文武關係學者所指出者，可作為文人統制的手段，但其產生似乎亦難排除其他因素的影響可能。
第三帝國的案例，即為對此假設的證明。第三帝國文武關係為一「靜態權力態勢－動態互動累積」的循環過程，構成緩降與急降交替的階段性發展。軍隊於此過程遭剝奪者不僅為其對政治體制的影響力，亦包括其對於軍事領域的主導權，自德國近現代史以統一國家形式出現以降，此為前所未見者。國防軍與武裝親衛隊，這兩支高度軍事專業化的武裝力量於政治體制的並存，為對前階段暴力溢出重新收納的承繼結果。面臨存在於效能與效忠間的困境，為滿足既存軍隊所無法或不適提供的政治需求，希特勒政權有意識地使此種多重武裝力量並存狀況持續，將其建構為一種空間面與時間面的對立存在，武裝親衛隊因其被賦予的功能與政治特質，而始終未成為國防軍的替代物。故若自另一角度觀之，此種對立的存在即為互補關係，於是武裝親衛隊與國防軍的並存狀況亦超出單純的文人統制範疇。既存正規軍隊（國防軍）與非正規武裝力量（武裝親衛隊）的並存，不僅與第三帝國文武關係存在時間面的連帶關係，亦於空間面成為第三帝國政治體制及文武關係的發展縮影。
The armed forces and its main core – military, has been integral part of most modern political system in the world). Such organizations which engage in using violence, has multiple political significance. They are not only the leader of military sphere, or an important power and the ultimate guardians of existing political system, but also the elite class within the nation. Thus, Civil-Military Relations constructed by members of the military and the others, become the issue which the Military Politics focused on.
Actually in many situations, military are not the only holder of violence in the country. To achieve the need of “internal garrison – external defense”, modern states developed the division of police and military institutions, to use the rationality and legitimacy based on it to prevent violence out of control. In addition to set the different devices of violence, constructing other armed forces strong enough to rival military, also considered a useful mean to weaken the political power of the military by depriving its monopoly of high-intense violence. This is the argument of some civil-military relations scholar claim for. Nations always proclaim they should be the only holder of violence internally, but when the ability of political system declining, it might result other organized violence co-exist with the legal violence. That is the spill of violence. Therefore the coexistence of multiple armed forces might be a mean of civil control, but it seems to be difficult to exclude by other factors.
The Third Reich is a particular phenomenon of this hypothesis. The Civil-Military Relations of the Third Reich is a circles of “static state - development” and “situations of power - interactions”. It constructed a phased development with substitutive of gliding and diving. In this process, Wehrmacht (the German army) not just failed to influence the political system, but also losing its right to command. It had never happen before, since the unification of Germany 1871. Wehrmacht (the existing regular army) and Waffen-SS (the paramilitary force) are two armed forces with high degree of military professionalism, the result of its coexistence in the political system is the re-incorporate of spilled violence in the previous stage. Facing the dilemma between efficiency and loyalty, in order to satisfy the political needs that existing regular army can’t offer, Hitler’s regime consciously made this co-existence continues and constructed them to be opposition existence. Because the political functions and characteristics, Waffen-SS never became the substitute of the Wehrmacht.
Therefore, from another perspective, the co-existence of Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS also is a complementary relationship – that is far beyond of the sphere of civil-control. The co-existence of Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS are not only associate with the civil-military relations of the Third Reich on the timeline, on the space line it also became the miniature of the Third Reich’s political developments. |
