Introduction
Richard Overy’s, The Dictators: Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Russia parallels these two regimes and their societies. Overy evades queries of labeling, but it seems that he disapproves of the totalitarianism theory. His book proposes that Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia had more in common, with regards to their methods of reigning than they did as individuals. These commonalities comprised the conformist scrutinizing the extensive facets of society and politics. Overy utilizes a prospect of the two states examining the court system, literature, labor, public opinion, party groups, nationhood, terror and sanctioned imagery. Upon reading and examining reviews of Richard Overy’s The Dictators: Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Russia,
…show more content…
Although, Overy comments on this numerously it is a theme that Benn criticizes “he could have expanded further.” Benn goes on to reiterate Overy’s frustration with the customary totalitarian ideal. Plus, he recaps that Overy intention is not to give a history of the two regimes, but rather a comparison, emphasizing similarities and differences. Concerning “moral equivalence” between the two dictators, Benn argues that although Overy claims “that it is not for a historian to prove which of the two was more evil or deranged” the question is certain to arise. As the reviewer mentioned in his previous text that “anything was better than Nazism,” he goes on to say that far as he is concerned, he could “see no merit whatsoever in Stalinism.” In his second review much of the same information is reiterated with regards to “utopianism ('the quest for perfection),” however Benn does accuse the book of having insufficient proof of what perfection meant to both dictators. Since all people perceive perfection
Tucker, Robert C. "Stalinism as Revolution from Above". Stalinism. Edited by Robert C. Tucker. New York: American Council of Learned Societies, 1999.
In The Nazi Seizure of Power by William Sheridan Allen, the author is able to show the reader the support building strategy used by the Nazi party in Northeim and surrounding areas. Allen's thesis is that Nazi party was able to succeed the village of Northeim and else where because they were able to reach out the lower and middle class. Since these classes held the majority of the population, the Nazi party discovered what they wanted from government officials and then used that to persuade these classes to vote for them. To give you a background of the village of Northeim is vital to the understanding of how this party could have come in and take over the political scene so quickly.
As relations changed between Russia and the rest of the world, so did the main historical schools of thought. Following Stalins death, hostilities between the capitalist powers and the USSR, along with an increased awareness of the atrocities that were previously hidden and ignored, led to a split in the opinions of Soviet and Western Liberal historians. In Russia, he was seen, as Trotsky had always maintained, as a betrayer of the revolution, therefore as much distance as possible was placed between himself and Lenin in the schoolbooks of the 50s and early 60s in the USSR. These historians point to Stalin’s killing of fellow communists as a marked difference between himself and his predecessor. Trotsky himself remarked that ‘The present purge draws between Bolshevism and Stalinism… a whole river of blood’[1].
The Reich was a dominant regime under the control of the infamous Hitler. Its rampant delinquencies of subjugating an entire race took nearly the entire world to impede. Hitler’s Secret is a novel by William Osborne that derives its setting from the World War II era in Bavaria. It encompasses two teenagers assigned to kidnap a girl who has proven influential to the Nazis. The teenage agents, Leni and Otto, confront numerous obstacles in their efforts to securely transfer the girl to Britain’s possession. Hitler’s Secret is an A grade book because it utilizes authentic historical content, ensures a balance of suspense and relief, and contains emotional characters.
The author manages this by consistently drawing parallels between the state of Ingsoc and that of the Soviet Union. These parallels focus on the dangerous path of dictatorship as both governments they “are not interested in the good of others; [they] are interested solely in power.” (Orwell 301 – 302) Looking solely at the methods of societal control it is evident that Orwell is calling out the communists and drawing the attention of nations to the horror of communist nations as they attempt to control their population. Despite Orwell’s readiness to denounce extreme communism he does not offer any real solution to the issue at hand. He does intimate that maybe the power to overthrow the government lies with the proletariats (89), however he quickly condemns this idea saying that “Until they become conscious they will never rebel and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious” (90) suggesting that if a nation were ever to reach this nightmarish level of totalitarianism they would not even know that they could live differently, and then there would be no
When most people hear the name Joseph Stalin, they usually associate the name with a man who was part of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and was responsible for the deaths of millions of people. He was willingly to do anything to improve the power of the Soviet Union’s economy and military, even if it meant executing tens of millions of innocent people (Frankforter, A. Daniel., and W. M. Spellman 655). In chapter three of Sheila Fitzpatrick’s book, Everyday Stalinism, she argues that since citizens believed the propaganda of “a radiant future” (67), they were able to be manipulated by the Party in the transformation of the Soviet Union. This allowed the Soviet government to expand its power, which ultimately was very disastrous for the people.
Support for the Nazi party was due to the growing belief that it was a
But Stalin’s dictatorship increased in strength and by 1938, the purges had made Russian’s so fearful, they were willing to accept the totalitarian ruler instead of the democratic system which had originally been hoped for in the February 1917 revolution. Stalin had also used fear as a motivator for workers and managed to industrialise. Overall the most similarities occur between Alexander III and Stalin due to their repressive actions but although all the Tsars and Stalin depended on central control, it cannot be said that there were more similarities because of the power and support for Stalin’s when his reign ended compared to the weak Tsarist system which Russians felt was not worth saving.
These two men were very demanding in obtaining what they thought should be the rule of a nation by their own personal control. Stalin and Hitler were very close in the same way that they had an aggressive vigor to force a type of commanding dictatorship into their respective countries. Each had a special army that they put in high regard politically to where they were considered special police agents. These armies were under different orders, but their main objectives were to stop anyone who opposed, or were thought to be in opposition to the head of state. Also, both Stalin and Hitler had ideas to improve the education levels and economic prosperity of their own countries, each trying to put their own at the top of the world in industry and commerce. Although Hitler and Stalin were opposed to each other’s own strategies and political stance on being a world dominator, they were very similar in the way to which they fought for political power.
In order to conclude the extent to which the Great Terror strengthened or weakened the USSR, the question is essentially whether totalitarianism strengthened or weakened the Soviet Union? Perhaps under the circumstances of the 1930s in the approach to war a dictatorship may have benefited the country in some way through strong leadership, the unifying effect of reintroducing Russian nationalism and increased party obedience. The effects of the purges on the political structure and community of the USSR can be described (as Peter Kenez asserts) as an overall change from a party led dictatorship to the dictatorship of a single individual; Stalin. Overall power was centred on Stalin, under whom an increasingly bureaucratic hierarchy of party officials worked. During the purges Stalin's personal power can be seen to increase at the cost of the party.
Under a backdrop of systematic fear and terror, the Stalinist juggernaut flourished. Stalin’s purges, otherwise known as the “Great Terror”, grew from his obsession and desire for sole dictatorship, marking a period of extreme persecution and oppression in the Soviet Union during the late 1930s. “The purges did not merely remove potential enemies. They also raised up a new ruling elite which Stalin had reason to think he would find more dependable.” (Historian David Christian, 1994). While Stalin purged virtually all his potential enemies, he not only profited from removing his long-term opponents, but in doing so, also caused fear in future ones. This created a party that had virtually no opposition, a new ruling elite that would be unstoppable, and in turn negatively impacted a range of sections such as the Communist Party, the people of Russia and the progress in the Soviet community, as well as the military in late 1930 Soviet society.
Stalins rise as a dictator over the USSR in 1929, was a struggle for power. It was set by Lenin, in his testament, that Stalin was not to takeover control as the party leader, and to be removed from his position as General Secretary, as Stalin in Lenins eyes had lack of loyalty, tolerance, and politeness. However, different factors, such as Lenins funeral, Stalins position as General Secretary and the rise of bureaucracy, and Stalins relationship to Kamenev and Zinoviev, made it possible for Stalin to become the undisputed leader over the USSR in 1929. This essay will discuss the methods and the conditions, which helped Joseph Stalin rise to power.
During the Holocaust, around six million Jews were murdered due to Hitler’s plan to rid Germany of “heterogeneous people” in Germany, as stated in the novel, Life and Death in the Third Reich by Peter Fritzsche. Shortly following a period of suffering, Hitler began leading Germany in 1930 to start the period of his rule, the Third Reich. Over time, his power and support from the country increased until he had full control over his people. Starting from saying “Heil Hitler!” the people of the German empire were cleverly forced into following Hitler through terror and threat. He had a group of leaders, the SS, who were Nazis that willingly took any task given, including the mass murder of millions of Jews due to his belief that they were enemies to Germany. German citizens were talked into participating or believing in the most extreme of things, like violent pogroms, deportations, attacks, and executions. Through the novel’s perspicacity of the Third Reich, readers can see how Hitler’s reign was a controversial time period summed up by courage, extremity, and most important of all, loyalty.
This essay will concentrate on the comparison and analysis of two communist figures: Mao Zedong, leader of the Communist Party in China, and Joseph Stalin, leader of the Soviet Union. The main focus of this paper will be to explore each figure’s world view in depth and then compare and contrast by showing their differences and similarities. Joseph Stalin was a realist dictator of the early 20th century in Russia. Before he rose to power and became the leader of the Soviet Union, he joined the Bolsheviks and was part of many illegal activities that got him convicted and he was sent to Siberia (Wood, 5, 10). In the late 1920s, Stalin was determined to take over the Soviet Union (Wiener & Arnold, 1999).
“To what extent was Nazi Germany a Totalitarian state in the period from 1934 to 1939?”