The twentieth century, unlike any other before it, saw dramatic changes in many different areas such as science, technology, politics, religion, and society. One of the most important and definitely the most obvious change is the increasing deadliness of war. Granted, people have died in wars from the very beginning, but in the twentieth century wars began to generate much higher body counts both among the contending armies and among civilian populations, the latter being the most drastic change in number of casualties. Similarly, in the twentieth century, two opposing dictatorships arose. Although both had many similarities, they represented the culmination of two different political ideologies that had flourished in Europe since the mid-nineteenth century. It all stems back to World War I, which produced a disillusioned public that increasingly sought to change their circumstances in life but attempted to do so outside of the established system. The two regimes are simply the two exact extremes that were produced in this reaction. National Socialism represents an ultra-conservatism that goes way beyond the boundaries of conservatism as known today, whereas Communism represents ultra-liberalism. Because these two were so ideologically extreme on the right and left ends of the political spectrum respectively, in fact, the wrapped all the way around, so to speak, so that they were not actually that far from each other ideologically after all. So, the question is: if the ideology of the two regimes was so different, why then were there so many similarities? What really tied them together was the rejection of the same prevalent doctrine: liberalism (Overy 639). Both preached against the bourgeoisie and praised the common ... ... middle of paper ... ...ent a similar occurrence in the future. It is important to look at these as archetypal examples of repression born from paranoia and ideologies twisted into bizarre shadows of their former intent. Although they are the two most studied and famous, there are other regimes throughout global history that can be approached in much the same way. For example, in terms of ideology, an historian could approach communist China or, in terms of genocide, one could approach the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia using the knowledge gleaned from the study of National Socialism and Communism. Similarly, it may be possible to use that same knowledge to foresee when a country might be headed towards such a regime and to attempt to prevent it from doing so. That way, the legacy of these regimes is not one of terror and bloodshed but instead one of helping to prevent more bloodshed.
One of the biggest fears of the American people is that the concept of communism contrasts drastically from the concept of capitalism, which the United States was essentially founded upon. The United States, as the public believed, was not a land of perfect communal equality, but rather a land of equal opportunity. However, what made communism so dangerous can be succinctly described by Eisenhower who compared the spread of communism as the domino effect. As his secretary of state, Dulles, put it, the propagation of communism “would constitute a threat to the sovereignty and independence” of America (Doc B). In addition, the Cold War also planted the seeds of rational fear of a global nuclear war. As Russia caught up to the United States in terms of technological advancements, they successfully developed the atomic bomb as well as the hydrogen bomb, which caused Americans to believe that the USSR would use these weapons of mass destruction to forcefully extend their ideologies to the USA. In fact, Americans were so frantic about a potential nuclear disaster that it...
The Legacy of Russia and the Soviet Union - Authoritarian and Repressive Traditions that Refuse to Die
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 Cambodian Genocide and the Holocaust are unique in the areas of reason and aftermath effect. Hitler wanted to create a “Master Race” (“Holocaust”), also he wanted to exterminate the Jewish population because he believed they “hindered” population growth (“Some”). Pot wanted to deconstruc...
With the dawn of civilization soon thereafter followed the creation of authoritarian and totalitarian establishments. The history of man is inundated with instances of leaders rising to power over certain groups of people and through various means gaining formidable control to be used for good, evil, or an ambiguous mixture of both. However, it is an undeniable fact that once unchecked power is acquired, tyranny often ensues, and thus a dictatorial regime is born. Over the centuries, governmental establishments have risen and fallen, but as history and civilization progress, so does the potential for a larger and more powerful domination. The development of differing and contrasting theologies and structural philosophies leads not only to conflict, but perhaps more prominently to unification under one rule with a common belief, especially when that unifying belief provides a promising sense of belonging and structure to a weak society. This is what led to the rise of two of the most domineering totalitarian governments in history: Stalin’s Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and Hitler’s Nazi Germany, or the Third Reich.
The political ideologies of the USA and of the Soviet Union were of profound significance in the development of the Cold War. Problems between the two power nations arose when America refused to accept the Soviet Union in the international community. The relationship between the USA and the Soviet Union was filled with mutual distrust and hostility. Many historians believe the cold war was “inevitable” between a democratic, capitalist nation and a communist Union. Winston Churchill called the cold war “The balance of terror” (1). Cold war anxieties began to build up with America and the Soviet Union advancing in the arms race for world dominance and supremacy. America feared the spread of Communism
The definition of communism is “ a system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.” The definition of fascism is “A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.” Communism and Fascism are both forms of Totalitarianism, which is when the ruler has complete power over everyone. There is a fine line between the differences of Communism and Fascism, however these next three articles prove that there is a line and there is no gray space. People are either one side or the other, there is no in between, the goals and secular leading may be the same but the inner workings differ by a lot, Krupskaya, Mussolini, and Hitler explain the differences in their following articles.
The famed political author George Orwell once said “I write […] because there is some lie that I want to expose, some fact to which I want to draw attention . . .” (Orwell 3). This philosophy is at the heart of his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four in which he strives to reveal the dangers of communism through the extreme totalitarian world of Nineteen Eighty-Four. The principal danger which Orwell presents is that “communism [is] not a revolutionary force, but instead [is] a new, dangerous form of totalitarianism” (Rossi 207) in which the government is stifling society to gain control and power at the cost of its citizen’s freedom, and humanity. There are
The defining characteristics of the two ideologies were crucial to the nature of the regimes and their influence on the world. Fascism is an authoritarian single-party state based on “mystical nationalism, often with racist elements and especially a charismatic leader who presents himself as a national savior .” Its far-right view turned the fascist regime into a strong but notorious power. For communism, the central idea that Marx and Engels theorized in “The Communist Manifesto” is
Joseph Stalin became known as the iron man for having a reputation of torturing individuals. Deemed as enemies of the Soviet Union, this was viewed as necessary for instilling a level of control over the perception the people had of their leader. No one would risk speaking out against conditions for fear. As seen in Uganda, Idi Amin killed all those who opposed his reign in the country. Some even said he cannibalized his victims. These rumors, or facts as some claimed, served to mystify the leaders of these dictatorships and as we know, people fear what they don 't understand.
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.
With the shock of two destructive world wars and then the creation of the United Nations, whose aim is to preserve peace, it is unconceivable for these two nations to fight directly in order to promote their own ideology. But the US and the USSR end up to be in competition in numerous ways, particularly in technological and industrial fields. In the same time they start to spread their influence over their former allies. This phenomenon have led to the creation of a bipolar world, divided in two powerful blocs surrounded by buffer zones, and to the beginning of what we call the Cold War because of the absence of direct conflicts between the two nations.
Violence marks much of human history. Within the sociopolitical sphere, violence has continually served as a tool used by various actors to influence and/or to control territory, people, institutions and other resources of society. The twentieth century witnessed an evolution of political violence in form and in scope. Continuing into the twenty-first, advances in technology and social organization dramatically increase the potential destructiveness of violent tools. Western colonialism left a world filled with many heterogeneous nation-states. In virtually all these countries nationalist ideologies have combined with ethnic, religious, and/or class conflicts resulting in secessionist movements or other kinds of demands. Such conflicts present opportunities for various actors in struggles for wealth, power, and prestige on both national and local levels. This is particularly evident in Indonesia, a region of the world that has experienced many forms of political violence. The state mass killings of 1965-66 mark the most dramatic of such events within this region. My goal is to understand the killings within a framework of collec...
The Cambodian Genocide took place from 1975 to 1979 in the Southeastern Asian country of Cambodia. The genocide was a brutal massacre that killed 1.4 to 2.2 million people, about 21% of Cambodia’s population. This essay, will discuss the history of the Cambodian genocide, specifically, what happened, the victims and the perpetrators, and the world’s response to the genocide. The Cambodian Genocide has the historical context of the Vietnam War and the country’s own civil war. During the Vietnam War, leading up to the conflicts that would contribute to the genocide, Cambodia was used as a U.S. battleground for the Vietnam War.
... and fascism offered bold new approaches to modern politics. These ideologies maintained that democracy was effeminate and that it wasted precious time in building consensus among citizens. Totalitarian leaders’ military style made representative government and the democratic values of the United States, France, and Great Britain appear feeble- a sign that these societies were on the decline. Totalitarianism put democracies on the defensive as they aimed to restore prosperity while still upholding individual rights and the rule of law”(Hunt & Martin, 852).