The initial source is a quote stated by Winston Churchill who served as Prime Minister for the United Kingdom during 1940-1945 and 1951-1955. It touches upon his personal opinion of democracy and other political systems. Churchill insinuates that although democracy has its many flaws and setbacks, so do the countless other governing systems. Along with this, he is stating that democracy can be seen as the lesser of two evils, and the only existing political system that does not cause too much damage. Democracy has been the most effective when it comes to appeasing the masses while providing necessary governance. Thus we can infer that Churchill would be in favour of modern liberalism, otherwise known as a liberal democracy. Providing political …show more content…
He seems to be vehemently against the Liberal principle of majority rule, instead opting to support the idea of a single leader. Hitler believes that all those involved in the majority are “empty-headed” and can not think outside the box for clever solutions. He says one man can do the exact same job more effectively, and does not need a herd of sheep to help him guide his thinking. This suggests that Hitler believes that the majority follows a hive mind mentality, affecting their productivity and ability to lead the nation. He believes that a true leader can stay focused and determine what a nation needs. Solely based off the source, one can speculate that Hitler would be opposed to a liberal democracy, as representing the masses through a majority is one of its core fundamentals. As demonstrated through his nazi regime, Hitler is in favour of a totalitarian dictatorship where he holds the power to lead a nation. He expects undying loyalty from his citizens, and is known for burning books that opposed his ideals. This can be seen as an infringement on freedom of speech, yet another core liberal democratic principal Hitler is against. The Nazi leader falls on the opposite end of the spectrum from liberalism, and is an example of someone who holds far right …show more content…
Emile Joseph Dillon extracted from Soviet Communism: A New Civilization? Dr. Dillon highlights the positive aspects of a Bolshevik-led Soviet Union. He praises the Bolshevik’s resilience and their ability to cope even when facing adversity. He is notably in awe of all they have achieved in such a short amount of time, and has credited them for reinvigorating and instilling a new spirit in “150 000 000 of listeless-dead-and-alive human beings.” This can be interpreted that prior to Bolshevik rule, group morale was low and people were unproductive as a result. He also criticizes the revolutionaries attempt to achieve what the Bolsheviks have, but reinstates that the latter have accomplished so much more than the revolutionaries could ever envision. The source supports communism instead of a liberal rule, as demonstrated through the support for Bolsheviks. This was a group that persecuted anyone who had opposing ideals, which is clearly against the liberal principle of free speech. Along with this, the Bolsheviks supported a government regulated planned economy, while liberalism supports a laissez-faire system. Although communism and liberalism are on the same side of the spectrum, they are both in favour of very different
This was, of course, only a humorous exaggeration, a case of political satire. Yet beneath the humor, there lies a very profound testament to the belief that Russia's political culture has been inherited from its czarist days and manifested throughout its subsequent development. The traditions from the pre-Revolution and pre-1921 Russia, it seems, had left its brand on the 70-years of Communist rule. The Soviet communism system was at once a foreign import from Germany and a Russian creation: "on the one hand it is international and a world phenomenon; on the other hand it is national and Russian…it was Russian history which determined its limits and shaped its character." (Berdyaev, "Origin")
In conclusion, many soviets citizens appeared to believe that Stalin’s positive contributions to the U.S.S.R. far outweigh his monstrous acts. These crimes have been down played by many of Stalin’s successors as they stress his achievements as collectivizer, industrializer, and war leader. Among those citizens who harbor feelings of nostalgia, Stalin’s strength, authority , and achievement contrast sharply with the pain and suffering of post-revolutionary Russia.
Fiehn, Terry, and Chris Corin. Communist Russia under Lenin and Stalin. London: John Murray, 2002. Print.
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.
Emphasized throughout Soviet Russia, ‘vertical collectivism,’ occurs when hierarchy defines one’s rank, and submission to authority comes at the cost of self-sacrifice. “Hundreds. Thousands. Millions. Millions of what? Stomachs, and heads, and legs, and tongues, and souls. And it doesn’t even matter whether they fit together. Just millions. Just flesh. Human flesh” (Rand 403). In the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, that cost of ‘self-sacrifice’ was one’s individuality—the defining factors that allowed one human to be unique, different from the rest. “There are things in men,” Andrei Taganov argues in the face of his Party, “in the best of us, which are above...
On 30 January 1933, the German president, Paul von Hindenburg, selected Adolf Hitler to be the head of the government. This was very unexpected. Hitler was the leader of an extreme right-wing political party, the National Socialist German Workers (Nazi) Party. Hitler sought to expand Germany with new territories and boundaries. Hitler also focused on rebuilding Germany’s military strength. In many speeches Hitler made, he spoke often about the value of “racial purity” and the dominance of the Aryan master race. The Nazi’s spread their racist beliefs in schools through textbooks, radios, new...
This played well with the workers and soldiers and made it difficult to criticise the new government. As a result, Lenin’s introduction of the Cheka (1917) and the emergence of the Red Terror (1918) ensured his rule was absolute not only within the party but across the Soviet Union. It is the accumulation of these factors that highlighted Lenin’s leadership and practicality following the seizing of power as well as changes to society with War Communism and the NEP and the use of terror which were all vital to consolidating Bolshevik power.
During Stalin’s regime, the individual Russian was the center of his grand plan for better or worse. Stalin wanted all of his people to be treated the same. In the factory the top producer and the worst producer made the same pay. He wanted everyone to be treated as equals. His goal to bring the Soviet Union into the industrial age put tremendous pressure on his people. Through violence and oppression Stalin tried to maintain an absurd vision that he saw for the Soviet Union. Even as individuals were looked at as being equals, they also were viewed as equals in other ways. There was no one who could be exempt when the system wanted someone imprisoned, killed, or vanished. From the poorest of the poor, to the riches of the rich, everyone was at the mercy of the regime. Millions of individuals had fake trumped up charges brought upon them, either by the government or by others who had called them o...
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.
The Web. Montague, Richard. The. " Marx and Lenin's Views Contrasted. "
Exploring the October revolution and the establishment of communism, Richard Pipes concludes that the origin of communism can be traced back to the distant past in Russia’s history. Pipes states that Russia had entered a period of crisis after the governments of the 19th century undertook a limited attempt at capitalisation, not trying to change the underlying patrimonial structures of Russian society. (Pipes, 1964)
He believed that the Germans were the 'master race'. Going around saying this will make people feel inferior and think the Germans have no authority over them, this caused conflicts. Hitler thought that the Treaty of Versailles should be cancelled and land taken from Germany must be returned. This led to problems as they were demanding land, which not only is against the Treaty's wishes, but will make then a lot stronger when or if future wars do happen. He said that all people of German blood, including many in Austria and Czechoslovakia, must be allowed to live in Greater Germany.
According to Mein Kampf (My Struggle), Hitler developed his political theories after carefully observing the policies of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. He was born as a citizen of the Empire, and believed that ethnic and linguistic diversity had weakened it. Further, he saw democracy as a destabilizing force, because it placed power in the hands of ethnic minorities, who he claimed "weakened and destabilize" the Empire, by dividing it against itself.
Minister of Great Britain, not only on democracy, but on government as a whole. By this quote
Adolf Hitler joined a small political party in 1919 and rose to leadership through his emotional and captivating speeches. He encouraged national pride, militarism, and a commitment to the Volk and a racially "pure" Germany. Hitler condemned the Jews, exploiting anti-Semitic feelings that had prevailed in Europe for centuries. He changed the name of the party to the National Socialist German Workers' Party, called for short, the Nazi Party. By the end of 1920, the Nazi Party had about 3,000 members. A year later Hitler became its official leader Führer. From this, we can see his potential of being a leader and his development in his propaganda.