Stalin and HItler Comparison

The Second World War was one of the most devastating conflicts ever encountered, fuelled by two ruthless dictators that aimed to assert their own ideologies on the rest of the world. By comparing Nazism to Stalinism, highlights the similar authoritarian measures they embraced in order to obtain their political goals. Hitler and Stalin were seen as figureheads of their respective states. They had support among their people that enabled them to exert their influence in a corrupt manner and to form powerful militaries that could sustain their ambitious aims. However, it is this juxtaposition that limits our comparison for understanding these two forms of government. It brings notice to the notion that although these two governments possess similar characteristics in terms of oppressiveness to achieve their aims, they actually have different ideologies that are completely opposed one another on the political spectrum. Hitler and Stalin had similar approaches to their respective governments. In Germany, Hitler, just like Stalin in the USSR were seen as intimidating individuals that used fear as a means of controlling the masses. Stalin acted not through persuasion, explanation, and patient co-operation with people, but by imposing his concepts and demanding absolute submission to his opinion. Whoever opposed this concept or tried to prove his viewpoint, and the correctness of his position, was doomed to removal from the leading collective and to subsequent moral and physical annihilation. This style of government was very direct, in the sense that it ensured Stalin was able to make decisions quickly and effectively without the consultation of others. This demonstrates the confidence Stalin had of his own ability, in that he did not need assurance from others because Stalin felt confident about his actions as leader of the USSR. Stalin felt his decisions are at the states best interests. Anyone who challenged Stalin was seen as undermining his power. Both leaders had unanimous support within a group of officials that was undeniably loyal to their leaders. Hitler even combined the titles of chancellor and Führer and forced the army to take an oath of personal allegiance to “the executor of the people’s will”. The fact that Hitler created a new title for himself gives the impression that Hitler was keen to represent himself as a new strong leader that could lead Germany through the struggle at a time of economic depression for Germany. By being able to merge two titles together was the beginning of the ability Hitler could do what he liked without confrontation. So much so that ninety percent of those voting in a plebiscite approved Hitler’s assumption of both functions. They both had complete control of their respective single party dictatorships that lead to the demise of any political opponent that dared to challenge their authority. In the USSR when political opposition had the audacity to challenge Stalin, whom just like Hitler, was acknowledged as the party’s ‘supreme leader, its vozhd’. Stalin simply assured his dictatorship by purging dissident groups with the Soviet Leadership, isolating leaders of the left by assigning their allies to inconsequential posts in distant places. Likewise in Germany, Hitler had implemented devious control once he was in power in order to enhance his domination. The Enabling Act enabled Hitler to have excessive and unlimited “emergency” power. In order to govern without the fear of an uprising Hitler decided to pass a law that recognised the Nazi Party as the only political party in Germany, banning all other opposition against the Nazi’s. Leaders from rival political parties were either imprisoned or killed. It is this sort of approach that helped Hitler to exert his Nazi ideology on Germany, which in turn would assist him gaining his ultimate goal of world hegemony. These drastic measures proved to be effective as the Nazi Party tripled in size, with 2.5 million members by the end of 1933. The USSR and Germany had differing ideologies yet they still implemented similar economic policies in attempt to spur their economies. Stalin administered the Five Year plan, which focused on industrialising the USSR, as Stalin believed that socialism could not be fully implemented until the Soviet Union had a stronger industrial base. This led Stalin to create new industries and industrial bases. One of its most important projects was the creation of a heavy industry base in the Urals and Siberia out of reach of any invader, and capable of supplying the country with arms and machines in immense quantities. This rapid industrialisation reinforced the notion that Stalin was building up the USSR to be more than capable of defending itself. In 1938 before the outbreak of war, the USSR spent $5.4billion on defence expenditure. This nationalistic measure proved to be a strong indication of possible Soviet intentions to foster socialist ideals in bid to gain world supremacy but came at the expense of Soviet people’s struggle, who were starving, afraid and unhappy with the government as the expression of opinions was ‘right opportunism’ in political lingo of the country. Likewise, Hitler had a plan that enhanced the nation’s might whilst simultaneously diminishing the power of the people. The Four-Year Plan worked towards tackling unemployment by means of rearmament. In 1938, Germany had spent $7.4billion, more than any other nation on their defence expenditure. Making Germany self-sustainable just like Stalin’s Five-Year Plan proved to be successful in terms of strengthening the state with German gross national product rising by 81 percent. But also like the Soviet plan it subdued the German people’s rights when the state-controlled German labour front replaced unions and strikes became illegal. Comparing the two economic policies from both totalitarian regimes highlights how both dictators were willing to quash their people’s power in return for a more forceful, sustainable nation. However, a limit of comparison is how Hitler’s curtailing of the people’s power was not as prevalent as Stalin’s, as Hitler also employed measures that brought pride amongst a nation that was in disarray. Although Hitler did restrict strikes and banned trade unions, people in Nazi Germany generally felt happier as the Nazi’s became the elite force in Germany. More consumer goods, such as radios, reached the consumer market, contributing to a sense of optimism about material conditions of life. The Labour Front organised cut-rate Nazi holidays with some families of modest means who had never had the opportunity to travel took cruises in the Baltic Sea. Although Stalin too was held in high regard in his country as they “talk of him warmly and with love” they thought Stalin was not to blame for the bad things that happened. The main contrast is that in Nazi Germany, times seemed to be looking promising after years of plight. No one would have dared to ridicule Hitler like the villagers did to Stalin after the famine when Stalin’s “good Tsar” ploy no longer worked in the countryside, and was even mocked by its intended audience. By comparing the two its noticeable how education policies were fundamental to both dictators as they served the state in a positive way. In the USSR education was offered to more people and further skilled workers were produced as a result of the 5-Year-Plan. Education was extremely important: to acquire an education was not just a path to personal success but also an obligation that one owed the party. By encouraging education, was a means of improving the state in terms of having a larger basin of intelligence that would help the USSR in the future. Hitler too saw education as fresh means of strengthening not only his position as Fuher, but also reinforcing the dominance of Nazi ideology. The Nazi’s provided new textbooks that included “racial theory” and instead of students fearing their teachers, non Nazi-teachers had reason to fear their students; members of the Hitler’s Youth organisation, as they were encouraged to report any teachers who were not enthusiastic on Nazism. By changing the education system Hitler was able to foster new generations of children that grew up brainwashed into the Nazi ideology, which was beneficial for the state as Nazism flourished. The entire education has to be directed towards employing the free time of the boy for the useful training. This epitomises the Nazi mentality on “training” boys to conform to Nazi beliefs. Stalin also had youth movements that encouraged good principles towards the state. The Komsomol considered it their special task to keep watch on bureaucracy and expose official, which was exiting and appealing to many young people. One final advantage of comparing these two forms of totalitarianism underlines how both nations had to deploy some sort of terror within society in order to preserve to their ideals. With the Nazi’s, Hitler set up the Gestapo and the S.S. which ensured Nazi Germany was safe from any opponents. [The S.S. and the Gestapo] Killed at least eighty people in the “night of long knives”. Stalin’s USSR had the same paranoid mentality towards the outsider which kept the masses in check in the form of purging or cleansing. A periodic review of party membership to weed out desirables. These purges aimed to unify the county and strengthen nationalism, as enemies were everywhere; and, most dangerous of all, these enemies were often disguised. A Communist must always stand ready to “unmask” hidden enemies and show their “true face”. However the limits of this comparison is that the USSR’s role of terror was not as severe as the Nazi’s, in that they did not have the intense ethos of “racial purity” even though their form of intimidation was still effective in sustaining the states interests. The main advantage of comparing these two forms of totalitarianism is that it emphasises just how similar these two governments are, in terms of political suppression and opposition, economic plans, military force and their attitude towards youth. However, the irony is that these two regimes employed equivalent measures in spite of the fact that they had conflicting ideologies. It is this concept that limits our understanding for these two governments because Nazi Germany was based on and focused on racial hierarchy and the cultural superiority of the Germans whereas the USSR was driven by a political belief initially intended to enrich and benefit lifestyle of the people. Both regimes seem similar in the way they developed their countries through use of terror and violence in bid to maintain state control but the fundamental truth is that Nazism and Communism are irreconcilable, but from an alternative perspective, this kind of comparison helps take notice that both dictators shared the same beastly desire for world supremacy which explains why they are often compared.