Totalitarian Government Germany and USSR

I having trouble with my social studies assignment. I'm supposed to compare the totalitarian government methods of ruling of Nazi Germany and Russia during their revolution. What are the similarities of how they rose to power. How they kept their power and their overall policies. Any help will be appreciated.

 

As a starting point, I'd recommend a reading of 'Hitler And Stalin : Parallel Lives' by Alan Bullock ( currently available via Amazon as a paperback ). This has an excellent bibliography which will point you toward further reading.

 

Im not sure that tox would be able to finish that book before the social assignment is due....unless ofcourse its due in a week or two...

What do u guys think should we do the assignment for him???

 

similarities:
Both of them were worshiped by their people while their were alive, and were denounce after their death.
Both of them killed alot of people.
Both of them used state terror as a policy.

 

Both also rose their countries from ashes and turned them into superpowers

 

I can only echo this:

An excellent and eminently readable book that fits your subject perfectly.
Get reading mate, it's the only way.
Cheers,
Adam.

 

In both the respective parties rose to power through a combination of subversion of a democratic process and violence. In part, this occured during a period of both nation's history where the current government was severly weakened by war and economic collapse. The population was already inclined to want change due to these conditions.
In the Soviet Union the Communists subverted the Duma and the Social Democrats to gain power while simultaneously starting a civil war. The Nazis likewise got into power by a democratic process and then used violence (burning the Reichstag and threats that communists and other radicals were to blame) to usurp power and make Hitler a dictator. Both were also successful through their very orgainzed, para-military type, party orgainzation. Their opponets were less orgainzed using more open debate and democratic methods that led to disunity on many subjects. Democratic debate also greatly slowed responses to these autocratic political parties when the threat from them was realized. Thus, they could gain control before more democratic opponets could orgainze a successful counter to them.

Once in power both were minority parties that ruled through exclusion. Both used the cohersive power of government to control dissent (secret police, military intravention in civil unrest, control of the press etc) and prevent free speech. Obviously, they also quickly moved to restrict or outlaw political opposition to their rule.
Both also relied heavily on political indoctrination of the populace, particularly children. They did this through the school system and through government mandated participation in extra curricular activities like the Young Pioneers (Communist) and Hitler Youth (Nazis). This was done to help ensure new generations would be willing participants with the proper political views that supported the ruling party.

Oh, remember, plagerism is wrong.

 

um....what do you mean " once in power both were minority parties "??

 

I should have said 'remained.' That is, both never had anywhere near a majority of either party members or voting strength in the general population.
The membership of the Soviet Communist party rarely exceeded 20% of the population. The Nazis likewise. Hitler never even came close to getting a majority vote in an election prior to becoming dictator. The Nazis came into power through coallition politics of the parlimentary system of government in Germany at the time.

 

I should have said 'remained.' That is, both never had anywhere near a majority of either party members or voting strength in the general population.
</font>[/QUOTE]Might I suggest you add the word 'legitimate' to 'majority'

 

Thank you for all the replies. I ended up coming up with some similarities. But I think I'll read that book anyway just because I think Hitler and Stalin are both such fascinating people.

 

Tox:

I rather recommend you the very best book on this subject (incredibly, not out-dated nor surpassed after so many years): The origins of Totalitarianism by philosopher Hannah Arendt, one of the brightest minds of the century without a doubt.

As the only two true Totalitarian régimes that have ever existed, the similarities between the two cannot be matched by any other dictatorships. What made these régimes different from the ones of Mussolini, Franco, Mao, Galtieri, Pinochet, Amin, Hussein, Khrushchov? First, that the sphere of influence of the State was total and for that, the régime needed a permanent state of convulsion: it could not stabilise because that meant a decrease of total controll. Totalitarianism also cannot exist in countries with a small population: it recquires a population large enough to get rid of a large number of people (the enemies of the totalitarian ideal, made up by the régime and turned in by the terrified population, seeking to keep its own status quo for at least another day) without anyone noticing. That is why Nazi Germany was not a truly totalitarian dictatorship until 1939, when it finally came to controll a huge population. Also, totalitarianism ended in the Soviet Unio with the death of Stalin, as did it in Germany with Hitler's suicide.

That's just some of the things contained in Arendt's book. It is one of the greatest and deepest annalysis there are of either Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union. It's a MUST read, the Bible for the researchers of totalitarianism.