The archetypical traits of a dictator show common intentions, a sense of grandiose scale is the most recognized attribute; however, there are specific variables of dictatorial archetypes depending on the individual dictator. This is because each dictator wants to leave their own original mark upon history. This dissertation will outline the architectural intentions of Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini, and Adolf Hitler; three of the key dictators from the 20th century. The intentions of these three dictators hold similarities but also have individual and specific intentions due to their political position, government type, and beliefs. Once the intentions have been outlined, the dictator’s architectural intentions will be compared to …show more content…
One which was transparent and portrayed the hierarchy within the newly found communist government. An agenda that would have given more power to the people because they would have been able to see all the inner workings of Stalin’s government. And, opposing this movement was the Stalin backed VOPRA (All-Union Society of Proletarian Architects) who believed in socialist realism which Dennis Doordan defines as; “In its search for an appropriate style, Soviet architecture must strive for a realistic criteria – for clarity and precision in images, which must be easily comprehensible by and accessible to the masses.” (Doordan, 2001, P.113). Through Doordan’s definition of VOPRA it is no surprise that Stalin chose their style to resemble the Soviet Union because it gave him the power to create architecture with the purest form of deceit, which was used to create a godly type image of himself to the public. Conversely, it also allowed Stalin to construct space for the people which in turn would also gain him public appeal and keep him in power. Through the complete and unconditional control of the architecture within the Soviet Union, Stalin was able to create his totalitarian government while also being perceived by the public as a hero of the Soviet
The Silber Medal winning biography, “Surviving Hitler," written by Andrea Warren paints picture of life for teenagers during the Holocaust, mainly by telling the story of Jack Mandelbaum. Avoiding the use of historical analysis, Warren, along with Mandelbaum’s experiences, explains how Jack, along with a few other Jewish and non-Jewish people survived.
Tucker, Robert C. "Stalinism as Revolution from Above". Stalinism. Edited by Robert C. Tucker. New York: American Council of Learned Societies, 1999.
Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt led the nation through the second world war. Roosevelt built a powerful wartime coalition with Britain and the Soviet Union, and led the U.S to victory against Nazi Germany. He was elected for presidency four times, serving from 1933 until his death in 1945. His wartime efforts prepared the path for Harry Truman, to win the war against Japan four months after his death.
You were taught manners since you were a child, but what would happen if you had the power and had control over the rules. In the beginning of Lord of the Flies, Jack in the begin was fine with just being the leader of the hunters, but he still greeds for more power, and wants complete control. As for Hitler, he wanted some power to show Germans to take pride in the country again, but same as jack he just wanted more. In the adventure novel Lord of the Flies, by William Golding, and the articles on Hitler by BBC, and Kershaw highlights the correlations, and disparity between Jack and Hitler. Both figures show how human nature can change within people based on their environment around them. In the information given people can make comparisons to Jack and Hitler. Each show how their size and age don't matter to them in their situation when they want to gain followers. Hitler and Jack both take their situations seriously, but their views are different. They are both known for their ways of fighting and their urge to win, which show how narcissistic they are. Jack and Hitler, both show how human nature can change in anybody no matter the age, or how they were raised
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.
Fiehn, Terry, and Chris Corin. Communist Russia under Lenin and Stalin. London: John Murray, 2002. Print.
According to Medvedev, Joseph Stalin’s leadership style was one that was molded from his need to control the situation and paranoia. Stalin did rely on his close network of political allies to effectively rule, but decisions that could affect the U.S.S.R must be authorized by him and no other person. (Medvedev 115) This made party members very nervous and also very repla...
Mussolini, Benito. “The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism.” The Human Record . By Alfred J. Andrea and James H. Overfield. Vol. 2. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2011. 2 vols. 399-400.
Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler, these two men have forever changed the history of the world. Josef Stalin or Uncle Joe Stalin as his country knew him, was seen to the Russian people as a savior and a heroic leader. Adolf Hitler was known as the `Father of the Final Solution', which killed nearly six million of the sick, gypsies, Jews, homosexuals, and handicapped. Stalin and Hitler were both evil men who gained their power by manipulating others to get what they wanted. Both men were cold and calculating when it came to getting what they wanted. These two men had no respect for human life and did not have a problem killing people who stood in their way. They promised the people of their country a new world with a bright future; however, these faithful people never saw a bright future.
The debate as to whether Hitler was a ‘weak dictator’ or ‘Master of the Third Reich’ is one that has been contested by historians of Nazi Germany for many years and lies at the centre of the Intentionalist – Structuralist debate. On the one hand, historians such as Bullock, Bracher, Jackel and Hildebrand regard Hitler’s personality, ideology and will as the central locomotive in the Third Reich. Others, such as Broszat, Mason and Mommsen argue that the regime evolved out from pressures and circumstances rather than from Hitler’s intentions. They emphasise the institutional anarchy of the regime as being the result of Hitler’s ‘weak’ leadership. The most convincing standpoint is the synthesis of the two schools, which acknowledges both Hitler’s centrality in explaining the essence of Nazi rule but also external forces that influenced Hitler’s decision making. In this sense, Hitler was not a weak dictator as he possessed supreme authority but as Kershaw maintains, neither was he ‘Master of the Third Reich’ because he did not exercise unrestricted power.
There have been many dictators through out history that have shaped the way we look at them now. Sometimes it’s the way that dictators came to power that people judge them on. Sometimes it’s how long they stayed in power, but it’s not just how long they stayed in power. It’s what they did to stay in power. These two men are some of the most infamous dictators for those reasons alone. These men are Joseph Stalin and Fidel Castro, and they played a huge part in shaping the way we look at dictators today.
The Soviet citizens during the 1930s, particularly the younger ones, believed “they were participants in a history process of transformation, their enthusiasm for what was called ‘the building of socialism’” (68). The Soviets built hotels, palaces, and had blueprints displayed all throughout “that was supposed to set a pattern for urban planning throughout the country and provide a model of the socialist capital for foreigners” (69).
In 1922, Benito Mussolini held leadership in Italy, promising a proficient and militaristic nationalistic state. During his control as prime minister, he gained a large group of followers, banned the disparagement of government, and used extreme violence against his enemies within the parliament. According to Oppenheimer, Adolf Hitler idolized Mussolini’s rise and respected his tactics to gain power. Hitler was a violent leader who brought For example, “corporatism” largely contributed to later policies that we still practice today.
Stalin put forward an opposite theory - the theory of Socialism in One Country. He argued that the USSR must always come first in the government's plans. The rest of the world must take second place. The Communists should concentrate on building up the economy of the USSR, not waste money on helping revolutionary groups abroad....
... a change in this image to a realization that Stalin’s suppression of dissidents and opposition had real effects on soviet society and can not be justified by Marxist and Leninist Ideology instead they were just Stalin looking to maintain his autocracy.