More handpicked essays just for you.
Comparison stalinist russia and german nazism
Chapter 16 the rise of totalitarianism
Nazism and communism compared
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The Oxford Dictionary defines totalitarianism as ‘a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state’ . A totalitarian regime possesses power over affairs of the state and its inhabitants under one party and bears no opposition. A key attribute of a totalitarian government is that is looks to shape the mind and actions of society through determination, philosophy, and in general, force. Historians argue that in Nazism, ‘the value of the totalitarian concept seems extremely limited’ as they compare the regime to other totalitarian states. They state that Nazism could not have been totalitarianism because it wasn’t as organized and monolithically structured as Stalin’s Russia. The Nazism ideology was a mere scheme of self-fulfilment and lacked the methodical theory of Marxism. Under no circumstance was there a level of state possession and influence over the economy in comparison to that which developed in Stalin’s Russia. In spite of the Nazi Party’s dominance over state affairs, authority was divided between themselves and a quantity of major power groups including the industrialists and the armed forces, while Stalin’s Communist Party possessed unconditional power over all Russian state affairs. A German historian stated that Hitler ‘...brought about a state of affairs in which the various autonomous authorities ranged alongside and against one another...’ Hitler relied on a level of popularity from the nation acquired through promoting himself through propaganda to maintain his leadership. There are no implications that Stalin sought popular appeal to maintain his power. Generally, historians have debated the weak dictatorship of Hitler but never have they contemplated ... ... middle of paper ... ...ies through laws, policies, and campaigns enabled Adolf Hitler to charismatically lead the German nation as a totalitarian dictator, and control German life under the state. All aspects of Hitler’s governance provided an element of a totalitarian state from political principles to personal lives. During the years of The Third Reich, Hitler essentially remained the unchallenged Fuhrer of Nazi Germany and established a totalitarian state. Works Cited Hitler, A. Mein Kampf 1925-26, Houghton Mifflin, Boston 1971 Webb, K. Germany 1918-1939, Kimberley Broadbridge 2007 Manson, K J. Second Edition, Republic to Reich: A History of Germany 1918-1945, McGraw Hill 2003 United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia 2011, Washington D.C Bright, N. & Neale, T., Cambridge Checkpoints 2011: HSC Modern History, Cambridge University Press 2011
Totalitarianism can be defined in the Merriam-Webster dictionary as the centralized control by an autocratic authority. The leaders of these societies are obsessed with complete control and will take whatever steps are necessary to reach such a goal. In many totalitarian societies, children are separated from their families. This is enforced on the citizens because rulers want them to be loyal to the government. Such living arrangements can be portrayed in Ayn Rand’s novel, Anthem.
Benz, Wolfgang, A Concise History of the Third Reich (University of California Press, California; 2007)
Hitler and the Nazi party used fear, terror, and propaganda to keep their power over Germany. But even before that, when he sought to w...
Shirer, William L. The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich; a History of Nazi Germany. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1960.
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.
Historians are often divided into categories in regard to dealing with Nazi Germany foreign policy and its relation to Hitler: 'intentionalist', and 'structuralist'. The intentionalist interpretation focuses on Hitler's own steerage of Nazi foreign policy in accordance with a clear, concise 'programme' planned long in advance. The 'structuralist' approach puts forth the idea that Hitler seized opportunities as they came, radicalizing the foreign policies of the Nazi regime in response. Structuralists reject the idea of a specific Hitlerian ideological 'programme', and instead argue for an emphasis on expansion no clear aims or objectives, and radicalized with the dynamism of the Nazi movement. With Nazi ideology and circumstances in Germany after World War I influencing Nazi foreign policy, the general goals this foreign policy prescribed to included revision of Versailles, the attainment of Lebensraum, or 'living space', and German racial domination. These foreign policy goals are seen through an examination of the actions the Nazi government took in response to events as they happened while in power, and also through Hitler's own ideology expressed in his writings such as Mein Kempf. This synthesis of ideology and social structure in Germany as the determinants of foreign policy therefore can be most appropriately approached by attributing Nazi foreign policy to a combination as both 'intentionalist' and 'structuralist' aims. Nazi foreign policy radicalized with their successes and was affected by Hitler pragmatically seizing opportunities to increase Nazi power, but also was based on early a consistent ideological programme espoused by Hitler from early on.
Two totalitarian systems, Communism and Nazism were the two most frightening totalitarian political systems in the history of mankind. They were the systems most brutal to its political adversaries but also to its own people and other races and/or religions. Unfortunately our own country, Croatia faced both of them during the 20th century, and some of bad influences we still feel today.In my essay I will do my best to examine these two totalitarian systems, describe their nature in essence and answer question "How did Communism and Nazism influence the societies".
Hitler represented the evil side of any human beings in the world, and he had done many brutal actions towards people. Adolf Hitler was a little-known political leader whose early life had been marked by disappointment. He formed the Nazis party, where they shared the belief that Germany are required to overturn the Treaty of Versailles. During the Depression, many Germans turned to Hitler for security and firm leadership, ”With terrible economic conditions and rapid inflation, support for Hitler's party grew. By 1923, the Nazi's had 56,000 members and many more supporters” (Adolf Hitler Biography). Soon, President Hindenburg announced Hitler the chancellor and he came to power legally. With majority control, Hitler demanded absolute power and turned Germany into a totalitarian state. Hitler waited for the right time to step out and control the people, ”[Hitler] had a charismatic talent that he used for evil to accomplish something beneficial to him” (Maria Langstaff). With such power, Hitler abused it and o...
Jarman, T.L. The Rise and Fall of Nazi Germany. New York: The New York Library,
Simon. T., (1983), Germany 1918-1933 revolution, counterrevolution and the rise of Hitler, Oxford University Press, London.
... Hitler’s consolidation of power as Reich Fuhrer and enabled Hitler’s totalitarian control of Germany.
create a German Air force and in March 1935 he said that he was going
Nazi Germany: A Totalitarian State? The purpose of this essay is to explain whether Nazi Germany was a totalitarian state or not. Totalitarian state means when all aspects of life within a country are under the total control of a person or group, this is often referred to as a dictator. The aspects of life in Nazi Germany that I am going to examine are young people, women, the church, employment, leisure time, propaganda and censorship.
In modern history, there have been some governments, which have successfully, and others unsuccessfully carried out a totalitarian state. A totalitarian state is one in which a single ideology is existent and addresses all aspects of life and outlines means to attain the final goal, government is ran by a single mass party through which the people are mobilized to muster energy and support. In a totalitarian state, the party leadership maintains monopoly control over the governmental system, which includes the police, military,
Kagan, Donald. On the Origins of War and the Preservation of Peace. New York: Doubleday, 1995.