Richard Overy´s The Dictators: Hitler's Germany

Introduction

Richard Overy’s, The Dictators: Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Russia parallels these two regimes and their societies. Overy evades queries of labeling, but it seems that he disapproves of the totalitarianism theory. His book proposes that Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia had more in common, with regards to their methods of reigning than they did as individuals. These commonalities comprised the conformist scrutinizing the extensive facets of society and politics. Overy utilizes a prospect of the two states examining the court system, literature, labor, public opinion, party groups, nationhood, terror and sanctioned imagery. Upon reading and examining reviews of Richard Overy’s The Dictators: Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Russia,

a better understanding is gained of how the book is distinctive and respected as an informative literary work. Thus, two reviews by David Wedgwood Benn, and one review by Mark Von Hagen will be paralleled, differentiated, and evaluated for legitimacy and debatable opinions.
Summary of the Reviews
In his review of The Dictators: Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Russia published in January 2006, issue of International Affairs, David Wedgwood Benn offers simple statements of praise regarding Richard Overy and his book. Benn compliments Overy as “a well-known historian,” who utilizes a comparative perspective, which offers a complete understanding of the two regimes. He claims that The Dictators, is “an extensively documented book,” that “breaks new ground” and “succeeds partly because of the book’s detail in modifying oversimplified images” surrounding the two regimes. Benn highly commends Overy for providing “a wealth of detailed information,” new perspectives and “insights that make important contributions for further debate.” Benn states that one of Overy’s main themes is his discontent with the “traditional totalitarian model, which assumed domination through fear by psychopathic tyrants.” The reviewer goes on to explain how The Dictators, addresses the two regimes “path to power, role of single parties, police and concentration camp systems, official culture and morality, opposition groups, nationality policies, economy, and WWII.” Benn goes on to clarify that both regimes were primarily diverse, for example Soviet Communism was used as a tool for human progression, while Nazism was used to promote the development of a specific people. The nationality policies of the two regimes are also mentioned in The Dictators.
The resemblance of control methods, conjured up by the two regimes have been delineated time and time again, but an armament that both regimes controlled was “organized dissent”; this Benn says “Overy might have stressed more.” However, the regimes to Benn’s point of view were more similar in their ideologies rather than their “utopianisms”, which Benn says “needs far more precise defining.” Throughout Overy’s comparisons of the ideologies of the two regimes, Benn criticizes that, “Overy seems to ready to squeeze them into the same mold” and that “it should have been added that Stalin was worse than the Nazis.” Still, Benn claims that to him “Nazism cannot be likened to anything.”
As thoroughly stated in The Dictators, even though both regimes required substantial sacrifices they both enjoyed stanch support from the public; this is where utopianism plays a part. Therefore, a “logic of war is bound to arise,” but in Benn’s eyes, “Overy does not directly address this topic.” The remainder of the review discusses “The Hitler-Stalin Comparison,” and how society reacted to the trials of Nazism and Communism. Did the world appease these two regimes? In any case Benn criticizes that with regards to both regimes the term “appeasement” needs more defining. In Benn’s closing paragraph of his review, On comparing Nazism and Stalinism, he discusses the ‘dove versus hawk’ debate, which stemmed from failed Western policies towards Moscow after 1945. He goes on to say that this debate has reemerged since the events of September 11, 2001. Although, Benn praises Overy he also states that “Overy’s overall approach leaves room for debate.”
David Wedgwood Benn has such strong feelings concerning Richard Overy’s, The Dictators that he wrote a second review called Hitlerism and Stalinism: Comparisons and Explanations, which is like an extension of the first review. Similar points from the first review are highlighted and expanded upon in the second review. Benn’s second review was published in Europe-Asia Studies, in March 2006. He once again praises Overy in saying that his “extensively documented book breaks new ground” by utilizing a relative viewpoint to answer significant questions such as, “What were the forces that brought the Dictators to power, the methods of maintaining that power and what was the actual function of the two societies?” With admiring appraisal Benn compliments Overy’s book with “providing a mass of detail, much of which defies summary.” Yet, Benn critiques that some of “Overy’s conclusions leave room for debate. In some respects, the book’s emphasis might have been placed differently.” The fact that, “Overy demonstrates symmetry between the regimes, is topic that Benn finds notable. However, Benn analyses that Overy’s regime comparison ought to begin “from the fact that whilst the methods of control were in many ways similar, the two systems were the product of very different social forces, ideas, and aspirations.” Additionally, Overy should have concluded that “Stalin’s regime was much more repressive than Hitler’s.”
In his book, Overy examines the control methods utilized by the two regimes, but regardless of all the comparisons in the methods of control and ideologies, which inspired the two regimes, they were quite dissimilar.

Although, Overy comments on this numerously it is a theme that Benn criticizes “he could have expanded further.” Benn goes on to reiterate Overy’s frustration with the customary totalitarian ideal. Plus, he recaps that Overy intention is not to give a history of the two regimes, but rather a comparison, emphasizing similarities and differences. Concerning “moral equivalence” between the two dictators, Benn argues that although Overy claims “that it is not for a historian to prove which of the two was more evil or deranged” the question is certain to arise. As the reviewer mentioned in his previous text that “anything was better than Nazism,” he goes on to say that far as he is concerned, he could “see no merit whatsoever in Stalinism.” In his second review much of the same information is reiterated with regards to “utopianism ('the quest for perfection),” however Benn does accuse the book of having insufficient proof of what perfection meant to both dictators. Since all people perceive perfection

differently.
Towards the middle of his review, Benn condemns Overy’s failure to reference the Krupp Empire and its infamous utilization of slave labor. Alfried Krupp’s trial is also lacking in Overy’s book, according to Benn. Lastly, Benn critiques that Overy fails to “address propaganda or education.” Although Benn offers much more criticism in his second review as compared to the first he state that “all in all, this book contains a vast compendium of information which makes it an important source of reference, and as an important contribution to our understanding of the two regimes.”
Another reviewer who sought to scrutinize, The Dictators was Mark Von Hagen. In his review, Paring off Dictatorships he greatly commends Overy with contributing “a major service to multiple fields of history-German, Russian, and twentieth-century European, dictatorship and empire, and resistance and war.” The topics which Overy compared in his book consisted of “terror, utopia, the ‘moral universe of dictatorship,’ (law and religion), the culture of inclusion and exclusion, the place of high and popular culture, the economy, the military, WWII, policies towards race and nation, and, lastly, the ‘empire of the camps.” Von Hagen states that the chapter regarding “the titans is one of the best in the book!” A major analysis of Von Hagen’s is Overy’s extensive knowledge of German history and literature, but his ignorance of Russian terms, “which are often misspelled or incorrectly transliterated” and used less. In fact, most of Von Hagen’s review addresses Overy’s lack of information concerning Russia. For instance, Von Hagen states that “Overy is less sure-footed when analyzing the debates about the Soviet Union” and that he could “have easily drawn on dozens of volumes of new Russian documents” to use for his book. However, it is important to note that Von Hagen does clearly state that his intention is not to condemn Overy, but instead Soviet Union historians. With regards to history Von Hagen believes that The Dictators should be swiftly and prudently translated into Russian, in order to assist historical discussion.
Von Hagen states that Overy portrays the two dictatorships as “holistic, in order to avoid an unsatisfactory label of “totalitarian”. Also the reference of a second debate between the “intentionalists” and “structuralists” is mentioned by Von Hagen in his review. The best statement of praise that Von Hagen gives The Dictators is that it will aid scholars by offering newly available evidence to test prior hypothesis of the two regimes.” Von Hagen, complete his review by discussing modern Russian historians and government. His closing sentence connotes the “war on terrorism” as the reader is reminded of modern “totalitarianism.”
Review Comparison and Evaluation
Appropriately, a theme that is inescapably apparent from analyzing the three reviews is that all three diligently highlighted Overy’s disapproval for the traditional totalitarian model. This topic was necessary to mention as it is the basis of Overy’s book. A review lacking in a principle so distinct to Overy, would be nominal to say the least. Comparing and evaluating Benn’s reviews are somewhat tricky as they were both so similar. His second review gave much more praise to Overy than his first did. It is apparent that in his second review Benn grossly reiterates Overy’s lax comparisons, weak definitions, and that the overall theme of the book should have been further expanded upon. The difference in Von Hagen’s reviews as opposed to Benn’s is the lavishness of praise that he offers. Von Hagen seems to view Overy’s book as being exceptional and a great scholarly aid for reference. The only drawback that he finds, unlike Benn, is Overy’s lack of accurate and appropriate usage of Russian terms and information. On the contrary, both reviewers compliment Overy for his all-encompassing details of the two regimes and its leaders. From reading Benn’s second review it would that he had much to say about Overy and needed to expand upon his criticisms as well as approval. The information in the second review is so much more intricate than the first. However, it would seem that Benn hit the nail on the head when he said that Overy’s ideas leave room for debate, hence this essay.
Von Hagen’s review is quicker to offer praise than Benn’s. In referencing the table below, it is apparent that in Von Hagen’s mind “Overy performed a major service to multiple fields of history.” Perhaps, this is why he so strongly urges for The Dictators, to be translated into Russian. It seems that a translation would not solely be done just to appease Russian historians, to but rather to alleviate the language discrepancies of the book. Both reviewers described Overy’s comparison perspective with statements of approval and an indication that this was a relatively new concept of discussing the two dictatorships. The topic of “popular acquiescence” is one that Benn addresses frequently, stating that both regimes acquired mass popularity. This definitely holds true to what Overy describes in chapter three of his book, called the personality cult, which begins with an individual utilizing media, propaganda, or any means necessary in order to create a perfect, valiant, and almost godly persona, in which a majority of the population “falls in love” with that individual, namely Hitler and Stalin. Although, there were distinct differences between both reviewers, in their writing style, word choice, and in the information chosen for critique there is still one similarity that stands out the most. This is the reviewer’s likes and dislikes of Overy’s book and the subject matter behind the book. Both Benn and Von Hagen would not have taken the time to be so precise in their reviews if they were not interested in Hitler’s or Stalin’s reign and their tyrannical, yet eerily personable behaviors.
Conclusion
In The Dictators: Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Russia, Richard Overy has excelled at utilizing a comparative perspective in order to portray, discuss, and educate readers of all backgrounds about the regimes of the terrorizing totalitarian twins: Hitler and Stalin. Likewise, both reviewers concentrate on his unique style of writing, historical information, and the context and usage of language that he uses in his book. An array of topics are digested such as the “path to power, role of single parties, police and concentration camp systems, the culture of inclusion and exclusion, the place of high and popular culture, the economy, the military, and both regimes before the Second World War.” Overy’s book as well as the reviews referenced an abundance of important information with regards to the two regimes. It is important that this fanciful, terrifying, disheartening story be told over and over again. The suffering and mass accumulation of deaths that occurred as a result of both dictators cannot be forgotten, and will continue to be debated and written about for generations to come.