Nazism vs Stalinism
by m-a.soucisse on November 6, 2013 - 11:44pm
During World War II, two leaders of terror squared-off against the countries of the world. They used fear and violence to dominate over their people. Two of the best-known dictators of history: Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin. Two dictators who are similar, but very different at the same time.
In the two articles that I have selected, both claimed that Hitler and Stalin had a lot of similarities. Both were known for their cruelty and violence. Both were dictators with sick, demented needs. The two texts although claimed that they’re where more dissimilarities then similarities. In the first text, “Nazism and Stalinism”, Ian D. Thatcher divides and compares into multiple categories being: Politics, war and terror, economics, state and society: popular opinion and participation and art and culture. The text mainly argues that even with surface similarities, the regimes of Hitler and Stalin have deep-seeded difference. For example, the author point out how both Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia were Worker parties, but that Stalin’s party lasted 73 years, while Hitler’s party lasted 12 years. Another example would be how he claimed that some compliments were given to Stalin’s government and that there wasn’t anything good to say about Hitler’s reign. The text concludes by conceding that similarities exist, but that a fascist government like Hitler’s Germany and a communist government like Stalin’s Russia remain fundamentally different in several ways. In the peer-reviewed article “On comparing Nazism and Stalinism”, author David Wedgwood Benn reviews Richard Overy’s book on the subject. David analyses some of the subject matter and adds up on it. The analysis pieced together takes us from arguments made at the beginning of the book up to it’s very bit. The article itself is taken out of a publication by Blackwell Publishing Limited. For example, David establishes that both social-worker classes were very different. The Bosheviks could rely on the acquiescence of the middle class and the willing support of a powerful military-industrial complex, which wasn’ t the case for the Nazis. David finally concludes that both dictatorships were a malignant phenomenon, but remained difference but that the book was wealthy in precious information that helped to better understand the debate on Nazism and Stalinism. Both text brought great point of views and I enjoyed reading both texts. Both authors used very different approaches and stabs at both system, although I have to say I enjoyed much more the peer-reviewed text. Because the text is peer-reviewed, I can know that the person is from the field and that the information submitted is from an actual person from the field, no offense to Thatcher but I can’t be sure his information is valid. The peer-reviewed text also features deeper content and a far better understanding of the conflict. It seems to me that I learnt more from the peer-reviewed text than the one that wasn’t peer-reviewed.
In short, whatever you think on the debate, you should read both articles, as I thought they were both very educative, even though they were different in various ways.