@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
>From: Peter ...
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 95
To: rkmoore
Subject: Hitler and Stalin
Dear Mr. Moore,
While I agree with a great deal you write, I think it is wrong to go too
far in denying a link between the methods of power used by Stalin and
Hitler to take control of their respective countries. Stalin and Hitler
both infiltrated the organisations which held power in their respective
countries, deprived their victims of protection (in Hitler's case by
getting the Reichstag to pass the Enabling Law, and in Stalin's case by
packing key committees with his appointees). The main difference between
the two was that Hitler infiltrated a state which had been the most
liberal in the world only a few years before, while Stalin infiltrated a
state which was already a monstrous tyranny.
The totalitarian dictatorships learned much from each other (see, for
example, Richard Pipes, Russia under the Bolshevik Regime, a remarkable
book), and their differences were much smaller than their similarities.
They shared a common enemy (liberal democracy), though they had
different ways of dealing with it. They also shared the most important
fact about their regimes: they viewed politics as warfare and nothing
short of physical annihilation of their opponents would satisfy them.
This fact, and the fact that totalitarian dictatorships seek to control
all of everyday life, as well as organised politics, is their
distinctive feature.
Even the fact that Hitler emphasized a struggle between races, while
Lenin discussed a struggle between classes is less significant if one
considers the fact that in Russia, since 56% of the population was non-
Russian, Lenin could not talk about the superiority of the Russian race
without alienating the non-Russian half. In Germany, on the other hand,
with a large middle class, Hitler could not talk about the superiority
of the working class (or the middle class) without alienating the other
classes. In fact, Hitler tried occasionally to portray himself as the
friend of the workers, while Stalin sought to be the great Russian
chauvanist par excellence.
Both Hitler and Lenin/Stalin, then, were
> "anti-liberal. [T]He[y] despised the democratic> process, despised
diversity of opinion, and built his constituency> by lying about history
and by inciting hatred and mistrust of> government, labor unions,
liberals, subtleties of political thought,> intellectuals, gays, and
nearly all minorities."
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Dear Peter,
I agree there are many similarities, and your analysis probably documents
those adequately. There are also important differences. We could make a
chart of SIMILARS vs. DISSIMILARS if this were merely an academic
exercise.
My interest is in finding appropriate historical precedents for current
situations. My view is that the current U.S. situation has important
structural similarities to that of Germany in the '30s, and that the
political elite is actively replaying that scenario for nearly identical
purposes, if with a style more appropriate to modern circumstances.
You hit on a critical difference yourself:
> Hitler infiltrated a state which had been the most
> liberal in the world only a few years before, while Stalin infiltrated a
> state which was already a monstrous tyranny.
This is most important for current purposes, because Hitler's sceario
applies here, more or less, to the U.S. parallel, whereas Stalin's doesn't.
Also, I can see why you tried to apply my paragraph to both dictators:
...and built his constituency> by lying about history
and by inciting hatred and mistrust of> government...
But I think this parallel doesn't hold up so well. Hitler really did pay
attention to PR and to building up popular support -- and he succeeded.
Stalin relied more exclusively on terror and a large bureaucratic secret
police -- his constituency was the palace guard, much like the Czar.
Hitler had that as well, but didn't rely on it so exclusively. This too is
more parallel to the U.S. -- the FBI handles exception conditions and
radicals, not neigborhood surveillance and suppression. Hitler had the
jackbooted storm troopers; the U.S. has the baton-wielding racist cops,
L.A. style.
Finally, Hitler's connections to international and domestic capitalists is
an important parallel, not as relevant in Stalin's case.
My only reason for writing anything about the Hitler/Stalin comparison is
that there have been dis-information pieces floated which seek to blur the
distinctions, and to pretend that there are no differences generally
between various parts of the political spectrum. Know-nothingism
re/politics serves the elite, not the people.
-rkm
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Share: