|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 10:13 pm Post subject: Compare and contrast |
|
|
Quote: |
Communism and Nazism
Compare and contrast
Aug 9th 2007
From The Economist print edition
IN THEIR different ways they were as bad as each other, the three monsters of 20th-century Europe. That is an oddly controversial statement. Hitler is almost universally vilified; Lenin remains entombed on Red Square as Russia's most distinguished corpse; and modern Russia is looking more kindly on Stalin's memory.
Robert Gellately elegantly scrutinises their differences and highlights their similarities. He places all three men in the context of a Europe shattered by the first world war. �Before 1914 they were marginal figures,� he writes, without �the slightest hope of entering political life.� The whirlwind of destruction that started in 1914 turned their fantasies of racial purity and class dictatorship into reality, killing people on a scale unknown in human history.
Anyone who still believes in the myth�assiduously propagated by the Soviet Union and its admirers�of the �good Lenin� will find the book uncomfortable reading. The author outlines with exemplary clarity Lenin's cruelty, his illegal and brutal seizure of power, his glee in ordering executions, the institution of mass terror as a means of political control and the construction of the first camps in what later became the gulag. �Far from perverting or undermining Lenin's legacy, as is sometimes assumed, Stalin was Lenin's logical heir,� he writes icily.
Mr Gellately busts another myth too: that Hitler seized power by fear and force. The combination of anti-Jewish and anti-Bolshevik rhetoric played well with the German public. People felt humiliated by defeat and impoverished by recession, and Hitler blamed �the Jews� for both.
Hitler looked on Soviet methods with contempt. His model was what Mr Gellately calls �consensus dictatorship�: cautious, sounding out public opinion and changing course when necessary. Unlike Stalin, Hitler did not make a habit of murdering his closest allies. The Nazi party never experienced the ritual purges that were a habitual feature of Soviet Communist Party life under Stalin. Hitler's adversaries were so demoralised by the seeming success of his regime that few offered systematic resistance. It was only as defeat loomed in the last months of the war that ordinary Germans had a taste of the official paranoia that had been their Soviet counterparts' daily fare for 25 years.
Lucid prose and vivid examples make the book admirably accessible to non-specialists. But it also engages expertly in one of the most closely fought historiographical battles of past decades, the Historikerstreit (to give it its German name). Was the bacillus of totalitarianism that infected Germany first bred in Russia? Some German historians, notably Ernst Nolte, have argued that Hitler's crimes were both a distorted copy of atrocities already committed under communism and to some extent a defensive reaction to them. To caricature the argument: Germany declared war on Jews because Jews (at least communist ones) had declared war on Germany.
Mr Gellately has no time for Mr Nolte, who he says is guilty of an �astonishing and reprehensible replication of Nazi rhetoric�. Just because many communists were Jews does not mean that there was anything remotely rational in Hitler's constant conflation of �Jewish-Bolshevism�. Nazi anti-Semitism, he insists, was �rooted in German nationalism.�
The argument about the origins of Nazism will run and run. But there is little danger of Germany rehabilitating Hitler, even in the driest and most academic corners of historical theory. In Russia, by contrast, Stalin's memory is being burnished. A new guide for history teachers describes Stalin as the Soviet Union's �most successful leader�; it admits that �political repression� took place, but says it �was used to mobilise not only rank-and-file citizens but also the ruling elite.� President Vladimir Putin, welcoming this guide, compared Stalin's Great Terror of 1937 with the allied bombing of Hiroshima. It would be interesting to hear Mr Putin's tame historians debate the Stalin era with Mr Gellately.
Mr Gellately sets a high standard for anyone writing about comparative dictatorship. But perhaps some future scholar, matching this author's knowledge of German and Soviet history but possessing equal mastery of China's communist decades, could write a more complete account of 20th-century horrors, including that missing monster, Mao Zedong. |
http://www.economist.com/books/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9616751
I've always found it odd that people on the left will refer to everybody and their dog with whom they disagree as being "like Hitler", "fascist" or "Nazis" while at the same time calling themselves socialists. Kettle, meet pot. Socialism was end-to-end the greatest crime against humanity ever conceived. Nazism could have been, had it spread to the extent that did socialism. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 1:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yawn. This one again? You musta gone to the same dips**t school Stevie M. went to. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 1:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
Yawn. This one again? You musta gone to the same dips**t school Stevie M. went to. |
Why is that? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Mosley
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 5:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
No real surprise there...many scholars have long debunked the myth that Stalinism was a bizarre divergence from Leninism rather than the truth: Stalin, with the exception of the Cult of Personality, was very much a product of Leninism.
Slight disagreement about the issue of "purges." I might agree that ongoing purges were not institutionalized in the Third Reich to the extent they were in the USSR but Nazi Germany was not devoid of them. "Night of Long Knives", anyone? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 2:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This information was only really radical before 1994, after the Soviet archives had been opened up and Volkogonov had published his own book on Lenin.
There are some significant differences between Lenin and Stalin. Lenin did actually lean more towards actually Marxism, which is why he embraced international revolution and Stalin did not. But as has been seen in France in the 18th Century, China in the last century, and in Russia under Lenin's rule, the push for distributive equality has always been accompanied by force and tyranny. This is because the ideal of distributive equality comes to odds with equality under the law, also known as liberty.
Most people who lean Left in the West, and on this board, would not choose distributive equality at the expense of equality under the law, if for no other reason than the Left has social values that are highly compatable with liberty. For example, it was the Left, not the Right, that pushed for Civil Rights in America in the 60s. The so-called Left also tends to be proponents of the right to choose for women in America, and are more often than not willing to grant homosexuals equality under the law. In terms of economic remedies, the Left tends to content itself with ideas like progressive taxation and increased social welfare spending rather than full-out control of levelling by the state. There are exceptions to this, to be sure, and there were no doubt a few Leftists who were really slow to recognize Hugo Chavez's own disdain for the ideal of equality under the law. Nevertheless, when it became obvious that Chavez was turning into the kind of old school authoritarian leftist that Castro was, many people on the Left abandoned defending him. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Mosley
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 3:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Kuros: Lenin might've believed in Marxian international revolution but I do believe that he realized the futility of it before his death.
I don't agree that Western socialist "progressives" have by & large rejected revolution and totalitarianism. Quite the contrary. They play the "let's legislate more social welfare" game at home but have, for much of the last century, supported socialist tyrants abroad(Stalin, Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Chavez, etc., etc.). |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
twg

Joined: 02 Nov 2006 Location: Getting some fresh air...
|
Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2007 7:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
BJWD wrote: |
Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
Yawn. This one again? You musta gone to the same dips**t school Stevie M. went to. |
Why is that? |
Of course, only he could tell you for sure. But I think he's making the association due to you both having a fetish for hyperbole-soaked demagoguery that you keep trying to pass off as "debate" |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|