Hitler and Stalin

Discussions on every day life in the Weimar Republic, pre-anschluss Austria, Third Reich and the occupied territories. Hosted by Vikki.
Chris Goodall
Member
Posts: 15
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 15:00
Location: US

Hitler and Stalin

Post by Chris Goodall » 23 Mar 2002 18:34

Following up from the "Red or Black...or Brown" posting, I was wondering who remained truer to their ideology, Hitler or Stalin?

I've heard and read the many discussions regarding Hitler's National Socialist stance. Whether he was more nationalistic than socialist, whether NS was actually a left-wing based movement, except a few extreme (right) views.

How does this all compare to Stalin's loyalty (if that is the word) to Leninism, Marxism.

Marcus, please don't move to the Soviet forum. I am looking for answers regarding both Nazi and Soviet ideological consistencies and inconsistencies to their original ideal.

all the best,
Chris.
Chris Goodall

User avatar
Marcus
Member
Posts: 33963
Joined: 08 Mar 2002 22:35
Location: Europe

Post by Marcus » 23 Mar 2002 18:36

Discussions on Stalin should take place in the "Enemies of the Third Reich" section of this very forum.

/Marcus

Gwynn Compton
Member
Posts: 2840
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Post by Gwynn Compton » 24 Mar 2002 23:26

It's actually a discussion on both Hitler & Stalin, so it's sort of a cross over between "Enemies of the Third Reich" and "Third Reich" :)

Chris, the title Socialist had nothing to do with the parties ideology, it was only a ploy to lure left wing voters to the party. The main threat to the Nazi Party being elected was the Communists being elected instead. So it was decided that Socialist be added to the party title to try and increase the voting base.

The Nazi Party notorously favoured large industrialists over the workers, though it did try and help the lot of its workers through several programmes, however I don't have the titles handy right now.

Stalin on the other hand spent most of his time stilling trying to ensure that the ENTIRE Soviet state was under party control. It is difficult to judge Stalin's communist principles especially in light of the fact that following his death, the party denounced him.

Tchort
Member
Posts: 70
Joined: 17 Mar 2002 16:17

Post by Tchort » 25 Mar 2002 02:45

Gwynn Compton-I disagree. pre-marxian Socialism was fully embraced by National Socialist ideology and Fascist economy. Equal oppertunity and the ability to advance.

To answer the question,Chris Goodall-Adolf Hitler stayed devotionally passionete (sp?) about the ideology he composed-National Socialism. Joseph Stalin didn't really have an ideology, he was just creating his own. Marxism strips a person of identity and purpose and makes them nihilistic. Stalin destroyed while Hitler built.

Frentebro
Member
Posts: 19
Joined: 27 Mar 2002 09:42
Location: usa

Post by Frentebro » 27 Mar 2002 11:06

Much depends on how we define socialism. All the fascist rulers were pro-capitalist, & that answers it for me. The only ideology Hitler was loyal to was Hitlerism.

To me, Tchort, your characterization of Marxism is way too broad. But them i don't consider Stalinists or Leninists to be Marxists. They were/are, among other things, proponents of state capitalism (the USSR had its own military-industrial complex).
We could also say that capitalist consumer society strips us of our human identity & regards us merely as consumers & economic animals which are required to assent to the status quo as the best of all possible worlds, or be branded subversives, crazies, crazy subversives, or (shudder) LIBERALS.:->

Tchort
Member
Posts: 70
Joined: 17 Mar 2002 16:17

Post by Tchort » 27 Mar 2002 22:15

Frentebro-I agree, the way Socialism is defined differs greatly from person to person. In my veiw, pre-Marxian Socialism is equal oppertunity. Marxian Socialism, in my veiw, is as Marx himself stated "the stage before communism and after capitalism"-ie imposed equality, dictatorship and state control of labor and private ownership of industry. :roll:

I disagree though where you say 'all Fascist rulers were pro-capitalism'. Fascism is a middle ground between capitalism and marxism. The government controls the economy, private ownership exists, equal oppertunity for all CITIZANS, and the ability to advance in society is Fascism (and the Fascist varient economy of National Socialism) capitalism was seen as a rat race for power, giant corperate monoplies exploiting the worker,etc (and rightfully so)

Gwynn Compton
Member
Posts: 2840
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 22:46
Location: United Kingdom

Post by Gwynn Compton » 27 Mar 2002 23:06

But Hitler seems to have ended up cooperating with the big industrialists, or at least those who would later prove important in the war effort.

Funny how one can bend ones ideology to suit the times isn't it? :lol:

I feel Stalin did stick true to one part of his ideology, he tried to maintain party control over every aspect of society, especially the military.

Caldric
Member
Posts: 8077
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:50
Location: Anchorage, Alaska

Post by Caldric » 27 Mar 2002 23:25

Funny how one can bend ones ideology to suit the times isn't it?
Yes much like Lenin hating the Imperialist and Capitalism but excepting German Gold in 1917 without blushing.... :!:

And then of course setting up the NEP.

Globalization41
Member
Posts: 1298
Joined: 13 Mar 2002 02:52
Location: California

Post by Globalization41 » 28 Mar 2002 03:41

"It is difficult to judge Stalin's communist
principles especially in light of the fact that
following his death, the party denounced
him."


Stalin practiced maximum fascism in a
bolshevik setting.

Globalization41

Globalization41
Member
Posts: 1298
Joined: 13 Mar 2002 02:52
Location: California

Why Did Hitler Invade Russia?

Post by Globalization41 » 28 Mar 2002 05:30

[Why Did Hitler Invade Russia?]

The New York Times, By Hanson W. Baldwin,
Saturday, July 19, 1941: At the end of four
weeks of the greatest military campaign in
history,
with German Panzer divisions deep
within Russia, why did Hitler -- already
dominant over most of the continent of Europe

and engaged with the British Empire in mortal
combat in which he had won nearly all of the
victories -- divert his main effort to an entirely
new antagonist? Hitler clearly precipitated the
struggle; Stalin obviously was willing to make
any concession to avoid war.
Thousands of
tons of supplies -- which are now cut off --
were coming into Germany from Russia. ... 1.
Hitler probably recognized, as the writings of
"Mein Kampf" clearly show, that an eventual
showdown with Russia was inevitable.
Ever
since the war started [and Poland's partition],
at least 50 to 70 German divisions have been
maintained along Germany's eastern frontiers
to guard that flank against the possibility of a
surprise attack from the Russian colossus while
the Reich was engaged in other campaigns. ...
2. A successful Russian campaign was
probably considered to be more feasible than a
successful assault upon Britain. ... 3. Against
the possibility of a long war caused by United
States intervention or protracted British
endurance, Hitler decided to complete his
economic organization of the "New Europe" so
clearly envisioned in "Mein Kampf" by seizing
the Ukraine which he has always coveted.
By
doing so he would obtain a rich base of
supplies immune from British assault.
This
could extend the military endurance of
Germany indefinitely, making her invulnerable
to blockade. ... 4. If Russia is defeated and a
secure base of supplies obtained, Germany can
mobilize her full strength to turn it against
Britain. Hitler could then offer Britain a
negotiated peace, launch an all-out assault, or
continue indefinitely the present war of
attrition.
... ... How far Hitler has gone
toward his goal is still impossible to assess
accurately. There seems little doubt that the
Germans won a great victory in the Bialystok-
Minsk area in the first weeks of the war, that
they have now penetrated at a number of points
the Stalin defensive system, and that the entire
area west of the Volga -- the area which is the
industrial heart of Russia and perhaps the limit
of German territorial ambitions
-- is now
threatened. ... For these incomplete
accomplishments, the Germans have paid
considerable, and there is as yet no evidence
that the Russian Army has suffered irreparable
losses.
Both sides claimed the destruction or
capture of enormous quantities of the enemy's
planes tanks, guns, and materiel. There is, of
course, no way of estimating the casualties and
materiel losses. ... Even if the Germans win
decisively in Russia in another month or two,
there will have to be a period of reorganization
before they are ready to start another major
effort. The length of time required for shifting
troops, etc., will depend on the severity of
losses, but it seems likely that perhaps it will
be at least one or two additional months, or
next Spring at the latest, before Hitler is ready
to unleash his full strength again in a another
campaign (unless the Russians surprise the
world and survive the Winter).
[Hitler, hoping
the corrupt Soviet government would quickly
collapse, at first signed off on his generals'
Moscow strategy. But soon, Hitler would
switch his main objective to the south, wanting
to exploit the Ukrainian breadbasket.]


Berlin, United Press, The New York Times,
Saturday, July 19, 1941: A Nazi spokesman
claimed today that captured Soviet political
commissars are being segregated from ordinary
Russian war prisoners,
claiming in many cases
the commissars had destroyed all marks of
identification.

Moscow, Associated Press, The New York
Times,
Sunday, July 20, 1941: [Late Sat.,
U.S. time]
Joseph Stalin today assumed the
duties of People's Defense Commissar of
Soviet Russia, succeeding Marshal
Timoshenko,
now active commander of the
western zone of the German-Russian front,
who was appointed Deputy Commissar of
Defense. The changes were announced by
Tass, official Russian News Agency.

London, Associated Press, The New York
Times,
Saturday, July 19, 1941: A reliable
foreign source said tonight that reports from
the Continent indicated that the Germans had
thrown so much of their air and land power
into the Russian campaign that it appeared
unlikely that they could attempt to invade
Britain before next year.

The New York Times, By W.T. Arms, July 19,
1941:
Russian atrocity tales were the order of
the day on Reich [shortwave] broadcasts last
week, with each German propagandist trying to
outdo his colleagues in the presentation of
gruesome pictures, telling of whole prisons full
of corpses
and "countless unspeakable horrors"
which the German soldiers found upon entering
Russian towns. The BBC [British Broadcasting
Corporation]
described [the reports] as just
another tactic to incite anti-Communist feeling.


[Stay tuned for late breaking war bulletins.
... Globalization41.]


Last edited by Globalization41 on 04 Apr 2004 03:21, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Oleg Grigoryev
Member
Posts: 5051
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:06
Location: Russia

Post by Oleg Grigoryev » 28 Mar 2002 06:21

Image :wink:

Globalization41
Member
Posts: 1298
Joined: 13 Mar 2002 02:52
Location: California

Armenian Intellectuals Say Stalin is Mankind's Best Friend

Post by Globalization41 » 30 Mar 2002 04:53

[Cool picture Oleg.]

Moscow, Wireless to The New York Times,
Sunday, August 17, 1941: An appeal to
Armenians of all countries to unite in aid of the
Soviet Union against Adolf Hitler was drafted
yesterday by 26 intellectual leaders of the
Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic. ... This
proclamation, which describe Herr Hitler as the
"enemy of mankind," predicted his defeat by
the Red Army that "is led by the greatest
commander and strategist of our epoch and the
best friend of mankind, Stalin."


[Stay tuned for late breaking war bulletins.
... Globalization41.]


Last edited by Globalization41 on 02 Aug 2004 03:13, edited 2 times in total.

Chris Goodall
Member
Posts: 15
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 15:00
Location: US

Hitler and Stalin

Post by Chris Goodall » 31 Mar 2002 16:51

Thnaks to all for their very insightful posts. Certainly something to chew over.

OK, not getting into diversions of the difference between National Socialism and Fascism, would it be true to state that Hitler broke with fascist thinking (I'm thinking of Mussolini's Italy here) and implemented a racial system to divide the nation. Anti-Semitism was not originally a tool of fascism, right? In a successful post-war Germany, the nation would be structured around racial guideleines.

Did Stalin not similarly diverge from Marxist/Leninist thinking by implementing the "state" system? Or did Stalin veer so far from Marx-Lenin that this is a useless analogy? Also, were Stalin's excesses another huge differences from Marx's and Bolshevik leaders principles? Or how about Stalin the statesman as compared to Lenin the revolutionary?

I'm trying to ascertain if Hitler actually stuck to the principles of Nazism more than Stalin did to communism.

Thanks for any assistance.
Chris Goodall.
Chris Goodall

Globalization41
Member
Posts: 1298
Joined: 13 Mar 2002 02:52
Location: California

Post by Globalization41 » 03 Apr 2002 04:23

"Did Stalin not similarly diverge from
Marxist/Leninist thinking by implementing
the "state" system? Or did Stalin veer so
far from Marx-Lenin that this is a useless
analogy?"


The original Bolsheviks believed in the
liberal use of strategic executions and
mass killings on the path to social utopia,
but the upper-level leadership was off-
limits to the (enthusiastic) executioners.
Stalin efficiently continued forward with
this policy, with improvements, but later
waived the ban on shooting party elites
and eventually liquidated most of the
original Bolsheviks.

Globalization41

User avatar
Starinov
Member
Posts: 1490
Joined: 18 Apr 2002 16:29
Location: Québec, Canada.

Re: Hitler and Stalin

Post by Starinov » 19 Apr 2002 15:19

Chris Goodall wrote:Following up from the "Red or Black...or Brown" posting, I was wondering who remained truer to their ideology, Hitler or Stalin?
Both ideologies are very similar since both are based on socialism. Hitler got to power with the help of the people even if he made a "switch" to the right side in the late thirties. Stalin was a Lenin's follower even if he never made any speeches about that. Lenin always wanted a World Reviolution starting in Germany. Stalin followed that idea as consequently as he could.

The differencies appear somewhere else. Hitler was for a war between races and Stalin for a war between classes. Different ideology but similar principle. They both stayed true to their ideas, i think...

Starinov

Return to “Life in the Third Reich & Weimar Republic”