Peter the Great vs Hitler (again...AGAIN)

OKOKOK so I've been going back and forth with whether or not Peter the Great is a totalitarian dictator because I keep on comparing his SPECIFIC actions with those of Hitler. I think that the circumstances of these two leaders are SO different that it makes little sense to compare them on such an in-depth level, especially since Hitler was the first to really "earn" the title of totalitarian dictator. However, when you look at the broader actions of these two leaders, the two really aren't that different. Both were hoping to reestablish the power of their country and, moreover, insure that their country was no longer overlooked by western European nations. Both reordered the social structure in order to accomplish this goal of reestablishing the power of their country--Hitler through implementing the Nazi system and Peter the Great through his implementation of the Table of Ranks (a system that essentially FORCED the nobility to put the government first if they wanted to hold onto their noble title). Finally, both beefed up their military systems to prove that their country was there to stay and would not be pushed around by other European nations.

Final Point: Peter the Great was a totalitarian dictator.

Globalization

So in class we've been talking a bit about the future of Europe. With the progression of globalization in modern times, I suppose that one could argue that soon the culture and people the define specific European countries will be so integrated that the distinctions between those European countries would be indistinguishable. I just really don't see this happening. While globalization DOES mean that countries are very integrated and interconnected, and it does imply a continuation and intensification of such integration, I for one believe that nationalist sentiment will prevail. I think that European countries are keen on maintaining their own identities--that there is a certain pride in what is Italian, Spanish, French, etc, and that these countries are too proud to forfeit their cultural gains. While there was the establishment of the EU and the implementation of the Euro as currency in many European countries, the countries that became members of the EU and who adopted the Euro as their currency did not lose a piece of their own identity, all that they did was strengthen the European identity as a whole.

Peter the Great vs Hitler (again)

Ok so I was thinking about it and I realized that I'm really on the fence about whether or not Peter the Great would qualify as a totalitarian dictator. 

I was reading over Danielle's post "Zak and Grace...now back to our discussion" where she links Rousseau to totalitarian dictatorship, and I have to say that I agree with what she says.

While I had been pretty much exclusively talking about the differences in technological advancements between Hitler and Peter the Great before, I am now beginning to realize the Hitler had something that Peter the Great never truly had and that was support from the masses. Hitler didn't inherit his power, but instead, he gained his power through getting the public on his side. He was able to create an army of supporters that proved to be an international threat, he did not merely impose his ideas on everyone and kind of hope that it all worked out. While Hitler DID manipulate his way through the governmental system through his use of propaganda as well as taking advantage of the vulnerable position that nationalism put the Germans in, his manipulation, though dishonest and morally wrong, worked. Hitler was able to convince the public that what he was doing was right, that they should join his force to preserve the European race and in that way he was able to change the societal structure.

To contrast, Peter the Great essentially just imposed his power. He didn't really care whether or not the masses agreed with his westernization or not, Peter the Great was determined to earn a legacy, to have his name go down in history as "great", and he would make whatever internal changes necessary to do so. I don't mean to say that this is completely illegitimate or anything of that nature, but I do think that another key difference between Hitler and Peter the Great is the difference between convincing the public that the proposed rule is the RIGHT rule (as Hitler did) and just imposing societal changes upon the public without any sort of attempt to keep the public on your side (as Peter the Great did).

While Peter the Great DID have many great internal changes (he didn't earn the title "great" for no reason), he did not do a great job of insuring that these changes would or could be sustained. Peter made no attempt at keeping the nobility on his side--he was too focused on consolidating his own power and making a name for himself to concern himself with the needs or wants of the nobility. As a result, Peter the Great established a system that was not sustainable, it was only truly great while he was in power.

Mass Consumerism and Culture

During the 1960s, there was a massive cultural revolution pretty much throughout the US as well as Europe. This cultural revolution was rooted in the unified "masses"--the mass consumption and mass culture. Music, material goods and artwork were no longer exclusively accessible to the upper class, but instead, all classes were given access to such staples of culture. As a consequence, social divides deteriorated. Whereas shows had previously been exclusive to the upper class, through the invention of films, shows were now accessible to the majority. Since the exclusivity factor had been so definitive and important for the upper class, I was wondering if there was any sort of opposition to the initiation of mass consumerism and culture? Exclusivity had been central to the existence of the upper class--the upper class could afford the cultural and material advances whereas the lower class could only afford to "get by". However, with the modernization of the 1960s, it became easier to produce for the masses. I guess that I'm answering my own question right now in that the wealthy were still controlling the factories and the material goods, and, as a consequence, when more were produced and purchased, the wealthy became wealthier. So there was a symbiotic relationship between the upper and lower classes in terms of consumerism because both gained. But I would imagine that on the cultural front there would be some form of opposition to the accessibility to the masses because in this case, the upper class would be losing their factor of exclusivity and the lower class would gain access to what was previously exclusive.

What made me think of this was John Lennon's statement that the Beatles were "more popular than Jesus", which resulted in outrage from many Christians and showed a great loss of religious power during the 1960s (1021). What had previously been definitive of culture--exclusivity as well as religion--lost their power and cultural influence during the 1960s, and I think that it is pretty clear that the accessibility of goods and cultural ideas to the masses is the cause of this. If the Beatles hadn't had such international popularity, would John Lennon's statement that the Beatles were "more popular than Jesus" have been taken as seriously as it was (1021)?

PETER THE GREAT vs Hitler

DANIELLE I AM RESPONDING!!!

So I undoubtedly agree that Hitler was an awful person who truly embodies the definition of a totalitarian dictator, but I also think that a lot of what made him such an awful dictator is the fact that he had access to so much power through machinery and technology. Hitler rose to power during a really unstable period and was able to take advantage of the nationalist sentiment which occupied Germany--I feel as if there was a lot more that Hitler could manipulate to facilitate his totalitarian dictatorship than say with Peter the Great. Since Hitler is sort of the "standard" for a totalitarian dictator (he was the first person to truly "earn" that title...right?) I don't think that it makes any sense to argue that his actions do not follow those of a totalitarian dictator. However, I do think that it is a little difficult to compare his actions to those of Peter the Great. 

Since Hitler and Peter the Great were in power during such different time periods, not only did they had access to different materials, but they also had different goals or focuses. When Hitler rose to power, much of the European continent was already set. What I mean by that is that Hitler wasn't necessarily focused on gaining territory, but rather, he was more concerned with creating a pure European race. To contrast, when Tsar Peter 1, the act of westernizing Russia was a huge accomplishment, for, prior to Peter the Great's reign, Russia had been disconnected for western Europe. Peter was focused on making Russia a great military power and establishing "the basics" of a militaristic country (such as a strong army and navy, for, prior to Peter's reign, Russia did not have a navy).

However, the book mentions an act of striking cruelty that I think draws a parallel between Hitler and Peter the Great through a shared interest in maintaining power, and that is when Peter the Great executed over 1,000 of his palace guards for rebelling against his power and leaving their bodies outside "as a graphic reminder of the fate awaiting those who dared to challenge the tsar's authority" (557).

While it is fair to say that Hitler, through his access to greater technology as well as his ability to mold the fragile German peoples, was the most public totalitarian dictator, I believe that, in his act of westernizing Russia, Peter the Great seriously altered the foundation of the Russian society by taking away the power of the nobility (such as through the Table of Ranks) a point that Karl Loewnstein, makes clear in his distinction of Authoritarian government and Totalitarian government. Loewnstein says:

 "the term ‘Authoritarian’ denotes a political organization in which the single power holder - an individual person or 'dictator', an assembly, a committee, a junta, or a party monopolizes political power. The term 'Authoritarian' refers rather to the structure of government than to the structure of society. An Authoritarian regime confines itself to political control of the state"

I believe that, despite his lack of technological access, Peter the Great successfully changed the social structure to the point where his title crosses the line from being an Authoritarian to a Totalitarian dictator.

The Decline of the Soviet Union Continued

As I discussed in my previous blog, I really believe that the Polish Solidarity Movement essentially triggered a state of panic in the Communist state by revealing the cracks in the Communist system--revealing the vulnerability of the Communist system. While the Polish Solidarity Movement did undoubtedly reveal the cracks in the Communist system, Grobachev's briefing of the Russian Duma in 1991 reveals the severity of the weakness of the Communist Party.

For me, one question in particular asked to Grobachev stood out as being particularly shocking, and it was when "Someone asks whether socialism should be banned from the USSR and the Communist Party disbanded as a criminal organization". If this had been asked at any previous period of time, whoever asked the question would undoubtedly face severe consequences for asking such a controversial question, however, since the Polish Solidarity Movement had already revealed the cracks in the Communist System, this question was taken seriously. Grobachev responds to this question by saying "The question is worded in a very straightforward manner, and I will answer accordingly". While his actual answer follows this statement (obviously) I think that this response is hugely important and cannot be overlooked. While this response doesn't necessarily imply that the question should be considered a possibility or the truth, it does address the question as a legitimate one. Why is it that, all of a sudden, questions such as this one can be asked to Grobachev and not be considered a direct threat to the state? Why isn't this question just ignored as ludicrous? Grobachev in fact seems to take the question seriously, as if he understands where this question is rooted and why someone would even consider it. The fact that even the leader of the Soviet Union can address such a question about the Communist state in such a calm manner and take it so seriously reveals the true fragility of the Soviet Union. 

The Decline of the Soviet Union

When Gorbachev became the leader of the Soviet Union in 1985, he initiated many changes that seemingly accelerated the fall of the Soviet Union in August of 1991. Gorbachev stopped Russian economic reform as well as decreased the use of brute force that had been used to maintain the stability and strength of the Russian and Communist states. However, Gorbachev was not the only power to have propelled the Soviet Union into rapid decline, for his actions were actually just reactions to preexisting sentiments of rebellion against the Soviet Union and the Communist state. What truly revealed the growing fragility of the Communist state was the Polish Solidarity Movement.

Gorbachev came to power after the Polish Solidarity Movement during the 1980s. This movement is critical when looking at the decline of the Soviet Union for it truly revealed the cracks in the Communist system. During this movement, millions of Polish workers rebelled against the Communist state, demanding trade unions and thus, liberties. It is essential to acknowledge that the Polish workers chose to proceed with this movement with the knowledge of the implementation and activity of the Breshnev Doctrine, and had the 1968 Invasion of Prague to set an example for what would happen to those who chose to pose a threat to the international Communist state. Despite this very active threats, the Polish workers still rebelled, essentially demanding freedom. 

What is so important about the persistence of the Polish workers to rebel and demand rights is that the Communist system is essentially built upon the support of the workers. Consequently, how can the Communist state exist when it's own foundation, the workers, no longer want to support it?

While the Polish Solidarity Movement was stopped by the Soviets in order to sustain the Communist empire, the impact of this movement on the Communist empire is undeniable and revealed the true potential for the collapse of the Communist state.

Response to In-Class Cold War Simulation

What struck me the most after our in-class simulation of the Cold War was how both superpowers used essentially all other countries available to provide the means to an end. For example, a neutral country (such as Mexico) could become influenced by either superpower if that country would provide that specific superpower with a strategic advantage. While the actions of the superpowers in our in-class simulation were not particularly historically accurate in terms of which countries became involved in the Cold War, I think that the superpowers definitely took advantage of the fact that they were superpowers and used that power to persuade and influence other countries. 

In my opinion, the Soviet Union's implementation of the Warsaw Pact was a demonstration of such manipulation of power. While the Warsaw Pact is technically an agreement between the Soviet Union, Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and East Germany, it seems to me as if the members of the Warsaw Pact didn't really have a choice--the Soviet Union was a powerful, threatening force. Thus, in agreeing to the Warsaw Pact, those other countries gain the "support" of the Soviet Union, however, those other countries probably didn't have much choice--they couldn't exactly just reject the Soviet Union. While the Warsaw Pact wasn't necessarily an active invasion or imposition of influence, that same influence was still implied through such a pact.

The influence of the rivalry between the superpowers was ultimately the unwilling (or maybe superficial) alliance formed between other countries and the superpowers. Since the US and the Soviet Union were two of the strongest countries in the world, they essentially had control or influence over whatever  country they wanted. Such involvement of other countries was temperamental--able to change depending on whether or not the superpower needed that country for a particular reason.