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.