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.
No comments:
Post a Comment