Conclusion

My research of Peter the Great this semester has really given me insight into the different ways in which a ruler can persuade the public as well as to what extent some rulers will go in order to exhibit their power and insure that their power is cemented in history. As Danielle says in her concluding post, Hitler was undoubtedly a totalitarian dictator, so we wanted to see how the trends of his rule were previously exhibited by earlier rulers.

As Peter the Great demonstrated through establishing St. Petersburg and through reforming the Church, the actions of a ruler can be perceived by the public as beneficial to their lives while there are truly ulterior motives in play. As my group established initially, Hitler undoubtedly exemplifies a totalitarian dictator, however, we wanted to see how other rulers utilized similar tactics (less violently) in order to maintain their rule. As a consequence, we discovered that the period in which each ruler was in power was hugely significant in the extent to which they could fully exemplify a totalitarian dictator. While for the most part, the rulers sought the same goal of acquiring power, they were limited by their differences in means with which they could acquire such power. This gap in timing resulted in much thought about whether or not the title of totalitarian dictator could include rulers who were not as awful as Hitler.

Peter the Great changed Russia internally through reestablishing the traditional social structure and lifestyle of the Russian people by infiltrating Russian ideals with Western modernization.

Ultimately, while Peter the Great did not have access to such technological advancements as Hitler did which would have facilitated his totalitarian rule, I believe that Peter the Great was a totalitarian dictator through his internal changes to the Russian identity and his conquests outside the boundaries of Russia.