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.

Response to "Peter the Great is not a totalitarian dictator like Hitler"

I think that it is pretty obvious that "Peter the Great is not a totalitarian dictator like Hitler" as Danielle puts it, I mean, let's be honest, Hitler is the go-to person when you think about being a totalitarian dictator, so it's not entirely fair to say that Peter the Great was not as bad of a totalitarian dictator as Hitler and therefore was not a totalitarian dictator. In Danielle's post "My Group and Totalitarianism", she defines totalitarianism as: "a political system whereby a state regulates every aspect of public and private life". While I understand that Hitler took this to an extreme and he DID manipulate the public, I think that Hitler also had the means (such as through propaganda and mass-communication) to manipulate the public. Peter the Great didn't rule during a period in which it was so easy to manipulate the masses. While Peter the Great couldn't EASILY influence the masses as Hitler could, Peter the Great DOES control "public and private life"--he forced the nobility to forfeit their power and join the government in order to maintain/regain their status (through the Table of Ranks), after he gained the territory where he would put St. Petersburg he forced families to relocate and move to this inconvenient and foreign (to the people) location, and he eliminated many Russian traditions through his process of westernization.

I didn't mean to make it sound as if Peter the Great was some sort of super nice ruler who wanted to have a "good reputation" in history--he wanted to cement his name in history as a POWERFUL ruler and he completely changed the Russian identity and evolved the Russian presence in Europe in order to insure that his power was forever remembered.

Response to "Holocaust Doesn't Unite Germans"

Ok so I have to admit that I wasn't entirely thinking when I was writing that post "The Great Northern War" and I said that the Holocaust united the Germans. I hadn't REALLY spent the time to phrase my idea well enough and so I completely agree with Danielle when she disagrees with that sentence. So anyways, just forget I ever said that because it is completely bogus--especially because the Holocaust wasn't warfare, it was the tragic murder of millions so it wasn't really fair for me to compare the Holocaust with the Great Northern War as if both were wars. 

That aside, I still think that it is valid to say that Hitler had more public support then Peter the Great did, and while the Germans were not necessarily united as a force, Hitler had managed to gain a foundation of support in which people CHOSE to join the Nazi party (and I know that once Hitler started to demonstrated his cruelty a lot of the members of the Nazi party joined out of fear, but initially I think that there was more of genuine support of Hitler). To contrast that, Peter the Great had a foundation of support that was formed solely out of his inherited title of "tsar"-- he had in no way been chosen to lead Russia. That is essentially what I meant to say in that sentence--that Hitler's foundation of support was more genuine because, initially, people truly chose to join his party, whereas Peter the Great lacked that foundation.

Improvement/modernization

A huge reason why Peter the Great has become such a powerful historical figure is due to his westernization of Russia. While much of this westernization was social, such as making the nobility cut off their traditionally long beards,  a huge component of this westernization was also in Peter's expansion of the military and technological capacity of Russia. As cited in this website, Peter extensively studied the Western methods of ship-building and navigation in order to establish a Russian navy and expand Russian influence beyond the Russian borders. Thus, Peter the Great adopted western techniques in order to one-up the Western European countries--he studied their techniques in order to allow Russia to infiltrate the Western world. Consequently, Peter's infatuation with Western traditions and techniques was not out of flattery but was instead a strategy to show Western Europe the Russian potential. Peter established a port on the Baltic Sea in St. Petersburg where the vessels built were constructed based upon the designs of Western fleets. Consequently, without the advancements of Western Europe, Peter the Great would not have been able to expand Russia to be as powerful as he made it.

Peter the Great and Napoleon: Equality

When I read Zak's post "Napoleon and civil liberties", I realized how Napoleon shared a similarity to Peter the Great in the necessity to compromise. While I realize that in my previous post I just discussed how Peter the Great did not manipulate the public, and I believe that this is true, I think that he instead manipulated his rule (much like how Napoleon did with the Napoleonic codes)--giving the public something while taking away something else. I saw a serious parallel between Napoleon's control over the press (making the press write only what the government issued) and Peter the Great linking the Church with the state while making the Church more tolerant.

It's interesting that while Hitler used manipulation in acquiring public support, Napoleon and Peter the Great seem to manipulate the liberties that they are giving their people creating a sort of facade of liberty while simultaneously tightening their control and power over the country.

Hitler and Peter the Great: RULE

So what I've realized is that a HUGE difference between Hitler and Peter the Great is that Machiavellian rule that Danielle and I have been discussing. Danielle's post "The War Lord! The Manipulator!" made me think about how Peter the Great didn't really have tactics in the same sense that Hitler did. While Hitler tricked the public into following his word through propaganda and manipulation, Peter the Great did not use such tactics. Instead, Peter the Great essentially just did what he said he was doing--it was much more black and white, Peter the Great just imposed his authority whereas Hitler tricked the public into supporting his authority. I think that a great demonstration of this difference in rule is through the use of religion. As Danielle discusses in her post "Hitler and Religion", Hitler uses Christianity as a tool to gain public support--he himself wasn't a super-religious man but he NEEDED the support of the Protestant churches in order to fulfill his goal of eliminating the Jews (or demonstrating his power), and he consequently molded to be whatever man was necessary in order to get what he wanted. To contrast, Peter the Great just did what he wanted. As I say in my post "Peter the Great and Religion", Peter made the Russian Church a more tolerant entity while tightening his own control over the Church in linking the Church with the state.

While both Hitler and Peter the Great were hoping to have military gains in order to demonstrate their international power, Hitler acted to get more groups (such as the Church) on his side, despite his personal attachment to or involvement with those groups--for him they were the means to an end. To contrast, Peter the Great completely followed his own beliefs--eliminating the aspects of the Church that he disagreed with and tightening his personal control over the Church--regardless of how the Church felt about this. In my opinion, this difference is the difference between wanting to gain something for the state (as Hitler did) and wanting to preserve your reputation in history (as Peter the Great did).

The Great Northern War

As Danielle explained in her post "Motivations for the Holocaust", Hitler was driven to eliminate the Jews by two main forces: his belief that the Jews were truly a lesser race and by his desire to WIN, his desire to demonstrate his power.

Hitler and Peter the Great were in sort of similar situations in terms of the international state of their country, for both Germany and Russia were isolated from the rest of the European powers. While the isolation of Germany was due to WWI and the Treaty of Versailles (1918) and that of Russia was more of a geographical isolation, in both cases, this isolation and consequent feeling of underestimation from the other European powers inspired Hitler and Peter the Great to prove the other European countries wrong and to demonstrate the true power of Germany and Russia (respectively). 

Whereas Hitler chose to demonstrate his power and unite the German people through the Holocaust, Peter the Great demonstrated his international power through the Great Northern War. This war was hugely significant in the reputation of Russia because it demonstrated Russian military power both internally and externally. There is something about a military victory that empowers and unites a country, and I think that, while Peter's military activity was fueled more by the desire to gain a powerful and strong reputation amongst the other European powers than the internal unity that it could provide, the Great Northern War (particularly the Battle of Poltava)  gained a reputation both internally and externally of strength.

The Battle of Poltava was very important in that it truly reflected Russian military and technological strength and ability--it demonstrated Russian modernism. In this battle, the Russians were prepared with more artillery and thus defeated the Swedes and gained the territory that would soon house St. Petersburg which consequently serves as a reminder of this Russian rise to power.