hitler vs stalin by richard overy
 

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/26/bo...tml?oref=login

'The Dictators': Engineers of Death by Richard Overy


By STEVEN MERRITT MINER

Published: December 26, 2004


N the immediate aftermath of World War II, scholars, led by Hannah
Arendt, routinely compared the Nazi and Soviet regimes, labeling them
both as ''totalitarian.'' Reacting against this school, a generation of
revisionist historians has argued that it is unfair to tar the Soviet
Union with the Nazi brush. For all its failings, they claim, the
Communist government was distinctly different from Nazi Germany and,
they say, it brought positive benefits to the Soviet population. In the
United States, and in much of the world, Nazism rightly has served the
function of a moral absolute zero -- a standard for evil -- but the
Soviet Union brought literacy, urbanization, hygiene and international
standing to a country that in 1917 was overwhelmingly backward.

The disintegration of the Soviet Union has finally freed historians
from this sterile debate. Beginning in 1992 with the publication of
Alan Bullock's vast dual biography, ''Hitler and Stalin: Parallel
Lives,'' the comparative approach has returned in force. Now Richard
Overy, best known for his fine histories of World War II and Nazi
Germany, has weighed in with ''The Dictators,'' the most comprehensive,
up-to-date and cogently argued comparison yet published. His approach
is systemic rather than biographical: based on a prodigious reading of
the scholarly literature, he compares and contrasts key features of the
two regimes. The result is a richly insightful study (though one that,
to be sure, demands a fairly high level of prior knowledge on the part
of the reader).

Overy understands that the two systems differ, but he concludes that
their similarities far outweigh their differences. Both emerged in the
wake of the chaos of World War I as a reaction against the apparent
failure of liberalism and parliamentary democracy. Stalin and Hitler
each saw his dictatorship as ensuring democracy of a higher order.
Whereas Western political parties represented faction and class
interests, Stalin claimed to serve the needs of the entire working
class; Hitler promised that Nazism would free the entire German volk
from the humiliations of defeat and the supposed exploitation of
international Jewry. And both systems were based on utopian visions
that, Overy explains, were ''similar in form,'' if ''profoundly
divergent in purpose.'' Soviet Communism promised a ''sociological
utopia''; Nazism held out the prospect of a ''biological utopia.''

The two regimes understood where their true enemies lay: in Overy's
words, ''the Western liberal ideal of progress, with its emphasis on
the sovereignty of the individual, the virtues of civil society and
toleration of diversity.'' Hitler's foreign minister, Joachim von
Ribbentrop, pithily expressed this to Stalin in 1940: Russia and
Germany, he wrote, ''were animated in the same degree by the desire for
a New Order in the world as against the congealed plutocratic
democracies.''

And the enemies were everywhere. Overy is surely right to argue that
Stalin's campaign against the supposed remnants of capitalism was, like
Hitler's war against racial and biological enemies, ''an expression of
weakness'' and fear, not strength, weakness that led in both cases to
the ''empire of the camps.''

Overy is especially strong on the economics of both regimes. Stalin had
his Five-Year Plans; Hitler's were Four-Year Plans. In the mid-1930's,
seven times as many government bureaucrats worked planning the German
economy as were employed in the Soviet Union in the early 30's. Against
the stereotypes of Teutonic organization and Slavic disarray, Overy
shows convincingly that after the two systems clashed in 1941, the
Soviets proved much more efficient than the Nazis. Moscow lost control
over some 40 percent of its population and even more of its industrial
base, while Hitler could draw on the resources of almost the entire
European continent. Still, the Soviet Union outproduced its enemy in
the basic sinews of warfare.

It is on the question of public commitment that Overy strikes his only
unconvincing note. As a specialist in German, not Soviet, history, he
exaggerates the extent to which both systems rested on a popular base
of support, or at least acceptance. The Nazis came to power through
quasi-electoral means. Their backing among ethnic Germans was strong
and certainly grew with Hitler's initial successes. Even the terror
apparatus depended on the active cooperation of the mass of Germans.
Overy assumes that the same was true of Soviet society.

Advertisement


But the Soviet situation is more complex. The Bolsheviks came to power
through revolution and maintained their grip through a bloody civil war
and mass terror. In the only fair election held under the Communists,
in late 1917, they polled less than one-quarter of the vote, and
support for their rule plummeted during the ensuing years of famine and
terror. The peasants violently resisted the lethal collectivization of
Soviet farms in the 1930's, when millions died -- violence that Stalin
himself compared to the war against the Nazis.

Millions of Soviets were certainly ardent Stalinists. But other
millions were bitter opponents. When the Nazi invasion came in 1941,
many viewed the Germans as liberators. Millions of Soviet citizens,
many from non-Russian ethnic groups, collaborated with the German
invaders or served in the German Army. Overy points to a number of
German camps where only a small minority of the prisoners were ethnic
Germans (11 percent in Buchenwald in 1944, for example), whereas in
1939, 77 percent of prisoners in Soviet camps were ethnic Russians or
Ukrainians. But he misses the significance of these facts: Hitler could
rely on the support, at least tacit, of the vast majority of his
domestic subjects; Stalin could not.

The legacy of the two dictatorships is unrelievedly grim, far
outweighing any transient social benefits either one conferred. As
Overy writes, ''One or the other, they destroyed entire ancient
communities, exterminated millions, deported millions from their
homelands, uprooted religious belief, destroyed churches, smashed
cities into premature ruins and eradicated some of the richest culture
of Europe.''

Overy's comparison of the two systems is thorough and persuasive. One
thing he does not examine, however, is the two systems' international
appeal. Hitler had his foreign admirers and imitators, but this was as
nothing compared with the legions of foreign Communists and fellow
travelers who idolized Stalin and excused his vast crimes. Perhaps, had
Overy examined this question, he could have explained why the hammer
and sickle still does not evoke the same shudder as the swastika.

Re: hitler vs stalin by richard overy
 

This is a useful analysis. It's odd how the Communists are somehow
considered noble or of good heart by many of our elite. What sort of
ignoramus can proclaim that the Communists brought anything to this earth
other than death and misery to the greater population? I guess the
Communists must have a much better publicity agent than the Nazis.

Re: hitler vs stalin by richard overy
 

Alan Bullock's work is the best



- = -
Vasos-Peter John Panagiotopoulos II, Columbia'81+, Bio$trategist
BachMozart ReaganQuayle EvrytanoKastorian
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/vjp2/vasos.htm
---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}---
[Homeland Security means private firearms not lazy obstructive guards]
[Health Reform means abolishing FDR's insurance tax exemption]
[To stop SPAM, Charge net-postage] [Abolish 16th (Inc Tx) Amendment]

Re: hitler vs stalin by richard overy
 

psychiropractor wrote:
>
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/26/bo...tml?oref=login
>
> 'The Dictators': Engineers of Death by Richard Overy
>
>
> By STEVEN MERRITT MINER
>
> Published: December 26, 2004
>
>
> N the immediate aftermath of World War II, scholars, led by Hannah
> Arendt, routinely compared the Nazi and Soviet regimes, labeling them
> both as ''totalitarian.'' Reacting against this school, a generation
of
> revisionist historians has argued that it is unfair to tar the Soviet
> Union with the Nazi brush. For all its failings, they claim, the
> Communist government was distinctly different from Nazi Germany and,
> they say, it brought positive benefits to the Soviet population. In
the
> United States, and in much of the world, Nazism rightly has served
the
> function of a moral absolute zero -- a standard for evil -- but the
> Soviet Union brought literacy, urbanization, hygiene and
international
> standing to a country that in 1917 was overwhelmingly backward.
>
> The disintegration of the Soviet Union has finally freed historians
> from this sterile debate. Beginning in 1992 with the publication of
> Alan Bullock's vast dual biography, ''Hitler and Stalin: Parallel
> Lives,'' the comparative approach has returned in force. Now Richard
> Overy, best known for his fine histories of World War II and Nazi
> Germany, has weighed in with ''The Dictators,'' the most
comprehensive,
> up-to-date and cogently argued comparison yet published. His approach
> is systemic rather than biographical: based on a prodigious reading
of
> the scholarly literature, he compares and contrasts key features of
the
> two regimes. The result is a richly insightful study (though one
that,
> to be sure, demands a fairly high level of prior knowledge on the
part
> of the reader).
>
> Overy understands that the two systems differ, but he concludes that
> their similarities far outweigh their differences. Both emerged in
the
> wake of the chaos of World War I as a reaction against the apparent
> failure of liberalism and parliamentary democracy. Stalin and Hitler
> each saw his dictatorship as ensuring democracy of a higher order.
> Whereas Western political parties represented faction and class
> interests, Stalin claimed to serve the needs of the entire working
> class; Hitler promised that Nazism would free the entire German volk
> from the humiliations of defeat and the supposed exploitation of
> international Jewry. And both systems were based on utopian visions
> that, Overy explains, were ''similar in form,'' if ''profoundly
> divergent in purpose.'' Soviet Communism promised a ''sociological
> utopia''; Nazism held out the prospect of a ''biological utopia.''
>
> The two regimes understood where their true enemies lay: in Overy's
> words, ''the Western liberal ideal of progress, with its emphasis on
> the sovereignty of the individual, the virtues of civil society and
> toleration of diversity.'' Hitler's foreign minister, Joachim von
> Ribbentrop, pithily expressed this to Stalin in 1940: Russia and
> Germany, he wrote, ''were animated in the same degree by the desire
for
> a New Order in the world as against the congealed plutocratic
> democracies.''
>
> And the enemies were everywhere. Overy is surely right to argue that
> Stalin's campaign against the supposed remnants of capitalism was,
like
> Hitler's war against racial and biological enemies, ''an expression
of
> weakness'' and fear, not strength, weakness that led in both cases to
> the ''empire of the camps.''
>
> Overy is especially strong on the economics of both regimes. Stalin
had
> his Five-Year Plans; Hitler's were Four-Year Plans. In the
mid-1930's,
> seven times as many government bureaucrats worked planning the German
> economy as were employed in the Soviet Union in the early 30's.
Against
> the stereotypes of Teutonic organization and Slavic disarray, Overy
> shows convincingly that after the two systems clashed in 1941, the
> Soviets proved much more efficient than the Nazis. Moscow lost
control
> over some 40 percent of its population and even more of its
industrial
> base, while Hitler could draw on the resources of almost the entire
> European continent. Still, the Soviet Union outproduced its enemy in
> the basic sinews of warfare.
>
> It is on the question of public commitment that Overy strikes his
only
> unconvincing note. As a specialist in German, not Soviet, history, he
> exaggerates the extent to which both systems rested on a popular base
> of support, or at least acceptance. The Nazis came to power through
> quasi-electoral means. Their backing among ethnic Germans was strong
> and certainly grew with Hitler's initial successes. Even the terror
> apparatus depended on the active cooperation of the mass of Germans.
> Overy assumes that the same was true of Soviet society.
>
> Advertisement
>
>
> But the Soviet situation is more complex. The Bolsheviks came to
power
> through revolution and maintained their grip through a bloody civil
war
> and mass terror. In the only fair election held under the Communists,
> in late 1917, they polled less than one-quarter of the vote, and
> support for their rule plummeted during the ensuing years of famine
and
> terror. The peasants violently resisted the lethal collectivization
of
> Soviet farms in the 1930's, when millions died -- violence that
Stalin
> himself compared to the war against the Nazis.
>
> Millions of Soviets were certainly ardent Stalinists. But other
> millions were bitter opponents. When the Nazi invasion came in 1941,
> many viewed the Germans as liberators. Millions of Soviet citizens,
> many from non-Russian ethnic groups, collaborated with the German
> invaders or served in the German Army. Overy points to a number of
> German camps where only a small minority of the prisoners were ethnic
> Germans (11 percent in Buchenwald in 1944, for example), whereas in
> 1939, 77 percent of prisoners in Soviet camps were ethnic Russians or
> Ukrainians. But he misses the significance of these facts: Hitler
could
> rely on the support, at least tacit, of the vast majority of his
> domestic subjects; Stalin could not.
>
> The legacy of the two dictatorships is unrelievedly grim, far
> outweighing any transient social benefits either one conferred. As
> Overy writes, ''One or the other, they destroyed entire ancient
> communities, exterminated millions, deported millions from their
> homelands, uprooted religious belief, destroyed churches, smashed
> cities into premature ruins and eradicated some of the richest
culture
> of Europe.''
>
> Overy's comparison of the two systems is thorough and persuasive. One
> thing he does not examine, however, is the two systems' international
> appeal. Hitler had his foreign admirers and imitators, but this was
as
> nothing compared with the legions of foreign Communists and fellow
> travelers who idolized Stalin and excused his vast crimes. Perhaps,
had
> Overy examined this question, he could have explained why the hammer
> and sickle still does not evoke the same shudder as the swastika.

Answer is simple - ideology based on superiority of one nation can't be
popular among other nations:-) But fairytales about heaven on the earth
for working people are often nice to hear. There was a lot of guys
thinking that "well, in underdeveloped Russia, there are killings and
other things - but if we will build up such a society in our land, all
will be different, nice and happy".

Re: hitler vs stalin by richard overy
 

intellectuals are left-leaning, but there is also the fact that nazis
started the war.
if soviets started the war and if US had sided with nazis against the
commies, fascists would have gotten better press.

Re: hitler vs stalin by richard overy
 

"psychiropractor" <alikedisalike@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1104448746.758651.46090@c13g2000cwb.googlegro ups.com...
> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/26/bo...tml?oref=login
>
> 'The Dictators': Engineers of Death by Richard Overy
>
>

I can nver take a guy with ovaries seriously.

Re: hitler vs stalin by richard overy
 

psychiropractor wrote:
>
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/26/bo...tml?oref=login
>
> 'The Dictators': Engineers of Death by Richard Overy
>
>
> By STEVEN MERRITT MINER
>
> Published: December 26, 2004
>
>
> N the immediate aftermath of World War II, scholars, led by Hannah
> Arendt, routinely compared the Nazi and Soviet regimes, labeling them
> both as ''totalitarian.'' Reacting against this school, a generation
of
> revisionist historians has argued that it is unfair to tar the Soviet
> Union with the Nazi brush. For all its failings, they claim, the
> Communist government was distinctly different from Nazi Germany and,
> they say, it brought positive benefits to the Soviet population. In
the
> United States, and in much of the world, Nazism rightly has served
the
> function of a moral absolute zero -- a standard for evil -- but the
> Soviet Union brought literacy, urbanization, hygiene and
international
> standing to a country that in 1917 was overwhelmingly backward.
>
> The disintegration of the Soviet Union has finally freed historians
> from this sterile debate. Beginning in 1992 with the publication of
> Alan Bullock's vast dual biography, ''Hitler and Stalin: Parallel
> Lives,'' the comparative approach has returned in force. Now Richard
> Overy, best known for his fine histories of World War II and Nazi
> Germany, has weighed in with ''The Dictators,'' the most
comprehensive,
> up-to-date and cogently argued comparison yet published. His approach
> is systemic rather than biographical: based on a prodigious reading
of
> the scholarly literature, he compares and contrasts key features of
the
> two regimes. The result is a richly insightful study (though one
that,
> to be sure, demands a fairly high level of prior knowledge on the
part
> of the reader).
>
> Overy understands that the two systems differ, but he concludes that
> their similarities far outweigh their differences. Both emerged in
the
> wake of the chaos of World War I as a reaction against the apparent
> failure of liberalism and parliamentary democracy. Stalin and Hitler
> each saw his dictatorship as ensuring democracy of a higher order.
> Whereas Western political parties represented faction and class
> interests, Stalin claimed to serve the needs of the entire working
> class; Hitler promised that Nazism would free the entire German volk
> from the humiliations of defeat and the supposed exploitation of
> international Jewry. And both systems were based on utopian visions
> that, Overy explains, were ''similar in form,'' if ''profoundly
> divergent in purpose.'' Soviet Communism promised a ''sociological
> utopia''; Nazism held out the prospect of a ''biological utopia.''
>
> The two regimes understood where their true enemies lay: in Overy's
> words, ''the Western liberal ideal of progress, with its emphasis on
> the sovereignty of the individual, the virtues of civil society and
> toleration of diversity.'' Hitler's foreign minister, Joachim von
> Ribbentrop, pithily expressed this to Stalin in 1940: Russia and
> Germany, he wrote, ''were animated in the same degree by the desire
for
> a New Order in the world as against the congealed plutocratic
> democracies.''
>
> And the enemies were everywhere. Overy is surely right to argue that
> Stalin's campaign against the supposed remnants of capitalism was,
like
> Hitler's war against racial and biological enemies, ''an expression
of
> weakness'' and fear, not strength, weakness that led in both cases to
> the ''empire of the camps.''
>
> Overy is especially strong on the economics of both regimes. Stalin
had
> his Five-Year Plans; Hitler's were Four-Year Plans. In the
mid-1930's,
> seven times as many government bureaucrats worked planning the German
> economy as were employed in the Soviet Union in the early 30's.
Against
> the stereotypes of Teutonic organization and Slavic disarray, Overy
> shows convincingly that after the two systems clashed in 1941, the
> Soviets proved much more efficient than the Nazis. Moscow lost
control
> over some 40 percent of its population and even more of its
industrial
> base, while Hitler could draw on the resources of almost the entire
> European continent. Still, the Soviet Union outproduced its enemy in
> the basic sinews of warfare.
>
> It is on the question of public commitment that Overy strikes his
only
> unconvincing note. As a specialist in German, not Soviet, history, he
> exaggerates the extent to which both systems rested on a popular base
> of support, or at least acceptance. The Nazis came to power through
> quasi-electoral means. Their backing among ethnic Germans was strong
> and certainly grew with Hitler's initial successes. Even the terror
> apparatus depended on the active cooperation of the mass of Germans.
> Overy assumes that the same was true of Soviet society.
>
> Advertisement
>
>
> But the Soviet situation is more complex. The Bolsheviks came to
power
> through revolution and maintained their grip through a bloody civil
war
> and mass terror. In the only fair election held under the Communists,
> in late 1917, they polled less than one-quarter of the vote, and
> support for their rule plummeted during the ensuing years of famine
and
> terror. The peasants violently resisted the lethal collectivization
of
> Soviet farms in the 1930's, when millions died -- violence that
Stalin
> himself compared to the war against the Nazis.
>
> Millions of Soviets were certainly ardent Stalinists. But other
> millions were bitter opponents. When the Nazi invasion came in 1941,
> many viewed the Germans as liberators. Millions of Soviet citizens,
> many from non-Russian ethnic groups, collaborated with the German
> invaders or served in the German Army. Overy points to a number of
> German camps where only a small minority of the prisoners were ethnic
> Germans (11 percent in Buchenwald in 1944, for example), whereas in
> 1939, 77 percent of prisoners in Soviet camps were ethnic Russians or
> Ukrainians. But he misses the significance of these facts: Hitler
could
> rely on the support, at least tacit, of the vast majority of his
> domestic subjects; Stalin could not.
>
> The legacy of the two dictatorships is unrelievedly grim, far
> outweighing any transient social benefits either one conferred. As
> Overy writes, ''One or the other, they destroyed entire ancient
> communities, exterminated millions, deported millions from their
> homelands, uprooted religious belief, destroyed churches, smashed
> cities into premature ruins and eradicated some of the richest
culture
> of Europe.''
>
> Overy's comparison of the two systems is thorough and persuasive. One
> thing he does not examine, however, is the two systems' international
> appeal. Hitler had his foreign admirers and imitators, but this was
as
> nothing compared with the legions of foreign Communists and fellow
> travelers who idolized Stalin and excused his vast crimes. Perhaps,
had
> Overy examined this question, he could have explained why the hammer
> and sickle still does not evoke the same shudder as the swastika.

Uh, sorry bud, the holocaust was made up by Allied Intelligence 1) So
Hitler would always be seen as evil as opposed to the humanitarian he
was by his negating the debt-money system/banking 2) Hitlers econmic
systems would not be copied 3)The holocaust could forever be a reason
to commit tyranny under the veneer of "us poor Jews". 4) Using NAZIs as
a distraction so it's Stalin as the scape goat when it was Soviet Jews
that organized and ran the USSR death camps, Jews simply were the
murderers in Soviet Russia. Simply it's trickery using the media that
can only be successful if all the media is owned by you the trickster,
and what do you know, all media is owned by Jews.

Re: hitler vs stalin by richard overy
 

On 30 Dec 2004 15:19:06 -0800, "psychiropractor"
<alikedisalike@hotmail.com> wrote:

>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/26/bo...tml?oref=login
>
>'The Dictators': Engineers of Death by Richard Overy
>
>
>By STEVEN MERRITT MINER
>
>Published: December 26, 2004
>
>
>N the immediate aftermath of World War II, scholars, led by Hannah
>Arendt, routinely compared the Nazi and Soviet regimes, labeling them
>both as ''totalitarian.'' Reacting against this school, a generation of
>revisionist historians has argued that it is unfair to tar the Soviet
>Union with the Nazi brush. For all its failings, they claim, the
>Communist government was distinctly different from Nazi Germany and,
>they say, it brought positive benefits to the Soviet population. In the
>United States, and in much of the world, Nazism rightly has served the
>function of a moral absolute zero -- a standard for evil -- but the
>Soviet Union brought literacy, urbanization, hygiene and international
>standing to a country that in 1917 was overwhelmingly backward.
>
>The disintegration of the Soviet Union has finally freed historians
>from this sterile debate. Beginning in 1992 with the publication of
>Alan Bullock's vast dual biography, ''Hitler and Stalin: Parallel
>Lives,'' the comparative approach has returned in force. Now Richard
>Overy, best known for his fine histories of World War II and Nazi
>Germany, has weighed in with ''The Dictators,'' the most comprehensive,
>up-to-date and cogently argued comparison yet published. His approach
>is systemic rather than biographical: based on a prodigious reading of
>the scholarly literature, he compares and contrasts key features of the
>two regimes. The result is a richly insightful study (though one that,
>to be sure, demands a fairly high level of prior knowledge on the part
>of the reader).
>
>Overy understands that the two systems differ, but he concludes that
>their similarities far outweigh their differences. Both emerged in the
>wake of the chaos of World War I as a reaction against the apparent
>failure of liberalism and parliamentary democracy. Stalin and Hitler
>each saw his dictatorship as ensuring democracy of a higher order.
>Whereas Western political parties represented faction and class
>interests, Stalin claimed to serve the needs of the entire working
>class; Hitler promised that Nazism would free the entire German volk
>from the humiliations of defeat and the supposed exploitation of
>international Jewry. And both systems were based on utopian visions
>that, Overy explains, were ''similar in form,'' if ''profoundly
>divergent in purpose.'' Soviet Communism promised a ''sociological
>utopia''; Nazism held out the prospect of a ''biological utopia.''
>
>The two regimes understood where their true enemies lay: in Overy's
>words, ''the Western liberal ideal of progress, with its emphasis on
>the sovereignty of the individual, the virtues of civil society and
>toleration of diversity.'' Hitler's foreign minister, Joachim von
>Ribbentrop, pithily expressed this to Stalin in 1940: Russia and
>Germany, he wrote, ''were animated in the same degree by the desire for
>a New Order in the world as against the congealed plutocratic
>democracies.''
>
>And the enemies were everywhere. Overy is surely right to argue that
>Stalin's campaign against the supposed remnants of capitalism was, like
>Hitler's war against racial and biological enemies, ''an expression of
>weakness'' and fear, not strength, weakness that led in both cases to
>the ''empire of the camps.''
>
>Overy is especially strong on the economics of both regimes. Stalin had
>his Five-Year Plans; Hitler's were Four-Year Plans. In the mid-1930's,
>seven times as many government bureaucrats worked planning the German
>economy as were employed in the Soviet Union in the early 30's. Against
>the stereotypes of Teutonic organization and Slavic disarray, Overy
>shows convincingly that after the two systems clashed in 1941, the
>Soviets proved much more efficient than the Nazis. Moscow lost control
>over some 40 percent of its population and even more of its industrial
>base, while Hitler could draw on the resources of almost the entire
>European continent. Still, the Soviet Union outproduced its enemy in
>the basic sinews of warfare.

Rubbish. The Nazis didn't get $75b worth of American "lend lease"
hardware.

>
>It is on the question of public commitment that Overy strikes his only
>unconvincing note. As a specialist in German, not Soviet, history, he
>exaggerates the extent to which both systems rested on a popular base
>of support, or at least acceptance. The Nazis came to power through
>quasi-electoral means. Their backing among ethnic Germans was strong
>and certainly grew with Hitler's initial successes. Even the terror
>apparatus depended on the active cooperation of the mass of Germans.
>Overy assumes that the same was true of Soviet society.
>
>Advertisement
>
>
>But the Soviet situation is more complex. The Bolsheviks came to power
>through revolution and maintained their grip through a bloody civil war
>and mass terror. In the only fair election held under the Communists,
>in late 1917, they polled less than one-quarter of the vote, and
>support for their rule plummeted during the ensuing years of famine and
>terror. The peasants violently resisted the lethal collectivization of
>Soviet farms in the 1930's, when millions died -- violence that Stalin
>himself compared to the war against the Nazis.
>
>Millions of Soviets were certainly ardent Stalinists. But other
>millions were bitter opponents. When the Nazi invasion came in 1941,
>many viewed the Germans as liberators. Millions of Soviet citizens,
>many from non-Russian ethnic groups, collaborated with the German
>invaders or served in the German Army. Overy points to a number of
>German camps where only a small minority of the prisoners were ethnic
>Germans (11 percent in Buchenwald in 1944, for example), whereas in
>1939, 77 percent of prisoners in Soviet camps were ethnic Russians or
>Ukrainians. But he misses the significance of these facts: Hitler could
>rely on the support, at least tacit, of the vast majority of his
>domestic subjects; Stalin could not.
>
>The legacy of the two dictatorships is unrelievedly grim, far
>outweighing any transient social benefits either one conferred. As
>Overy writes, ''One or the other, they destroyed entire ancient
>communities, exterminated millions, deported millions from their
>homelands, uprooted religious belief, destroyed churches, smashed
>cities into premature ruins and eradicated some of the richest culture
>of Europe.''
>
>Overy's comparison of the two systems is thorough and persuasive. One
>thing he does not examine, however, is the two systems' international
>appeal. Hitler had his foreign admirers and imitators, but this was as
>nothing compared with the legions of foreign Communists and fellow
>travelers who idolized Stalin and excused his vast crimes. Perhaps, had
>Overy examined this question, he could have explained why the hammer
>and sickle still does not evoke the same shudder as the swastika.

Maybe if you're a Jew, but not if you are a Slav or Moslem.
-Rich

Re: hitler vs stalin by richard overy
 

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:ddibt0pomlst1bued96020p08hlll6r15c@4ax.com...
> On 30 Dec 2004 15:19:06 -0800, "psychiropractor"
> <alikedisalike@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/26/bo...tml?oref=login
>>
>>'The Dictators': Engineers of Death by Richard Overy
>>
>>
>>By STEVEN MERRITT MINER
>>
>>Published: December 26, 2004
>>
>>
>>N the immediate aftermath of World War II, scholars, led by Hannah
>>Arendt, routinely compared the Nazi and Soviet regimes, labeling them
>>both as ''totalitarian.'' Reacting against this school, a generation of
>>revisionist historians has argued that it is unfair to tar the Soviet
>>Union with the Nazi brush. For all its failings, they claim, the
>>Communist government was distinctly different from Nazi Germany and,
>>they say, it brought positive benefits to the Soviet population. In the
>>United States, and in much of the world, Nazism rightly has served the
>>function of a moral absolute zero -- a standard for evil -- but the
>>Soviet Union brought literacy, urbanization, hygiene and international
>>standing to a country that in 1917 was overwhelmingly backward.
>>
>>The disintegration of the Soviet Union has finally freed historians
>>from this sterile debate. Beginning in 1992 with the publication of
>>Alan Bullock's vast dual biography, ''Hitler and Stalin: Parallel
>>Lives,'' the comparative approach has returned in force. Now Richard
>>Overy, best known for his fine histories of World War II and Nazi
>>Germany, has weighed in with ''The Dictators,'' the most comprehensive,
>>up-to-date and cogently argued comparison yet published. His approach
>>is systemic rather than biographical: based on a prodigious reading of
>>the scholarly literature, he compares and contrasts key features of the
>>two regimes. The result is a richly insightful study (though one that,
>>to be sure, demands a fairly high level of prior knowledge on the part
>>of the reader).
>>
>>Overy understands that the two systems differ, but he concludes that
>>their similarities far outweigh their differences. Both emerged in the
>>wake of the chaos of World War I as a reaction against the apparent
>>failure of liberalism and parliamentary democracy. Stalin and Hitler
>>each saw his dictatorship as ensuring democracy of a higher order.
>>Whereas Western political parties represented faction and class
>>interests, Stalin claimed to serve the needs of the entire working
>>class; Hitler promised that Nazism would free the entire German volk
>>from the humiliations of defeat and the supposed exploitation of
>>international Jewry. And both systems were based on utopian visions
>>that, Overy explains, were ''similar in form,'' if ''profoundly
>>divergent in purpose.'' Soviet Communism promised a ''sociological
>>utopia''; Nazism held out the prospect of a ''biological utopia.''
>>
>>The two regimes understood where their true enemies lay: in Overy's
>>words, ''the Western liberal ideal of progress, with its emphasis on
>>the sovereignty of the individual, the virtues of civil society and
>>toleration of diversity.'' Hitler's foreign minister, Joachim von
>>Ribbentrop, pithily expressed this to Stalin in 1940: Russia and
>>Germany, he wrote, ''were animated in the same degree by the desire for
>>a New Order in the world as against the congealed plutocratic
>>democracies.''
>>
>>And the enemies were everywhere. Overy is surely right to argue that
>>Stalin's campaign against the supposed remnants of capitalism was, like
>>Hitler's war against racial and biological enemies, ''an expression of
>>weakness'' and fear, not strength, weakness that led in both cases to
>>the ''empire of the camps.''
>>
>>Overy is especially strong on the economics of both regimes. Stalin had
>>his Five-Year Plans; Hitler's were Four-Year Plans. In the mid-1930's,
>>seven times as many government bureaucrats worked planning the German
>>economy as were employed in the Soviet Union in the early 30's. Against
>>the stereotypes of Teutonic organization and Slavic disarray, Overy
>>shows convincingly that after the two systems clashed in 1941, the
>>Soviets proved much more efficient than the Nazis. Moscow lost control
>>over some 40 percent of its population and even more of its industrial
>>base, while Hitler could draw on the resources of almost the entire
>>European continent. Still, the Soviet Union outproduced its enemy in
>>the basic sinews of warfare.
>
> Rubbish. The Nazis didn't get $75b worth of American "lend lease"
> hardware.
>

Stalin did continue to ship raw materials to Germany even after Hitler
stopped paying for them.

>>
>>It is on the question of public commitment that Overy strikes his only
>>unconvincing note. As a specialist in German, not Soviet, history, he
>>exaggerates the extent to which both systems rested on a popular base
>>of support, or at least acceptance. The Nazis came to power through
>>quasi-electoral means. Their backing among ethnic Germans was strong
>>and certainly grew with Hitler's initial successes. Even the terror
>>apparatus depended on the active cooperation of the mass of Germans.
>>Overy assumes that the same was true of Soviet society.
>>
>>Advertisement
>>
>>
>>But the Soviet situation is more complex. The Bolsheviks came to power
>>through revolution and maintained their grip through a bloody civil war
>>and mass terror. In the only fair election held under the Communists,
>>in late 1917, they polled less than one-quarter of the vote, and
>>support for their rule plummeted during the ensuing years of famine and
>>terror. The peasants violently resisted the lethal collectivization of
>>Soviet farms in the 1930's, when millions died -- violence that Stalin
>>himself compared to the war against the Nazis.
>>
>>Millions of Soviets were certainly ardent Stalinists. But other
>>millions were bitter opponents. When the Nazi invasion came in 1941,
>>many viewed the Germans as liberators. Millions of Soviet citizens,
>>many from non-Russian ethnic groups, collaborated with the German
>>invaders or served in the German Army. Overy points to a number of
>>German camps where only a small minority of the prisoners were ethnic
>>Germans (11 percent in Buchenwald in 1944, for example), whereas in
>>1939, 77 percent of prisoners in Soviet camps were ethnic Russians or
>>Ukrainians. But he misses the significance of these facts: Hitler could
>>rely on the support, at least tacit, of the vast majority of his
>>domestic subjects; Stalin could not.
>>
>>The legacy of the two dictatorships is unrelievedly grim, far
>>outweighing any transient social benefits either one conferred. As
>>Overy writes, ''One or the other, they destroyed entire ancient
>>communities, exterminated millions, deported millions from their
>>homelands, uprooted religious belief, destroyed churches, smashed
>>cities into premature ruins and eradicated some of the richest culture
>>of Europe.''
>>
>>Overy's comparison of the two systems is thorough and persuasive. One
>>thing he does not examine, however, is the two systems' international
>>appeal. Hitler had his foreign admirers and imitators, but this was as
>>nothing compared with the legions of foreign Communists and fellow
>>travelers who idolized Stalin and excused his vast crimes. Perhaps, had
>>Overy examined this question, he could have explained why the hammer
>>and sickle still does not evoke the same shudder as the swastika.
>
> Maybe if you're a Jew, but not if you are a Slav or Moslem.
> -Rich

Re: hitler vs stalin by richard overy
 

"psychiropractor" <alikedisalike@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1104463974.302153.193900@z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...
> intellectuals are left-leaning, but there is also the fact that nazis
> started the war.
> if soviets started the war and if US had sided with nazis against the
> commies, fascists would have gotten better press.

The war started with the invasion of Poland in 1939, which was done jointly
by Germany and the USSR. England and France responded by declaring war on
Germany but not on Russia; I guess that was because Germany had been warned
and appeased and had promised not to take any more territory, whereas it was
Russia's first offence. Anyway, Russia helped start the war as a German
ally, even though she didn't technically go to war with England and France.
The only reason Russia ended up on our side was Germany stabbed Russia in
the back in 1941, and so we all shared the common enemy. This is not exactly
a basis for good press for the Russians.

Re: hitler vs stalin by richard overy
 

"Talkin Horse" <davidrolfeN0SP&AM@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:cx6Cd.5665$Cc.2349@newsread3.news.pas.earthli nk.net...
> "psychiropractor" <alikedisalike@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1104463974.302153.193900@z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...
> > intellectuals are left-leaning, but there is also the fact that nazis
> > started the war.
> > if soviets started the war and if US had sided with nazis against the
> > commies, fascists would have gotten better press.
>
> The war started with the invasion of Poland in 1939, which was done
jointly
> by Germany and the USSR. England and France responded by declaring war on
> Germany but not on Russia; I guess that was because Germany had been
warned
> and appeased and had promised not to take any more territory, whereas it
was
> Russia's first offence. Anyway, Russia helped start the war as a German
> ally, even though she didn't technically go to war with England and
France.
> The only reason Russia ended up on our side was Germany stabbed Russia in
> the back in 1941, and so we all shared the common enemy. This is not
exactly
> a basis for good press for the Russians.
>
>

What made Germany and Russia allies? How many Russian Troops were sent into
Poland to support the German invasion?