Essay on The Dictators

This essay will compare the three leaders who are famous for their dictatorship and totalitarianism during the 30's decade-Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini and Joseph Stalin. Totalitarianism is when a government gains absolute and total control over the country, including the freedom of thought and will as well as the citizen?s lifestyle, no other political parties are allowed and has the concept where the country is most important. The difference and similarity between their ideology, usage of propaganda & censorship and the method of improving the economy would be stated and explained through examples. Basically, their ultimate aim was the same, they all tried to make their country better. However, there was their own ambition wanting for

The debate as to whether Hitler was a ‘weak dictator’ or ‘Master of the Third Reich’ is one that has been contested by historians of Nazi Germany for many years and lies at the centre of the Intentionalist – Structuralist debate. On the one hand, historians such as Bullock, Bracher, Jackel and Hildebrand regard Hitler’s personality, ideology and will as the central locomotive in the Third Reich. Others, such as Broszat, Mason and Mommsen argue that the regime evolved out from pressures and circumstances rather than from Hitler’s intentions. They emphasise the institutional anarchy of the regime as being the result of Hitler’s ‘weak’ leadership. The most convincing standpoint is the

Stalin and Hitler emerged at the time when political and economic instability had crippled the USSR and Germany. They began making improvements which encouraged their people to believe that prosperous times await them. This notion would unfortunately turn out as an illusion. Both figures would eventually rule by decree. Despite treading on different paths of dictatorship, both figures still find some commonalities.

The rulings of these two leaders had many similarities yet still had some differences. Their beliefs in running the country came to be very alike. Hitler and Mussolini both had negation of parliamentary and democratic political order, the use of violence and of physical strength, and the “revolutionary project” of a new society. Hitler and Mussolini feared any kind of strong and permanent power other than their own. This system of government where many institutions clashed with one another was extremely chaotic, and only the one leader could keep it working.

The rulings of these two leaders had many similarities yet still had some differences. Their beliefs in running the country came to be very alike. Hitler and Mussolini both had negation of parliamentary and democratic political order, the use of violence and of physical strength, and the "revolutionary project" of a new society. Hitler and Mussolini feared any kind of strong and permanent power other than their own. This system of government where many institutions clashed with one another was extremely chaotic, and only the one leader could keep it working.

They both inherited the same nature at birth. Applying Xunzi’s theory, the differences would be that one practiced benevolence and righteousness, as well as followed the proper rules and standards, and one (Hitler) obviously did not. This also suggests that these elements are principles that have to be known first before being put into practice. It is about the environment that one is brought up with that influences the way one acts.

A revolution has begun by the people in the Middle East against their long time dictators. The domino effect began first with Tunisia then Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, and Libya. Thousands of protestors were gathered on the streets with posters, shouting for change and democracy. Why would there be protests unless the people are unsatisfied with the way the country is governed. Why would they go against their dictator unless they feel they have no rights and that they have no voice. Unlimited power should never be given to one person; the chances of corruption are very high because power can change even the most virtuous individual. That is why the path of a dictatorial country is a path of strife, oppression and economical downfall.

Dictatorship throughout the ages has mainly led to oppression and conflict between people and government. Some of the notoriously bad dictators took office around the 1920’s and 1930’s. There were three main dictators in that time period and they all ran different countries in very different ways. Josef Stalin was known as the dictator of the Soviet Union, he was all about communism and did not care if there was opposition to his ideas. On the other hand, Benito Mussolini was in charge of Italy and all about fascism. Possibly the worst known dictator of all times was Hitler, in charge of, Germany, he was all about Nazism. Each had a different outlook on ruling, but they all did things similarly to lead to nations hatred against them. Basically, their ultimate goal was to do what was best for their countries, however, there want for power tended to get in the way. They all wanted to accomplish many things, they used many different ideas and ways to run their nations. They were all blamed for their nations demise in one way or another. This essay will discuss the similarities and differences between Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini.

     Hitler came to power in 1935. His basis of hatred was director towards the Jews. One reason for the hatred towards the Jews was because his mother was sick with cancer, and it was a Jewish doctor that could not save her. Hitler had no real friends when he came to power, and he killed all of the ones he did have. Stalin came to power in 1924. They called him, “The man of Many Faces”. The people that really knew him as a person were terrified of him. All of Stalin’s generals were in fear of him, but stayed faithful to him. When Hitler attacked, he moved in with precision accuracy and moved quickly through the town of village he was destroying. Stalin on the other hand took a four to five year period of time to strike all of the villages and towns. Even in death Stalin was a killer. Stalin was paranoid by an assassination on him. To prevent assassination, Stalin would never sleep in the same

for is a difference in this two regimes . A pure race and Arians were

Hitler as a Totalitarian Dictator Before I begin to answer the question, "to what extent was Hitler a totalitarian dictator", I must first expand on the meanings of these two widely used political terms. In the "Reader's Digest Great Encyclopaedic Dictionary", the definition of totalitarian dictator is as follows: "Totalitarian (adjective). Of, pertaining to, régime which permits no rival loyalties or parties and arrogates to itself all rights including those normally belonging to individuals. "

The First World War was commonly called the “war to end all wars,” although it clearly was not. Just twenty years after the end of the First World War, as French Marshal Foch had predicted, the world descended into a second war that was even more widespread and deadly. Directly or indirectly, the First World War yielded some 40 million casualties from more than 20 countries. In contrast, the 50 to 80 million deaths induced by the Second World War were mostly civilian. Russia lost around 25 million people alone. Due to these events the 20th century can certainly be considered one of the most vicious and bloodthirsty in European and human history. The First World War was caused by decades of suspicion and resentment, a complex web of international

When compared, Nazism and Stalinism are most often debated in terms of totalitarian regimes. Further comparisons can be made however, when looking at how both regimes were able to ascend to totalitarian status and how the aims of Stalinism and Nazism compare. Both Germany and Russia possessed imperialistic ambitions that spilled over into Central and Eastern European countries. Both Nazism and Stalinism sought to build utopic societies by implementing a final and permanent revolution. People that did not fit into to the utopic image created by Stalin and Hitler would be forcibly removed from each society by the use of violence and terroristic tactics. As Nazism and Stalinism rose to power, they implemented a system of inclusion and exclusion by creating an image that all nationals should aspire to. Poland was a victim of both regimes’ attempts at utopia and was nearly completely lost to the annals of history.

Generalissimo Francisco Franco came into power after his victory in the Civil war in 1939 and ruled over Spain till his death in 1975. In this 40-year period Spain was massive changed that causes much debate as to the political nature of Franco’s regime whether it is fascist or something different, Francoism. To understand if Franco’s regime was fascist, fascism must first be defined. There are many working definitions of a fascist regime, Stanley Payne’s states that the dictator must alien his regime to the idea of anti-isms, them being aintiliberalism, antidemocratic, anticonservatism, anticommunism and antidemocratic. Payne states these are fundamental in the description of a fascist regime. Another useful definition is Robert Griffin, stating that a fascist regime will use symbolism, violence to pursue its political aims, with the importance aimed at expansionism. Finally Griffin also states the need of the dictator to implement an authoritarian and totalitarian government. All these help to create a fascist regime and more importantly a truly fascist dictator. There is little doubt Franco holds to some of these definitions yet in later year the idea of Francosim becomes more viable however to understand if Franco was a truly fascist dictator we must look to the similarities and differences and determine by examining Franco’s rise politically his general style of government and finally his foreign policies it will determined whether Franco was a truly fascist dictator.

Singapore 's former Prime Minster, Lee Kuan Yew once said: "Human beings, regrettable though it may be, are inherently vicious and have to be restrained" (Kwang, Fernandez, & Tan 1). One can infer from Kuan Yew’s statement that he 's subtly saying that individuals shouldn 't be in control of their choices, yet there ought to be somebody to settle on choices for them. An ideology such as this can stem from an authoritarian government. In this day and age, most nations have a tendency to have a democracy. However, it wasn 't generally that way. Throughout history, there were nations under authoritarian rule. In order to fully understand what an authoritarian regime is, one must know the meaning of it. An authoritarian government is "an oppressive regime that rules through strict, intrusive, and violent enforcement of laws. It can “take the form of a dictatorship, but may also manifest itself in totalitarian bureaucracies or oligarchies" (Ritter 576). An authoritarian regime exists when a leader or a small group of leaders owns all property and are the sole decision makers for the entire population. There are only two questions left to be asked. How are authoritarian regimes created and how do they even stay in power? Authoritarian governments ascend to power due to a postwar upheaval and the leader in the charge; they stay in power by employing a resource trap and having a one party system.