Hitler and Stalin by Alan Bullock- Group Read discussion
Hitler and Stalin discussion
>
Chapters 1-5
date
newest »
newest »
Veeral wrote: "Alan Bullock wrote this at an age of 77! I wonder if I would even sound coherent to others if and when I turn 77 myself. "That's my biggest fear of turning old! Put me in diapers and stuff, I don't care. Just don't let me lose my mind!
Kyle wrote: "That's my biggest fear of turning old! Put me in diapers and stuff, I don't care. Just don't let me lose my mind!"I fear the same what with my junkfood gorging school and college days.
In the introduction, Bullock talks about his own personal perspectives on both WW2, and the Cold War afterwards. I'm certainly not accuse him of intentionally coloring his work through any lens, but I can't help but wonder how much of an effect it had on his book/research to have actually lived through everything he is talking about. I wonder if he were writing the book now, whether or not it would be drastically different.
It seems pretty balanced so far, as balanced as you can be when talking about the two men. I think Bullock mentioning the personal actually gives more weight to his work. I hate it when author's don't tell you something that may influence how they see something.
Moon wrote: "I like the fact Bullock doesn't fall into the psychological analysis that is popular when comparing Stalin and Hitler. Just because one has had a difficult upbringing doesn't equate to becoming a ..."I completely agree, Moon.
I am very jealous of you guys reading this. I just cannot fit it in right now.. but will continue reading your comments.
I'm reading the 1998 second edition, which incorporated new research since 1991, especially about Stalin post USSR when the archives were opened. The first point of revisionism is regarding something trivial but at the same time apparently uncontentious - his birth date! More information here: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/t...
One of the key points in understanding the rise of communism in the USSR, and Nazism in Germany is the point Bullock makes on page 84:"Hitler and Lenin shared an insistence on the importance of winning the support of the masses with an equal insistence on the inability of the masses to organise themselves"
I think it is the focus on manipulating and providing popular solutions for the masses that distinguished successful revolutionaries like Hitler, Lenin and Stalin from those less successful ones who either had qualms about being representative and democratic, or who were to rigidly tied to theory (e.g. Kamenev, Zinoviev and the Mensheviks who clung to the view that there would be a long period between the democratic revolution and the socialist revolution).
Interesting Lenin article. I think that those praising Lenin might not necessarily have ignored his cruelty (although of course his most cynical expressions of oppression would have been presented in a positive light). Rather they admired his strength and bringing of order. The same applies to Hitler's appeal, one of the most important bits of understanding how these men came to power is appreciating why the population accepted and supported leaders who were willing to show strength and decision. I think it is intrinsic to the culture in Germany and Russia - there is no tradition of democracy or consensus decision making. Similar factors often account for the frequent failure of new democratic governments e.g. Sudan, the Gambia.
Persistence and self belief was crucial in both Hitler and Stalin. Hitler had two major failures in 1923, the abortive May Day disruption (after which Hitler feared deportation to Austria and withdrew) and the failed November putsch where he suffered a nervous collapse. "He was arrested two days later and taken to prison in a state of complete despondency, convinced that he would never recover from the disaster he had suffered, and that he would in any case be shot" (p. 98).
Stalin of course had many failures - his repeated excursions to Siberia, his recall from Tsaritsyn and his role in the failed invasion of Poland in 1920. Although he was removed from the inner cabinet (initially Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin) he continued to be favoured. His grubest and roughness saw him favoured by Lenin as a 'practical', and Stalin knew that Lenin valued this. Despite his failures and errors he was still respected by someone who could exert pressure effectively and added to his responsibilities.
Its interesting to me to see their failures and errors, and the way they push through them. It must be more than just sheer determination. A lot has to do with realising their strengths and playing to them. Hitler realised that setting the direction of the Nazi party with uncompromising tactics resulted in growing support and effectiveness, and aligned with the belief of many on the right (and which he spread more widely) that what Germany needed was strong centralised leadership. Stalin recognised that although he rode roughshod over others and sometimes made mistakes that he would continue to enjoy Lenin's support as a 'genuine' proletariat member. Knowing a bit of what is to come, of course with Lenin's demise that wouldn't be enough on its own long term.
Remarkable after the putsch how Hitler turns it to his advantage:"That evening and that day [8 - 9 November] made it possible for us afterwards to fight a battle for ten years by legal means; for, make no mistake, if we had not acted then I should never have been able to found a revolutionary movement and yet all the time maintain legality. one could have said to me with justice: 'You talk like all the others and you will act just as little as the others.'"
MoonButterfly wrote: "The most interesting thing about Hitler is how fast his ascent to power was."Yeah, that's kinda one thing I think is interesting to think about, and it seems Bullock regularly tosses around when talking about Hitler: How much of Hitler's rise is because of him, himself, and how much of his rise is due to him simply being the "right" person at the "right" time.
Kyle wrote: "Yeah, that's kinda one thing I think is interesting to think about, and it seems Bullock regular..."Wow... that was rather nonsensical of me.
This book was first published on the 50th anniversary of Hitler's attack on Stalinist Russia.
Alan Bullock wrote this at an age of 77! I wonder if I would even sound coherent to others if and when I turn 77 myself.