• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Could both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany in the 1930s be described as totalitarian states? Elaborate your view. (1991)

Extracts from this document...


1. Could both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany in the 1930s be described as totalitarian states? Elaborate your view. (1991) 2. Would you consider the governments under Stalin and Hitler totalitarian? Justify your view. (1995) A totalitarian state usually refers to a country in which the central government has total control over almost all aspects of people's life. Main features include an infallible leader, one-party rule, elitism, strict party discipline, purges against enemies and political dissidents, planned economy, strong armaments, indoctrination, encouragement of nationalism, an official doctrine that everybody has to believe, and absolute obedience of individuals to the State, etc. In the 1930s, to a large extent, the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin and Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler could be deemed totalitarian states. The rise of totalitarianism in Europe was partly due to dissatisfaction with the Paris Peace Settlement. Both Germany and the Soviet Union were not invited to the Paris Peace Conference. Having not consulted in advance, the Soviet Union was forced to agree to the independence of the three Baltic States and Poland. As the major defeated country, Germany was heavily punished by the Treaty of Versailles. She was to lose all her overseas possessions, pay a huge indemnity, accept almost total disarmament and the "war-guilt" clause, etc. Also, both countries had an unsuccessful experiment of parliamentary democracy. The success of the October Revolution in 1917 was largely due to the incapability of the Provisional Government to solve wartime difficulties. ...read more.


Their ideologies claimed to explain and integrate all aspects of human existence. Both persecuted and humiliated many intellectuals who dared to question their infallibility. In a totalitarian state there is usually a group of people suffering from political persecution and taken as scapegoats for all misfortune. In Germany Jews suffered the most. Anti-Semitism was codified by the Nuremberg Law of 1933. The Law to Restore the Professional Bureaucracy expelled all Jews from public offices. There saw official boycott of Jewish shops. Jewish property was looted. Millions of Jews were sent to concentration camps and shot to purify the Aryan race. David Thomson says, "Ballyhoo and brutality were made the foundations of the State". In the Soviet Union, Stalin aimed at total liquidation of the class of kulaks. According to Marxism, kulaks were an exploiting feudal class and had to be eliminated. Besides, Stalin's programme of farm collectivization aroused strong opposition from all kulaks. He simply replied with ruthless suppression. About 200,000 kulaks were killed, exiled or sent to forced labour camps. This nearly led to a civil war in 1929-31. Anti-Semitism also occurred. In a totalitarian state a variety of fringe benefits are provided if people are absolutely obedient to the State. In the Soviet Union under the 1936 Constitution old age pension, sickness allowance and labour codes for workers were stated. There were also state health services and expansion of education. ...read more.


Collectivization of farms was also conducted in full swing to increase agricultural production and liberate peasants from soil. As a result, both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were able to escape the ill-effects of the Great Depression and provided people with full employment. Nationalism is an element of totalitarianism. In Germany it was manifested by the racist and expansionist Nazi foreign policy. Other than repudiating the Treaty of Versailles, Hitler claimed that Germans were the master race entitled to seek any "living space" everywhere. Hitler carried out conscription, built up strong armaments, withdrew from both the Geneva Disarmament Conference and League of Nations, annexed Austria and Czechoslovakia, and finally invaded Poland. All were to satisfy the popular nostalgic hankering of the return of German greatness. By contrast, Stalin's foreign policy during the 1930s seemed to be pacifist. Before 1945 Stalin made no direct territorial annexation for Russia. He joined the League of Nations and disbanded the Comintern. By "Socialism in One Country" he promised not to support proletarian revolutions overseas. In fact, he just wanted to fish in troubled water over the hostility between Nazi Germany and the western democratic countries. In 1939 he signed the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact, intending to get back the three Baltic States. Facing the imminent Nazi threat, moreover, Stalin gave up the Marxist idea of internationalism but stirred up enthusiasm of Russian nationalism at home. Hence, both aimed at territorial expansion. To conclude, both Stalin's Soviet Union and Hitler's Nazi Germany during the 1930s could be considered totalitarian states to a very large extent. 1 1 ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Modern European History, 1789-1945 essays

  1. To what extent was Nazi Germany a totalitarian state before 1939?

    of the Nazi rule, the Protestant church opposed them, and although many pastors were sent to concentration camps, the Protestants were still able to form a breakaway confession church.

  2. Assess the economic, social and political consequences of the collectivisation of Russian agriculture in ...

    These factors obviously hindered the chances of stimulating the economy, as collectivisation produced an unskilled and demoralised workforce, which is something that can also be seen as a negative social consequence of collectivisation. On the collective farms, however, the standards of living dramatically fell, as Stalin allocated the resources to

  1. Russia and the Soviet Union 1917-1924

    6. Autumn 1917 * Events started to work in the Bolsheviks Favour * Kerensky had appointed a general called Kornilov to be head of the army * There wanted to establish a strong sturdy Government in Russia - his own government.

  2. Why was the League of Nations a failure in the 1930's?

    The first option was a non-starter, but there was a great reluctance from the League to allow the second option. In July Germany tabled proposals that other countries should disarm to it's level-when the conference failed to agree on this principle, Germany walked out.

  1. Causes of show trials + purges of 1930s.

    He states that Lenin described Trotsky as "not having a clue about politics."[4] Pipes also expresses the ideas that Lenin trusted Stalin a great deal and that Stalin was Lenin's right hand man in his final days.[5] Although it was not Lenin's wish that Stalin took control of the government,

  2. Were the 1930's the Devils Decade or The Dawn of Affluence?

    Finally the housing boom of the 1930's created more jobs and was employing 3/4 million men. The housing boom also created a multiplier effect, demand for glass, wood, cement, paint all rose due to the increase in house building. On the other hand consumer goods proved to be more profitable than all other new industries.

  1. Hitlers Germany

    Hitler was helped in this not only by his own perception of the sources of power in a modern urbanized mass-society, but also by possession of the technical means to manipulate them. This was a point well made by Albert Speer, Hitler's highly intelligent Minister for Armaments and War Production,

  2. Evaluate historical comparisons of Hitler and Stalin and their regimes

    Criticism of this term has emerged because it was used openly as an, "ideological tool to service the Cold War - often distorting realty and intellectually dishonest- which disqualified it in the eyes of numerous scholars."4 This to some extent is true, the comparative studies did arise during the Cold

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work