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

Compare and Contrast the rise to power of Hitler and Lenin

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

The regimes of Hitler and Lenin were both products of war. For Hitler the war gave his life purpose, and the defeat and the Treaty gave him a grudge. The army, which shared his feelings, gave him the work which led to his joining the Nazi party, and got him out of his little problem after the Munich putsch. For Lenin the War was the last convulsion of imperialism, and though he did not predict the combination of circumstances which provoked the February Revolution, these circumstances were indeed exactly the kind of thing which his analysis of imperialist war would have involved (shortages, casualties etc). Ironically Lenin, like Hitler, owed much to the German army, whose intelligence department brought him to St Petersburg on the famous sealed train. The Bolshevik USP was Peace, the Nazis were supported for promising to revise a Peace. On the face of it Hitler and Lenin were impelled by precisely opposite ideas. Adapting Low's famous cartoon Lenin was to Hitler 'the scum of the earth' and Hitler to Lenin 'the bloody assassin of the workers'1. ...read more.

Middle

on his side, and Lenin, too, for a crucial moment in the Spring of 1917 benefitted from the careful efficiency of the imperialists. Thereafter he gained some credibility by disavowing his former helpers, or at least he managed to fight off the accusation that he was their stooge. Lenin benefitted from the inability of Kerensky to improve social conditions, and Hitler benefitted from the incapacity of the Weimar governments after Stresemann. The vast social gulf in Russia which Peter the Great had not been able to bridge was part of the context in which the Bolshevik revolution was practical politics. The continuation of Wilhelmine or Bismarckian social attitudes in Germany, on the other hand, made Hitler's revolution in this sense a counter-revolution. Lenin emerged from the collapse of a social order widely and deeply detested by the Russian people, Hitler profited from the determination that a social order should continue, a determination that went equally widely and deeply into German society. Lenin's rise was too private, and then too meteoric to be marked by any particular cultural programme, whereas Hitler gained a lot of credence by rejecting the 'degenerate' Bauhaus and modernism in all its forms. ...read more.

Conclusion

Von Papen was one of the 'useful idiots' who facilitated Hitler's rise; Lenin benefitted from the delusions of millions of peasants that he supported their property holding aspirations. Lenin benefitted from the problems of the Kerensky and the Czar, whereas Hitler benefitted from the problems of Lenin and Stalin, not to mention those of Ebert, Bruning, von Papen, von Schleicher and Hindenburg. Neither the Bolsheviks nor the Nazis were one-man bands. Lenin had his loyal 'Old Bolsheviks' like Stalin, Zinoviev and Kamenev and, more recently, Trotsky. Hitler had crucial 'assists' from R�hm, Ludendorff, Goebbels, Goering, Himmler and, more recently, Schacht. It is a moot point how important the Reichstag Fire was, but certainly Nazi propaganda did not make much of it, preferring to emphasize the alleged comradeship between Hitler and Hindenburg. Thus the headmaster's son and the customs official's son reached in varying ways their primary goal of power. 1 Allowing for the fact that Lenin died too soon to have made the judgement. ?? ?? ?? ?? Compare and contrast the Rise to Power of Hitler and Lenin H.D.J.Nicklin for DAIS April 2008. Page 1 of 3 ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our International Baccalaureate History 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 International Baccalaureate History essays

  1. The rise of Hitler and the Nazi party

    Shirer writes of how the SA was to be discarded altogether as the army and Hindenburg became concerned about the growth and the violence of the 'brown-shirts'. Hitler recognized his need for the support of the army and as the army did not want the SA, he deemed that they would have to be removed.

  2. Castro's rise to power

    What is more, Batista's regime continued being politically dependant on the USA because the Americans saw him as an ally against communism. For Batista and the USA it was a win-win situation. The USA kept Cuba under control and Batista's economic interests were fulfilled; but what about Cuban people?

  1. French Revolution and the rise of Napoleon - revision notes

    The crowd seized thousands of riffles. Then, the crowd moved to the Bastille (fortress, prison, symbol of the French absolutism, it had an infamous reputation, there were imprisoned king's enemies without trial). Dozens of participants were killed. The crowd massacred several of the soldiers and the building was destroyed. Revolutionary Municipality (Rewolucyjna Wladza Miasta) was formed.

  2. Compare and contrast Mussolini's and Hitler's rise to power

    Much of the actions of Mussolini and Hitler centered on coercion, and the use of this as a method in acquiring power.

  1. History Investigation - Hitler

    The great nation, Nazi Germany, was a result of Hitler's rise to power. Beginning with Hitler's imprisonment in 1923 and ending with Hitler becoming president in 1934. Hitler's rise to power was based upon long-term factors- the resentment of Germans, the weakness of the Weimer Republic - which Hitler effectively

  2. Stalin's rise to power, his policies and how he consolidated his grip on power.

    Why did the opposition fail? * Zinoviev was too hesitant and had no gifts as an organiser, whilst Kamenev lacked a clear vision and a capacity to lead men. * Bukharin, despite being an economist, failed to produce a convincing programme which could have saved the NEP and discredited Stalin.

  1. Stalin's Rise to Power2

    Later he utilized the debate over the NEP to defeat potential rivals, supporting Bukharin's rightist policies to defeat Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev after the dissolution of the Triumverate.12 Yet throughout the conflict he managed to hold on to his reputation as a moderate and as the defender of Lenin,13 later

  2. IB History HL, Extended Notes: Russia, the Tsars, the Provisional Govenment and the Revolution.

    Rasputin murdered in 1916 by someone hoping to reduce damage to Tsar. 4. Support from the army and high society faded, few willing to defend him in 1917. Failure to continue political reforms and compromise 1. Allowing the Progressive Bloc more input in running the country might have reduced the pressure for Russia to become a constitutional monarchy.

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