Hitler and Stalin – Parallel Lives

By Alan Bullock

Harper and Collins 1991

This  book is a ‘magnum opus’, an ambitious attempt in its scope and reach and a rare comparative study of the lives of two dictators,  who in a way defined and shaped the events of a major portion of the 20^th century.  “Hitler and Stalin” takes recourse to the method of comparison of the lives of these two leaders right from their childhood and charts, both the common features which shaped their lives as well as significant differences accounting for their major successes and failures.

Firstly, both Hitler and Stalin were ‘outsiders’ within their homelands.  The former was a German-speaking ‘Austrian’ and the later a ‘Georgian’ who spoke Russian with an atypical accent.  As with all human beings, their personalities were shaped by the characters of their parents.  Stalin’s father was a violent man and his mother had great hopes and ambition for her son.  She wanted her son to be a priest but though Stalin turned his back on priesthood, she believed that her son was made to do something great.  The  quiet confidence of the mother impressed her son.  The violent father gave him the hardness of heart and the combination proved to be potent one.  As far Hitler’s early life, his home was quite stable and there was none of the turbulence which marked Stalin’s early life.  However, Hitler showed no discipline for regular work, which is so necessary for success in early life.  This inability for sustained  discipline in both the men led them to feel aggrieved against their societies - “heroic rebels” whom their societies did not understand and recognise - and a belief that they had special talents which went unutilised.  This self-constructed feeling of ‘romance’ and ‘fantasy’ manifested in Hitler entertaining thoughts of his artistic talents and in Stalin his literary merit.  These in simple terms are the ‘identity crisis’ developed by Eric Erikson and ‘narcissism’ formulated by Freud.

Another coincidence was their inability to enter into any kind of meaningful human relationship.  This was a direct result and derivative of their supposed possession of ‘special talent’ which the world could not recognise.  Another derivative was having a very ‘special audience’ who came close to recognising  these  ‘special talents.’  In  modern parlance, such  a ‘special audience’ is called a ‘coterie’, but in their lives even such a ‘special audience’ could never come close to appreciating their true merit.  It was their imagined and accumulated grievances coagulating with visions of their supposed special talents that  played major roles in their emergence as leaders, leadefrs who could never trust others, even who were at one time close to them.  Only a small step is required to leap into the violent territory inhabited by rivals, enemies, sections of their own societies, nations and so on.  This in simple terms was the mind set of these two men and the book contains a more sophisticated  examination of these principles.

There is an element of déjà vu in the way Stalin emerged as a leader of substance despite his lack of oratorical skills, of moving masses through rhetorical flourishes.  But Stalin had one quality which no political party could afford to waste.  This was his unmatched skills for execution of work.  In the end it was this ability – and the lack of it in the much more talented troika of Trotsky, Kamenev and Zinovov – which  helped Stalin to capture the Bolshevik Party.  The book contains a startling revelation - and the author supports it with enough evidence - when he discloses that the journey to Russian exiles, including that of Lenin, from Switzerland to Russia on the eve of the October Revolution was facilitated by Kaiser’s Germany.  

Alan Bullock uses the term, “Paranoid States” to describe the States which  Hitler and Stalin erected in their countries .  What were the characteristics of  such a Paranoid State?  Bullock  explains thus, “The commonest symptom of a paranoid state is the combination of delusions of grandeur with the conviction that one is the victim of persecution and conspiracy, producing an excessive suspiciousness and distrust of others, and an eagerness to strike at enemies before they can injure oneself.  Equally characteristic is the systematic nature of the delusions:  the seizing on significant details, working them into a logical pattern capable of ingenious adjustment to protect its credibility.  In the paranoid’s world nothing happens by chance.”  Such paranoia exhibits even in smaller-sized entities such as educational institutions, corporations etc.

What was the source of anti-semitism of the Nazis?   The source of anti-Semitism  was Hitler himself as well as his misrepresentation of history.  Hitler believed that the middle ages of Europe represented the period of highest development of ‘Germanic culture’ which was eclipsed by the emergence of capitalist society in western Europe.  He located the weakening of ‘germanic culture’ in miscegenation, the contamination of a pure blood by an impure one.  All his later attempt to preserve the supremacy can be sourced in this shoddy reading of history.  Presumption of purity of the German race was the raison  d’être  for all the atrocities committed against not just the Jews in Germany  but against other nations as well.  More particularly, the dominant presence of jews in leadership positions of the Bolshevik party invited his wrath.  Hitler often called the victory of communism in Russia a jewish conspiracy for domination of the world.

As noted earlier, dissensions in the rival camp helped Stalin to capture power; rivalry and disunity also helped Hitler to come to power.  The most significant and as it turned out, the most tragic was the failure of the communists to come to an understanding with the Social Democrats to join in an united front to oppose the Nazis.    The communists were a significant presence in Germany, equalling the Nazis in size and representation at one time.  A combination of the Communists and Social Democrats would have definitely prevented the emergence of Nazis, but that was not to be.

The damage caused to Germany and Russia by the emergence of Hitler and Stalin was immeasurable.  One consequence was the complete decimation of the opposition.  As the author correctly notes, neither regime left anything to chance or spontaneity.  They share a common and fundamental distrust of any individual or group acting on his or her own initiative and placed the perpetual mobilization of mass support as one of their highest priorities.  In no other respect did the two regimes come closer to each other!  Another symptom of a paranoid state!

In Russia millions disappeared into labour camps or got killed.  But none dared to admit any knowledge of labour camps.  There was lack of trust in their neighbours and fellow citizens.  There was a ‘conspiracy of silence’, the terms frequently used later on in political discussions.  What was the basic inadequacy which was the root that led to the growth of a colossal and poisonous tree?  To us Indians, identification of the following by Leszek Kolakowski, a Polish Communist and Marxist Philosopher as the basic shortcoming of the Bolshevik party would be a reaffirmation of what Mahatma Gandhi taught us:  “If you build equality by increasing inequality, you’ll be left with inequality; if you want to attain freedom by applying mass terror, the result will be mass terror; if you want to work for a just society through fear and repression, you will get fear and repression rather than universal fraternity.  Suppression of the ‘class enemy’, the abolition of civil liberties and indeed terror were accepted as the necessary evil which precedes the new society.  Today we can see clearly enough that means define ends, but Communist thinking has always held the reverse to be true.”

This book is a must read, both to know the horrendous nature of these leaders as well as to prevent emergence of such leaders amongst ourselves!