Nazism in Germany and Communism in the Soviet Union Essay

Introduction

To date, it is widespread knowledge, opinion, and the idea that Nazism and Communism are separate social phenomena. For instance, it is no secret that these political “doctrines” result from difficult socio-economic and political situations. In particular, it is essential to note that they were characterized by totalitarian thinking as one of the distinguishing features of the first half of the twentieth century and the times of faith in science and various rationalistic theories. However, despite such initial apparent similarities, there has always been an insurmountable gap between them within the framework of political, social, and ideological goals, which knowingly doomed both currents to fight each other to destruction. Hence, by their essence and nature, Nazism in Germany and Communism in the USSR are different and dissimilar in terms of ideology and governing systems, but at the same time have “totalitarian” aspects.

Nazism and Communism: Difference

First of all, the ideology of Nazism in Germany is a set of views and thoughts of Adolf Hitler about humanity from the racial struggle point of view. Such philosophy of the Third Reich was significantly associated with the propaganda of beliefs about the superiority of Aryans and Germans over other races.¹ In addition, this worldview emphasized motherhood, especially supporting women who had to have children of “the right origin”.² In general, however, this ideology focused on the racial idea, the concept of the blood community of the Germans, and their absolute biological superiority over other ethnicities, nations, and peoples of the Earth. The sacredness and religious character of Hitler’s theories and the desire to “purify” certain people were inherent in the Third Reich’s ideology.

In contrast, Communism in the Soviet Union was an equalizing redemptive ideology, in which there was such an “original sin” as the exploitation of humans by humans and paradise as a communist society. Furthermore, unlike the Germans, the Soviet people relying on this philosophy aimed to build a community without classes, in which all members jointly can own all means of production and goods. Accordingly, such a concept of public property excludes the economic exploitation of man by man. In addition, people’s race did not serve as an indicator of anything – everyone was deemed equal in the community. The Soviet Union inherited a vast territory from the Russian Empire, which had a long history of unifying different people under its rule. In fact, the country consisted of so many nations that an ideology of a superior race could prove to be utterly detrimental in the given circumstances.

Secondly, it is known that the foundation of the management system in Germany during the reign of Adolf Hitler was the principle of the Führer and dictatorships. In other words, the organization of the state system was built in the form of a pyramid – from the highest to the lowest. Moreover, German Nazism was mainly based on Lebensraum policies, aimed at forming, developing, and promoting the country’s leadership positions through searching and seizing new lands suitable for life.³ Hence, the German dictator directed the available forces, time, and other resources to the conquest of lands and the eradication of representatives of certain nations.

On the other hand, under Communism, power was transferred to the people, and the system of governance of the Soviet state was built on the principles of public self-government. Its peculiarity lies in the fact that the authorities that perform public managerial functions and their activities have lost their political character. This is due mainly to the disappearance of classes and national differences, and with the death of separate states, political relations, as well as connections between classes or nations, have vanished. Thus, despite Moscow being the center of decisions and operations, Soviet Union regions possessed substantial autonomy in terms of self-governance. Furthermore, instead of discriminating against specific nations, the Soviet Union displayed an utterly opposite approach to national policy. For instance, the Union’s republics invested a lot of time and resources to support their national language and identity.

The “Totalitarian” Aspects

The totalitarian aspects of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany include full control and direction of all aspects of citizens’ lives through coercion, intimidation, and suppression. Among the signs of the political regime, one can additionally highlight the official recognized ideology, the monopoly on the media and means of armed struggle, the system of terrorist police control, and a centralized economic management system. Both Soviet and Nazi leaders had special privileges, rights, and opportunities to invade the privacy of people, imposing on families a particular model of behavior aimed, according to the authorities, for the benefit of a state and society, thereby challenging the social roles formed in Europe and the United States.⁴ With strict regulation of official functions and subordination of officials within government departments, there was no order in interdepartmental relations, as well as a clear construction of the vertical of power. The factor of the leaders’ will and the subjective ties between them were consciously placed above the fixed rules and norms of development, adoption, and execution of decisions.

The slogan of social justice in the USSR was an abstract appeal, and more concrete were the calls for universal equality, which after some time turned into a dictatorship of social exclusivity based on the principle of working, poor origin. It is believed that Joseph Stalin could completely control the state with the “removal” of Leon Trotsky⁵. Consequently, Fascist Germany was anti-legal in nature; lawlessness and the possibility of arbitrariness concerning citizens were elevated to the rank of law. Therefore, the state machine has completely subjugated society and the individual. For decades, a total state regulation system of public and private life has prevailed in these countries. The destruction of people in this era turned into a routine and became something like the work of mechanical machines. For example, during the Second World War, the German Nazis sent millions of Jews, Slavs, and people of other nationalities to extermination camps and labor concentration camps.

Therefore, it is necessary to state that the difference between the two ideologies lies in the fact that Communism in the USSR recognized the equality of all people. At the same time, Nazism in Germany emphasized racial superiority and the restructuring of society with the priority of one nation. Nonetheless, unlike Communist regulations, the Third Reich supported the right to private property. Moreover, the system of government in the USSR was built on the principles of unity and equality. In fascist Germany, on the contrary, the tendency for hierarchy and Fuhrerism was developed. In particular, it should be added that despite such differences, the spirit of totalitarianism and the desire to subordinate the people’s heart, will, and mind to a particular model of behavior and perception of the surrounding world picture prevailed in the two countries.

The First World War of 1914-1918 was one of world history’s most significant turning events. This cataclysm, unprecedented in scale, led to the loss of millions of human lives, the fall of several powerful empires, the formation of new nation-states, and fundamental changes in the system of international relations. Moreover, it predetermined the entire subsequent course of events, including the Second World War. The First World War was one of the most crucial and decisive moments in European history, which devastated culture, politics, and society since 1789.

What The First World War Sweep Away and Usher In

Primarily, one should mention that Napoleon’s rule and French Revolution that broke out in 1789, in a sense, are the starting point in the development of large-scale and cardinal events that later developed into the First World War. This event demonstrated that unlimited royal power ceased to exist. Until 1871, there were several uprisings, restorations, coups, revolts, wars, and other upheavals. These were the periods of reactions, and adaptations, in which a new round of revolution and the unification of the German and Italian nations prevailed.

Thus, starting from 1871 and up to 1914, new types of political debates were formed, culminating in the war. During the last third of the XIX and the beginning of the XX century, empires were concerned with dividing the world, building zones of influence, and inventing identities that allowed justifying emerging demands. As is already known, the war lasted until 1918, and in 1919, the Versailles Peace Treaty was signed. The war resulted in the collapse of four empires – the Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian, German and Russian, and only the British Empire survived. The collapse of empires led to a nationalist transformation, and the “nation” became the dominant political structure in terms of reformulating the idea of belonging and political will.⁶ In general, the Treaty of Versailles determined the events of 1933 when the National Socialists came to power in Germany. Accordingly, in the future, this phenomenon will result in the Second World War, which lasted six years, starting in 1939 and ending in 1945.

In contrast to the pre-war time, nationalism became no longer dependent solely on the causes from inside the country – new ideas and ideologies acquired a transnational character. The traditional vision of causal relationships can be considered “tunneled” in this context.⁷ It may explain the local course of actions; however, it fails to grasp the long-distance diffusion, entanglement, and transfer of ideas. Hence, from the point of view of political concepts and phenomena, after the First World War, many different changes took place in Europe. The Great War brought pain, suffering, resentment, frustration, and economic turmoil to the world by inflicting terrible damage, taking millions of lives and four empires with it.⁸ There was a territorial division of states, the collapse of pre-war empires, and a radical change in borders. During the war, the boundaries of regions changed significantly, and the Russian Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and Germany were most susceptible to these changes. Moreover, there would have been no fascism without the First World War. In the conditions of total warfare and its consequences, human consciousness softens and becomes ready to accept totalitarian ideologies.

Moreover, within the framework of cultural aspects, the war gave rise to an unprecedented number of new plots and posed or aggravated a certain number of philosophical and existential problems. For many ordinary soldiers, it was often unclear why they were waging war and what they were fighting for. On the other front line, the same workers or peasants were freezing and getting wet in the trenches. This phenomenon was even in the French and German units, whose peoples historically did not like each other, and the French dreamed of avenging the Franco-Prussian War. For instance, the 1920s saw a massive explosion of hedonism, the desire to live and prosper. After many years of hardships and restrictions, the population finally gave itself free rein in the desire to succeed, significantly since the industry was diversified and production facilities were optimized for civilian needs.

Appealing to social issues, it should be borne in mind that when men were taken to the front en masse, their places in production were occupied mainly by women and children, which turned the system of social relations in civilization. Women’s emancipation before the warfare was extremely superficial and, in many ways, rather intellectual, and after the war, the female half of the population was able to express themselves in a new light. The hardships of the battle created extreme tension in society, and revolutions took place in some countries, which had both social and political consequences additionally. For instance, the working class in the 1920s was able to win back significant rights compared to 1914, and somewhere this happened right during the revolutions, and somewhere the industrialists themselves conceded, observing the examples of neighboring countries.

In the future, after mass events and up to the present, the boom of atheism and female emancipation began to manifest, and the concept of human freedom in lifestyle, beliefs, relationships with the environment, art, and reaching permissiveness appeared. The image of the world (human civilization) as people see it today has been formed – unpredictable, dangerous, nervous, unstable. The focus of public life was directed, in addition to political figures, to celebrities and intellectuals.

In general, the First World War opened up the modernity in which people live today. It seems that contemporary Europe has accepted the modernity born of the Great War as a phenomenon. The further this world develops, the clearer it becomes what the EU is moving away from and towards: which technologies are emerging and which are dying off, what new content sovereignty is filled with in the era of integration and how completely universal human rights give birth to a variety of social practices and assert the rights of minorities.

Conclusion

Hence, summarizing the above mentioned, it should be noted that The First World War is one of the most grandiose and large-scale events predetermined in advance and determined further even more significant phenomena. Starting with the French Revolution in 1789 and ending in 2022, without any doubt, the war took away many human lives, swept away several great empires, and changed the style of government in many regions. Nevertheless, it has made new changes not only in politics but also in art, literature, cinema, and social life, empowering citizens, introducing new subjects into art, and inspiring people with new thoughts and dreams. Echoes of such a turning point can be noted in the modern world, giving residents freedom, equality, and independence, as well as an impetus to the development of many movements, including national ones.

Bibliography

Kagan, Donald, Steven Ozment, Frank M. Turner, and Alison Frank. The Western Heritage: Volume 2: Since 1648. New York: Pearson Education, 2013.

Miller, Robert J. “Nazi Germany’s Race Laws, the United States, and American Indians.”St. John’s Law Review 94, no. 3 (2020): 750-817.

Rybak, Jan. “Universal Freedom’ and the Balfour Declaration: Watershed Moments for Radical Jewish Politics.”European Review of History: Revue Européenne D’histoire 26, no. 5 (2019): 783-806.

Seixas, Xosé Núñez. The First World War and the Nationality Question in Europe: Global Impact and Local Dynamics. Boston: Brill, 2020.

Footnotes

1. Miller, Robert J., “Nazi Germany’s Race Laws, the United States, and American Indians,” St. John’s Law Review 94, no. 3 (2020): 765.
2. Kagan, Donald, Steven Ozment, Frank M. Turner, and Alison Frank. The Western Heritage: Volume 2: Since 1648 (New York: Pearson Education, 2013), 889.
3. Miller, Robert J., “Nazi Germany’s Race Laws, the United States, and American Indians,” St. John’s Law Review 94, no. 3 (2020): 762.
4. Kagan, Donald, Steven Ozment, Frank M. Turner, and Alison Frank. The Western Heritage: Volume 2: Since 1648 (New York: Pearson Education, 2013), 889.
5. Kagan, Donald, Steven Ozment, Frank M. Turner, and Alison Frank. The Western Heritage: Volume 2: Since 1648 (New York: Pearson Education, 2013), 872.
6. Rybak, Jan. “Universal Freedom’ and the Balfour Declaration: Watershed Moments for Radical Jewish Politics,” European Review of History: Revue Européenne D’histoire 26, no. 5 (2019): 783.
7. Seixas, Xosé Núñez. The First World War and the Nationality Question in Europe: Global Impact and Local Dynamics (Boston: Brill, 2020), 18.
8. Kagan, Donald, Steven Ozment, Frank M. Turner, and Alison Frank. The Western Heritage: Volume 2: Since 1648 (New York: Pearson Education, 2013), 852.