STALIN and HITLER: Parallel Lives

[judes101]

They were both very strong and ruthless leaders. I think that a major difference however, is that (certainly before he came to power) Stalin presented himself as a man of the people- coming from a poor background and having their best interests at heart. Hitler, on the other hand, always presented himself as a god-like figure whose status was far above that of his fellow people. I definitely think of Stalin as the better man, and in terms of foreign policy he was far less aggressive.
If you want to read a (fat but good) book on the subject, i suggest you check out Alan Bullock's 'Hitler and Stalin, Parallel Lives' (you probably already have).

[_-_5TAL1N_-_]

Thanks Judes but as you assumed I have read the book and find it very interesting, I'd recommend it to anyone who is interested in this subject and I know what you mean by fat(more than 1000 pages). I'm only saddened by the fact that Stalin, my country's leader has not been given enough recognition as in contrary to Hitler who is known everywhere. Well without Lenin, the communist revolution and Stalin, Russia would have a pretty poor history. I really would like to see Russia become communist again as I loved to sing the national anthem and our country was consolidated together as a stronger power under the hammer and sickle. I really believe this will be the case after Putin has rebuilt the country to some extent.
Judes, you are right, Stalin did come from a poor background, his parents were Georgian peasants and did not speak a word of Russian, Stalin was forced to learn Russian and qualified as the smartest student from his school. However he was expelled from university for revolutionary acts and joined the communist revolution in 1917 under Lenin. After Lenin's death Stalin took the advantage and portrayed himself as Lenin's friend and the next ruler of the Soviet people. I although see the damage done by Stalin, he did claim millions of lives however he was a patriot and did it for his country.

[vorosilov]

DEAR STALIN,

Is that book really so good?

My book says that Lenin had unconditional trust only in
Stalin. Only before his dead he was concerned the enormus
power Stalin allready had. Before 1917 Stalin was a great
revolutioner. And he was Lenin's right hand man after.
Stalin spent alot time in jail, in exile and in labour
camp prior to the revolution.

BEST REGARDS:VOROSILOV

[_-_5TAL1N_-_]

Voroshilov,
Yes that book is extremely good and please realise Lenin was absolutely against Stalin coming to power as he saw a defect in Stalin's character. Lenin even put that in his will which was found by Stalin and cleverly destroyed.
BEST REGARDS,
>>STALIN<<

[judes101]

Originally posted by vorosilov

DEAR STALIN,

Is that book really so good?

My book says that Lenin had unconditional trust only in
Stalin. Only before his dead he was concerned the enormus
power Stalin allready had. Before 1917 Stalin was a great
revolutioner. And he was Lenin's right hand man after.
Stalin spent alot time in jail, in exile and in labour
camp prior to the revolution.

BEST REGARDS:VOROSILOV

Vorosilov,
Lenin had no trust in Stalin and never named an heir to the party leadership. In his testament, he clearly states his view of Stalin, that he found him 'rude' and 'capricious'. His early 'support' for Stalin was simply down to the fact that he saw Trotsky as a equally undesirable heir due to his arrogance and Menshevik background. Stalin was never Lenin's right hand man, when they are seen together in pictures it is often because the picture has been doctored. Stalin built up the Cult of Lenin,and then presented himself as Lenin's right hand man- he even convinced Trotsky that Lenin's funeral was on a different day so that Stalin could be seen as the chief mourner. Stalin never had Lenin's true support during the power struggle, and rose to power thanks to several other factors. These included his cunning manipulation of the economic debate,through which he managed to alienate the rightest elements of the party such as Bukharin over the debate surrounding the NEP. There was also the issue of the lack of a viable alternative, since Zinoviev and Kamenev had been shamed after leaving the Triumvirate and defecting to support Trotsky. Trotsky himself, although he may have seemed the obvious choice could never have taken over the party,since his arrogance and jewish/intellectual/menshevik background made him few friends. In addition to this, Stalin had gained much power through his position as the general secretary of the party. If he had had the support of Lenin also, there would have been no power 'struggle'. I hope that all of my facts here are correct.

It's also a great book and presents a refreshingly balanced view of both men.

judes l.

[vorosilov]

DEAR JUDE,

You really gave up the lesson to me with this excellent
post. However, as I see, Stalin's role in the revolution,
in the civil war could be understated. I know,that Stalin
was out of Lenin's favor after the civil war.(You gave the
reasons for that) Also there was a great hostility
between Stalin and Trotzki during and after the civil
war.
You also mentioned the triumvirat in your post,what was
very important to understand the power strugle after
Lenin's death. What really was in Lenin's will?
Like I said, the lesson is hard and I don't want to write
anything hastily.
Please, give me some time.

BEST REGARDS: VOROSILOV

[Sashenka]

Originally posted by JUlia_P
I cant agree with you. Stalin was a strong man, who cared about his country. Hitler was a strong man too, but did he care about his people as much, as he wanted to destroy all the others. Stalin's purpose was to build a great country with the help (or by using) it's people, it's resourses etc. Hitler wanted to make his country the only remaining on Earth. He didn't want to build, he wanted to destroy.

Julia,so what you are saying is that Stalin and Hitler are both very strong people(and by saying it,I mean leaders who had manipulative,obsessive,ruthless nature),two killers,who INTANTIONALLY distroyed lifes of millions,but Stalin was a good boy,because he wanted the best for his country!-poor thing,deserved to be appriciated !!!At the meantime, Hitler-was evel-even though,he was almost Coba's copy.What is wrong with this picture???