Hitler And Stalin: Parallel Lives

I used to teach Alan Bullock's "Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives" in courses about totalitarianism. Contrary to many other college textbooks, which tend to date rather quickly, this history book seems timeless. Bullock offers a monumental social biography of two of the most evil dictators in human

history as well as an epic sketch of an era. Although the author specializes in Hitler, his grasp of Stalin is equally impressive. It rivals, in fact, Robert Conquest's "The Great Terror" in its thoroughness and depth.

As the title suggests, Bullock alternates chapters on Hitler with those on Stalin. He reveals how each dictator relied on his powers of manipulation, deception and opportunism to rise to power and spread totalitarian regimes meant to wipe out the human spirit and large parts of humanity itself across the world. The book also explains how Hitler and Stalin initially operated within the systems which they later (mis)used for their own selfish and nefarious goals. Whatever their rhetoric and ideology, both sociopathic tyrants ultimately craved power for its own sake, at the expense of everyone else, even the causes (and allies) they initially claimed to support.

Bullock's "Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives" gives us a detailed, compelling and extremely informative portrait of the faces of evil. It is an indispensable book for all those who want to understand how totalitarian regimes function and the role sociopathic dictators play in changing the course of history. As luck would have it, sociopaths are too self-serving and power-hungry to form lasting alliances. Had Hitler and Stalin not turned on each other, totalitarianism might have triumphed across the globe. As Winston Churchill famously stated in a speech after the German invasion of the Soviet Union: "If Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons."

Claudia Moscovici, Notablewriters.com

Show Less

1 more

LibraryThing member bevok

This book made a positive impression when it appeared in 1991. Alan Bullock’s distinguished academic career had been preceded by the publication of his biography of Hitler, Hitler: A Study in Tyranny which was acclaimed from its publication in 1951 as one of the finest explanations of Hitler.

Beginning in the 1970s, Bullock became increasingly fascinated by the comparisons between the Nazi and Soviet empires - the irony of the theoretically opposed ideology but often startlingly similar methods, their tense interrelationship and differences as well. Bullock felt that the focus on the West and Germany had resulted in a neglect of the German-Russian axis - an interest in the East that preceded important studies by historians such as Norman Davies, and more recently the even more tightly focussed study of Timothy Snyder in Bloodlands. Bullock’s book returns to Hitler, focussing on a comparison of him and Stalin as the framework for a comparison of the two regimes. It broadens previous attention to political theory in constructing the concept of the Totalitarian state, and takes a less emotionally invested approach to those in the 1980s who attempted a comparison to try and portray the crimes of the Nazi’s as perversely mitigated by the similarities with Soviet Russia (the Historikerstreit or ‘historian’s fight’).
The subtitle is significant - Bullock borrows the concept of “Parallel Lives” from Plutarch, implying similarities but also lines/lives that “never meet or merge”. The structure of the book must have been a challenge. For most of the book he alternates between Hitler/Germany and Stalin/USSR until chapter ten, where the two are compared. Once he reaches a discussion of foreign policy in the 1930s and the period from the Nazi-Soviet pact onwards, the two subjects are dealt with in a more integrated way. This section by its nature flows better and possesses greater coherence however its bedrock is the more individual treatment earlier in the book.
Bullock’s writing is pleasing and flows well, workmanlike and unpretentious. His broad reading is supported by the voluminous amounts of primary research materials released during Perestroika and afterwards, and the 1998 second edition contains extensive updates as well as the usual corrections. The well produced first edition hardback shows a standard of publishing which is certainly becoming rarer now, with well laid out pages and about five noticeable ‘typos’ in a book of almost 1000 pages.
The book balances the elements of historical biography and the necessary context well. It looks at the men on a personal level, although it focusses on the experiences and personal traits which drive their historical actions rather than giving too much about their personal life (thankfully it avoids the dubious realms of pop psychology or obsession with missing testicals etc). The context of the regimes is described well and sufficiently both to describe the men themselves as well as giving a good picture of the politics of the time. There perhaps was some temptation taken to delve a bit more deeply into the tactical and strategic aspects of World War 2 than was strictly necessary although these passages certainly made good reading and provided some good insights. Probably the chapters on World War 2 are those that have dated the most with research over the past twenty years although not to the point of obsolescence.
So what are Mr Bullock’s key arguments? One point of strong comparison between the two men is their dual sense of historical purpose. Each believes they have a destiny as great men, which gives them the confidence and determination to pursue power with great effectiveness. They also both possess incredible natural political instincts. The ability to outsmart and outthink their opponents, to surprise them and where necessary ruthlessly devour them. Both men worked their way up from nowhere, completely dependent on their skills for advancement. Stalin had an added handicap of needing to carefully conceal his ambitions in the context of collective leadership, whereas Hitler was free to develop and exploit the ‘Fuhrer myth’. Both had constraints though, and Stalin’s machinations in the 1920s to gain power without revealing his hand have some similarities with the contortions of Hitler’s commitment to ‘legality’ in coming to power after the failure of the Beer Hall putsch (although the ultimate goal was never concealed).
Stalin’s lowest point, as he was deceived and ultimately humiliated by Hitler is the pivot of the book. It is here that we see the ultimate interaction of the two dictators - Hitler’s strategic brilliance, Stalin’s attempts to buy time. In these pages are one of the most significant factors which will later be telling in the war effort. Yes, Stalin had ripped the heart out of the Red Army (or at least the head) with his purges of the leadership. Hitler and most of Europe didn’t take Russia seriously as a military opponent. However even this did not overcome Hitler’s economic problems. He needed to conquer more territory in order to keep rearming and vice versa. Bullock well points out the Nazi failure to put the full economy on a war footing until surprisingly late in the war, and the lost ground due to competing factions in the Nazi government.
The ensuing war is dealt with well at a strategic and diplomatic level. Hitler’s intervention (positive and negative) in military decisionmaking is well covered, as is Stalin’s halting but steadily improving military oversight after the shock of the initial German invasion.
Bullock carries the story beyond the final destruction of Hitler’s dream, and his descent to paranoia, blame and a sense that for Germany they would ‘all go down together’. The final years of Stalin’s regime just provide further evidence of his brutal and paranoid nature, as well as the lessons he quickly learnt from history in ensuring the best possible East European buffer for the Soviet Union.
Hitler and Stalin is a powerful, detailed book which shows how so many of the central events of the twentieth century revolved around these two men. The ‘great man’ theory of history is widely denigrated, but Bullock’s sound exposition of the facts points out clearly both the centrality of these two men to the regimes they ruled as well as how individual will, belief and drive can powerfully influence world historical events, ones which saw a dramatic change from the long nineteenth century, and an ensuing period where perversely immense Western prosperity sat alongside the repercussions of millions of deaths in two great wars. To those who say history is the product of impersonal forces, Bullock’s book can be seen as a weighty and well argued proof that the opposite can be true, and a powerful warning of the consequences of two men who killed millions and changed the world.

Show Less

Fewer