Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives

It's a sad fact that Hitler and Stalin probably had more influence on the history of the twentieth century than any other two individuals. Each was responsible for unleashing monumental evil that left tens of millions dead in its wake and had a profound impact on geo-political events for the remainder of the century. Bullock's brilliant and somber comparative biography charts the lives of Hitler and Stalin, stopping along the way to compare and contrast their personalities, their philosophy and goals, and the strategies and tactics they used to gain and maintain power. Both shared a consistency of purpose, a total disregard for the human suffering they unleashed and a proclivity to blame others for their own mistakes. Both suffered from paranoia, although for Stalin it was a systemic condition, while in Hitler's case, the paranoia grew in intensity as his empire crumbled around him. Both had a grasp of detail that would astound and disarm their opponents. Both maintained power by using the machinery of terror to crush opponents. But there were also deep differences between the ways in which the two men operated. Stalin owed his rise to power to astute political maneuvering and a mastery over the internal bureaucracy and decision-making apparatus of the Bolshevik party. The man defined the word crafty. Bullock documents how over a number of years Stalin systematically out maneuvered, isolated, and then removed anyone that his feverish imagination deemed to be a potential challenger - which in Stalin's case could be virtually anyone. He showed loyalty to no one but himself, and frequently had former friends and loyal subordinates alike executed because he saw them as a threat. Stalin's leadership style was one of centralization, which when coupled with a phenomenal memory, a grasp of detail, and control over the machinery of terror, allowed him to reshape the Soviet empire in his own image. In contrast, Hitler's had no patience for administration and willingly delegated power over the management of government bureaucracy to his long time political lieutenants, such as Goring and Goebbels. While Stalin was an average public speaker, Hitler's power came from his brilliance as a speaker which magnified a demonically charismatic persona. While Stalin was a workaholic, Hitler's work habits were lax. While Stalin was careful, slowly accumulating power and avoiding direct conflict with his opponents until the ground had been well prepared, Hitler was a risk taker, a consummate military and political gambler with a taste for bold moves. For a long time, it was Hitler's very boldness that disarmed and defeated his opponents, but in the end, his biggest gamble of all, going to war with Stalin's Soviet empire, was to prove his undoing. Yet as Bullock makes clear, in Hitler mind there was little choice in this matter. Hitler saw war with Russia as inevitable, his destiny; the timing was the only thing at issue, and in the end he saw little choice there too.

What is most fascinating about this novel dual biographical approach toward understanding both Hitler and Stalin is the startling degree to which such an unorthodox approach illuminates one's understanding not only of their remarkable similarities, but also their philosophical, tactical, and personal differences. This truly is a fascinating and absorbing book, and it is well enough written that the narrative seems to spin along on its own strength, and we find ourselves captivated by the degree to which these two seem star-crossed in terms of their destinies. As Bullock deftly illustrates, the main differences between the two dictators were found in their personalities. Yet, even after all these crucial differences in both personal style and substance are considered, the degree to which they were similar is both remarkable and frightening to comprehend. Stalin was a creature of bureaucracy, the ultimate insider, someone who knew how to use the organization bonding the Communist Party together for his own rise to prominence and power, an increasingly clever, adroit, and masterful practitioner of power politics. He was nothing if not careful, cautious, deliberate, and shrewd. Hitler, on the other hand, was a gambler, a masterful politician, a bold, easily bored, and endlessly distracted dreamer whose natural ability to charm, captivate, and enchant helped him to rise by extraordinary means. In many ways, these men came to prominence in quite different ways; Stalin, by mastering the art of bureaucratic manipulation and quietly assuming key roles within the organization that gave him friendships, alliances, and information that he used masterfully to rise through the ranks of the faithful, and Hitler, the manic-depressive natural leader whose charismatic popular appeal and desperate, authoritarian, and often violent measures were used to gain political power through extraordinary means. Yet Bullock shows how similar both men were in terms of the way they used their power once established to execute their national responsibilities, and in the way they ruthlessly pursued their goals without mercy, remorse or any concern for others who suffered for their sake. Both used extralegal means to maintain position, both cruelly purged potential rivals through purges or political overthrows. Both bordered on being psychotic; Hitler coming close to being declared certifiably insane, and Stalin by having all the symptoms of classic paranoia. Certainly both had personal histories that can most kindly be described as bizarre in terms of the ways in which they treated those close to them as well as the populace in general. Both also seemed convinced of their own central and unique role in terms of their country's destiny, and indeed each identified his own importance in terms of succeeding in accomplishing that historical mission. Also, both were guilty of massive crimes against humanity, both against the opposing forces they captured and their own subjects. Hitler

For most of the past century, there have been two schools of thought about Hitler and Stalin. One states that Stalin wasn't really so bad, because he fought the Fascists; the other insists that Hitler wasn't really so bad, because he fought the Communists. Alan Bullock leaves both viewpoints in the dustheap of history, where they belong. Both Hitler and Stalin came as close to pure evil as human beings ever get; both stood for the utter repression of the human spirit and the annihilation of anyone who might possibly be suspected of standing in their way. Bullock demonstrates this in exhaustive, but never exhausting, detail. More people should read this book, if only to be cured forever of any temptation to support any form of totalitarianism, any time, anywhere.

Alan Bullock has composed one of the most probing studies of human ambition ever written. Its reading is essential to the understanding of European History in the 20th Century. Excellent book!

To describe Sir Alan Bullock's Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives as a duel biography does not do it justice. It is no less than a history of the formation and evolution of the most violent and pathological dictatorships in the history the world, and an understanding of these dictatorships is necessary to an understanding of the twentieth century. However, Sir Alan Bullock tells this story primarily through the two men whose efforts, paranoias, prejudicies, and impressive if ultimately evil intellects made their regimes possible. Without a doubt, he tells their stories masterfully, interweaving their lives within the context of twentieth century history and ideas yet maintaining their distinct personal and political identities, talents, and mistakes. His book is both interesting narrative and unquie analytical fair for both the general reader and specialist. In their latest book, Stalinism and Nazism: Dictatorships in Comparison, Sir Ian Kershaw and Moshe Levin write of their subjects: "Studying the history of inhumanity, perpetrated on such a vast, unprecedented scale, has an emotional and psychological cost. It is not like studying the history of philosohpy, the Renaissance, or the age of the cathedrals. The subject matter is less uplifting than almost any other conceivable topic of historical enquiry. But it is history al the same. And it is important. The emotional involvement has to be contained, even when the very effort to arrive at some balanced and reasoned interpretation seems an affront. . . There is nothing else . . . than to adhere to scholarly methods in the hope that knowledge might inform action to prevent any conceivable repetition of such political pathologies as characterised Stalinism and Nazism." With his most recent work, Sir Alan Bullock has gone a long way toward achieving the ideals set forth by Kershaw and Lewin. I highly recommend this book