The Totalitarians: Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin

-

 

The Totalitarians: Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin

Polish Air Force engages the new Luftwaffe 1939, Poland.

 

Perhaps the clearest demonstration of where exactly the Western countries stood in 1939, with respect to Adolf Hitler and Germany, is that after the Germans finally invaded Poland in the dark hours of 1 September 1939, it took until 3 September for Britain and France to declare war on Germany. The British waited while the French delayed. A summation, then, of all that was both France and Great Britain with Poland suffering the first blows of what would become the most costly, horrific, and all-consuming World War the engulfed millions of lives.

The end of the Great War left the European continent unbalanced. Of the Allies, the French believed the Germans guilty and that war reparations were hardly enough to compensate for the devastation France had suffered. Of the many by products of the Great War, cranage and devastation was visited across Eastern France and the war had hardly touched Germany proper. The British has suffered from the loss of men; a whole generation and the financial cost had set the exchequer back for some time. Of the United States, the Great War left an impression that tremendous costs were associated with great power competition. The United States could hardly stay the course with respect to involving herself in international affairs and withdrew into isolation.

Germany experienced disillusionment, frustration, and anger. Despite whatever mistakes Germany made economically in the post-war years, the political and social conditions set the stage for the rise of Adolf Hitler and the Nationalist Socialist Workers Party (NSDP). Hitler came to power legitimately “because of support registered by German voters in 1932”[1] and the German middle class, in the main, supported the early concepts and ideology of Hitler and his political party.

For the rest of Europe, the British and French were 

hopeful to avoid any conflagration. The British Prime Minister in 1937 believed that conflict; another war much like the Great War should be avoided at all costs. But Chamberlains disposition and diplomacy experienced severe criticism. 

The “most effective answer Chamberlain could have made to these criticisms was that ‘standing up to Hitler’, with or without the League and the Soviet Union, involved a serious risk of war.”[2]

In 1938 Germany would invest itself in Austria. Germany would then threaten war; simply threaten conflict with Europe and the Europeans turned their eyes as Germany rolled up the Sudetenland. But Hitler was not complete. He would order German forces into Memel, Lithuania in 1939 and any claim to Danzig and the ‘Polish Corridor.’ War, unwished for by the unprepared, was coming to Europe in spades.

Benito Mussolini: "Il Duce"

Benito Mussolini (“Il Duce”) was ultimately welcomed by both the working class and the middle conservative class of Italy.  He was dynamic; a charmer who captured the unspoken desires of the masses. He was a gifted orator who “in less than five years, [Benito Mussolini has] created an overpowering legend.”[3]

Like Hitler, Mussolini was self-taught, an ardent Socialist, and served in World War I. He spent over 8 months in the trenches as an Infantryman with the Bersagliari.


As for Joseph Stalin, he rose through the ranks of the Bolshevik revolution on the coat tails of Vladimir Lenin. After Lenin’s death in 1924, Stalin consolidated power and ultimately became the supreme leader.


His support was forged through determined

propaganda and soon an associated “cult of

personality” dominated internal affairs of pre-

World War II Soviet Russia.

Prior to the start of hostilities, “Stalin hesitated for almost two weeks in May-June 1937 before giving the NKVD the go ahead for the purge of the top Red Army leadership.”[4]

When it was done, over 35,000 Officers had been dismissed with well over 4,000 murdered. Of course, after 1941, the previously dismissed were all ordered back to active duty. One such officer ordered back to duty from imprisonment: Konstantin Rokossovsky.






RESOURCES

[1] R.A.C. Parker, The Second World War: A Short History, (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1989), 2.

[2] Ibid, 13.

[3] Perspectives: Benito Mussolini, (New York, NY: A&E Television Networks, 1961), 22 mins. 

[4] Peter Whitewood, The Red Army and the Great Terror: Stalin's Purge of the Soviet Military, (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2015).

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

“U.S. MARINE CORPS PRE-WAR TRAINING AND THE BATTLE OF BELLEAU WOOD: 1917-1918”

-
Image
I : Introduction                     The fighting in Belleau Wood, France, in  June, 1918 saw the command of the U.S. Marine 6th Machine Gun Battalion change hands four times in 11 days. Such was the nature of the vicious fight between the 4th Marine Brigade of the 2nd Infantry Division (U.S. Army) and the Germans pushing towards Paris. By all accounts, this first real test of the U.S Marines in the First World War, was a bloodletting that should have ended in a rout as the experienced and veteran German machine gunners tore into the inexperienced U.S. Marines. Rather than collapse, the 4th Marine Brigade withstood the German assaults and not only held firm, but triumphed. The U.S. Marine Corps 5th and 6th Marine Regiments in 1918 fought against the veteran and very experienced German infantry. This study seeks to identify how ad hoc Marine Corps infantry battalions and the newly formed 4...
Read more

1968 TET OFFENSIVE: The Beginning of the End for Continued U.S. Involvement in Vietnam

-
Image
  The Vietnam War after the Tet Offensive of 1968   The 1968 “Tet” Offensive spread out across South Vietnam between 30 and 31 January. The offensive produced shock both politically and militarily in the capital cities of Saigon and Washington D.C. The purpose of the offensive, in the extreme, was for Hanoi to cause a general uprising across the beleaguered cities of South Vietnam; a ‘popular enjoining’ of the fight by sympathetic South Vietnamese against the South Vietnamese government and her mighty ally, the United States. Sam Adams, a CIA analyst who was stationed in Vietnam at the time, believes Hanoi’s chief objective was to “jolt American public opinion right before the American elections. And in my view they succeeded in spades in doing that. [1] And at minimum, to cause chaos, sow worry and concern for South Vietnamese citizens and Americans alike, and to influence American public opinion. Surely the calculus of the North Vietnamese took into consideration the fre...
Read more

Generals Lee, Sherman, And Grant: The Tactical vs the Strategic

-
Image
  Generals Lee, Sherman, And Grant: The Tactical vs the Strategic General Tecumseh Sherman has been memorialized for his “March to the Sea,” the carnage wrought upon Georgia from November to December of 1864. This campaign was the culmination of his own unique strategy, developed as a subordinate of General Grant, and as a student of his own successes and failings during the three previous years of campaigning against the Confederacy. Sherman had seen Grants magnificence in the Vicksburg campaign in 1863. Grant had all but abandoned his logistics columns and supply lines after they were destroyed by Confederate Cavalry. Undeterred, Grant continued. Sherman modeled this concept during his own “Meridian” Campaign in Mississippi. Sherman is more remembered for his Armies ‘March to the Sea’, burning and wrecking most of Georgia along the way. “He fought in the battles at Shiloh , Vicksburg , and Chattanooga with mixed results, but he is the only man to twice receive the thanks of Co...
Read more

"CONVENTIONAL COMMANDERS IN AN UNCONVENTIONAL WAR: THE U.S. ARMY IN VIETNAM 1965-1967"

-
Image
INTRODUCTION                  Between 1965 and 1968 the majority of the Infantry Brigade and Battalion commanders fighting in Vietnam were veterans of the Second World War and/or the Korean war. Who were these   WWII veterans who led the U.S. Army in Vietnam and, as a group, how did they interpret their assigned tasks during the first two years of America’s involvement in Vietnam. This study illustrates how the ‘first wave’ of maneuver commanders, of whom a majority were veterans of the Second World War or Korea, adapted to myriad of conditions they faced across the 44 provinces in the Republic of Vietnam.   Within the historiography of the U.S. Army in Vietnam, the secondary literature concentrates on the strategy developed and implemented by the Military Assistance Command, Vietnam (MACV) and the ‘search and destroy’ operations executed across the country. A small group of scholars have argued that without any clear method th...
Read more