Product Description

Half a century after their deaths, the dictatorships of Stalin and Hitler still cast a long and terrible shadow over the modern world. They were the most destructive and lethal regimes in history, murdering millions. They fought the largest and costliest war in all history. Yet millions of Germans and Russians enthusiastically supported them and the values they stood for. In this first major study of the two dictatorships side-by-side Richard Overy sets out to answer the question: How was dictatorship possible? How did they function? What was the bond that tied dictator and people so powerfully together? He paints a remarkable and vivid account of the different ways in which Stalin and Hitler rose to power, and abused and dominated their people. It is a chilling analysis of powerful ideals corrupted by the vanity of ambitious and unscrupulous men.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #67638 in Books
• Published on: 2005-04-28
• Original language: English
• Binding: Paperback
• 928 pages

Review
The Dictators is not the first parallel study of the twentieth century's great dictatorships by any means- Richard Overy's work initially reminds one inevitably of Allan Bullock's magisterial Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives, that traced how closely the lives of Hitler and Stalin intertwined. Overy can safely claim however to have written a worthy successor to that tome- this is a very readable, intricately detailed and superbly crafted study of the exercise, acquisition, and terrible abuse of power in the modern era. Overy's focus is on the question of how the dictatorships differed- different in terms of the Utopias they promised their peoples and how these goals were to be reached, how the dictators themselves gained and exercised power in pursuit of this, what moral world they lived in and constructed around them for their close circles and the masses beneath them, and of course, how and why did they destroyed so many lives in the process? Of note are Overy's dissections of the strange mutual relationship, often indirect, between rulers and ruled- a collusion of sorts in the pursuit of a new age promised by both dictators to their peoples, the importance of scientific imperatives behind the visions of the dictators themselves, and the illusions created to project the 'message' to the public. At the heart of this book is the study of the fundamental difference between the two dictatorships. This was the huge gulf between their ideological goals- the very fuel of the leaders themselves, for all the similarities in their moral language, their use of science to support their vision of how society and the world should be ordered, their rejection of liberal politics, ostentatious national rebuilding, mass propaganda, and brutal suppression of 'enemies.' Both systems were born out of European wide crisis and rejection, 'both were sustained by similar political strategies and common patterns of authority, participation and popular response.' But ultimately Hitler believed he was fighting for a great idealized racial empire, Stalin pursued his vision of a worldwide socialist revolutionary triumph. As Overy notes: 'What united the two systems was the unresolved and permanent gap between ideal and reality, and the common instruments exploited by each system to mask the distortions of the truth.' Though we are now in the twenty first century the question of how these two men came to exercise so much power and create so much suffering within two major European states is still a major question of modern times, which deserves to be told again. Overy deserves his place at the forefront of British historians of the modern period and the Second World War. (Kirkus UK)

Michael Burleigh, Sunday Times
'Overy's monumental comparative history is invaluable'

Sam Leith, Spectator
'Engrossing, well written and wise'

Customer Reviews

Fantastic
I'm doing my A2 History coursework at the moment, which is comparing Hitler and Stalin, and this book has been a god- send.

It's entirely comparative and it's contents is clear, with each Chapter having a particular focus so that it is easy to dip in & out of.

For anyone studying History, this book is great, and for anyone not studying the subject, it could be a little dry to read in one go, but is easy and clear to understand.

Limited, not bad though
Alright now, where should I start.
I must express my general opinion first. After I will justify my opinion. I think Overy is wrong. However, when I challenge his opinion, I challenge the opinion of the general stream of western history writing, so it's risky. I'm doing it anyway.

So, I'll kick this off by stating - at the risk of sounding extreme - that I believe the old generation of history writing is trying to push Britain's naive actions (appeasement) regarding to Hitler onto everyone of his contemporaries. In this book, on Stalin. It looks to me like an attempt to justify the "gutlessness" of those times by generalizing it and simply drawing Hitler out of it, as if he was extremely different from other dictators, other leaders.
I am no Hitler fanatic, simply interested in the man in a historical point of view. And the more I read, the more I'm beginning to think he wasn't so awful as portrayed by us Europeans. His actions were so little different from those of Stalin, for example. Are we judging Hitler on partially false charges?

Overy has choosen his general line, which is that Hitler wanted war and Stalin only wanted to defend his country, and sticks to it without second thoughts. In fact, this is where I think the value of this book is diminished: on page 443 of this book Overy says that Stalin was o n l y being defensive and reactive. He mentions the possibility of Stalin's possibly aggressive plans in the 30s and the 40s and discards it the next sentence, stating simply that "the balance of evidence favors my idea". As if it couldn't be true that Stalin wanted communism in Europe.

Overy seems to ignore very important facts and very important evidence when drawing his conclusions. He for example fails to mention the aggressive nature of the armament produced by the soviets. Honestly, no man in his right sense would suggest that Stalin wanted to Defend his country with weapons unsuitable for defensive warfare, unusable in the USSR! I think Overy is being too one-sided, leaving out some major facts. This limits his views. And this was just one example.
I also think Overy uses quotes and other citations where they are not relevant (you know this if you know the context). For example, when he cites a speech held by Stalin in 1925, where Stalin pronounces that "the USSR shall have to participate in WWII but it shall only do it last to throw the decisive weight onto the scales, the weight that shall turn the scales." This does sound offensive. Overy however, only chose to mention the part where Stalin says that the USSR shall act last. This doesn't sound offensive as in the original speech, but rather cautious, hereby supporting Overy's thesis.

Of course the book has its value. If you are a high school student holding a speech on Stalin or Hitler, you'll be sure to get full marks by simply quoting this book. The thesis supported by Overy is what the academic Europeans hold in value. I w o u l d be critical however.
There is more to it than what this book tells you.