Comparing Hitler and Lenin

824 Words4 Pages
Both Hitler, who led the Nazi regime of Germany, and Lenin, who led the communists in Russia, created single party regimes that were autocratic and oppressive. They used fear to control the population as well as ensuring themselves as the absolute rulers of their countries. They both allowed themselves to pass laws that pleased them, without regard for the effects on the country. These two examples refute the claim that a single party regime does not have to be autocratic and oppressive because it was the only way for Hitler and Lenin to be successful. Both Hitler and Lenin’s regimes outlawed all other political parties from forming on order to stay in power. In March 1933, Hitler passed the Enabling Law, which allowed him to make laws in Germany without the consent of the Reichstag. This allowed him to get rid of those who limited his authority. He then passed the Law against the Formation of New Prties, stating that the Nazi Party was the only party allowed to exist in Germany, allowing Hitler full autocratic control and turning Germany into a one-party state. Hindenburg’s death in 1929 allowed Hitler full Dictatorship control over Germany. Once in power, Hitler went about turning Germany into a socialist party controlled state where the people were given little freedom. He worked on getting lebensraum, or living space, for the Germans and focused on fixing unemployment through the RAD and German Labor Front. Lenin similarly made laws that secured his influence on the country. His Sovnarkom laws of 1917 were like Hitler’s in that they were decrees on land, peace, work, unemployment, and press. However, after the civil war started, Lenin introduced War Communism, which was extremely oppressive to people’s freedoms. War Communism consisted of 5 aspects that focused on supplying food and weapons for the army and introducing a system of communism. He said, “The
Open Document