Similarities Between Hitler And Stalin
Furthermore, the possibility of revolting against Nazi or Stalinist rule was nearly impossible for prisoners. For victims of Stalinism, exercising resistance endangered their lives, and for those under Hitler’s regime, exerting their will against the Nazi was rarely even considered. As part of Solzhenitsyn depiction of life as a prisoner, he explains the potential dangers of engaging in acts of resistance against the Stalinist government by stating “it was safer to keep dynamite during the rule of Alexander II than it was to shelter the orphan of an enemy of the people under Stalin.” This contrast serves as a measurement of the challenges that made resistance extremely difficult for victims. As well as this, the general mistrust and secrecy
…show more content…
Likewise, corruption was key to the tenacity of authoritarian rule. As described by Solzhenitsyn, when houses were burned or bombed, Soviet people would “profit form those who were stricken” by stealing their possessions. Additionally, lying became a justifiable and common behavior among individuals within this regime, as it was the only means in which they could survive. One of the most shocking assertions the author makes is presented when he explains the difficulties of having to lie to children and how “the choice was really such that you would rather not have any children.” Similarly, Frankl addresses apathy as one of the major results of life at Nazi concentration camps. The conditions that prisoners had to face made the “blunting of the emotions and the feeling that one could not care any more” common symptoms among individuals. In a way, corruption and apathy were mechanism of self-defense for those who endured the difficulties and cruelties of Nazi and Stalinist rule. Finally, one of the common features of both regimes was the fact that they accustomed individuals to see and justify violent and brutal conducts. As both authors assert, signs of kindness or mercy, like helping a friend or sharing one’s food were not only ridiculed, but also
Likewise, corruption was key to the tenacity of authoritarian rule. As described by Solzhenitsyn, when houses were burned or bombed, Soviet people would “profit form those who were stricken” by stealing their possessions. Additionally, lying became a justifiable and common behavior among individuals within this regime, as it was the only means in which they could survive. One of the most shocking assertions the author makes is presented when he explains the difficulties of having to lie to children and how “the choice was really such that you would rather not have any children.” Similarly, Frankl addresses apathy as one of the major results of life at Nazi concentration camps. The conditions that prisoners had to face made the “blunting of the emotions and the feeling that one could not care any more” common symptoms among individuals. In a way, corruption and apathy were mechanism of self-defense for those who endured the difficulties and cruelties of Nazi and Stalinist rule. Finally, one of the common features of both regimes was the fact that they accustomed individuals to see and justify violent and brutal conducts. As both authors assert, signs of kindness or mercy, like helping a friend or sharing one’s food were not only ridiculed, but also