There were many totalitarian leaders that came to power prior to World War 2. They had common characteristis when it came to controlling their countrry.
212672
Who were they??? Does it matter. Hitler, Stalin, First Disarm then Control the media.
117662
Most European nations were over run by the Nazis in WW2 and the French were at the front line on Hitler's plans to invade England. Some nations stayed nuetral, however Hitler was intent on not only conquering these nations, but plundering them as well.
274175
1. The Military-Industrial Complex. World War II created a vast war industry, that was never really dismantled. In order to manage this vast military machine, the Pentagon was built (during the war). The war machine has been propping up the US economy for the last 60 years.\n\n2. The Presidency itself grew in power thanks to the actions of Fraklin Roosevelt. Truman was an activist president. Eisenhower wasn't as active, but most of his successors have liked wielding presidential power. The more power you want to wield, the more people you need working for you.\n\n3. Simply the growth of the United States. The population has almost doubled since 1940 -- more people, more needs. In order to fill the demands of the American people, there has been a need for more government agencies.
408412
Hitler would now be in power and most of use would be dead.\n\nPeople are way to weak these day's it's really a shame.
308072
This assumes that people were brighter in the past.\n Which they just were not.   Hence, Hitler ; Stalin;Mao;\nKim il Sung.   To name but a few. \n I have found that those who think everyone else is not as smart as themselves, are usualy quite thick and ignorant.\n\n                              Victor
467258
http://www.thedictatorship.com/ \nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship\n\nThese two sites are the best, you can get information off these
81827
Victors in wars always get to write the history books.  \n\nWhy did we ally ouselves to a know butcher in Joe Stalin? Nations face similar dilemmas. The Roosevelt administration formed a strategic alliance with Joe Stalin, a known butcher of millions of his own people, to fight Adolf Hitler, a man they considered to be a greater threat. That difficult decision determined the survival of the free world.\n\nSome people call us liberators, others conquerors, martyrs, fanatics, heroes, or just plain nut cases....its' all relative.  Write the history and call them what you like.
16054
Well, winning World War II set the United States up to be a world power.  It also helped ushered in a great deal of long-overdue reforms in Europe, and today a European Federal Constitution is now a very real possibility.  Further still,  had Hitler succeeded, he would have undoubetly gone on to destroy the United States indescriminatently.  He would not have spared a single American, even those who resembled his ideal race, because they had grown up in a culture that was, in his eyes, dirty and corrupt (not to mention we were his sworn enemy).  This is one of the many instances in which money plays no role, so the 2.6 trillion figure you site is meaningless.  And even though the use of atomic weapons is still controversial, that alone does not aide your case 'was stopping _Hitler_ worth it.  I'm frankly shocked and appauled that someone could use their freedom of speech, something that wouldn't be enjoyed in a Hilter-ized America, in such a blatantly ridiculous manner.
127841
Hitler wanted to rule the world and have everyone follow him like sheep! Without thinking what was right for the people. Bush is the same trying to have everyone believe he is not a liar! And a control Freak as Hitler was!! The world is now based on control over others and that is a sorry thing.
650957
We entered WWII after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, not because Hitler declared war on America, it was common knowledge that Hitler wanted to take over the world. It wasn't 20 million people it was 11-12 million. if you really want to place the blame anywhere but the Nazis and Fascists then you should blame France and Britain and the other Allies that attend the Munich Conference. It was here that the policy of appeasement was applied towards Hitler. Appeasement if you don't know is the act of giving in to enemies in order to avoid war. Britain and France allowed hitler to take over the Rhineland and it was only after hitler's invasion of Poland that the rest of Europe declared war. Also the blame lies with the individals that lived in areas surrounding the concentration camps that swore after the war that they had no idea what was going on in their backyards (as if the smell of rotting and burning flesh isn't and obvious give away!!) and FDR's New Deal Programs helped to pull us out of the Great Depression as opposed to Hoover who didn't try to help the unemployed and starving people that were being thrown from their homes!
117166
in classical usage, a dictator referred to a constitutional extraordinary chief magistrate without a colleague in Ancient Rome, who temporarily received absolute power during times of emergency. Their power was neither arbitrary nor unaccountable, however, being subject to law and requiring retrospective justification. There were no such Roman dictators after the hated Sulla (81BC), and later de facto dictators were otherwise styled (such as Triumvir and the Princeps or Roman Emperor), and exercised power more personally and arbitrarily.\n\nDictatorships in the modern sense tend to exert their power without any regard to the moral or ethical consequences of their actions. They hardly ever come to power by democratic means, often being installed by a coup d'état or revolution. Often they will assert that they are using their powers, like ancient Roman dictators, to deal with the enormity of some emergency, real or imagined. However, dictators and their governments rarely lay down their power once any such crisis has abated. In the lack thereof, they sometimes invent their own, such as in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin.\n\nSuch regimes survive out of the fear the people have for the government. Dictatorships often use armed force, propaganda, and arbitrary detention to enforce their will, and usually suppress any opinion which runs counter to their own. Dictators in single-party states, as opposed to military juntas, often create single-party states without elections, or with rigged or heavily biased ones.\n[edit]\n\nPower\n\nThe existence of dictatorships often relies solely upon the power which they are capable of exerting over their citizens. Without it, they usually disintegrate or are completely ineffectual, such as the Bolshevik government of Russia shortly after it came to power. Modern dictatorships have used not only force and coercion, but also the mass media as tools of control. In China for instance, a communist single-party state, the government controls all news broadcast in the country, censors the internet, and often simply detains those who resist.\n\nThe cultures created by many dictatorships foster what has been termed the "cult of personality", where not only is the media controlled by the state, but serves to glorify it and its leader. In Nazi Germany, a picture of Adolf Hitler appeared in nearly every building. Under Saddam Hussein, every news broadcast in Iraq began with a reference to himself. Entire art museums were filled with paintings of the leader. The underlying tendency to want absolute power and control has been termed megalomania. Governments which impose absolute control and personality cults are sometimes known as totalitarian, a term originated by the dictator Benito Mussolini of Italy.\n\nSome dictatorships are supported by much of the general public, such as in Nazi Germany. These regimes often usher in a period of calm after civil war or economic hard times. Again, the governments justify their methods as responses to the current crisis, even after it has abated. Dictatorships rarely retain lasting support, however. Eventually the people begin to push for greater freedoms, and the dictatorship is forced to employ more coercive tactics in order to survive. Such was the case in the communist regimes of Eastern Europe during the Cold War, many of which enjoyed initial popular support.
302667
Totalitarian.  Communists and socialists are totalitarian.
642787
After world war2 the soviet  block set themselves up as a cross trading group of nations.These nations were heavily dependant on the ussr.While in the west all of the nations were indepedant of each other and prospered.With the collapse of the soviet union(ussr)the economy of these countries was found wanting
114004
Basically World World II was like a continuation of World World I. Essentially this is what happened. World War I starts (aka - The Great War pre WWII) and afterwards its like everyone took a break. I'm not joking either. It was like a pause for 20 years. In the early 1930's, Japan invaded China. China actually had the most amount of casualties, not Russia or Eastern Europe. \n\nMost countries blamed Germany and so Germany had many sanction and restrictions put on the country. Hitler played off of these emotions and blamed the Jewish population for all of Germany's problems. At this time, Hitler was also quickly moving up in the ranks and finally became Dictator. \n\nHitler then started annexing countries in the mid to left 1930's and every country began to appease him. After he took over Poland and much of France, it was too late. The non-aggression pact between Germany and Russia made Hitler essentially invulnerable because from Eastern Europe was essentially all his to take over minus Russia. (Hitler would later reneg on the non-agreesion pact)\n\nThe United States needed an excuse to get into WWII and they finally got one on June 6, 1941 - Pearl Harbor. \n\nAbout 6 million jews were killed and 6 million gypsies, homosexuals, etc were killed. \n\nIn China, about 20-25 million were killed.
45542
probably Hitler of Germany.....not a good person but still was a very powerful leader .....at the present time though its probably George Bush same as Hitler not a very good person but still very powrful.\nalso napolean was quite a strong leader.
136818
There are way too many comparisons to even get started.  The economic circumstances as they relate to foreign trade and relations are nearly identical.  The "military advantage" over the conquered is identical.  The transformation of republic into totalitarian rule is identical.  To think that just because we repeat history but we throw more money and we have more technology so the outcome will be different is just ignorance and arrogance mixed...which the Romans had in spades just like us.
219840
"Better" racists? Hope you lagging English skills. There was nothing good about either of them. I'm a German and I know what I'm talking about. If you mean, which was the bigger organisation, then it was the Nazis. We controlled almost the whole European continent and had big allies. We pretty much scared the living shit out of everybody on this Planet these days. Ask old people. Our enemies where shitting themselves. KKK is not even known that well in Europe and cant compare to the third Reich.