History or Hysteria?

Is post-election Russia the equivalent of Germany’s hapless Weimar Republic? Comparisons by Russian and Westerners have run so rampant that many now are simply nit-picking over exactly which Weimar year today’s Russia resembles most. Is Vladimir V. Zhirinovsky, the neo-fascist whose party showed surprising strength in recent parliamentary elections, the Adolf Hitler of 1924, 1929 or 1932? Even Boris N. Yeltsin felt compelled to renounce the comparison, though the Russian president conceded “there are similarities.” Some of them:

Both countries suffered stunning blows to their national pride . . .

Germany: Humiliated by World War I defeat and aftermath, needed loans to pay war reparations.

Russia: Lost the Cold War, resulting in a demoralized military and reduction from superpower to beggar at the doorstep of the West.

. . . both suffered economic collapse, with high unemployment . . .

Germany: 30.1% in the industrial sector, 1930-1933.

Russia: Estimates of 5% to 20% and rising, though officially it is low.

. . . plummeting production . . .

Germany: fell by 50% or so, 1929-1932.

Russia: fell by 25% or so in a year.

. . . and skyrocketing inflation.

Germany: Marks became so worthless people hauled them to the market in wheelbarrows.

Russia: Kopeks have gone out of circulation, to be followed Jan. 1 by bills worth 10 rubles and under. Prices on many goods and services have increased a thousandfold since 1989.

And while political warning flags flew with extremists’ strong showings . . .

Germany: Hitler’s National Socialists win 18% of votes in Reichstaf elections in 1930. In 1932, Nazis were the largest single group in Parliament, with 230 seats.

Russia: Zhirinovsky’s Liberal Democratic Party of Russia got about 23% of the party-slate votes for the new state Duma.

(Communists also received significant amounts of votes in both contests.)

. . . centrist, democratic elements fiddled . . .

Germany: Failure of successive chancellors Heinrich Bruning, Franz von Papen and Kurt von Schleicher to create an effective national government and disunion among Hitler’s opponents led to his appointment as chancellor in 1933.

Russia: Failure of Yegor T. Gaidar, Grigory Yavlinski, Sergei M. Shakhrai and other reformist politicians to unite led to the success of Zhirinovsky in parliamentary elections.

. . . and the chief executive in power vacilated. . .

Germany: Before parliamentary elections, President Paul von Hindenburg vowed to stay above the fray. Fascists gained power and he soon became a puppet.

Russia: Yeltsin long remained nearly mute on elections. Neo-fascists gained strength and observers say president erred in not supporting reformers or forming own party.

. . . or he stirred resentment toward the existing government.

Germany: Chancellor Bruning before elections passed drastic financial decrees, talked dryly of “sacrifices.”

Russia: Gaidar sputtered about inflation and economic programs. Many disenfranchised Russians directly equate him with their falling standard of living.

. . . but then, neither country has tradition of democracy, with historical roots in . . .

Germany: Feudalism, serfdom, expansionist Kaiser Wilhelm II.

Russia: Tyrants from Ivan the Terrible to Josef Stalin, restrictive regimes from the Tatar-Mongol yoke to the seven-decade Communist experiment.

Many see similarities between Hitler and Zhirinovsky:

Both were outsiders . . .

Hitler: Born in Austria; pushed tall, blond Aryan ideal but was short and swarthy himself; there is speculation he was part Jewish.

Zhirinovsky: Born in Kazakhstan; claim’s he’s full-blooded Russian but most race-sensitive Russians say his father was Jewish, citing the elder Zhirinovsky’s first name, Volf, as proof.

. . . who were products of an unhappy youth . . .

Hitler: Unappreciated artist.

Zhirinovsky: Wrote in autobiography: “I grew up in a world where there was no warmth--not from my relatives, for from my friends or teachers. I felt somehow superfluous, forever in the way, an object of criticism.”

. . . but became well-known for charisma with public . . .

Hitler: A fiery speaker, he mesmerized crowds and retained experts in manipulating psyche of the masses.

Zhirinovsky: His TV-based campaign was so effective that some have accused him of practicing “mass hypnosis.”

. . . Infamous for racial views . . .

Hitler: Responsible for deaths of millions of Jews and others.

Zhirinovsky: Speaks ill of Central Asians and other Muslims. He reportedly called Jews “an infection.” and wants people of the Caucasus--Armenians, Azerbaijanis and Georgians--expelled from Russia.

. . . and notorious for global outlook.

Hitler: Justified military campaigns with vision of uniting ethnic Germans in Sudetenland and elsewhere. “Today Germany, tomorrow the world,” he proclaimed.

Zhirinovsky: Pleads case of ethnic Russians stranded in former Soviet republics. Talks of restoring the Soviet Union; envisions in autobiography “Russian Orthodox Church bells ringing on the shores of the Indian Ocean.”

Differences may prevent disaster:

Radical right is organized differently . . .

Germany: Hitler’s following was tightly disciplined, party structure well developed.

Russia: Many voted for Zhirinovsky out of sheer spite; former allies say his party consists of him alone; many future lawmakers on his party list do not even know each other.

. . . two republics have different relations with world.

Germany: Had lost a war in which it was the aggressor, bringing hatred of other countries.

Russia: Is seen by outsiders as victim of communism, thus has sympathy of the West and--even in recessionary times--is beneficiary of serious aid attempts. These have intensified with emergence of Zhirinovsky.