How does my essay look?

The Clash of Hitler and Stalin

A bit of a cheesy title if you may. This is an essay not a silly sensationalist documentary on the History Channel.

 

Ok I understand that you have your own way of writting and all but precision is universal. I need to see date of birth and death and the time they remained in power. They are not the "most brutal dictators of history" (judgemental) but "responsible for the death of millions".
Second your introduction is supposed to 1. present the field of your essay 2. ask a question 3. propose a hypothesis 4. sum up in a simple sentence your essay.
 In this case I guess you can start by saying that they fought the most violent conflict of the 20th century but have often been compared (here a quote by a historian would be useful). Why? Maybe because bla bla bla. Indeed it appears they were bla bla bla, bla bla bla and finally it can be said that bla bla bla.

            In 1917 a middle aged revolutionary formerly known Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvil also known as Joseph Stalin, Stalin translating from Georgian as “man of steel” earned this name due in most parts to being involved in years of criminal activity along with much time in exile in Siberia during the time of Czarist Russia, was now working along with many other Bolsheviks to overthrow the provisional government of Russia and install in it’s place a Bolshevik led one.

Have you seen the length of that sentence? You've lost me three times in it. And at the end of it I stil have no idea of what it is you intend to say... scrap it. What you want to do is to compare both men, don't start by talking only about one! Would make sense to start with ... a comparison.

Stalin along with the other cadres of the Vladimir Lenin led Bolsheviks would eventually succeed in their bold and revolutionary endeavor.

Once more what is the point of this sentence in a comparative point of view?

In the post-revolution years Stalin would continue to gradually rise in rank and importance both through merit and brutality, especially during the Russian Civil War a time in which he served in several important Bolshevik political positions.

idem

After the Civil War ended in the Bolsheviks favor in 1923, Joseph Stalin was left in a very strong political position and as he was appointed to the newly created position of General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union the preceding year, from this position Stalin would continue to consolidate political power in his favor and would also undermine his political opponents as well as shortly later on win in a power struggle with Leon Trotsky after the death of Lenin.

Tense problem, don't jump forward with "would". You can pretty much ban "would" from your vocabulary. Once more too long and not interesting for the core of the essay. On top of that, Stalin was much less appointed than self-appointed.

At this time Stalin was now the undisputed leader of the Soviet Union. Around this time a First World War Imperial German Army veteran originally hailing from Austria by the name of Adolf Hitler was becoming very active in chaotic post-World War I German politics.

Keep yourself to a essay style. This sentence is nice but way way way better suited for a novel or a best-selling biography.

Hitler like Stalin had become involved with more extreme elements in domestic politics(although through indeliberation) during hectic national times as he was involved with the German Worker’s Party(DAP) and was slowly moving himself up in importance in the DAP and was soon a leading figure within the organization. In the months and years to come the DAP under Hitler’s guidance would largely melt away and manifest it’s self into the newly founded National Socialist German Worker’s Party (NSDAP) in which Hitler was a founding member as well as a leading one. In the time to come The NSDAP with much of Hitler’s guidance would embark on such moves such as the Beer Hall Putsch for which Hitler would spend a short period in prison for during which time he wrote his famous work Mein Kempf (Which translates into my struggle) before helping the Nazi Party concentrate on gaining electoral strength from which the NSDAP would go from winning meager margins in elections to gaining enough to form a national government eventually in 1933 with Hitler at the helm. With both of these leaders now in power Joseph Stalin in 1922 and Adolf Hitler a little over a decade later in 1933, a pair of brutal tyrants had been brought to the forefront whose very similar yet different courses of actions would shape the history of modern civilization in the coming decades.

 

In this paragraph, you simply said that they both became leaders of their respective countries retty much at the same period. The last sentence is the pototype of things NEVER to put in an essay! While with the same material you could have written two paragraphs one pointing out that they arrived to leadership in two totally different ways (election for one, very weird circumstances for the other) but that these way were actually oddly similar (both killed their rivals, both used above all their control of their party's machinery, etc).

One very useful read at this point would be the chapters devoted to both men in Curzio Malaparte's The Technique Of The Coup d'Etat (available on line but for some strangereason my computer would not copy the link's URL, just check google)

Both Hitler and Stalin from political and historical observation were men of similar ambitions and motives in many ways as in regards to what directions they wanted to take their respective nations both domestic and in terms of international affairs, in addition to their overall leadership styles.

You can defend this idea but I strongly disagree: 1. I'm not sure you can judge historical characters' ambitions and motives specially in one paragraph! 2. their style of leadership though bloody was very different in the sense that Stalin never went for the clash the way Hitler did.

In terms of domestic policies the Nazi and Soviet Leader had much in common as both moved towards supporting a greater consolidation of the state’s role in economic affairs of their nations, for example Hitler had his own set of plans in dealing with economic affairs of Germany called the four-year plans which shared much in common with Stalin’s five-year plans.

Careful! The plan thing was in fashion at the time... even the US had their own. Besides, Hitler never truely took over the big companies, he made sure they were working for him but he never seized them. In the same way he made sure workers and unions were not creating any problems but were still well treated. Stalin was leading a whole different country: 1. much less industrialized 2. Stalin only treated the workers well in as much as he was treating the farmers worse.

The comon points are rather the heavy investment in infrastructures (autobahn in one case, canals in the other) and the heavy dose of ideology served to the working classes.

The Nazi Party even borrowed many ideas from the five-year plans for the four-year ones such as increased focus economic self-sufficiency

Once more it was a pretty much global trend from Italy to the US, France and the UK even Ireland!

as well as increased scrutiny to increasing the capabilities of infrastructure and industry.

hmmmm how effective was that?

As well as employing slave labor in various projects in similarity to what was occurring in the USSR at this time.

No, slave labor came late in Germany. Mostly until mid 1944, people in camps were kickly killed. And it never reached the scale of the Soviet canal construction.

In terms of international affairs both leaders sought to build up the militaries of their nations in addition to taking interventionist attitudes towards some geopolitical occurrences in the world in the pre-World War II years such as the Spanish Civil War where Hitler and Stalin seemed to almost wage a war by proxy against ether by supporting the Nationalist and Republican sides respectably.

This can be argued but the Soviet military investments before 1941 are mediocre at best compared to Germany's.

Although the ideology of Hitler and Stalin were contradicting, they often used the same arts of dictatorship as each other, the most known of which is cult of personality which both dictators developed extensively over the course of their rule in the pre-war years.

You can't jump from the economy to ideology like that. Each deserve a well-constructed paragraph. The "arts of dictatorship" is not a very precise expression. Once more it is not a novel. Besides the power of fear, totalitarism etc. are in my view much more important than the cult of personality which has always seems to me to be a bit of a gadget-ish easy answer. But one thing is for sure, Hitler was heavily influenced in terms of propaganda by Stalin. Finally be careful to distinguish between ruling method and ideology... it is quite different.

In addition both dictators employed the same arts of brutality against those who they viewed posed a threat or groups that were viewed as undesirable such as Stalin’s purges of political opponents(real or imagined) and deportations and targeting of various ethnic groups throughout the Soviet Union. This is counterpart in many ways to what was undertaken during Hitler’s rule in Pre-WWII Nazi Germany to what fate awaited opponents and enemies of the Nazi Regime such as Communists as well as those of religious, ethnic and social backgrounds that were intended targets of persecution such as Jews most notably, as well as other religious denominations that dared opposed Hitler and the Nazi regime as well as people with mental and physical disabilities as well as homosexuals and even the very small mulatto population of the Rhineland when it fell back under German rule. All of this however was only a preview to the industrialized murder that occurred during the course of the Final solution in Germany as well as in the rest of occupied Europe.

 
The bit on Hitler's victims is a bit too long. But that part could stand on its own: that's the way the rest should have been written: simple statement, example for Stalin example for Hitler. Maybe a line after the statement on the reason for this extremely strange behaviour: needed scapegoats? paranoia? etc.

 
This is OK but should be divided in two: 1. H & S's views on European domination 2. their ideology. Even though they were opposed (you could write a good paragraph about the difference between nazism and Stalinism).

 

Story-telling, not comparison. You can whether assumed it is known by your reader or mention it in introduction.

 

Simply repeating what you've already said, besides not analysis, just story-telling.