Revisionist history implies that both Stalin's and Hitler's dictatorships were “modernist,” thus returning to traditional contentions about totalitarianism. There can be no objection to the comparison between Hitler and Stalin, including the atrocities committed. Totalitarianism can be compared in several categories. Both Hitler and Stalin made total demands on society with unprecedented repression and attempted indoctrination. The problem with the term totalitarianism is that it is a descriptive concept, not a theory. Stalinism and Hitlerism are both “totalitarian,” so the two regimes are assumed to share more similarities than differences. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Kershaw argues that Stalinism and Hitlerism are actually more different than similar. The goal is to explain Nazism's system of destruction and momentum, demonstrating that Nazism undermined traditional order-based power structures. To do this, Kershaw examines important points of conflict between Hitler and Stalin. Stalin came to power within a system of government and came to power through the secretariat. Hitler was a wild card. He was not the product of a system. Hitler did not behave like a normal totalitarian ruler. He was indecisive and often put off important decisions for long periods of time. It was difficult for his top cabinet members to meet him to make a decision. Hitler's separation was deeper than a difference in style, it was a profound difference in the essence of the regimes. Stalin was an interventionist dictator. He wanted to monopolize decision-making and eliminate the need for the party-state system. Hitler was essentially the opposite. Hitler's orders were sporadic. He stopped meetings with the cabinet after two years and has consistently done things to promote a dualism between state and party. Stalin wanted to destabilize the government to remove challengers, Hitler had no plan for this and his leadership structure was a chaotic mess. In Hitlerism, power was determined by loyalty and not by functional positioning. Hitler had more power than Stalin, because he was not a dictator within a system. There were rational bases for Stalin's purges. He was threatened from within and purged those closest to him to avoid being overthrown. Hitler thought Stalin was crazy to carry out purges because he had no internal threat. Hitler's regime was deeply rooted in belief in the loyalty of supporters, while Stalin could not believe in loyalty. Hitler's status in the Nazi Party was different from that of Stalin in the Communist Party because communism could survive without Stalin. Nazism could not survive without Hitler. From the mid-1920s, the Fuhrer's party was formed. Ideological orthodoxy manifested itself in adhering to Hitler and that was the only way to advance in the party. For this reason, there were no potential threats within Nazism. Although Stalin's regime was characterized by barbaric methods and radicalism, there was an objective and rational model in terms of decision-making. There was no widespread nationalism in Stalin's regime and the system could survive Stalin's reign. Nazism was different. The momentum of radicalization, barbarism and destructiveness has not been able to slow without radically changing the “system”. The erosion of Nazi rule was not only due to party-state dualism, but to the predatory nature of the party which fostered an environment of competing and overlapping government agencies. Although Hitler's leadership was extremely important for the party.