Nazism Vs Totalitarianism

854 Words4 Pages
As a conclusion, Arendt define totalitarianism as a combination of total terror and ideology with the potential of destructive power existing within both Nazi Germany and Stalin’s rule in Soviet Russia. Arendt’s argument was criticized massively since it draws similarities between a communist regime and national socialism which have completely different economic base and the structure of the party system (Kershaw, 2004 : 239). Moreover, there are differences between Nazism and Stalinism in terms of the role of the leader (Sauer, 1967 : 419). While fascist regimes are identical with their leaders, Bolshevism is relatively less dependent on the leaders in order to survive and maintain the social and political order. (Sauer, 1967 : 419). Sauer explains that “no fascist regime has so far survived without its leader” (Sauer, 1967 : 419). Moreover, when scholars started to analyze the historical realities of the Third Reich in a detailed manner over the last decades, it has become salient that Nazism is entirely different from the “monolithic image” of the totalitarian regimes (Sauer, 1967 : 407). Yet, the supporters of totalitarian approach maintains that existence of repressive apparatus, monopolistic ideology and total claim on the ruled makes Nazism quite similar to the Stalin’s rule (Kershaw, 2004 : 241). On the other hand, those who identify Nazism as fascism argues that “the forms of organization and the methods and functions of mass mobilization of the NSDAP bear much
Open Document