Arendt rightly contests Brzezinski’s second point in saying that a “lack of or ignoring of a party program is by itself not necessarily a sign of totalitarianism”. In theory totalitarianism can be made to exist in any form of government, from democracy to communism to a dictatorial state. Should a democratic candidate be elected into an office which has been given total power over the state he/she will rule with the support of the party they are affiliated with; then they are a totalitarian ruler in a democratic system, despite the existence of other political parties. Hitler earned his power through the Enabling Act of 1933, a move that was apparently approved via plebiscite and thus he was a dictator with totalitarian tendencies under what was still a democratic system. However, Arendt goes on to suggest that Hitler was nothing more than a “functionary of the masses” and “without the masses, the leader is a non-entity”. In a matured totalitarian system Arendt’s point carries no relevance as the leader should never have to worry about the support of the masses since the masses will always support him given the fact that they will have been indoctrinated with pro-totalitarian ideas throughout their education. Hitler derived majority support from the bourgeois and less so from the rich, and little from the proletariat. If, however, his support faltered there was a real chance that he would be killed or he would be forced out of office. This is simply because Hitler’s totalitarian state was still young, in time Hitler -or the Nazi party- would have gained the political security totalitarianism demands.
Along with the stability of political thought comes prevention of any possible avenues to threaten the ruling party. To ensure this Hitler oversaw a “monopolistic control of the armed forces”; a preliminary but ongoing procedure which is necessary to control a totalitarian state or indeed any state. The government must be able to regulate the actions of the armed forces and the munitions industry as a factor in the total control of a nation. Such a concept is technically outdated since currently all developed nations control the armed forces of their respective states. In Nazi Germany, it was a sudden transition of control which was completed in the wake of the Night of the Long Knives, where the SS kidnapped and murdered many of Hitler’s personal enemies; one such enemy was Ernst Röhm, head of the Sturm Abteilung (SA). In the aftermath, Hitler had the German Army swear an oath of allegiance to him personally, and thus he became the commander-in-chief of the armed forces of Germany. It should be noted that “Germany was not compelled to prepare on such a scale for war – that was a deliberate decision taken by Hitler”, and as such the role of the army is determined by the leader and predetermined by the totalitarian ideology.
Arendt supports the requirement for the “monopolistic control of the armed forces” but distinguishes the need as only preliminary and part of the totalitarian process rather than lasting criteria. In her opinion, as a totalitarian movement gains power and finally get into power, little is changed; The system remains democratic until such time as “all government positions are held by party members”, and thus “the power of the party rests on a monopoly guaranteed by the state”. This monopoly must, by implication, include the armed forces and since controlling the army ensures continued power and since control must be obtained immediately and retained thereafter, it is not a preliminary requirement but a constant factor for the upkeep of the state. Hitler retained this power; he ensured that he was the final authority on all military matters and thus cemented his authority through German military successes.
Military successes are admittedly important, but not as important as economic success. Hermann Göring was put in charge of the four-year plan that related to the “central control and direction of the entire economy”. It is essential that a totalitarian state play a direct role in every aspect of the operation of the state but with respect to the economy there only needs to state direction, with only so much control as to ensure effectiveness. When Hitler allocated someone a role, he tended to allocate a contradicting role to another person or persons. This ensured that policy -especially economic policy- was applied ineffectively as conflicting interests limited the effectiveness of certain strategies. Hitler put Göring in charge of the four-year plan but encouraged competition and the agricultural sector through the Reich Economic Chamber. Put simply, the point of a centralised economy is to eradicate private competition and establish a state-run economy similar to communist economic systems and this is what the four-year plan was geared to do; it would transform Germany into a ‘war economy’ and as such aimed to prepare for war, reduce unemployment and to demand obedience of the population through the accelerated growth in armed forces. The economy of the totalitarian state must be effectively directed with only so much control that the system can be directed effectively; it must obtain growth and combat economic problems to the best of its ability so as to ensure political, social and economic stability.
Conversely, Arendt argues that “the totalitarian dictator regards the natural and industrial riches of each country … as a source of loot and a means of preparing the next step of aggressive expansion”. Arendt thus labels the totalitarian economy as a war economy, but it is not necessary for a totalitarian leader to adopt such an economy as such economies finance expansionistic foreign policies and totalitarianism does not have to have an international focus; rather it must have a national focus. Arendt is too specific on this point and is once again directly attacking Hitler rather than discussing the realities of totalitarianism. Totalitarianism does not require “state ownership of all the means of production and distribution but, rather, a central control and direction of the economy”; with only so much control so as to ensure central direction. A totalitarian state refers to the structure of the state, and not necessarily the aspirations of the leader. Similarly, the economy does need to be centrally directed, but it does not have to be directed so as to be a war economy.
No matter what economic system the state chooses to facilitate, there needs to be a “monopoly of the means of effective mass communication” so as to ensure that economic, social and political goals can be obtained and the people can be informed of such successes. Contrary to Brzezinski’s criterion, a totalitarian state does not need to control every method of mass communication, rather there is only a requirement to strongly regulate, influence or control a majority of all the major methods of mass communication subject to the discretion of the leader. Infant totalitarian states need to control what the public hears to a greater degree than a matured totalitarian state and as such, in Nazi Germany laws were enacted that forbade the public listening to any foreign radio; the national radio station was to be on at all times. To ensure that people listened to the national radio, the Nazis mass produced cheap ‘peoples’ radios, called Volkssempfanger, to such an extent that 70% of all German households contained one. It was written as part of the Reich Press Law that newspaper editors must “keep out of the papers anything which… tends to weaken the strength of the German Reich.” The cinema was similarly regulated and only allowed movies created or approved by Gobbels and his Ministry and Chamber of Films (MCF), established in 1933. While it was under direct public control, the MCF did not simply produce propaganda. Gobbels avoided this by attaching contextual storylines, ‘Nazified’ storylines, which reinforced the values of the Nazi party and managed to keep overt propaganda films to low levels of approximately 5%. Perhaps the final primary method of mass communication was the Church, which the Nazis did not censor unless the religion “endangered the German race”. This freedom of religion, as promised in the Nazi’s 25-point plan, was further strengthened when Hitler agreed to grant the Catholic Church autonomy in Germany and in return the Vatican would not involve itself in politics. This agreement did not last long, and by 1937 priests were forced to apply for licenses and religious holidays no longer applied to the German people. It follows that major censorship and government regulation of the methods of mass communication are necessary for a totalitarian state to survive; it is to what extent it is adopted or required that varies.
Such censorship was enforced by the law. The law enforcement of Nazi Germany is universally recognised as a “terroristic police force” owing to their brazenly brutal enforcement tactics. With the establishment of the Gestapo in 1933, Hitler ensured that the public would not oppose him as he had them publicly execute their brutal tactics. This was never more obvious than in 1934 Hitler purged his party with the help of the SS and the Gestapo, who acted under the guise of Article 48 of the German Constitution which stated that the government could legally push civil liberties beyond the usual limits of the constitution for the “protection of the people and the State”. When this order was decreed in 1933, no restrictions were set down on the actions of the state; this was the first time no restrictions were specified. This was extremely dangerous for anyone who was politically against the Nazis, as they could now arrest without warrant, hold suspects indefinitely and refuse legal counsel. “In the background there lurked the terror of the Gestapo and the fear of the concentration camp for those that got out of line or who had been [against Nazism].” Total terror breeds total loneliness; total loneliness enables total power.
While a totalitarian state requires simply that dissenters fear being discovered, Arendt approaches the aspect of terror from a totally different angle. She suggests that the system of terror works not singularly through the assumption that dissenters will be killed, but that the entire population sees themselves as superfluous. According to Arendt “totalitarianism strives not toward despotic rule over men, but toward a system to which men are superfluous”. In any such system, the fear of being expendable for the good of the system results in a state of subordination. Thus the system of terror not only ‘encourages’ near fanatical loyalty and support, but encourages competition among people the entire population to ensure their respective ‘superiors’. This is the very fear that Hitler instilled in the echelons of the party; it is also why many of the policy decisions were undermined, complicated and ineffectual.
This system should not be mistaken for as simple a concept as an autocracy, dictatorship or monarchy; it is a far harder stage to reach than any of them. Through analysis of the sources it is obvious that the perception of totalitarianism has changed, or rather it has been complicated and become far too specific. It is clear that Arendt’s book is a point of reference for Brzezinski and Friedrich’s book but it is not based solely on her work alone, it offers new ideals which are “newly pertinent to the historian’s own time”, and all the biases that go with it. The concepts put forward were obviously carried contextual biases that stand to taint all future histories written on the subject and as such any definition put forward must reflect the versatility and the all pervasive legitimacy of the political spectrum. The use of generic terms to describe political systems means that such terms cannot be used comparatively; rather the usefulness of generic terms is limited to general and extremely basic understanding. Totalitarianism is one such term, as the usefulness of it as a tool for classifying historical and contemporary political systems is undermined by the inability to use it as a comparative term owing to the flexibilities of every political system including totalitarianism itself. If it must be loosely used as a comparative term then, to protect historical objectivity, it must be understood that totalitarianism is not a dirty word; it is a real political option.
Bibliography
- Arendt, Hannah – The Origins of Totalitarianism (André Deutsch, 1951)
- Brzezinski, Zbigniew and Friedrich, Carl – Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy, (Harvard University Press, 1965)
- Dennett, Bruce and Dixon, Stephen – Key Features of Modern History, (Oxford University press, 2000)
- McCallum, Anne – Germany: 1918-1945 (Rigby Heinemann, 1992)
- Phillips, Peter – The Tragedy of Nazi Germany, (Praeger Publishers, 1970)
- Shirer, Willam L – The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (Pan Books Ltd, 1959, reprinted 1981)
Source Evaluation
Arendt, Hannah – The Origins of Totalitarianism (André Deutsch, 1951)
Arendt was the first of a number of Political theorists to attempt to define totalitarianism and as such her book was integral to the argument of this paper. While she is perhaps the leading and most credible theorist given how ‘current’ the issues were at the time that she wrote her book, how clearly she conveys her ideas and how obvious it is that she has attempted to be objective in her work; she lacks a vision which would allow her to allow for variations of the totalitarian system and the ability to separate her feelings about Hitler -given that she was a Germany Jew under Hitler- from the definition she put forward.
As a source, Arendt’s book is invaluable simply because it is the original totalitarian philosophy. Her experiences under Hitler provide for an insight unavailable to many political historians today but also allows for discrepancies and emotive language where they are inappropriate. Her work also provides a contrast with the more recent book by Brzezinski and Friedrich in terms of the biases present. Arendt’s book is, in all respects, extremely credible in that she obviously does, for the most part, discuss totalitarianism rather than attempt to represent her feelings towards Hitler; it is her objectivity that earns her credibility.
Brzezinski, Zbigniew and Friedrich, Carl – Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy, (Harvard University Press, 1965)
Brezinski and Friedrich were both Professors at Harvard University when they wrote their book; Americans, Academics, Authors and the Cold War. The Cold War resulted in a manifestation of rational debate, leaving the authors without much credibility, apart from their positions. Their book is good in that it breaks totalitarianism down into six factors making it easy to understand and easy to apply, this is also their failing. Many of their criteria were far too specific and as such left absolutely no room for disparities and thus they limited the usefulness of the term itself; this did not prevent historians using the term in their work, it did not stop them letting Cold Ward biases slip into their work.
As a source, Brzezinski and Friedrich’s book is invaluable due to the fact it highlights a different era and contains different contextual influences, at least with respect to Arendt’s book. Since they are Harvard Professors they both gain immediate credibility, perhaps an assumption they are undeserving of. Their theory lacks integrity; it lacks an objective attempt to define totalitarianism and as such it provided a source that could be easily debated.
Shirer, Willam L – The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (Pan Books Ltd, 1959, reprinted 1981)
Shirer’s book was the primary point of reference for all information on the Third Reich contained in this paper. Shirer was a foreign correspondent who held many posts across Europe the most famous of these being his work for the Chicago Tribune between 1926 and 1941, where he was posted in Germany. It is an excellent source in that Shirer has worked for over five years to finish this book and collected information from a huge amount of sources, such that his work approaches the credibility that is lent to Richard Evans. Thus Shirer provides this paper with credible support in terms of comparison between Nazi Germany and the philosophies of Totalitarianism.
The only thing ‘wrong’ with Shirer’s book is that he is an American expelled from Germany once war broke out. He also, however, lived in Germany for many years before that, giving him not only an insight into the German people from about Hitler’s rise but an understanding of the people that put Hitler into power. His account is balanced and does not seem to be writing from an anti-Nazi perspective, which he probably does to ensure his credibility remains intact and his book remains usefulness as a source; he achieved this.
Process Log
November, 2003
Decided on a paper focussing on the Battle of Stalingrad, but had no precise question in mind. I began my research by reading books on Stalingrad and about Nazi Germany with an emphasis on Hitler’s state of mind.
December, 2003
Reading continued, other research was undertaken in the form of internet research and looking for other electronic and physical sources. I enjoyed the holidays.
January, 2004
Reading and research trailed off, giving way to continued enjoyment of the holidays.
February, 2004
Research began again, reading progressed well. Question changed focus to why Hitler lost. Discussed ideas and changes to the question with Mr Davis, he located me some useful sources to add to my growing collection.
March, 2004
I called and emailed Jürgen Tampke, Professor of History at UNSW, with the help of Mr Davis. Mr Tampke helped me refine my question further, but accidentally pointed me in the direction of the rise of Hitler. His emails contained sources that he recommended I use. My focus was in doubt, and as such I could tell I was about to change my question again.
April, 2004
Due to exams and an extremely busy Easter Holidays, minimal work was achieved over this time.
May, 2004
By this time I had changed my question briefly to the Rise of Hitler and soon after I changed it to an investigation on what totalitarianism really is. I received Arendt’s book courtesy of the ANU library, Mr Davis subsequently provided me with a paperback copy which he ‘forgot he had.’ Mr Wyatt lent me some books which carried references to the Third Reich and Totalitarianism under Hitler. Mr Marshall helped me similarly.
June, 2004
The major work was firmly underway, all sources gathered and writing continued solidly. Brzezinski and Friedrich’s book only arrived this month, which put me slightly behind. I showed Mr Marshall the drafts, and he helped me with structure and coherency,
July, 2004
Mr Wyatt reviewed my work, giving me feedback with respect to coherency; fellow students also reviewed my work to ensure it was coherent. The deadline is today.
The lack of a mass media limited the influence of rulers, and the social hierarchy in place limited the visibility of the ruling class or at least the higher echelons of the ruling class.
Brzezinski, Zbigniew and Friedrich, Carl – Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy, (Harvard University Press, 1965) p22
This is due to the fact that Hitler did not immediately decree the ‘final solution’. If he hated the Jews as much as party members must have, he would have decreed it immediately. He didn’t. It was a gradual process of escalating violence which was ordered by the cabinet rather than Hitler himself.
Arendt, Hannah – The Origins of Totalitarianism (André Deutsch, 1951) p465
Brzezinski, Zbigniew and Friedrich, Carl – ob cit p22
McCallum, Anne – Germany: 1918-1945 (Rigby Heinemann, 1992) p73
Dennett, Bruce and Dixon, Stephen – Key Features of Modern History, (Oxford University press, 2000) p263
To be effective the leader must listen to the party at least in an advisory capacity, but the last Nazi cabinet meeting was in February 1938.
Arendt, Hannah – ob cit p325
This concept is entirely theoretical as in reality it would not remain a democracy for long.
The results are likely to have been falsified, but the ‘outcome’ was widely used to substantiate the Führer myth.
Arendt, Hannah – ob cit p325
Although the latter is unlikely given that he honestly believed in his all or nothing strategy. If cornered, it is very likely he would struggle until the very last; as he did.
Brzezinski, Zbigniew and Friedrich, Carl – ob cit p22
The SA was the Nazi private army, which grew to far surpass the Reichswehr (Germany Army), which was limited to 100,000 as per the Treaty of Versailles. With Röhm in command of such a force Hitler knew a power struggle would result, especially given that Röhm detested Hitler.
Shirer, Willam L – The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (Pan Books Ltd, 1959, reprinted 1981) p323
Arendt, Hannah – ob cit p419
Brzezinski, Zbigniew and Friedrich, Carl – ob cit p22
McCallum, Anne – ob cit p96
Arendt, Hannah – ob cit p416f.
Phillips, Peter – The Tragedy of Nazi Germany, (Praeger Publishers, 1970) p88
Brzezinski, Zbigniew and Friedrich, Carl – ob cit p22
Dennent, Bruce and Dixon, Stephen – ob cit p 269; this was actually the highest level throughout the world and anyone who was found to be listening to foreign radio stations would be charged with treason. This would mean either death or extreme prison sentences.
Shirer, William L – ob cit p305
Gobbels realised that constant and direct propaganda efforts would only lead to unrest as the public -who simply wish to be entertained- begin boycotting the cinemas.
McCallum, Anne – ob cit p109
The clergy itself felt differently. Both the Catholic and the Protestant Church in Germany split apart, some sects supported Hitler and others did not. Those who did not ran secret anti-Nazi meetings and helped dissenters escape. Some even involved themselves in active attempts to assassinate Hitler, Dietrich Bonhöffer and Pastor Niemöller were two such priests and both were part of a Protestant sect called the “Confessing Church”. Bonhöffer was involved in the July plot to kill Hitler. He was subsequently caught and executed by firing squad.
McCallum, Anne – ob cit, p107
Brzezinski, Zbigniew and Friedrich, Carl – ob cit p22
This special decree could only be ordered by the President, who happened to be Hitler after he combined the offices of Chancellor and President with the death of President Hindenburg.
There was one cosmetic restriction attached whereby the police are supposed to use the powers impartially were ordered by Göring to apply the decree to leftists only. Police were told to shoot first and ask questions later and that discipline would be applied to any officer who was perceived to be slow on the trigger.
Phillips, Peter – ob cit p90
Shirer, William L – ob cit p288. It helped that the Gestapo were legally above the law.
Phillips, Peter – ob cit p82
Arendt, Hannah – ob cit p457
Nye, Russel B. – History, Meaning and Method, Scott, Foresman and Co., 1975