Identity of Totalitarianism in Power

Totalitarianism has a peculiar identity that is devoid of rule by external means, which is rule through state and a machinery of violence. It possesses the means of removing the distance between the rulers and the rule and is a means to dominate and terrorise humans from within. It produces a system whereby the power and the will to power have no role whatsoever. In it true substance, a totalitarian leader is just a mere functionary of the masses with no element of being power hungry and is easily replaceable due to its dependency on the will of the masses (Arendt, 1973). Totalitarianism was first used by Italy’s democratic critics in mid-1920s in order to describe the new Fascist Regime (Pauley, 2014). The goal of Fascism was solely to seize power and establish the Fascist elite as the uncontested ruler over a country (Arendt, 1973). The Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact, 1939 and the 1941 German invasion of the Soviet Union showed the peak of Totalitarianism (Pauley, 2014). In Totalitarianism, the leader being a mere functionary is a nonentity without the masses and that the masses in turn would lack external representation. Such a concept was opened to be abuse such as what Hitler did. He was fully aware of the fluidity amongst the two elements and their interdependence. Totalitarianism allegedly presupposed a leader who would impose his thought and wills on a group that is deprived of thought and will. Hitler possessed this opinion that thinking existed only by giving of executing orders. This approach totally removed the gap between the ruler and the ruled and between thinking and acting (Arendt, 1973).

Genocide perpetrated by the Nazis was alleged to be the most spectacular as well as the most terrifying example of industrial killing. It was a characteristic expression of modernity itself and less of a regression to barbarism. This is in itself an interpretation of the Holocaust, a result of destructive technical and bureaucratic capacities of modern Western Civilisation. The German genocidal programme under Hitler adopted this industrial approach of killing where there was a conditioned readiness of the masses to relinquish their sense of collective or individual moral responsibility due to the pressure of totalitarian regime (Wistrich, 2013). Their idea of domination was achieved by constant motion of permanent domination of each and every individual and every sphere of their lives. Such domination could not have ever achieved by mere means of a state or violence. The approach of constant motion was to bring as many people as possible under a common framework and set them in motion towards a political goal (Arendt, 1973). In a totalitarian regime, there are elements of popular support and extreme attraction from the elite as well as the mass that cannot disregard the collective gathering of elite men and their totalitarianism being supported by their sympathizers, fellowmen and party members. The then modern totalitarian rulers bear the characteristic traits of the mass, whose psychology and political philosophy was well known. In relevance to the time and situation after the 2nd world war, which was not different from the one available after the 1st world war, the then general political and intellectual environment of the totalitarianism after the 2nd world war was determined by the generation of people who knew in detail the situation before the 2nd world war and after the 1st world war. Interestingly, Fascism and Nazism were formulated around these principles (Arendt, 1973).

On the contrary to the view expressed above regarding on the Totalitarian approach, there is another thought that does not give much credit to this approach adopted under totalitarianism for Holocaust (Bauman, 1989). This contrary thought sees Holocaust as a consequence of inherent potential of modern life and its organisational culture, such life being dominated by scientific ideologies, rational bureaucracies, extreme functional specialization and depersonalisation of industrial society (Wistrich, 2013). To elaborate further, a breakdown analysis is needed to understand the reason and the perspective behind the participation of mass or mob in a regard to genocide. A conceptual framework cannot be given to the concept of genocide. There were varying degrees, types or levels of violence, whether relating to the events on mass death of POWs, persecution of asocials, or forced ethnic resettlement. There is an arbitrary definition of genocide and it was majorly used as political weapon towards unanimous moral condemnation, military intervention and juridical prosecution once power was vested in a few. It also reflected a long term plan and intention of the state with careful master plan for destruction (Geyer & Fitzpatrick, 2009). Even though the general view may be that genocide was considered a product of modern totalitarianism, considering the arbitrariness attached to it, it conforms to the contrary view held above as well. It has more to do with how the society is structured and the diminishing value of human society with increasing extremity in the approach adopted by bureaucracy and specialised state functions. In support, reference can also be drawn to the concept around mass violence, which is otherwise generally a totalitarian concept. The used of mass violence, in relevance to genocide, is more open and inclusive of actions such as forced resettlement, deliberate inadequacy of supplier, forced labour and excessive imprisonment (Geyer & Fitzpatrick, 2009). Linking this discussion to mass participation in the extermination of Jewish people, reference is made here to the popular participation in the Holocaust of European Jews, especially in territories falling east of the Soviet Union's 1941 western border. There were many factors as such that could determine the reason behind mass participation. The role of traditional anti-semitism is also an important factor while reasoning the mass participation in the murder of Jews. Another factor could be how the perception of Jews as Communists and enemies of the local Gentiles was framed by the Soviet occupation and their experience. The influence the Germans and their allies had is also attributable to how they exert on attitudes of the locals towards the Jews and their treatment. In a horrifying episode of mass murder of Jews, there was a massive participation of local Gentiles (Poles). In this mass violence, the participants in the killing were not guided by Nazi occupiers' orders not by their own resentment against the Jews and their perception that Jews had "treacherous behavior” during the Soviet occupation. It was rather allegedly by the centuries-long antisemitic tradition existed in Poland (Solonari, 2007). Holocaust, as such, could be conceived as a system that functioned according to the preconceived plan, which constantly evolved. Contrary view could be stated as a phenomenon that was rooted in modernity, and was therefore a heterogeneous phenomenon. Such phenomenon was improvised by local decision-makers with added element of unforced behaviours. The reason and the motivations of participant mass killers could not be considered behind the context of the multiple occupations of 1939 – 41 or the Nazis' racial war. Reason should also be sought in the Polish and East European history (Solonari, 2007).

Take a deeper dive into Lawrence's Guerilla Warfare Insights with our additional resources.

It is also important to note that a number of Nazi’s plan failed due to existence of internal and external resistance. For instance, there were few protests against the Nazis’ mass atrocities against the Eastern European peoples and the Jews. These protests were from the early comrades of Hitler and they represented the mob in its early state. These people did not have any control over the totalitarian movements. They were though sidelined before the onset of greater crimes (Arendt, 1973). There was also passive resistance of the Soviet citizens. The threat of potential resistance curtailed violence as was happened with the euthanisia program (Geyer & Fitzpatrick, 2009). Resistance had the dimension of time, personal motivation and humanistic reasons considering the strategic commencement for the anticipated extinction of the Jewish race on 20 January 1942 at the Wannsee-Conference (Ernst, 2001). Certain level of reluctance was also seen amongst the elite Jews when, for instance, they were not willing to become directly involved with refugees. The reason may be that the fear of and action against anti-Semitism and anti-Jewish discrimination was at its peak. Major resistance came into being with the emergence of Allied Jewish Appeal, which was founded in 1938. Despite this, Jewish reluctance could be seen where Philadelphia Jews, who were prominent in sending aid to Britain during the 2nd world war, sought to focus such efforts under an interfaith banner so as not to be allegedly seen as pro-interventionist and also because of the fear of being accused of involving the US in a Jewish war (Friedman, 2003). In this regard, it is to be noted here that totalitarianism forces consistent persecution of higher form of intellectual activity and more than that destruction of anything that did not conform to it (Arendt, 1973). Accordingly and evidently, limited resistance could be seen, for instance is the case of execution of any form of resistance to 1944 deportation of Chechan and Ingush (Geyer & Fitzpatrick, 2009). Totalitarianism does have any place of talents and favours people with lack of intelligence and creativity that act as guarantees of their loyalty (Arendt, 1973).

References

Arendt, H., 1973. The origins of Totalitarianism. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Bauman, Z., 1989. Modernity & the Holocaust. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Ernst, E., 2001. Commentary: The Third Reich—German physicians between resistance and participation. International Journal of Epidemiology, 30(1), pp.37–42.

Friedman, M., 2003. Philadelphia Jewish Life, 1940-2000.. Temple University Press.

Geyer, M. & Fitzpatrick, S., 2009. Beyond totalitarianism: Stalinism and Nazism compared. Cambridge University Press.

Geyer, M. & Fitzpatrick, S., 2009. Beyond totalitarianism: Stalinism and Nazism compared. Cambridge University Press.

Pauley, B.F., 2014. Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini: Totalitarianism in the twentieth century. John Wiley & Sons.

Solonari, V., 2007. Patterns of Violence: The Local Population and the Mass Murder of Jews in Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, July–August 1941.. Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History, 8(4), pp.749-87.

Wistrich, R.S., 2013. Hitler and the Holocaust. Phoenix.