Arendt-Theory of Totalitarianism

The most alarming thing about Arendt's book is that she is able to make a compelling case that the greatest evils of mankind are committed by ordinary people. Her work forces one to look at the world and realize that the Holocaust was not an isolated incident committed by blood thirsty sociopaths. One must realize that the decision making processes that created an environment accepting of the "Final Solution" is still alive an well today as it has been throughout history. The weight of personal moral choice

Arendt explains that the ultimate power of a totalitarian government is the acceptance of the ideology being propagated. The laws that are put into place in totalitarian government are not to empower the people and protect their rights. Instead, the laws tell the people what they must do, not what they must not do. Arendt tells how the law of nature is the foundation for Hitler's Nazis, and the law of history for Russia's communist regimes. According to Arendt, both the Nazi and communist regimes maintained that those laws gave them justification for their cruelty. These laws of nature and history are not permanent or stable. They are in motion to keep history and nature moving, so that it progresses without ever stopping. <p>Arendt claims that these laws of motion sustain the terror fueling the totalitarian government. Arendt says that terror is the realization and execution of these laws with nothing standing in its way. Throughout the selection, Arendt speaks of terror. Terror is essential for the state to keep its power, or else it will fall. According to Arendt, in a totalitarian state terror terminates individuality among the people. Individual men become a mass of humankind, in the eyes of the state. "Terror exists neither for nor against men", claims Arendt, "it substitutes for the boundaries and channels of communication between individual men a band of iron which holds them so tightly

This view of social dominance and evolutionary superiority is very in line with the views of the Nazi Party and ordinary Germans. This hate for the Jews starts with Hitler’s Ant-Jewish propaganda and the implementation of the Nuremberg laws. In “Perish the Jew,” Hitler puts his views of racial superiority into writing, “The Aryan regards work as the basis for the maintenance of the national community as such; the Jew regards work as a means of exploiting other peoples” (Hitler 223). With this writing and other propaganda, Hitler successfully spread a hate for Jewish people across the country. Hitler then created the Nuremberg Laws, which slowly but successfully stripped the Jews of all their rights and made them second-class citizens in Germany. The Jews slowly became, in the eyes of the German people and the SS, people who could be consciously oppressed and turned into slave workers.

Most of us have heard of the Nazi party’s horrific, genocidal regime on destroying the Jewish race, but what events led up to their dire judgement? In this study I aim to uncover the events, reasons and changes which led to the Holocaust and the further changes in the treatment of the Jewish race by Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party.

In the book Ordinary Men, Christopher Browning tackles the question of why German citizens engaged in nefarious behavior that led to the deaths of millions of Jewish and other minorities throughout Europe. The question of what drove Germans to commit acts of genocide has been investigated by numerous historians, but unfortunately, no overarching answer for the crimes has yet been decided upon. However, certain theories are more popular than others. Daniel Goldhagen in his book, Hitler’s Willing Executioners, has expounded that the nature of the German culture before the Second World War was deeply embedded in anti-Semitic fervor, which in turn, acted as the catalyst for the events that would unfold into the Holocaust. It is at this

Thesis: A key concept to understanding Hannah Arendt’s “Total Domination” is the essence of terror and the importance of concentration camps in maintaining the Nazi totalitarian state.

However, an examination of the policies of the Nazi regime shows that although it was not defined as a final solution, the German nation had already embarked on the path of “scientific” racism that ultimately manifested in the final solution of the Nazis. The 1933 Law for

The Nazis also adopted the social Darwinist take on Darwinian evolutionary theory regarding the “survival of the fittest.” For the Nazis, survival of a race depended upon its ability to reproduce and multiply, its accumulation of land to support and feed that expanding population, and its vigilance in maintaining the purity of its gene pool, thus preserving the unique “racial” characteristics with which “nature” had equipped it for success in the struggle to survive. Since each “race” sought to expand, and since the space on the earth was finite, the struggle for survival resulted “naturally” in violent conquest and military confrontation. Hence, war even constant war was a part of nature, a part of the human condition. Hitler and the Nazi party outlined their racial enemies in clear and unequivocal terms. For Hitler and the Nazis, the Jews represented a priority enemy both within and outside Germany. Their allegedly racial and inferior genetic makeup spawned the exploitative systems of capitalism and communism. In their drive to expand, the Jews promoted and used these systems of government and state organization, including constitutions, proclamations of equal rights, and international peace, to undermine the race-consciousness of superior races like the German race and to

When referring to the ‘Holocaust’ – defined by (Oxford Dictionary) as ‘Destruction or slaughter on a mass scale, especially caused by fire or nuclear war:’ – we have to take into account the global awareness and knowledge of that time. We, as a planet, have come to acknowledge the ‘Holocaust’ not as the aforementioned and defined, but as the time in which, between 1939 and 1945, Nazi Germany, lead by Adolf Hitler, persecuted and massacred approximately six million Jews, as well as a plethora of other individuals, including the mentally handicapped, communists, poles, gypsies, homosexuals (just to name a few), as well as attempting to conquer the world. It is estimated that no less than ten million casualties were a result of the Nazi agenda, out of combat (The History Place). Giving reference to the question, in this essay I will outline and counterpoint two keys questions when regarding the approaches of functionalists and intenationalists, firmly rooting them as the crux as my debate, which are: Did Adolf Hitler have a so-called ‘master plan’ in bringing about the Holocaust, and where did the initiative come from? I will now proceed to open the debate, by first giving a brief outline as both approaches and what they encompass.

Although I already knew of man’s inhumanity to man, the tour of the Museum of Tolerance opened my eyes in a new sense. All the questions I had come up with were answered, and I learned of many other incidents were the human race made mistakes. I learned that the Jews were the only group singled out for total organized annihilation by the Nazis. Every single Jew was to be killed according to the Nazis' plan. Nazi soldiers raided the Jews homes and and took them to camps where they were forced to work or be gassed. The whole family was taken, but only those capable of working long and hard were spared. The explanation of the Nazis' hatred of the Jew rests on their distorted world view that all of history was a racial struggle. They considered the Jews a race whose goal was world domination and who were a threat to Aryan dominance. They believed that all of history was a fight between races which should end in the triumph of the superior Aryan race. In their eyes, the Jews' racial origin made them criminals

Social Darwinism was a concept that emerged later in the nineteenth century suggesting that what applied to nature could also apply to human society – that the strong prevail over the weak, that superior races prevail over inferior races. This concept with its theme of struggle and survival of the fittest appealed to Hitler. “Struggle” wrote Hitler “is the father of all things…He who wants to live must fight and who does not want to fight in this world where external struggle is the law of life has no right to exist”*.

During their rise to power, the Nazis’ platform included a number of different and contradictory aspects, including “nationalism, anti-communism, anti- modernism, anti-urbanism, racism, territorial expansionism, confidence in technology and ...the rootedness of the German Volk in the German soil and forests” (Markham). Thus, certain contradictions existed in the ideology and it covered a variety of ideas. For example, the rejection of modernism would seem to act against the belief in technology. With this eclectic ideology that at times contradicts itself, the Nazis naturally failed to implement all of it into policy. In reference to environmental concerns, it would seem that other priorities had more importance or that it was always a matter of propaganda, with their romantic ideas of the German environment never translating into

According to Rosenfeld Arendt “famously gets a lot of her past wrong” (Rosenfeld 220). However, Rosenfeld’s study of Arendt’s work is not to find error rather depict the history of the writing of the French enlightenment. The “Truth in Politics” written by Arendt “provides a tour of various ancient and early modern thinkers, from Herodotus to Spinoza to James Madison, and of events in the profound and recent past to name a few” (qtd. in Rosenfeld 221).

In her classic work The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt articulates a vision of totalitarianism that is juxtaposed against her own conceptions of freedom and the purpose of humanity. In this contrasting however, she ignores her own recognition that the meanings of such concepts are intimately tied with the narrative of a given society or group. As a result, this essay will argue that Arendt’s claim that totalitarianism destroys freedom as a living political reality is unjustified, and that instead totalitarianism gives a meaning to freedom that is informed by the collapse of ultimate concepts such as the law of History and the law of Nature into the sphere of man. To show this, we will explore the way Arendt lays the seeds of the

By quoting many writers and Nazi documents, Bergman creates collective authority to validate an absurd argument. However, by providing readers with detailed interpretations of various quotes from Hitler's Mein Kampf, he successfully illustrates how Darwin’s ideas of ‘natural selection’ and ‘survival of the fittest’ were misused to justify for racial discrimination. Hitler used terms such as ‘superior race,’ ‘lower human types,’‘pollution of the race,’ and the word evolution itself-derived from Darwin’s theories of evolution. This clearly indicates Darwin’s theories influenced Hitler. However if these ideas did not exists, the Nazis might have found another reason to justify for the genocide