Arendt- The origins of totalitarianism

Question 1

THE Origins of totalitariansim

Answer 1

3 parts
antisemitism, imperialism, totalitarianism
received well by the right but critically by the left
eric voeglin’s critique on loosely used terminology
importance of Stalinism almost an afterthought and motor elaborately studied after publication

Question 2

chapter 12

Answer 2

first argument
co-existence or conflict of dual authority- govt facade hides real power: the party
ever-shifting authority and centre of power often to other organisation within the state
shapeless state structure- no concrete centre of authorityno fixed institutions

Second argument
a permanent revolution approach I expansion maintaining of state structure as well as relations between state and subject
secrecy in broad daylight totalitarian party leaders lie to the populous as well as the outside
fp under the assumption of eventual world dom
everything is possible under the party destruction of actors psyche, creating inanimate men horror no longer affects them
concentration and exterminating camps as tools of obsoletion
eredication of spontinety

Question 3

critiques

Answer 3

assynes there are more similarities between nazi germany and the USSR than there are differences
very conceptual philophical unconcerned with how these states work in practice

Question 4

Historiography

Answer 4

aftermath of ww2 concept of totalitarianism
focusing on what makes a satatr totalitarianism
focusing on domination of all aspects
allowed for a bottom up narrative
focus on interactions between regime and society
especially focus on soviet union and socio economic

after 1989 reevelaution of the totalitarianism concept mostly in relation to the USSR redifne the concept instead of trying to produce a rigid model for all studying the concept in each state

Question 5

comparison to kershaw

Answer 5

like arendy specialised in hitler and nzi germany
structualist
people perception of the leader
hitler compared to slain role of leader in respective state
builds focus on aren’t by researching germanys internal political structure out of the three articles

Question 6

Kotkin

Answer 6

bottum up perspective argues stalinism was an extreme form of eu welfare state
very different narrative and focus than aren’t kotkin places stalinism in broader context of eu intellectual political history not really touching concept of totalitarianism
still rev made the sov state and the use of a permanent rev is used to maintain the state

Question 7

gorlizki and mommsen

Answer 7

comparative study offers a more detailed study in various concrete aspects (beuracracy and leadership) whereas aren’t offers a broader philosophical framework for the entire concept of totalitarianism
- GaM emphasise the role of the leader highlighting their style and how this influenced regimes thus relations well to both arendt and kewshaw
germnay has weaker structure, state wouldn’t survive without hitler