Table of ContentsIntroductionNational SocialismConclusionBibliographyIntroductionThe 20th century was a new era in world history and it was an era that differed in many ways from other centuries including two major wars (World War I and II) and the Great Depression. The modernization and industrialization movement that accompanied the Age of Enlightenment in the 18th century emphasized the concepts of human rights, freedoms, democracy and independence. However, this modernity also created a negative atmosphere with the wars of the 20th century. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”?Get an original essayThe living conditions of individuals have been developed by new technologies, the recognition of women's right to vote, the establishment of new democracies, etc. On the other hand, authoritarian leaders, repressive regimes, wars, economic decline and racist ideologies have affected the world order. This is a questionable phenomenon regarding the results of modernity. National Socialism was also a product of the turbulent atmosphere of the 20th century. Sauer considers Nazism a “disease of modern society”. Characteristics such as the emphasis on ethnicity, the construction of the nation-state as a late country, and the conservative character of the regime distinguish the concept of nationalism in National Socialism from nationalism in the French Revolution. In addition to this, the characteristics of the opportunistic structure, the desire to turn to natural life, anti-Semitic traits and the use of propaganda as a tool for political purposes differentiate National Socialism from liberal democracies. Due to the different characteristics of National Socialism, different approaches are used to refer to it: mainly fascism and totalitarianism. Some scholars have classified National Socialism as totalitarianism (such as Russia, Stalin) and others as fascism (such as Italy, Mussolini). The definitions of the two diets share similar characteristics in some ways, but they also have differences and emphasize different aspects of the diets. “The theories of fascism, Germanism and totalitarianism coexisted to some extent from the beginning. » In this context, this article will analyze how National Socialism is approached through fascism and totalitarianism by different researchers. Is National Socialism different. Some think of National Socialism as a form of fascism, others think of totalitarianism, and some classify it as original to German society in terms of its intellectual historical context. Hannah Arendt (1953) considers National Socialism as a form of totalitarianism and she makes socio-political analyses. psychological arguments and explanations in his article. She focused primarily on the period after 1933. Instead of thinking of National Socialism as a unique product of German history as thinkers defend Germanism, she views National Socialism as a "new form of government" by analyzing its elements called ideology and terror. which gives the government the ability to train the individuals in which they live. It defines totalitarian government as “the alternative between legal government and anarchic government, between arbitrary and legitimate power.” Arendt (1953: 306). “If legality is the essence of non-tyrannical government and anarchy is the essence of tyranny, then terror is the essence of dominationtotalitarian” Arendt (1953: 310). This can be explained by the anarchic order of the Hitler regime. The SS had the possibility of judging individuals. Anarchic order and chaos also create fear in the public. » What the totalitarian regime needs to guide the behavior of its subjects is a preparation that allows each of them to play the role of executioner as well as that of victim. This two-sided preparation, substitute for a principle of action, is ideology. » Arendt (1953: 315). In this sense, the totalitarian state is different from any other repressive regimes with its tools. It is about control over individuals and so-called “total domination”. Terror lies between legality and anarchy. By imposing fear on society through terror and focusing on totalitarian ideology to eradicate alternative ways of thinking to explain and understand the world, totalitarianism aims to create lonely and insecure individuals . It's not like loneliness. Solitude is good for production, we especially prefer to be alone to increase creativity and production. ''Loneliness is not loneliness. Loneliness requires being alone whereas loneliness manifests itself more clearly in the company of others.'' Loneliness is the result of the destruction of the boundary between private and public, people have become passive individuals who do not think not to the system, to the social order, to governance. etc. On the one hand, in terms of ideology, Sauer (1967) speaks of the insufficiency of using totalitarianism to understand the Nazi regime and even to explain its ideology. “Even in the case of Nazi ideology, we know more about its roots and its propaganda system than about its structure and functional role in the social system.” According to Sauer, simple totalitarianism is not enough to explain Nazi ideology and its historical context. Terror and ideology are essential elements of totalitarianism also used by Hitler to control individuals and return to the law of nature which opposes modernism. All these characteristics used by totalitarianism create a difference from tyranny and dictatorship. Arendt also considers Russia to be a totalitarian regime. Sauer, who describes National Socialism as fascism, criticizes this approach by analyzing the differences between fascism and Bolshevism. “Neither Lenin nor Joseph Stalin wanted to go back; they not only wanted to move forward, but they wanted to move forward. The Bolshevik revolution included many elements of a development revolution not unlike those underway in underdeveloped countries. The desire to return to the laws of nature, to idealize the life of farmers and traditional lives is specific to Hitler's Germany. “The social and political order of Bolshevism is relatively independent of leadership; it is, so to speak, more objective. Fascist regimes, on the other hand, are almost identical to their leaders; no fascist regime has so far outlived its leader. » If Stalin's Russia is totalitarianism, Hitler's Germany cannot be a totalitarian regime because of the dependence of its authoritarian leader. Sauer (1967) classifies Nazism into three categories, with the category boundaries defined by World War II and the Cold War. He mainly explains these periods from a non-Marxist and fascist perspective. In the first phase, fascism was examined using a Marxist approach by scholars, but this perspective has changed. From a Marxist perspective, fascism was seen as domination by large businesses, corporations, etc. “Fascism was the representative of the lower middle class. » From anotherOn the other hand, Sauer believes that this is a capitalist movement that is not unique to the lower middle class. “Fascism is a political practice appropriate to the mass politics of the 20th century. » According to Sauer, it is a mass movement with a large contribution from the lower middle class. "It can even be said that a distinct interest group was formed within the fascist mix by what might be called military desperadoes, veterans of the First World War and post-war struggles, who had not been reintegrated into civil society or the armed forces. The capitalists, the aristocrats, the workers and the desperadoes are the supporters of the movement. Fascism entered the scene as the power unit of the losers. World War I, the military forces, the desperadoes turned around and no longer engaged in society as before. The lower middle class also needed desperados to use their power against the government. They all acted together. to dictate their political goals. Sauer also gives an explanation about National Socialism and defined it as a fascism particular to Germany. The process of modernization and industrialization of Germany is essential to understanding the fascist movement in Germany. . Sauer also tries to find an answer to the question "Is fascism reactionary or revolutionary?" According to him, it is both reactionary and revolutionary. This is not just a movement of elites, it is a movement of the masses. This is why it can be considered revolutionary. On the other hand, the desire to return to the laws of nature as mentioned by Arendt (1953) is reactionary. It's a paradoxical situation. “A revolutionary mass movement whose objectives were anti-revolutionary in the classic sense of the term. However, Griffin views the movement "as a revolutionary form of nationalism determined to mobilize all 'healthy' social and political energies...". Paxton (1998) refuses to classify National Socialism as totalitarianism and also refuses to examine it from a broad fascist perspective. » However, great difficulties arise as soon as we begin to define fascism. Its boundaries are ambiguous in space and time. » Mussolini's Italy, which was not as obsessed as Hitler's Germany in terms of its Jewish population, cannot be placed in the same fascist category. It is difficult to define fascism in terms of timing because Germany arrived late on the world stage compared to other countries like France, England, Italy, etc. Also, in order to mobilize the masses and be powerful, states could create a fascist image. This does not mean that they have fascist regimes. Fascisms are compatible with their nations. There were no ideological principles or doctrine for fascism. All of these elements make it more difficult to interpret National Socialism within a broad understanding of fascism. He distinguished between the stages of fascism: “(1) the initial creation of fascist movements; (2) their entrenchment as a party political system; (3) the acquisition of power; (4) the exercise of power; and finally, in the longer term(5), radicalization or entropy. As a result of these steps, he distinguished the differences and similarities between fascist regimes and discovered that fascisms are similar in terms of functionality. Paxton (1998) There is no separation between reactionary and revolutionary specific to National Socialism in his work, but he draws a conclusion by emphasizing the active characteristic of fascisms which is specific to the essence of the regime . His explanation is not based oncharacteristics or economic classes as Sauer (1967) explains non-Marxist fascism. Griffin also explains National Socialism through fascism. But instead of defining it with negative expressions like anti-communist, anti-democratic, anti-liberal, etc., he defines fascism as "it is the capacity of the new State to induce the regeneration of the political culture of the nation...". He defines it as a cultural revolutionary movement compared to Sauer's explanation based on socio-economic factors originating primarily from the interest-seeking behavior of the lower middle class and military desperadoes. Paxton (1998) establishes the similarity between fascist regimes in terms of their functionality rather than their manner of use of propaganda, symbols, etc. Griffin (2004) establishes the similarity with the term “palingenesis” which means new birth, rebirth or national rebirth. According to him, fascist regimes may be different because of the historical path they took but they have the central element called palingenesis. “What illuminates the actions of fascism and gives a certain degree of coherence to its ideology in its various political spheres and its various national permutations is the utopia of the “palingenesis” (renaissance or new birth) of the national community brought about by the total transformation and regeneration of its political culture. » He also views National Socialism as a unique form of fascism with its ultra-nationalist characteristics. Paxton (1998) also discusses "imitations of fascism" in his article and argues that states can appear to be fascist in order to create a powerful image. At this point, Griffin provides a point of distinction between fascism and other repressive regimes, para-fascisms. He believes that the cohesion of ultranationalism and palingenesis helps us differentiate National Socialism from other types of fascism. “The core definition of fascism (minimum fascist) is best seen in terms of revolution, renaissance and modernity. It gradually emerged from decades of intense controversy that often produced more heat than light, a period of confusion that led most historians to give the term a broad meaning. bed in studies of interwar Europe and, in particular, Nazism. » Griffin (2004: 3). Michael Mann (2004) also accepts National Socialism as fascism. According to Mann (2004), there should be five important characteristics to classify a regime as fascism: organic nationalism, statism, transcendence, cleansing and paramilitarism. Organic nationalism is based on the homogeneity and interests of certain groups such as opponents, certain ethnic groups. Statism is primarily about seeing the state above all else. Paramilitarism is essential to creating violence to pursue group interests. Transcendence provides an explanation in terms of classes in society. This is a different explanation from Sauer's (1967) non-Marxist fascist explanation. Cleaning also affects the creation of violence. He defines fascism as a negative way with its negative traits. Unlike Griffin (2004), he defines fascism as anti-Catholic, anti-liberal and anti-capitalist. Mann also criticizes Griffin regarding his definition of fascism in terms of the construction of power in society and social relations. He defines fascism in terms of economics, politics, ideological and military context. “Fascism is the pursuit of a transcendent and purifying nation-statism through paramilitarism.” As Hannah Arendt mentions in her article, terror is important 73 (2): 404-24.