What do you think?
Rate this book
Totalitarianism: The Inner History of the Cold War
Totalitarianism offers a penetrating chronicle of the central concept of our era--an era shaped by our conflict first with fascism and then with communism. Interweaving the story of intellectual debates with the international history of the twentieth century, Gleason traces the birth of the term to Italy in the first years of Mussolini's rule. Created by Mussolini's enemies, the word was appropriated by the Fascists themselves to describe their program in what turned out to be one of the less totalitarian of the European dictatorships. He follows the growth and expansion of the concept as it was picked up in the West and applied to Hitler's Germany and the Soviet Union. Gleason's account takes us through the debates of the early postwar years, as academics in turn adopted the term--most notably Hannah Arendt. The idea of totalitarianism came to possess novelists such as Arthur Koestler ( Darkness at Noon ) and George Orwell (whose Nineteen Eighty-Four was interpreted by
conservatives as an attack on socialism in general, and subsequently suffered criticism from left-leaning critics). The concept entered the public consciousness still more fully with the opening of the Cold War, as Truman used the rhetoric of totalitarianism to sell the Truman Doctrine to Congress. Gleason takes a fascinating look at the notorious brainwashing episodes of the Korean War, which convinced Americans that Communist China too was a totalitarian state. As he takes his account through to the 1990s, he offers an inner history of the Cold War, revealing the political charge the term carried for writers on both the left and right. He also explores the intellectual struggles that swirled around the idea in France, Germany, Italy, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. When the Cold War drew to a close in the late 1980s, Gleason writes, the concept lost much of its importance in the West even as it flourished in Russia, where writers began to describe their own collapsing state as
totalitarian--though left-wing Western thinkers continued to resist doing so. Ideal for courses in politics and modern history, Totalitarianism provides a fascinating account of one of the most enigmatic yet compelling ideas of our time.
conservatives as an attack on socialism in general, and subsequently suffered criticism from left-leaning critics). The concept entered the public consciousness still more fully with the opening of the Cold War, as Truman used the rhetoric of totalitarianism to sell the Truman Doctrine to Congress. Gleason takes a fascinating look at the notorious brainwashing episodes of the Korean War, which convinced Americans that Communist China too was a totalitarian state. As he takes his account through to the 1990s, he offers an inner history of the Cold War, revealing the political charge the term carried for writers on both the left and right. He also explores the intellectual struggles that swirled around the idea in France, Germany, Italy, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. When the Cold War drew to a close in the late 1980s, Gleason writes, the concept lost much of its importance in the West even as it flourished in Russia, where writers began to describe their own collapsing state as
totalitarian--though left-wing Western thinkers continued to resist doing so. Ideal for courses in politics and modern history, Totalitarianism provides a fascinating account of one of the most enigmatic yet compelling ideas of our time.
320 pages, Paperback
First published March 20, 1995
1 person is currently reading
74 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
February 7, 2020
This is a really impressive and useful history of the idea of totalitarianism, approaching it from a transnational perspective. Gleason traces the concept back to its Italian origins in the 1920s, and then shows how it grew in popularity and took on different meanings and explanations.
Here's the basic story: the concept of totalitarianism arose within Italian fascism to describe the ambitions/nature of this new type of state. In the 1930s, it was mainly applied to Germany and Italy, although with the Nazi-Soviet Pact and the gradual revelation of Stalin's atrocities, it started to be applied to the USSR as well. The left in the West tended to be more skeptical of the concept, and there was no doubt that the Right found it useful for tarring leftists at home. The 1940s were a pivotal decade for the concept because of WWII and the early Cold War, which suggested an ongoing war with this type of gov't, which on a deeper level was a competing response (against democracy and liberalism) to certain conditions of modernity. The concept was crucial for uniting the center right and center left in the Cold War and for motivating liberals to embrace Cold War arms buildups and interventionism. The conflict came under increasing criticism in the 1960s, both for its utility in the Cold War and its rather static, determinisitc qualities as a framework for studying certain states. the USSR had clearly changed from the Stalinist era, and some scholars coined the term post-totalitarian in response. However, as the concept faded a bit in US intellectual circles, it remained steadily popular in both the general population and among Eastern European dissidents, who still found it useful for fighting the Eastern bloc governments. The concept received another boost in teh 1980s with the rise of neoconservatism and the intensification of the Cold War. Gleason largely leaves the conversation off at the end of the Cold War, although I think there's a lot more to inspect there.
In a sense, I was bummed reading this book because I had conceived of a second book about conceptions of totalitarianism in US foreign policy. However, as I read, I realized that this was more of a purely intellectual history. Gleason focuses on the intellectual debates, situating them in context and demonstrating their influence on foreign policy and politics, although he goes into relatively little detail there. I think some important questions remain open for inquiry: WHat is the link between conceptions of totalitarianism and the formation of the containment policy? What role did criticisms of the concept of tot play in the formation of detente? Beyond J. Kirkpatrick, how did the Reagan administration employ/conceive of the concept? Possibly most interestingly, how did advocates of the concept adjust to the collapse of the USSR, and how much relevance did the concept retain post-Cold War? In a sense, I'm glad Gleason wrote this book because, while I generally enjoy intellectual history, he has done most of the groundwork of reading deeply into these debates, and it is not something I would find engrossing over the long term.
This is definitely a scholarly book, but I think it appeals to Cold War historians, US foreign relations scholars, and 20th century US and European intellectual historians. If anything, it provides 2-3 pages on every major thinker on totalitarianism in the 20th century, which is incredibly valuable. It is also pretty short and accessible.
Here's the basic story: the concept of totalitarianism arose within Italian fascism to describe the ambitions/nature of this new type of state. In the 1930s, it was mainly applied to Germany and Italy, although with the Nazi-Soviet Pact and the gradual revelation of Stalin's atrocities, it started to be applied to the USSR as well. The left in the West tended to be more skeptical of the concept, and there was no doubt that the Right found it useful for tarring leftists at home. The 1940s were a pivotal decade for the concept because of WWII and the early Cold War, which suggested an ongoing war with this type of gov't, which on a deeper level was a competing response (against democracy and liberalism) to certain conditions of modernity. The concept was crucial for uniting the center right and center left in the Cold War and for motivating liberals to embrace Cold War arms buildups and interventionism. The conflict came under increasing criticism in the 1960s, both for its utility in the Cold War and its rather static, determinisitc qualities as a framework for studying certain states. the USSR had clearly changed from the Stalinist era, and some scholars coined the term post-totalitarian in response. However, as the concept faded a bit in US intellectual circles, it remained steadily popular in both the general population and among Eastern European dissidents, who still found it useful for fighting the Eastern bloc governments. The concept received another boost in teh 1980s with the rise of neoconservatism and the intensification of the Cold War. Gleason largely leaves the conversation off at the end of the Cold War, although I think there's a lot more to inspect there.
In a sense, I was bummed reading this book because I had conceived of a second book about conceptions of totalitarianism in US foreign policy. However, as I read, I realized that this was more of a purely intellectual history. Gleason focuses on the intellectual debates, situating them in context and demonstrating their influence on foreign policy and politics, although he goes into relatively little detail there. I think some important questions remain open for inquiry: WHat is the link between conceptions of totalitarianism and the formation of the containment policy? What role did criticisms of the concept of tot play in the formation of detente? Beyond J. Kirkpatrick, how did the Reagan administration employ/conceive of the concept? Possibly most interestingly, how did advocates of the concept adjust to the collapse of the USSR, and how much relevance did the concept retain post-Cold War? In a sense, I'm glad Gleason wrote this book because, while I generally enjoy intellectual history, he has done most of the groundwork of reading deeply into these debates, and it is not something I would find engrossing over the long term.
This is definitely a scholarly book, but I think it appeals to Cold War historians, US foreign relations scholars, and 20th century US and European intellectual historians. If anything, it provides 2-3 pages on every major thinker on totalitarianism in the 20th century, which is incredibly valuable. It is also pretty short and accessible.
May 3, 2022
I came across this book in my university's library and it touched on the political/historical topics that I love, so :)
Professor Gleason systematically tackled all notable aspects of the concept of totalitarianism and the two outstanding regimes practiced it that deservingly earned their place in our history. First the Nazis, then the USSR and China, I believe when reading this book, your presuppositions and emotional attributions to these concepts will be relieved (as not in morally or politically relieved :), but at least your previous, perhaps anecdotal, 'scary' stories on hearing the word 'totalitarianism').
I really like how he constructed the structures to look like detailed historical records, but the items the quoted themselves actually link with each other to construct visual yet logical arguments and progressions! Loved the newspaper analysis from Italy to the Third Reich; it gave me somewhat an immersive, common view of the philosophical and ideological foundations that leads to National Socialism. Pinning down the coinage of the term even before it was internalized, that is impressive and thought-wrecking. Further down this rabbit hole, the philosophical accounts of Hannah Arendt complements well with the progression of political parties, governments and, if more practical, media reports that Gleason found.
Totalitarianism, to Gleason, gives me a sense that it wasn't 'bad', just wrongly executed. Now, don't pull Machiavelli's evil influence on me, of course the means and the ends never match, and I still have moral as a commoner unlike him! Volksgemeinschaft, Bolshevism, Maoism, all of these are termed "wrong" as intrusive and opposed to Western ideologies. Gleason did them fair, accounting Roosevelt and America's great reach, to portray that the issue of Cold War may not seem that dialectical after all. Of course, what is bad, is bad, as he called out the violations of human and civil rights, but also make sure that the readers understand why those transgressions take place originally with a more justified foundation.
The only thing I wished the author to express more is the exploration of other totalitarian practices (Vichy's France, Franco's Spain, maybe the entire South America) of future predictions on the state of affairs. This analysis came out in 1995 fresh out of the Cold War so not really anything that Gleason's capable of, but I wished there were casual predictions, maybe (funnily comparable) like we were predicted to have teleporters around the 2000s.
Overall wonderful, analytical, has deep historical narrative, suitable as textbooks, great thought power required. Would recommend.
Professor Gleason systematically tackled all notable aspects of the concept of totalitarianism and the two outstanding regimes practiced it that deservingly earned their place in our history. First the Nazis, then the USSR and China, I believe when reading this book, your presuppositions and emotional attributions to these concepts will be relieved (as not in morally or politically relieved :), but at least your previous, perhaps anecdotal, 'scary' stories on hearing the word 'totalitarianism').
I really like how he constructed the structures to look like detailed historical records, but the items the quoted themselves actually link with each other to construct visual yet logical arguments and progressions! Loved the newspaper analysis from Italy to the Third Reich; it gave me somewhat an immersive, common view of the philosophical and ideological foundations that leads to National Socialism. Pinning down the coinage of the term even before it was internalized, that is impressive and thought-wrecking. Further down this rabbit hole, the philosophical accounts of Hannah Arendt complements well with the progression of political parties, governments and, if more practical, media reports that Gleason found.
Totalitarianism, to Gleason, gives me a sense that it wasn't 'bad', just wrongly executed. Now, don't pull Machiavelli's evil influence on me, of course the means and the ends never match, and I still have moral as a commoner unlike him! Volksgemeinschaft, Bolshevism, Maoism, all of these are termed "wrong" as intrusive and opposed to Western ideologies. Gleason did them fair, accounting Roosevelt and America's great reach, to portray that the issue of Cold War may not seem that dialectical after all. Of course, what is bad, is bad, as he called out the violations of human and civil rights, but also make sure that the readers understand why those transgressions take place originally with a more justified foundation.
The only thing I wished the author to express more is the exploration of other totalitarian practices (Vichy's France, Franco's Spain, maybe the entire South America) of future predictions on the state of affairs. This analysis came out in 1995 fresh out of the Cold War so not really anything that Gleason's capable of, but I wished there were casual predictions, maybe (funnily comparable) like we were predicted to have teleporters around the 2000s.
Overall wonderful, analytical, has deep historical narrative, suitable as textbooks, great thought power required. Would recommend.
September 2, 2016
The concept of totalitarianism is something that has intrigued me for years. The world seemed to go crazy from the 1920s-1940s and millions of people were swept up by terrifying regimes. I bought this book trying to understand how totalitarianism worked and its history. Sadly, that is not what Abbott Gleason delivers.
"Totalitarianism" is about the history of that term. Gleason researched its origins and its use from the early twentieth century until the present. The term was created in Italy as a criticism of Mussolini's Fascists. Oddly enough it was taken back by the Fascists, embraced for their worldview. Critics continued to embrace the term and it was picked up by French, English, American and German critics in the 1920s, 30s and 40s.
Totalitarianism as a term gained traction as a way to describe the authoritarianism common to the Fascists, Nazis and Soviets, especially during the Cold War. It is easy to forget the cozy relationship between elements of the Left and Soviet Communists in the 20th century. The right-wing used totalitarianism to tie the left to vile fascism.
The word totalitarianism and its usage reflect the geopolitical/ideological battles of its era. With the Cold War behind it it is not surprising that the word has fallen out of fashion. Though, I'm confident there are those who look at groups like ISIS and see the shades of totalitarianism born anew. Totalitarianism, like fascism itself, has little inherent meaning. It is a caricature of itself and only vaguely matched any reality. This is an interesting book for better understanding a certain element of the 20th century, but sadly might have little value beyond that.
"Totalitarianism" is about the history of that term. Gleason researched its origins and its use from the early twentieth century until the present. The term was created in Italy as a criticism of Mussolini's Fascists. Oddly enough it was taken back by the Fascists, embraced for their worldview. Critics continued to embrace the term and it was picked up by French, English, American and German critics in the 1920s, 30s and 40s.
Totalitarianism as a term gained traction as a way to describe the authoritarianism common to the Fascists, Nazis and Soviets, especially during the Cold War. It is easy to forget the cozy relationship between elements of the Left and Soviet Communists in the 20th century. The right-wing used totalitarianism to tie the left to vile fascism.
The word totalitarianism and its usage reflect the geopolitical/ideological battles of its era. With the Cold War behind it it is not surprising that the word has fallen out of fashion. Though, I'm confident there are those who look at groups like ISIS and see the shades of totalitarianism born anew. Totalitarianism, like fascism itself, has little inherent meaning. It is a caricature of itself and only vaguely matched any reality. This is an interesting book for better understanding a certain element of the 20th century, but sadly might have little value beyond that.
October 25, 2013
Very useful overview of the uses of the term, beginning with Fascist Italy in 1921, and ending in the 1990s with post-Soviet Russian Historians beginning to embrace the term. Ultimately Gleason concludes that there is some value in using Totalitarianism as an analytic tool (in the tradition of Arendt), but when it becomes a social-scientific model (Brzezinski) it both breaks down and creates rigid Manichean conceptions of the world (us vs them analysis, favoring right authoritarianism over "totalitarian states") that characterized the approach of Cold War hardliners.
June 25, 2013
Be aware, this book is less about the history of the Cold War or those socio-political systems considered "totalitarian" as it is about the origin and context of the word itself.
August 2, 2011
Totalitarianism was the political ideology of the 20C and, sadly, continues to this century.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews