What do you think?
Rate this book
Beyond Totalitarianism: Stalinism and Nazism Compared
In essays written jointly by specialists on Soviet and German history, the contributors to this book rethink and rework the nature of Stalinism and Nazism and establish a new methodology for viewing their histories that goes well beyond the now-outdated twentieth-century models of totalitarianism, ideology, and personality. Doing the labor of comparison gives us the means to ascertain the historicity of the two extraordinary regimes and the wreckage they have left. With the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, scholars of Europe are no longer burdened with the political baggage that constricted research and conditioned interpretation and have access to hitherto closed archives. The time is right for a fresh look at the two gigantic dictatorships of the twentieth century and for a return to the original intent of thought on totalitarian regimes – understanding the intertwined trajectories of socialism and nationalism in European and global history.
552 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2008
9 people are currently reading
273 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 - 8 of 8 reviews
June 24, 2019
This volume has a lot of problems, and it is way too big, but overall I think it has a lot of value for thinking about totalitarianism, comparative history, and modern European History. The gist of the volume is that totalitarianism does not encompass or provide an adequate framework for understanding these phenomena, especially when they are compared, given that one assumption of totalitarianism is that these regimes have more in common than in conflict. The book consists of an opening essay on the concept of totalitarianism in European historiography and then features 10 or so essays about different aspects of the Nazi and Soviet regimes, each of which takes a shot at the limits of the totalitarian framework.
Let me first say that these essays were too long, poorly edited, jargon-filled and wordy, and repetitive. The final one was a train wreck that seemed to lack a thesis or organizational scheme. Others, though, were quite interesting, especially those on Nazi/Soviet conceptions of gender, the "New Man," and escalatory dynamics of violence. One common argument in these essays was that totalitarianism doesn't encompass the persistence of old forms of social organization and the human tendency to reform social groups in times of stress (contra Arendt's idea of atomization). Another was that many seemingly totalitarian ideas had precursors and close cousins in Modern European History more generally, including the rejection of liberalism, the expansion of state methods of knowledge production and control, ideas of changing human beings at a fundamental level, and hyper-optimism about technology. A third was the idea (derived from Adorno) that totalitarianism's roots can be traced back to the Enlightenment concept that the world (and human beings) can be comprehended, categorized, organized, and reshaped by a cadre of elites. I've always been skeptical of this idea as some kind of unambiguous inheritance of the Enlightenment (it is a strain, one among many), especially given totalitarianism's complete rejection of liberalism, but it clearly has had a formative impact on these scholars.
Overall, these essays do not toss out the concept of totalitarianism completely, but they do show how it has served political ends and why scholars should be skeptical of highly schematic, social science-type formulations that don't always capture life on the ground. Still, I couldn't help pushing back a bit on their criticisms. The essays often highlight how these regimes viewed their subjects as Human Resources who lacked the right to direct their own lives, who were valuable only in terms of their service to the regime's objectives or their fit within the regimes' definition of full humanity. They highlighted the utter, open rejection of liberalism. They highlighted the use of violence not just for instrumental purposes but as ends in themselves, as assertion of power over the subject. They highlighted the manipulation of language on a systematic level to mask violence and oppression and ultimately to convince the individual that she cannot trust her own senses.They highlight the regime's anxieties about social organizations that exist beyond the regime's purview and their ultimate plans to eradicate or co-opt such institutions. In short, I thought these essays both poked holes in and reinforced the observations of classical totalitarian theorists from Arendt to Orwell to Friedrich, which I think still tell us a whole lot about these regimes even if historians should keep them at arms' length when they did into the archives.
This is a book for scholars, straight up. If you are are interested in the concept of totalitarianism or in comparing Nazism and Stalinism, check out something like Alan Bullock's dual biography of Hitler and Stalin. This book is tailor-made for people taking their comps. I really wish the opening essay was more tightly written and direct, because it could be a really useful historiographical source. Overall I'd say this is a valuable if frustrating volume that really needed a tougher editor and a tighter argument.
Let me first say that these essays were too long, poorly edited, jargon-filled and wordy, and repetitive. The final one was a train wreck that seemed to lack a thesis or organizational scheme. Others, though, were quite interesting, especially those on Nazi/Soviet conceptions of gender, the "New Man," and escalatory dynamics of violence. One common argument in these essays was that totalitarianism doesn't encompass the persistence of old forms of social organization and the human tendency to reform social groups in times of stress (contra Arendt's idea of atomization). Another was that many seemingly totalitarian ideas had precursors and close cousins in Modern European History more generally, including the rejection of liberalism, the expansion of state methods of knowledge production and control, ideas of changing human beings at a fundamental level, and hyper-optimism about technology. A third was the idea (derived from Adorno) that totalitarianism's roots can be traced back to the Enlightenment concept that the world (and human beings) can be comprehended, categorized, organized, and reshaped by a cadre of elites. I've always been skeptical of this idea as some kind of unambiguous inheritance of the Enlightenment (it is a strain, one among many), especially given totalitarianism's complete rejection of liberalism, but it clearly has had a formative impact on these scholars.
Overall, these essays do not toss out the concept of totalitarianism completely, but they do show how it has served political ends and why scholars should be skeptical of highly schematic, social science-type formulations that don't always capture life on the ground. Still, I couldn't help pushing back a bit on their criticisms. The essays often highlight how these regimes viewed their subjects as Human Resources who lacked the right to direct their own lives, who were valuable only in terms of their service to the regime's objectives or their fit within the regimes' definition of full humanity. They highlighted the utter, open rejection of liberalism. They highlighted the use of violence not just for instrumental purposes but as ends in themselves, as assertion of power over the subject. They highlighted the manipulation of language on a systematic level to mask violence and oppression and ultimately to convince the individual that she cannot trust her own senses.They highlight the regime's anxieties about social organizations that exist beyond the regime's purview and their ultimate plans to eradicate or co-opt such institutions. In short, I thought these essays both poked holes in and reinforced the observations of classical totalitarian theorists from Arendt to Orwell to Friedrich, which I think still tell us a whole lot about these regimes even if historians should keep them at arms' length when they did into the archives.
This is a book for scholars, straight up. If you are are interested in the concept of totalitarianism or in comparing Nazism and Stalinism, check out something like Alan Bullock's dual biography of Hitler and Stalin. This book is tailor-made for people taking their comps. I really wish the opening essay was more tightly written and direct, because it could be a really useful historiographical source. Overall I'd say this is a valuable if frustrating volume that really needed a tougher editor and a tighter argument.
July 9, 2016
Some of the articles are fantastic, particularly the first section on governance. Others are swath in the classic stereotypes of the genre, particularly in the section on the war and violence. All in all, a fantastic showcase of resources and general contemporary attitudes in Slavic and Germanic studies. Important for academics attempting to navigate a world that increasingly relies on cliches about totalitarianism and collapses all anti-liberal societies into one shapeless easily-read enemy.
Read
June 3, 2020abandoned. Lovely subject, but the book is much more historiography than history.
October 7, 2012
Important for comparative historians working with the USSR and Nazi Germany but, ultimately, repetitive and "obvious" in its conclusions. That said, the authors assembled in this volume are some of the best currently working in this area of history and it's an important general overview. I highly recommend the chapter on Biopolitics.
October 5, 2010
I know I should say more about this but all I can say is--So. Dry.
November 15, 2013
он сравнивает Россию Сталина к гитлеровской Германии!
November 6, 2014
While a bit redundant at times it had some very critical and unique insights on these two regimes. Highly recommend it for anyone studying either of these regimes.
March 21, 2012
Part of the class required reading.
Not as biased as the other book, it still is overly dry.
Not as biased as the other book, it still is overly dry.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews