The Origins of Totalitarianism

Nonfiction | Book | Adult | Published in 1951

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.

Download PDF

Summary

Chapter Summaries & Analyses

Part 1, Chapters 1-4

Part 2, Chapters 5-7

Part 2, Chapters 8-9

Part 3, Chapters 10-13

Key Figures

Themes

Index of Terms

Important Quotes

Essay Topics

Tools

Beta

Discussion Questions

Part 1, Chapters 1-4Chapter Summaries & Analyses

Part 1: “Antisemitism”

Part 1, Chapter 1 Summary: “Antisemitism as an Outrage to Common Sense”

In the first chapter, Arendt sets out to define antisemitism and to dispel myths surrounding its origin and ties to totalitarianism. She highlights the discrepancy between the small size of the Jewish population and the belief that the Jewish people were the catalyst for Nazi totalitarianism. Arendt clarifies that antisemitism is not the same thing as hating Jewish people. In fact, antisemitism has little do with Judaism at all. Antisemitism is an ideology with both political and social implications that claims that the world would be a better place without Jews. Antisemitism, like all ideologies, is born out of conflict. While many viewed the Nazi’s focus on the Jewish people as a new concept, antisemitism has a long history that functions as a pre-history to totalitarianism. At the same time, antisemitism is not the cause of totalitarianism, which has its roots in imperialism. Arendt exposes and refutes four arguments that connect the Jewish people with the origins of Nazi totalitarianism.

First, she rejects that antisemitism is related to nationalism. The Nazis did not adhere to a traditional nationalism and always focused outside of Germany’s borders with an emphasis on total power. She compares the Nazis to the Bolsheviks, who also had an internationalist agenda.

Second, Arendt rejects that antisemitism is a reaction to Jews’ wealth and power. She compares the experiences of the Jews to the French aristocrats who became targets only after they lost their power and influence but still managed to maintain their wealth. She suggests that antisemitism reached its peak when Jewish people lost their power and political influence. People were then less accepting when they perceived that the wealth of some Jewish individuals was no longer tied to positions of power, rendering that wealth itself without a perception of usefulness.

Third, Arendt refutes that Jews are innocent victims or scapegoats. This controversial argument suggests that viewing Jews as scapegoats with no part to play in their own victimization removes the ability to examine the complexity of the situation. Failure to participate politically in the nations they occupied, Arendt argues, has contributed to the political dependence of the Jewish people. Finally, she denies the argument of eternal antisemitism, an idea adopted by many non-Jewish historians as well as Jews that argues that Jews have always been targeted. Arendt then makes the case for rejecting ideas that tidily summarize Nazi totalitarianism and its connection to antisemitism, which erases the complexity of the issue.

Part 1, Chapter 2 Summary: “The Jews, the Nation-State, and the Birth of Antisemitism”

This chapter focuses on the intersections between antisemitism and politics. Arendt believes that the decline of the nation-state, a group of unified people of similar background, and the association of the Jewish people with the government are contributors to antisemitism. Arendt suggests that the nation-state’s desire to keep Jews from fully assimilating into social classes aligned with the Jewish commitment to their own separateness and distinction. This comprises the first paradox that Arendt explores—that Jews did not live as full citizens but were also granted certain privileges. Arendt reviews the historical link between monarchies and Jews in the court who benefited from their status.

As the idea of equality came into popularity during the Enlightenment, the Jewish people gained emancipation but lost several privileges. Arendt’s second paradox examines how Jews became aligned with nation-states in the 17th and 18th centuries despite having been stateless and mostly apolitical. In times of war, Jews’ non-nationalist views led them to be great negotiators for peace. Antisemitic governments, however, did not see the value in Jewish-led negotiations, particularly because peace was not their final goal.

The fact that many Jews received privileges from the state and obtained high status and positions of influence meant that others associated Jewish people with government. After the end of World War I, the decline of Europe, and the rise of imperialism, many Jews were left without their previous influence but still with their own wealth and an association with government power. This, Arendt argues, contributed to the contempt of Jews; she claims that it is only when a group holds wealth that has been stripped of power that others begin to direct their hatred toward that group. Disappointment and resentment directed toward the government became directed toward the Jewish people.

Arendt then explores the early forms of antisemitism and its many iterations. In Central and Western European countries, antisemitism was rooted in political advancement. In Poland and Romania, antisemitism had class conditions at its core. Arendt suggests that European antisemitism gained political relevance when it was combined with political issues and when lower classes wrongly associated Jews with the financial scandals of elite government officials.

Those middle and lower classes absorbed the ramifications of these scandals and used antisemitism to focus their blame and anger. This was largely perpetuated by the aristocracy which aligned itself with the conservative ideologies of churches to spread antisemitic slogans. These political and ideological maneuvers introduced the mob, a collective group with antisemitic and supranational agendas. The aristocracy then developed a symbiotic relationship with the mob in which each was dependent upon the other.

Part 1, Chapter 3 Summary: “The Jews and Society”

Chapter 3 explores social discrimination. Arendt suggests that both political antisemitism and social discrimination came from the political emancipation of the Jewish people. Political antisemitism developed because Jews were politically separate from the nation-state, while social discrimination rose from the increased equality and social presence of Jewish people. Liberal ideology emphasized equality, removing privileges from the Jewish people that they previously utilized. Wealth without power made Jews a target of disdain.

Assimilation was difficult to navigate. Jews were expected to be homogenous by giving up their practices and traditions but were also to remain somewhat separate and insular in what Arendt describes as their “invisible ghetto” (62). Many viewed the Jewish people as exotic, and they wanted Jews to assimilate to customs and ways of life without losing their dissimilarity. This was further emphasized by the desire of many Jews to preserve their distinction. These societal shifts created normal and abnormal categories, and Jews fell into the latter. Arendt asserts that those who fall into the abnormal category are often viewed as inferior.

Arendt argues that social discrimination, not political antisemitism, created the set of stereotypes which characterized “the Jew” (61). Literature emphasizing these stereotypes was widely circulated. As Jewish people were forced assimilate, both their acceptance and their ostracism were tied to the fact that they were Jews. Arendt describes the life of Benjamin Disraeli, a Jewish statesman who served twice as the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Recognizing that his Jewish heritage made him as much a commodity as it did a social outcast, Disraeli used his distinction to his advantage. Arendt suggests that this type of maneuvering was a result of the fact that Disraeli was raised away from the presence of Jewish traditions and with prejudice against Jewish people as a group. Disraeli viewed himself as a “chosen man of the chosen race,” and Arendt claims that Disraeli’s life created a set of race ideologies applied to Jews (71). This chapter also explores the social discrimination of Jews leading up the Dreyfus affair, which will be detailed in Chapter 4.

Part 1, Chapter 4 Summary: “The Dreyfus Affair”

In this chapter, Arendt details the events of the Dreyfus affair. Army captain Alfred Dreyfus was arrested and convicted of treason in France in 1894. He allegedly sold military secrets to Germany, and he was sentenced to life in prison on Devil’s Island, a French penal colony. At first, most believed that Dreyfus was guilty. Dreyfus was Jewish, and many newspapers published antisemitic rhetoric in support of his conviction. Over time, however, public sentiment changed as more evidence suggested that Dreyfus was innocent, and Deputy Georges Clemenceau attempted to reopen the case.

The failure of the French government to provide a definitive close to the issue caused international public outcry. Arendt suggests that the Dreyfus affair had two lasting effects. First, the issue perpetuated hatred against Jews. Several riots and acts of violence occurred because of the antisemitic feelings stirred in the mob over the Dreyfus case. Second, the Dreyfus affair caused many to feel distrust in the state and the abilities of Parliament. Arendt asserts that the fall of France was due to its submission to conservative and antisemitic rhetoric.

Arendt describes the Dreyfus affair as a type of “dress rehearsal” for Nazi totalitarianism (10). She asserts that antisemitism in France was worse than it was in Germany and that the only reason it did not have the same outcomes was that France did not have the same supranational and imperialist views as the Nazis. The totalitarian movements and pan-movements succeeded because of their utilization of the imperialistic notion of outward expansion.

In this chapter, Arendt also defines the term “mob.” The mob is made up of people of classes, but Arendt cautions against thinking of “the mob” as “the people” (107). The mob centers on supporting a single leader and often hates societal structures, particularly because the mob feels excluded and rejected by society. The mob plays an important role both in the Dreyfus affair and in Nazi Germany

Part 1, Chapters 1-4 Analysis

Arendt opens her book by defining and discussing antisemitism, creating a foundation for understanding what is behind and beneath the totalitarian movements covered in the book. Because antisemitism is weaponized by totalitarian regimes, it is important to understand exactly what it is and what it contributes to the effectiveness of these movements.

In Part 1, Arendt makes two major claims. First, antisemitism is a political ideal that differentiates from social discrimination. Arendt posits that antisemitism has less to do with the hating of the Jewish people and more to do with a secular ideology that relates to the Jewish people. She rejects several arguments which seek to characterize totalitarianism as being intrinsically linked with antisemitism and instead shares a history of the Jewish people that shows a political pathway for antisemitism. She also rejects the idea of eternal antisemitism which has its roots in the logical fallacy of appeal to tradition. Chapter 1 links totalitarianism, instead, to imperialism, countering the idea that antisemitism is directly associated with nationalism. Arendt suggests that both the Nazi and Soviet regimes were always focused on supranational domination, and it was this imperialistic agenda which served as a catalyst for totalitarian rule. In other words, antisemitism was a tool used by totalitarian regimes, but not the cause of them.

The second claim is that antisemitism is an ideology with a long history which preceded Nazi and Soviet totalitarianism. The terror these totalitarian factions reigned upon the Jewish people was a means of control through a shared ideology of antisemitism. Arendt strongly cautions against those who may provide a sweeping generalization or tidy summary of the events that led to what she refers to as “the Jewish question” (3). Her use of this phrase is a direct reference to the Holocaust. Controversially, Arendt also suggests that the apolitical history of the Jewish people and their ties to the nation-state through moneylending and the receipt of special privileges contributed to the rise in antisemitism, although she also cites several other contributing factors.

Arendt suggests that the abnormal state in which Jews found themselves during the emergence of liberal ideas during the Enlightenment left them in an inferior position. A similar idea is highlighted in Part 2 which covers imperialism and the way in which imperialists viewed the peoples of other nations as culturally and divinely inferior. In later chapters, Arendt asserts that totalitarian regimes capitalized on existing racism and antisemitism. In Part 1, Arendt suggests that antisemitism serves as a pre-history to totalitarianism, meaning the development of antisemitism over time offered totalitarian movements an ideology around which they could unify and seek power.

In Chapter 4, Arendt offers two important components that contribute to this idea. The first is that the Dreyfus affair was a rehearsal for the Nazi totalitarian movement. The Dreyfus affair exposed just how lasting and widespread the influence of antisemitism was in France. Arendt suggests that the only reason France did not bloom into full totalitarianism was that French rhetoric was mostly nationalist at the time rather than a continentally focused. However, the Dreyfus affair shows how antisemitism can be utilized in systems of power to achieve certain goals and to bypass traditional systems of checks and balances. Arendt points to the violence of the Dreyfus affair as foreshadowing for what was to come at the beginning of the 20th century.

The second component is the introduction of the idea of the mob. Throughout the text, Arendt describes the role of the mob in the rise of totalitarianism. In particular, she asserts that the mob is responsible for denying ethical and moral standards and building its own version of morality through power. For example, the Dreyfus affair exposed the role of the mob in the rise of nationalism and antisemitism in France. Violent antisemitism became more and more common, and the antisemitic feeling behind Dreyfus’s arrest caused the mob to react in support of Major Walsin-Esterhazy, who confessed to the forgeries of which Dreyfus was accused.

The Dreyfus affair also incited the mob’s feeling of distrust toward Parliament, which Arendt later writes is, along with free press, the “conscience of the nation” (133). Arendt suggests that the reason France fell to Nazi totalitarianism had more to do with the loss of Dreyfusards, those who supported Dreyfus. The mob’s reaction to the Dreyfus affair was violent. Jewish shops and homes were attacked, and riots occurred across France. All of this, Arendt states, is a precursor to the totalitarian movement and the role of the mob in perpetuating its racist agenda.