IndexIntroductionNational SocialismConclusionBibliographyIntroductionThe 20th century was a new era in world history and was an era that differed in many respects from other centuries including two great wars (World War I and World War II) and the Great War. Depression. The modernization and industrialization movement that came with the Age of Enlightenment in the 18th century emphasized the concepts of human rights, freedom, democracy, and independence. But 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 Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayThe living conditions of individuals have been improved by new technologies, the recognition of the right to vote for women, the establishment of new democracies, etc. On the other hand, authoritarian leaders, repressive regimes, wars, economic decline, racist ideologies have influenced the world order. This is a questionable phenomenon regarding the achievements of modernity. National Socialism is also a product of the turbulent atmosphere of the 20th century. Sauer sees Nazism as a "disease of modern society". Features of greater emphasis on ethnicity, the construction of the nation-state as a latecomer and the conservatism of the regime distinguish the concept of nationalism in National Socialism from nationalism in the French Revolution. In addition to that, the characteristics of the opportunist structure, the desire to turn to natural life, anti-Semitic traits and the use of propaganda as a tool for political goals differentiate National Socialism from liberal democracies. Due to the different characteristics of National Socialism, different approaches were used in reporting it: mainly Fascism and Totalitarianism. Some scholars classified National Socialism as totalitarianism (like Russia, Stalin) and others classified it as fascism (like Italy, Mussolini). The definitions of both regimes share somewhat similar characteristics but also have differences and emphasize different aspects of the regimes. “The theories of fascism, Germanism, and totalitarianism have coexisted to some extent since the beginning.” In this context, this article will analyze how National Socialism is addressed through fascism and totalitarianism by different scholars. Scholars of National Socialism answer the question 'what is National Socialism' differently. Some think National Socialism is a form of fascism, others think it is totalitarianism, and some classify it as original to German society with respect to its historical intellectual background. Hannah Arendt (1953) considers National Socialism as a form of totalitarianism and makes socio-political arguments and psychological explanations in her article mainly focused on the period after 1933. Instead of thinking of National Socialism as a unique product of German history. as thinkers defend Germanism, she considers National Socialism as a "new form of government" by analyzing its elements called ideology and terror. which grants the government the ability to shape the individuals in which they live. alternative between legal government and lawless government, between arbitrary and legitimate power". Arendt (1953:306). “If legality is the essence of non-tyrannical rule and lawlessness is the essence of tyranny, then terror is the essence of totalitarian rule” Arendt (1953: 310). This can be explained by the anarchic order of the Hitler regime. The SS had the opportunity to judge individuals. Anarchic order and chaos also creates fear in the public.''What theTotalitarian government needs to guide the behavior of its subjects is a preparation to adapt each of them equally well to the role of executioner and the role of victim. This bilateral preparation, the 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 the so-called “total domination”. Terror is between legality and illegality. By imposing fear on society with terror and focusing on totalitarian ideology to eradicate alternative ways of thinking in order to explain and understand the world, totalitarianism aims to create lonely and insecure individuals. This is not like a loneliness. Solitude is good for production, one mostly prefers being alone to increase creativity and production. ''Loneliness is not loneliness. Loneliness requires being alone, while loneliness manifests itself more clearly in the company of others.'' Loneliness is the result of the destruction of the border between private and public, people have become passive individuals who do not think about the system, about order society, government, etc. On the one hand, in terms of ideology Sauer (1967) talks about the insufficiency of using totalitarianism to understand the Nazi regime even by explaining its ideology. “Even in the case of Nazi ideology, we know more about its roots and its propaganda system than about its structure and its functional role in the social system.” Simple totalitarianism is not enough to explain Nazi ideology and historical context according to Sauer 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 the difference from tyranny, dictatorship. Arendt also sees Russia as a totalitarian regime. Sauer who classifies National Socialism as fascism criticizes this approach by analyzing the differences between fascism and Bolshevism. ''Neither VI Lenin nor Joseph Stalin wished to turn back the clock; they didn't simply want to move forward, they wanted to take a leap forward. The Bolshevik revolution featured many elements of a developmental revolution not unlike those underway in underdeveloped countries.' The desire to return to the Law of Nature, idealizing the life of peasants and traditional life are peculiar to Hitler's Germany. ''The social and political order of Bolshevism is relatively independent of the leadership; it is, so to speak, more objective. Fascist regimes, by contrast, are almost identical to their leaders; no fascist regime has so far survived its leader.'' If Stalin's Russia is totalitarianism, Hitler's Germany cannot be a totalitarian regime due to the dependence of its authoritarian leader. Sauer (1967) classifies Nazism into three categories, defining the boundaries of the categories through the Second World War and the Cold War. It mainly explains these periods from a non-Marxist and fascist perspective. In the first phase, fascism was examined by scholars with a Marxist approach, but this perspective changed. Fascism was seen as the rule of large corporations, corporations, etc. in terms of a Marxist perspective. "Fascism was the representative of the lower middle class." Sauer instead believes that it is a capitalist movement, but not indigenous 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 the large contribution of the lower middle class. It can also be said that within the fascist mixture a distinct interest group was formed consisting of those we couldcall the desperate soldiers, veterans of the First World War and post-war struggles, who had not been reintegrated either into civil society or into civil society. armed forces.'. Capitalists, aristocrats, workers and desperate people are the supporters of the movement. Fascism entered the scene as a power unit of the underdogs. After World War I, the military force and the desperate moved back and no longer engaged in society as they did before. Even the lower middle class needed desperate people to use their power against the government. They all acted together to dictate their political goals. Sauer also draws an explanation regarding National Socialism and called it fascism peculiar to Germany. The process of Germany's modernization and industrialization 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. It is not simply based on elites, it is a mass movement. This is why it can be seen as revolutionary. On the other hand, the desire to return to the Law of Nature, as mentioned by Arendt (1953), is reactionary. It's a paradoxical situation. ''A mass revolutionary movement whose objectives were anti-revolutionary in the classical sense.'' However, Griffin sees the movement ''as a revolutionary form of nationalism intent on mobilizing all 'healthy' social and political energies...''. Paxton (1998) refuses to classify National Socialism as totalitarianism and also refuses to examine it in the broad fascist perspective. But when one wants to define fascism, great difficulties arise. Its borders are ambiguous both in space and time.'' Mussolini's Italy which was not as obsessed as Hitler's Germany in terms of its Jewish population, cannot be classified 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 such as France, England, Italy, etc. Furthermore, to mobilize the masses and be powerful, states could create a fascist image. That doesn't mean they have fascist regimes. Fascisms are compatible with their nations. There were no ideological principles or doctrines for fascism. All this makes it more difficult to interpret National Socialism into a broad understanding of fascism. He made a distinction between the phases of fascism: “(1) the initial creation of fascist movements; (2) their entrenchment as a political party system; (3) the acquisition of power; (4) the exercise of power; and, finally, in the long term,(5) radicalization or entropy”. As a result of these stages, he distinguished the differences and similarities between fascist regimes and found that fascisms are similar in terms of functionality. Paxton (1998) In his work there is no separation between reactionary and revolutionary specific to National Socialism, 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 on economic characteristics or classes as Sauer (1967) explains non-Marxist fascism. Griffin also explains National Socialism as fascism. But instead of defining it with negative expressions such as anti-communist, anti-democratic, anti-liberal etc., he defines fascism as "the ability 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 derived mainly from the pursuit of interests by the desperate of the lower middle class and the military. Paxton (1998) establishes the similarity between fascist regimes with respect to their functionality rather thanto their way of using propaganda, symbols etc. Griffin (2004) establishes the similarity with the term of 'palingenesis' meaning new birth, rebirth or national rebirth. According to him, fascist regimes may be different due to the historical path they have taken but they have the central element called palingenesis. "What informs the actions of fascism and provides a certain degree of coherence to its ideology in its various political spheres and various national transformations is the utopia of the 'palingenesis' (rebirth or new birth) of the national community, achieved through the transformation total and regeneration of its political culture.'' It also seems that National Socialism is a unique form of fascism with its ultranationalist characteristics. Paxton (1998) mentions "imitations of fascism" in his article and argues that states can appear to be fascist. to create a powerful image. At this point, Griffin distinguishes fascism and other repressive regimes, parafascisms. He thinks that the cohesion of ultranationalism and palingenesis helps us differentiate national socialism from other types of fascism definition of fascism (fascist minimum) is best seen in terms of revolution, rebirth and modernity has gradually emerged from decades of intense controversy that often produced more heat than light, a period of confusion that has led most historians to give the term a broad anchoring 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, cleanliness and paramilitarism. Organic nationalism is based on homogeneity and the interests of certain groups such as opponents, certain ethnic groups. Statism is primarily about seeing the State above everything. Paramilitarism is essential to create violence in order to pursue the interests of the group. Transcendence brings explanation in terms of classes in society. This is a different explanation from Sauer's (1967) non-Marxist fascist explanation. Cleanliness also affects the creation of violence. It defines fascism as a negative way with its negative characteristics. Unlike Griffin (2004), he defined fascism as anti-Catholic, anti-liberal and anti-capitalist. Mann also criticizes Griffin for his definition of fascism in terms of building power in society and social relations. Defines fascism in terms of economics, politics, ideological and military background. “Fascism is the pursuit of a transcendent and purifying statism through paramilitarism.” As Hannah Arendt mentions in her article, terror is important for the sake of nature and history, violence is also important in Mann (2004) to achieve the interests of a certain group. In this way, paramilitarism and purification create a fear in society, just as Hannah Arendt's terror creates insecure and lonely individuals. Mann explains the supporters of the fascist regime with class theory. Sauer (1967) does not reduce the supporters of the National Socialist regime by counting only the lower middle class. Mann (2004) also adds public employees to the category of supporters of fascism. It also mentions the disposition of the classic lower middle class to support the National Socialist regime. ''Thanks to the bottom-up organization of fascist paramilitary powers, fascists gain both significant power and popularity.'' He considers National Socialism a mass movement, as have other scholars I mentioned above. The conclusion that Mann (2004) draws 73 (2): 404-24.