A strong leader, most of the times a father figure is what people could look up for and trust in (Kallis 31). A regime can also gain support from state terror as if people do not obey and take up the ideology the state will make sure they are punished (Griffin 26). The person prosecuted can serve as a scapegoat. Others who observe this process will be scared not to obey the state (Arendt …show more content…
She argues that totalitarianism is ruthless and consistent thus it requires sacrifices of their own (8). That is why the Soviet Union won the war but Germany lost it, because they did not pump enough soldiers onto the battlefield. Although this argument is fallible because totalitarianism is not about winning a war, but controlling society. With her argument the sub-question of the title can be revisited; is there still a possibility for such regimes to exist in our age? China and India could easily become a totalitarian regime because these countries have a huge population where many still not politically organized. Because of that great masses are superfluous and can be sacrificed for the greater good of the rest (Arendt 9). One could add that these societies consist of a lot of different ethnicity which with the use of an ideology could be politically united. The Chinese government is already since decades busy creating unity and using communism as their ideology. Although China is by far not a totalitarian regime. While there is one-party rule it allows cultural pluralism and does not try to fully control and mobilize all citizens (Roy 234-235). It is important to point out that there are various types of government. Regimes vary from democratic, semi-democratic to non-democratic. India is said to be the world's greatest democracy while China is by most scholars considered