In the early 1920s Mussolini was amongst the first fascists to refer approvingly to the newly
emerging Italian Fascist state as 'totalitarian'. During the late 1950s and the early 1960s –
particularly in a Cold War fixated America - a theory centred on totalitarianism became the
dominant academic narrative on both fascism and communism.
This was in good part due to its use in legitimising certain anti-communist conservative political
aims of the Cold War (by associating communism with the universally hated Nazism) and an
associated solid support in the western popular media which fastened on to this easy to
understand model and repeated it ad nausium. The correct interpretation of its nazi past
became a potent ideological weapon in the propaganda war, with historians on both sides
embroiled in a heavily charged political debate as to whether Nazism was either an expression
of big business (and therefore chiefly a capitalist and liberal phenomenon), or a variety of
'totalitarian' regime still expressed in East German 'communism'.
This historical revisionism was to return in another guise in 1986 with the so called
historikerstreit ( 'historians battle') Sparked off by the text of a lecture to be given by Ernst Nolte
in Munich, and a rejoinder to the text, and to the work of Cologne based historian Andreas
Hillgrubber by Jurgen Habermas. Nolte sought to impose a totalitarian identity with communism
and modern liberation movements. Habermas saw this as neo-conservative revisionism and
relativism. In one of his most critical passages Habermas asserted that:
Nolte is the officious-conservative narrator...he reconstructs a background history for
mass terror. As it reaches back in time it includes the "Gulag," Stalin's expulsion of the
kulaks, and the Bolshevik revolution: he sees antecedents of mass terror in Babeuf, the
early socialist...