Changes

[[File:The_Anatomy_of_Facism.jpg|thumbnail|left|250px|<i>[https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1400033918/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1400033918&linkCode=as2&tag=dailyh0c-20&linkId=3c67a426c0cb12c4577702b87ffe9a8a The Anatomy of Fascism]</i> by Robert O. Paxton]]

In <i>[https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1400033918/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1400033918&linkCode=as2&tag=dailyh0c-20&linkId=3c67a426c0cb12c4577702b87ffe9a8a The Anatomy of Fascism]</i>, Robert O. Paxton closely examines the history of fascist movements , primarily in Germany and Italy, which provides insight into to create a thorough explanationHitler's constitutes fascism. To define the boundaries and stages that make up fascism, Paxton spends the history majority of those the book examining fascism in two countries at pivotal momentsof the locations where it was most successful, violent, and noteworthy: Italy and Germany. The Paxton examines the examples of Fascist Italy and Hitler's Germany in comparison demonstrates clear parallels between the two countries to each other – and occasionally in contrast to different regimes often considered fascist movements as well , such as Francoist Spain. He trys to understand the failure of democracy differences not just in how authoritarian leaders got into power, but in each these two countriestheir actions once they Mussolini'srol. The examples of these two movements make Paxton’s argument convincing. His portrayal For example, Paxton argues that one of the rise defining qualities of fascism was as much a failure of democracy as it was fascist power is its appeals to the public and popular support in the rise of an authoritarian group of thugsyears before their ascension to power. Fascists successfully took advantage These appeals continue after taking power – something characteristic of democratic institutions for non-democratic endsboth countries' and Benito Mussolini’s reign in their respective countries.

One Paxton carefully examines the history of Paxton’s greatest strengths fascist movements in <i>GermanyPaxton'sly, which provides insight into the history of those two countries at pivotal moments. The Anatomy comparison demonstrates clear parallels between the two countries' fascist movements as well as the failure of Fascism</i> is that he successfully examines how fascism operated democracy in Italy and Germany while also rightly dismissing theories which explained away each of these two countries. Paxton's view of these two movements makes his argument convincing. His portrayal of the rise of fascism with simplistic explanations. Explanations that often missed the key reasons for was as much a failure of democracy as it was the rise of fascism, especially in Germany and Italyan authoritarian group of thugs. Fascists successfully took advantage of democratic institutions for non-democratic ends.

One of Paxton’s greatest strengths in <i>The Anatomy of Fascism</i> is that he successfully examines how fascism operated in Italy and Germany while also rightly dismissing theories which explained away the rise fascism with simplistic explanations. Explanations that often missed the key reasons for the rise of fascism, especially in Germany and Italy. Paxton presents the history of fascism in a way which demonstrates that the complex ways authoritarians took power and some of the nuances which differentiate one fascist movement from another. To do this, Paxton examines the history of German and Italian fascism fairly in-depth, documenting and comparing how both of these examples gained support, utilized violence, and were helped to power by elected officials who would rather work with fascists than socialists or communists. This last point is of particular interest because Paxton uses it to diminish the myth of Mussolini’s “March on Rome” – in other words, he argues that fascists didn’t simply use brute force to gain power. While the coup staged by fascists in Romania is discussed, it is primarily shown in contrast to the paths taken by Hitler and Mussolini, which was not a violent uprising.

In To do this, Paxton examines the last chapter of <i>The Anatomy history of Fascism</i>, Paxton offers up a definition German and a list Italian fascism fairly in-depth. He compares how both of ideas or “mobilizing passions” which define a fascist movement. As Paxton admits, these ideals are rarely explicitly stated by fascists but are rather implied in fascist language and actioncountries gained support. This is While violence was a good approachtool of both parties, arguably, for the most part, but it is in some ways almost contradictory. Paxton himself discusses some unwillingness of the problems associated conservatives elected to work with creating a singular definition for fascism, socialists and while he definition that he offers here offers more room for differentiation between fascist movements, it is still somewhat limitingcommunists was critical to their rise.

This last point is of particular interest because Paxton uses it to diminish the myth of Mussolini’s “March on Rome” – in other words, he argues that fascists didn’t merely use brute force to gain power. While the coup staged by fascists in Romania is discussed, it is primarily shown in contrast to the paths taken by Hitler and Mussolini, which was not a violent uprising. In the last chapter of <i>The Anatomy of Fascism</i>, Paxton offers up a definition and a list of ideas or “mobilizing passions” which define a fascist movement. As Paxton admits, these ideals are rarely explicitly stated by fascists but are rather implied in fascist language and action. This is a good approach, for the most part, but it Paxton'sme ways almost contradictory. Paxton himself discusses some of the problems associated with creating a singular definition for fascism. While the definition that Paxton offers makes more room for differentiation between fascist movements, it is still somewhat limiting.  Still, Paxton’s definition is effectiveuseful, and his focus on actions is important essential because it is an essential part of informing not just fascist behavior but fascist language as well. Paxton’s definition here seems widely applicable, and his emphasis on fascism as a product born of failed democracies is an interesting one , which is greatly important exceedingly essential to understanding the growth of fascist movements in Europe in the early 20th century. While important distinctions like these are drawn for Italy and Germany, the focus on these two states seems too narrow at times. If one of the main goals of this work is to examine fascism as a whole, then it should be necessary to examine fascism in depth in more places than just Italy and Germany. Fascist movements in Chile and Argentina are briefly mentioned, and while their example is welcome and an interesting comparison to their European counterparts, a more detailed and thorough analysis of non-European fascist movements seem almost essential to identifying what fascism is.  Other examples are briefly mentioned, such as Romania and Spain, but these are largely used to argue against certain movements being fascist or to make the case about German and Italian fascism stronger. Some of these examples are very effective, such as the use of the Spanish example to show the importance of public support for a fascist movement. But Paxton's work needs more of these examples between fascist states like Romania because it would have been beneficial to producing a more well-rounded analysis of fascism.

<div class="portal" style="width:85%;">====Related DailyHistory.org Articles===={{#dpl:category=Book Review|ordermethod=firstedit|order=descending|count=7}}</div> [[Category:20th Century History]] [[Category:Book Review]] [[Category:European History]] [[Category:Political History]] [[Category:Wikis]]