Rating: 
Summary: A needed introduction
Review: Fascism is frequently referred to but almost never understood. As a movement it came on the world stage as a socialist alternative to Communism. Fascism saw the state as a nationalist vehicle for combating the excesses of communism, preserving the status quo while mobilizing the people to achieve `higher things'. For 18 years Fascism in Italy thrived, although launching the state on two imperial wars, it left minorities well enough alone. Fascism in Spain likewise didn't create the horrors of Nazi Germany. Unfortunately, perhaps, Nazism is what Fascism has been associated with. Yet fascist movements existed in other places to, throughout Latin America, and also in Lebanon and even among Jabotinsky's followers in Zion. This book tries to give a rendition of Fascism as it was theorized all the way through to its bloody conclusion. It focuses mostly on Italy and Germany, although writings of others are weaved together to show the Fascist mosaic. In the end Fascism has far worse a connotation then communism even though Communism clearly exterminated millions more people then Fascism. What was so abhorrent about Nazi Fascism was its obsession with racial purity, nevertheless Communist regimes in places such as Cambodia employed similar racial ideas to prosecute their destruction of society. The importance of this work cannot be underestimated. Academia frequently gives students a `communist' interpretation of certain events, asking people to look at things through a `marxist' lens and to analyze events through the rubric of Marxist thought. Thus many of us have a pretty good notion of what Communism is and was. Yet most of us will hear the word fascism frequently without any guidepost as to exactly what the movement was or how it ever captured peoples imaginations. Here is an excellent analysis of the birth, growth and death of fascism. Any student of politics, political philosophy or European history will enjoy this lively intellectual account. And, of course, the book certainly isn't sympathetic to Fascism, its merely an introduction. Seth J. Frantzman
Rating:
Summary: A needed introduction
Review: Fascism is frequently referred to but almost never understood. As a movement it came on the world stage as a socialist alternative to Communism. Fascism saw the state as a nationalist vehicle for combating the excesses of communism, preserving the status quo while mobilizing the people to achieve 'higher things'. For 18 years Fascism in Italy thrived, although launching the state on two imperial wars, it left minorities well enough alone. Fascism in Spain likewise didn't create the horrors of Nazi Germany. Unfortunately, perhaps, Nazism is what Fascism has been associated with. Yet fascist movements existed in other places to, throughout Latin America, and also in Lebanon and even among Jabotinsky's followers in Zion. This book tries to give a rendition of Fascism as it was theorized all the way through to its bloody conclusion. It focuses mostly on Italy and Germany, although writings of others are weaved together to show the Fascist mosaic. In the end Fascism has far worse a connotation then communism even though Communism clearly exterminated millions more people then Fascism. What was so abhorrent about Nazi Fascism was its obsession with racial purity, nevertheless Communist regimes in places such as Cambodia employed similar racial ideas to prosecute their destruction of society. The importance of this work cannot be underestimated. Academia frequently gives students a 'communist' interpretation of certain events, asking people to look at things through a 'marxist' lens and to analyze events through the rubric of Marxist thought. Thus many of us have a pretty good notion of what Communism is and was. Yet most of us will hear the word fascism frequently without any guidepost as to exactly what the movement was or how it ever captured peoples imaginations. Here is an excellent analysis of the birth, growth and death of fascism. Any student of politics, political philosophy or European history will enjoy this lively intellectual account. And, of course, the book certainly isn't sympathetic to Fascism, its merely an introduction. Seth J. Frantzman
Rating: 
Summary: Good single volume introduction to fascism
Review: Fascism is the genus to which Nazism, Falangism, Francisme, the Arrow Cross, the Order of the Archangel Michael, the Ustasha, and possibly also certain strains of militant Islam belong. The book provides a very useful primer to the subject (which, by the way, goes well beyond a standard insult for supposed right wingers). It is, however, addressed to college students and won't be much fun for those with an occasional interest, nor very informative for those who have already read on the subject. But even people familiar with the subject can always use a single refresher source. The bibliographic essay is excellent, and the copious footnotes are very rewarding (who ever knew that Iceland had fascists?). The book is not as fulfilling as Payne's, but it is much shorter and up to date. Although these things should be obvious to any college-educated person, it is still useful to assert that third world dictatorships (such as Pinochet or Mobutu) are not fascist, that Fascism's symbols must be rooted in a country's culture (so that Swastikas and Roman salutes are quite useless in most countries), that Fascism could achieve power only with the support of existing elites but was not a mere tool of those elites, and that Fascism was authentically democratic (this is a good lesson who believe democracy is always good no matter what its consequences), although it never came to power via an election. Paxton is intriguing when he refers to his opinion that the USA, at the end of the '60s, was ripe for a fascist takeover. He refers to the revulsion many Americans felt for the counterculture of the time, the fear of many lower middle class white males at being left behind by women and blacks after the Civil Rights movement, and the likelihood that Vietnam War veterans might fail to be integrated into the new scheme of things and thus could perform a role similar to the fascist squadristi or the Nazi SA, and allow themselves to be used to frighten the electorate into a strong-arm fix to the crisis. He doesn't elaborate on this scenario, but it might have been viable if the American political system had failed to recover from the Nixon resignation. This would have been particularly likely after the oil crises of the 1970s if the two main parties had fallen apart. Remember that Wallace, then a racist, captured in 1968 13% of the popular vote, and 5 Southern states. This is an interesting "What If" that the author could have explored further, although he probably chose not to in order not to bulk out the book excessively. Thus, it retains its sense of urgency and provides abundant interesting information on most pages. In spite of these merits The book does make a serious blunder, when, in the final chapter, it compares Fascism to Communism and concludes that Nazism was far worse because it persecuted people for who they were, whereas Communism persecuted them because of what they did or had, and these things could be changed. This is blatantly untrue. When Stalin ordered the kulaks to be liquidated as a class, he did not mean that those who gave up their excess property would be left alone. He meant that anyone classed as a kulak should be liquidated irrespective of what he did or didn't do. Indeed, many kulaks were not richer than their neigbours, and were classified as such only to fulfil the quotas imposed by the Vozhd. When the Soviet Union or China created the groups "Enemies of the People", it included the children or spouses of such enemies of the people, who clearly couldn't have done anything to prevent it. "Enemies of the People" were persecuted, incarcerated and often killed. And when Stalin ordered that the families of soldiers who did not stand their ground in battle should be punished (read: executed) he wasn't giving them any choice: how could the families prevent a relative from behaving cowardly? So, it is wrong, and not just factually, to state that Communism punished people only because of what they did. The implication that people under Communism could save themselves by changing their behaviour is also false, and deeply offensive. In reality Communism killed people for who they were, and for who their parents, or spouse, or children, or siblings were, or for the actions of their neighbours, and even for their own nationalities: witness the cruel deportation of the Chechens and other peoples during WWII. When top Bolsheviks ordered the murder of tens of thousands of Poles at the Katyn Massacre because these people were leaders in their communities (priests, teachers, nobles, etc.), just what could these victims have done to survive? When Mao, during the cultural revolution, sent urban students to "learn from the peasants" and live for years in unimaginable squalor, just what was he punishing? I don't have a clear and articulated opinion on whether communism or fascism was worse (although I do know that in fascist states one would usually be left alone unless one belonged to a persecuted group- see Eric Johnson's "Nazi Terror"-, whereas in commuist states one could be swept along by the periodic purges irrespective of what one was and what one did- see Robert Conquest's "The Great Terror", inter alia), but I am certain that Paxton belittles the awfulness of Communist rule, and somehow assumes that its victims were to blame for what they suffered (since they wouldn't have been punished if they had changed their behaviour). To anyone who might be misled by Paxton's opinion, I can only recommend enduring texts such as Anne Appleabum's "Gulag: A History", or Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archpielago". I still give Paxton 3 stars because this dubious opinion is marginal to his analysis (he clearly didn't think it through and might choose to elaborate the point in a further edition) and other than that the book is pretty good if slightly wooden.
Rating:
Summary: Good single volume introduction to fascism
Review: Fascism is the genus to which Nazism, Falangism, Francisme, the Arrow Cross, the Order of the Archangel Michael, the Ustasha, and possibly also certain strains of militant Islam belong. The book provides a very useful primer to the subject (which, by the way, goes well beyond a standard insult for supposed right wingers). It is, however, addressed to college students and won't be much fun for those with an occasional interest, nor very informative for those who have already read on the subject. But even people familiar with the subject can always use a single refresher source. The bibliographic essay is excellent, and the copious footnotes are very rewarding (who ever knew that Iceland had fascists?). The book is not as fulfilling as Payne's, but it is much shorter and up to date. Although these things should be obvious to any college-educated person, it is still useful to assert that third world dictatorships (such as Pinochet or Mobutu) are not fascist, that Fascism's symbols must be rooted in a country's culture (so that Swastikas and Roman salutes are quite useless in most countries), that Fascism could achieve power only with the support of existing elites but was not a mere tool of those elites, and that Fascism was authentically democratic (this is a good lesson who believe democracy is always good no matter what its consequences), although it never came to power via an election. Paxton is intriguing when he refers to his opinion that the USA, at the end of the '60s, was ripe for a fascist takeover. He refers to the revulsion many Americans felt for the counterculture of the time, the fear of many lower middle class white males at being left behind by women and blacks after the Civil Rights movement, and the likelihood that Vietnam War veterans might fail to be integrated into the new scheme of things and thus could perform a role similar to the fascist squadristi or the Nazi SA, and allow themselves to be used to frighten the electorate into a strong-arm fix to the crisis. He doesn't elaborate on this scenario, but it might have been viable if the American political system had failed to recover from the Nixon resignation. This would have been particularly likely after the oil crises of the 1970s if the two main parties had fallen apart. Remember that Wallace, then a racist, captured in 1968 13% of the popular vote, and 5 Southern states. This is an interesting "What If" that the author could have explored further, although he probably chose not to in order not to bulk out the book excessively. Thus, it retains its sense of urgency and provides abundant interesting information on most pages. In spite of these merits The book does make a serious blunder, when, in the final chapter, it compares Fascism to Communism and concludes that Nazism was far worse because it persecuted people for who they were, whereas Communism persecuted them because of what they did or had, and these things could be changed. This is blatantly untrue. When Stalin ordered the kulaks to be liquidated as a class, he did not mean that those who gave up their excess property would be left alone. He meant that anyone classed as a kulak should be liquidated irrespective of what he did or didn't do. Indeed, many kulaks were not richer than their neigbours, and were classified as such only to fulfil the quotas imposed by the Vozhd. When the Soviet Union or China created the groups "Enemies of the People", it included the children or spouses of such enemies of the people, who clearly couldn't have done anything to prevent it. "Enemies of the People" were persecuted, incarcerated and often killed. And when Stalin ordered that the families of soldiers who did not stand their ground in battle should be punished (read: executed) he wasn't giving them any choice: how could the families prevent a relative from behaving cowardly? So, it is wrong, and not just factually, to state that Communism punished people only because of what they did. The implication that people under Communism could save themselves by changing their behaviour is also false, and deeply offensive. In reality Communism killed people for who they were, and for who their parents, or spouse, or children, or siblings were, or for the actions of their neighbours, and even for their own nationalities: witness the cruel deportation of the Chechens and other peoples during WWII. When top Bolsheviks ordered the murder of tens of thousands of Poles at the Katyn Massacre because these people were leaders in their communities (priests, teachers, nobles, etc.), just what could these victims have done to survive? When Mao, during the cultural revolution, sent urban students to "learn from the peasants" and live for years in unimaginable squalor, just what was he punishing? I don't have a clear and articulated opinion on whether communism or fascism was worse (although I do know that in fascist states one would usually be left alone unless one belonged to a persecuted group- see Eric Johnson's "Nazi Terror"-, whereas in commuist states one could be swept along by the periodic purges irrespective of what one was and what one did- see Robert Conquest's "The Great Terror", inter alia), but I am certain that Paxton belittles the awfulness of Communist rule, and somehow assumes that its victims were to blame for what they suffered (since they wouldn't have been punished if they had changed their behaviour). To anyone who might be misled by Paxton's opinion, I can only recommend enduring texts such as Anne Appleabum's "Gulag: A History", or Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archpielago". I still give Paxton 3 stars because this dubious opinion is marginal to his analysis (he clearly didn't think it through and might choose to elaborate the point in a further edition) and other than that the book is pretty good if slightly wooden.
Rating:
Summary: Do We Face the Same Risk?
Review: In the early twentieth century a set of circumstances occurred in central Europe that allowed or perhaps caused the rise of governments in Italy and Germany and strong factions in France, England, in the Low Countries and in Eastern Europe.
Fascist parties were closely allied with the conservative elements who were willing to sacrifice the rule of law for security.
In these days of the Patriot Act, the move of the Christian Right into power, and the fears of the populace as a result of September 11 are leading us into a strange new future. In this book, Mr. Paxton summarizes his research to present a somewhat different view of twentiety-century history.
Rating:
Summary: Fascinating and informative, even if you hate politics!
Review: Robert O. Paxton has written a comprehensive introduction to, and discussion of fascism in all its forms. Some of the main topics the book deals with are: 1. Fascism compared with the other main political movements - liberalism, conservatism and socialism. Paxton points out that unlike these, Fascism is more about aesthetics and emotion rather than intellectual ideology and reason. 2. The factors which predisposed certain nations to fascism and not others. Particularly, the disillusionment and crises in politics following WW1, which created a gap in the political landscape for fascist movements to form. 3. How the fascist movements gained political legitimacy by making deals with incumbant conservatives and liberals who feared a communist takeover. "Anatomy of Fascism" is certainly not an easy read - it is written in a highly intellectual style. Nevertheless, the arguments it proposes are always clear and understandable. I bought this book as a present for my husband, and I finished it before he did. I have never read political history or non-fiction before, as I always thought the topic too dry and boring. The fact that this book managed to captivate me (I normally read literature, romances etc), is a testament to it's comprehensible style and fascinating content. The Anatomy of Fascism will appeal to the uninitiated novice as well as the student in the field. It assumes little prior knowledge of fascism and explains things in context, giving background information where necessary. The arguments unfold in a sequential, orderly manner. I would recommend this book to anyone who wants to "explore" political history, and see fascism in a new, more objective light.
Rating: 
Summary: Fascinating, even if you don't like politics
Review: Robert Paxton has written a comprehensive, intelligent overview of fascism in all its forms. Among the topics covered are: 1. A comparison of fascism with the three main political movements that preceeded it: liberalism, conservatism and socialism. It is highlighted that fascism was more about aesthetics and emotion than intellectual philosophy or reason (particularly compared with communism). 2. How and why fascist movements sprang up in certain countries and not others. There is a great explanation of the disillusionment after WWI and the longing for a new sense of national pride in people, which highlighted a political "gap" for fascism to emerge in. 3. How incumbant liberal and conservative governments made political deals with fascist parties out of fear of a communist onslaught. This gave fascisin Germany and Italy political legitimacy. 4. Whether or not fascism still exists today, and if it could make a resurgence. An alternative view of the Israel/Palestine conflict is presented. This book is written in a highly intellectual style, and yet all the arguments are easy to understand. Each paragraph and chapter flows in logical procession. Little prior knowledge of fascism (or politics in general) is assumed, and the explanations and background information are well presented. I bought this book as a present for my husband, since I normally read literary fiction, romances etc. The fact that I picked it up and was hooked (finished it before he did), is a testament to it's comprehensible style and content. It will appeal just as much to the lay person who likes to think, as to the scholar in the field. Get it, read it. You won't regret it.
Rating:
Summary: Autopsy of Socialism & the "Roman Salute"
Review: Splendid book. Could use more info on whether U.S. socialists created the straight-armed "Roman salute" and caused WWII, the Holocaust and the Wholecaust? In 1892, Francis Bellamy was a national socialist in the U.S. and created the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag using a straight-armed salute. Bellamy wanted the government to takeover all schools and create an "industrial army" of totalitarian socialism as described in the book "Looking Backward" (a bestseller written in 1887 by Edward Bellamy, cousin of Francis Bellamy). Government-schools spread and they mandated racism and segregation by law and did so through WWII and beyond. Edward Bellamy's best-selling book was translated into 20 different languages, including Russian, German, Italian, and Chinese. It was popular among the elite in pre-revolutionary Russia, and Lenin's wife was known to have read the book, because she wrote a review of it. John Dewey and the historian Charles Beard intended to praise the book when they stated that it was equaled in influence only by Das Kapital. 25 years later, Bellamy's totalitarian ideas continued. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics began in 1917. The National Socialist German Workers' Party came into existence in 1920 (with electoral breakthroughs in 1930 and dictatorship in 1933). In 1922, Mussolini gained power. The People's Republic of China began in 1949. The socialist Wholecaust followed shortly after the worldwide impact of Bellamy's totalitarian ideas. While the Holocaust was monstrous, it was part of the bigger Wholecaust. Under the industrial army of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 62 million people were slaughtered; the People's Republic of China, 35 million; and the National Socialist German Workers' Party, 21 million (numbers from Professor R. J. Rummel's article in the Encyclopedia of Genocide (1999)). Benito Mussolini was the leader of the Socialist Party of Italy. Like many modern media Mussolinis, he was a socialist and a journalist. Between 1912 and 1914 he was the editor of the Socialist Party newspaper, "L'Avanti." In 1914 he started his own socialist newspaper "Il Popolo d'Italia" ("The people of Italy"). He was considered by socialists to be a great writer about socialism. He was a staunch proponent of revolutionary rather than reformist socialism, and actually received Lenin's endorsement and support for expelling reformists from the Socialist Party. He was in fact first dubbed "Il Duce" (the Leader) when he was a member of Italy's (Marxist) Socialist Party. When Mussolini differed with some Socialists it was over participation in World War I, not over abstract theory, or economic doctrine. Many socialists were neutralists in the First World War, whereas Mussolini correctly foresaw that the Austro/German forces would not win the war and therefore wanted Italy to join the Allied side and thus get a slice of Austrian territory at the end of the war. During World War I, Mussolini publicized what he admitted was his new brand of socialism. On October 28, 1922, Mussolini led his "March on Rome", which brought him to power for 23 years. In late 1937, Mussolini visited Germany and pledged himself to support the National Socialist German Workers' Party. In 1938, he introduced his `reform of customs.'" Hand-shaking was suddenly banned as unhygienic: a salute was to be used instead - the right forearm raised vertically. He imposed a new march on the Italian Army which was simply the goose-step of the National Socialist German Workers' Party. According to the book "A Concise History of Italy" by Christopher Duggan, these reforms were introduced mainly to underline ideological kinship with the National Socialist German Workers' Party and to impress it's leader. The so-called "Roman salute" (saluto romano) is as much of a fiction as the so-called "Roman step" (passo romano) as is the idea that the National Socialist German Workers' Party emulated Mussolini and not vice versa. The most notorious instance of Italy imitating the National Socialist German Workers' Party was in the racist laws imposed in November 1938. Before and during it all (from 1892), children in the U.S. attended government-schools where racism and segregation were mandated by law, and where they performed a straight-armed salute to the U.S. flag, and were forced to robotically chant a Pledge written by a national socialist who wanted to produce an "industrial army" for totalitarian socialism as popularized worldwide in a best-selling novel. WWII began in 1939 when Poland was invaded by the National Socialist German Workers' Party and by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, as allies in their scheme to divide up Eastern Europe. The raised-arm salute is one of the best-known symbols of the National Socialist German Workers' Party, and supposedly used by Mussolini from a classical Roman custom. According to Martin Winkler in "The Roman Salute on Film" of the American Philological Association, no Roman work of art displays this salute, nor does any Roman text describe it. Winkler notes that well before Mussolini and the National Socialist German Workers' Party, the salute frequently occurs in films set in antiquity. What Winkler fails to realize is that every film he cites was produced after 1892 and thus after the widespread use of the Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. flag, and it's original straight-arm salute. Winkler cites the American Ben-Hur (1907) or the Italian Nerone (1908), although such films did not yet standardize the salute or make it exclusively Roman. In Spartaco (1914), even Spartacus used it. Winkler states "In imitation of such historical films, self-styled "Consul" Gabriele D'Annunzio appropriated the salute in its now familiar form as a propaganda tool for his political aspirations upon his occupation of Fiume in 1919. Earlier, D'Annunzio had been closely involved in Giovanni Pastrone's colossal epic Cabiria (1914), in which variations of the salute occur several times." Notable other examples of the salute, by then a standard part of ancient iconography in the cinema, appear in Ben-Hur (1925) and in Cecil B. DeMille's Sign of the Cross (1932) and Cleopatra (1934), although the gesture was still variable.
Rating:
Summary: Autopsy of Socialism & the "Roman Salute"
Review: Splendid book. Could use more info on whether U.S. socialists created the straight-armed "Roman salute" and caused WWII, the Holocaust and the Wholecaust? In 1892, Francis Bellamy was a national socialist in the U.S. and created the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag using a straight-armed salute. Bellamy wanted the government to takeover all schools and create an "industrial army" of totalitarian socialism as described in the book "Looking Backward" (a bestseller written in 1887 by Edward Bellamy, cousin of Francis Bellamy). Government-schools spread and they mandated racism and segregation by law and did so through WWII and beyond. Edward Bellamy's best-selling book was translated into 20 different languages, including Russian, German, Italian, and Chinese. It was popular among the elite in pre-revolutionary Russia, and Lenin's wife was known to have read the book, because she wrote a review of it. John Dewey and the historian Charles Beard intended to praise the book when they stated that it was equaled in influence only by Das Kapital. 25 years later, Bellamy's totalitarian ideas continued. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics began in 1917. The National Socialist German Workers' Party came into existence in 1920 (with electoral breakthroughs in 1930 and dictatorship in 1933). In 1922, Mussolini gained power. The People's Republic of China began in 1949. The socialist Wholecaust followed shortly after the worldwide impact of Bellamy's totalitarian ideas. While the Holocaust was monstrous, it was part of the bigger Wholecaust. Under the industrial army of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 62 million people were slaughtered; the People's Republic of China, 35 million; and the National Socialist German Workers' Party, 21 million (numbers from Professor R. J. Rummel's article in the Encyclopedia of Genocide (1999)). Benito Mussolini was the leader of the Socialist Party of Italy. Like many modern media Mussolinis, he was a socialist and a journalist. Between 1912 and 1914 he was the editor of the Socialist Party newspaper, "L'Avanti." In 1914 he started his own socialist newspaper "Il Popolo d'Italia" ("The people of Italy"). He was considered by socialists to be a great writer about socialism. He was a staunch proponent of revolutionary rather than reformist socialism, and actually received Lenin's endorsement and support for expelling reformists from the Socialist Party. He was in fact first dubbed "Il Duce" (the Leader) when he was a member of Italy's (Marxist) Socialist Party. When Mussolini differed with some Socialists it was over participation in World War I, not over abstract theory, or economic doctrine. Many socialists were neutralists in the First World War, whereas Mussolini correctly foresaw that the Austro/German forces would not win the war and therefore wanted Italy to join the Allied side and thus get a slice of Austrian territory at the end of the war. During World War I, Mussolini publicized what he admitted was his new brand of socialism. On October 28, 1922, Mussolini led his "March on Rome", which brought him to power for 23 years. In late 1937, Mussolini visited Germany and pledged himself to support the National Socialist German Workers' Party. In 1938, he introduced his 'reform of customs.'" Hand-shaking was suddenly banned as unhygienic: a salute was to be used instead - the right forearm raised vertically. He imposed a new march on the Italian Army which was simply the goose-step of the National Socialist German Workers' Party. According to the book "A Concise History of Italy" by Christopher Duggan, these reforms were introduced mainly to underline ideological kinship with the National Socialist German Workers' Party and to impress it's leader. The so-called "Roman salute" (saluto romano) is as much of a fiction as the so-called "Roman step" (passo romano) as is the idea that the National Socialist German Workers' Party emulated Mussolini and not vice versa. The most notorious instance of Italy imitating the National Socialist German Workers' Party was in the racist laws imposed in November 1938. Before and during it all (from 1892), children in the U.S. attended government-schools where racism and segregation were mandated by law, and where they performed a straight-armed salute to the U.S. flag, and were forced to robotically chant a Pledge written by a national socialist who wanted to produce an "industrial army" for totalitarian socialism as popularized worldwide in a best-selling novel. WWII began in 1939 when Poland was invaded by the National Socialist German Workers' Party and by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, as allies in their scheme to divide up Eastern Europe. The raised-arm salute is one of the best-known symbols of the National Socialist German Workers' Party, and supposedly used by Mussolini from a classical Roman custom. According to Martin Winkler in "The Roman Salute on Film" of the American Philological Association, no Roman work of art displays this salute, nor does any Roman text describe it. Winkler notes that well before Mussolini and the National Socialist German Workers' Party, the salute frequently occurs in films set in antiquity. What Winkler fails to realize is that every film he cites was produced after 1892 and thus after the widespread use of the Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. flag, and it's original straight-arm salute. Winkler cites the American Ben-Hur (1907) or the Italian Nerone (1908), although such films did not yet standardize the salute or make it exclusively Roman. In Spartaco (1914), even Spartacus used it. Winkler states "In imitation of such historical films, self-styled "Consul" Gabriele D'Annunzio appropriated the salute in its now familiar form as a propaganda tool for his political aspirations upon his occupation of Fiume in 1919. Earlier, D'Annunzio had been closely involved in Giovanni Pastrone's colossal epic Cabiria (1914), in which variations of the salute occur several times." Notable other examples of the salute, by then a standard part of ancient iconography in the cinema, appear in Ben-Hur (1925) and in Cecil B. DeMille's Sign of the Cross (1932) and Cleopatra (1934), although the gesture was still variable.
Rating: 
Summary: Permeated by the Professor's Personal Politics
Review: The entire book, and Professor Paxton's credibility as a scholar, are completely undermined by two things: he glossed over the fact that the soviet communists were a deadly threat completely dedicated to the destruction of democracy in Germany and Italy; and he insinuated VERY strongly that the US seems never out of danger of becoming a failed democracy and fascist state.
Lenin and Stalin considered bankrupt Germany to be the "powder keg of Europe", and the USSR threw enormous resources behind the communist movement to utterly destroy the fragile Weimar Republic. For all intents and purposes, the majority of German communist were, effectively, direct agents of the USSR, and their mission was to destroy German bourgeois democracy/capitalism for the purpose of transforming the nation into a client state of the Soviet Union. Germany was the next critical step in the expected worldwide, Bolshevik revolution.
It was not just the aftermath of the Versailles Treaty that allowed National Socialism (i.e., the Nazis) to prosper. They also exploited the genuine terror that a majority of Germans felt over the issue of advancing communism, and it was the rapid encroachment of communism, known by then to be the world's most deadly ideology, that helped bring the Nazis to power. Professor Paxton writes as if communists were harmless `liberals' and social reformers that prompted scared, paranoid fascists (and their conservative collaborators) to utilize reactionary tactics in order to retain power. Nothing could be further from the truth: the deadly communist threat to Germany was real, the fear felt by German citizens was real, and the communists would have triumphed had the fascists not beaten them back. Unfortunately, the fascists were as evil as the communists.
The professor's insinuation that certain events might conspire to remake the US into a fascist state is nothing more than the parroting of an old Marxist delusion that has been around since Lenin. One key aspect of Marxism is that there are certain things believed historically inevitable. From at least as far back as the 1930s, soviet and American communists, and their later successors in the New Left, all claimed that it was completely inevitable that the US would sink into fascism.
Their rationale? Communism's attack would force America to become a fascist dictatorship as a last ditch effort to defeat the inevitability of an approaching communist takeover. This delusion was an open, unabashed admission that communism was hell-bent on destroying America, that the destruction and the communist takeover were destiny, and, ridiculously, that America could be condemned in advance for its predicted political reaction and its predicted methods for protecting itself against a deadly enemy. Summed up: America will become fascist in some unknown future, ergo America is now a fascist state. At base, the professor believes this delusion, ergo the professor's intellect and/or honesty are questionable.
Why did Italy and Germany fight for fascism during the Spanish Civil War? Because Spain was the place the USSR focused on after communism was thwarted by fascism in both Italy and Germany. Ron Radosh recently wrote a book revealing the extent of the USSR's infiltration and takeover of the Spanish Republican (i.e., communist) cause. It turns out that thousands of military officers and operatives from the USSR had completely commandeered the Spanish cause, and that they had even purged and killed Spanish allies and military comrades who objected to, or attempted to stop, the soviet takeover.
One last thing. By painting the communists as benign reformers and victims of fascism, and by all but overtly stating that Bush and his neo-conservative allies are marching America toward fascism (via exploitation of America's war on terrorism), the professor has guaranteed that his book will receive first-rate reviews in the left's most influential organs, including the New York Times and the New York Review of Books. Sadly, because his career was spent in elitist academia, he might actually believe his own nonsense. However, it all seems a little too calculated, cynical, and designed to bolster book sales.
| 
