What do you think?
Rate this book
A History of Fascism, 1914-1945
This is the first full history of fascism - as a force and as a phenomenon - in Europe and elsewhere between the world wars. This history encompasses all the major fascist movements, as well as other forms of authoritarian nationalism, and provides in-depth analyses of these movements, the interpretative problems they pose, and previous interpretations of them. Stanley G. Payne interprets fascism as a form of revolutionary ultranationalism - a program for national rebirth based on a primarily vitalist philosophy, extreme elitism, mass mobilization, the promotion of violence, and military virtues. He traces this phenomenon through the history of ideas, previous political movements, and the events of World War I. Though his focus is chiefly on Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, he also gives detailed attention to the Romanian Iron Guard, Franco's Spain, Japan, and protofascist movements around the globe. In view of widespread speculation about the return of fascism to Europe and the Afro-Asian World, this work is especially timely. However, Payne presents a powerful case for viewing fascism as a unique "epochal phenomenon." Conversely, he treats significant individual features of fascism as inherent aspects of revolutionary movements and nationalist dictatorships, with every likelihood of reappearing in new and different forms.
592 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1995
About the author
Stanley G. Payne
81 books74 followersStanley G. Payne is a historian of modern Spain and European Fascism at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He retired from full time teaching in 2004 and is currently Professor Emeritus at its Department of History.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 33 reviews
October 13, 2020
It took me a long time to read A History of Fascism: 1914-1945 because I treated it as a textbook by underlining, making my personal index in the front matter, and making notations in the margins. Since it is published by the University of Wisconsin Press, it was most likely initially conceived to be a textbook for an upper division course, but I read it to understand what seems to be happening in our country (the United States) in 2020. And, although Payne suggest something of an “It Can’t Happen Here” attitude, considering the book was written at the end of the 20th century, his epilogue on neofascist groups is quite enlightening. As university demonstrations and riots became common in the Italy of 1965, the right-wing extremist groups began to commit overt terrorist actions with bombings, assassinations, and beatings, though Italy was caught between two forces because the Marxist-Leninist Red Brigades were also perpetrating terrorism. But the action of the neofascists and neo-Nazis was proportionately more lethal (p. 506). The most famous of these neo-Nazi terrorist actions causing mass deaths were the huge explosion in Milan in 1969 and the Bologna train station bombing in 1980 (p. 507).
Now, to be sure, Payne isn’t as concerned with small extremist cells of neofascists as he is with a neofascism with the potential to make radical changes in the culture and infrastructure of a nation (or as with some Eurofascists, all over Europe). So, he discounts neofascism as taking hold outside of the preconditions that existed in early 20th century Europe (1—intense nationalistic and imperialistic sentiments, 2—liberal democracies in first generation, 3—opportunity to mobilize on a national scale without relying totally on elites or institutions, and 4—new cultural orientation arising out of fin de siècle cultural/intellectual ferment, p. 353). For example, he observes that even in the last part of the 20th century, the U.S. has had a proliferation of small, but often violent neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups, but notes their lack of political significance (p. 511). In addition, he pokes pins in the trial balloon implied in Sinclair Lewis’ It Can’t Happen Here that subtly suggested Charles E. Coughlin might have been a model for the U.S. Mussolini (p. 451). [Lewis had the Coughlin figure forming a paramilitary group called the MinuteMen with an MM armband that was clearly modeled on Coughlin’s Christian Front groups. Yet, Payne simply doesn’t think the extremists can organize sufficiently to gain enough power to control a government and impose a regime.
Although the similarities between a charismatic figure taking control of a semi-democratic government and encouraging paramilitary terrorism resonates well with the current climate in the U.S. and those similarities were what drew me to A History of Fascism: 1914-1945, this isn’t Payne’s purpose. He is more circumspectly academic (and at times, sterile) in viewing the history of and prospects for future fascist regimes. So, naturally, it is his study of what happened rather than what might happen that is most valuable in this volume. I fervently appreciate his insistence that there is no rigorous fascist model for the birth and growth of the phenomenon because there are too many national specificities to reduce the incubatory factors to a formula. The closest he comes to being able to do that is in the chapter on a retrodictive theory of fascism, nicely summarized in a chart of cultural, political, social, economic, and international factors (p. 489). Payne does note, however, that one should not naively look for all of the factors to exist in a given fascist movement, merely a majority of the factors will be helpful in looking at these phenomena (p. 488).
Much of what Payne introduces is common knowledge such as the importance of violence in establishing a fascist movement (p. 28), but he also implicitly explains some of the Nazi fascination with the occult by citing the fin de siècle rise of occult interest (p. 32), coinciding with ennui within the middle classes (p. 33) and the so-called le culte du moi (p. 40) and Innerlichkeit (“inwardness”) in German thought, art, and political movements (p. 72).
Indeed, I learned about Ariosophy, an occult philosophy from that era which had tremendous influence on Hitler (pp. 58-59). In addition, I knew about the significance of cultural heritage and folklore in the Italian and German experiences, but hadn’t realized until reading this book that there was a völkisch element to almost all fascist movements (p. 52). It is intriguing to me how rejection of morality in Italy (p. 64) and spiritual subjectivity in Germany (p. 72) served as an incubator for the superficial mysticism found in many expressions of fascism.
Frankly, I was intrigued by quotations, citations, and observations like: “Fascism is capitalistic rationalism turned on itself” (p. 179), “Unser Wille werde Gesetz” (“Our will becomes law”—p. 250), “Falangism seemed so fastidious, rhetorical, and averse to direct action that rightist critics labeled it ‘franciscanism” rather than fascism.” (p. 263), and the 1924 description of Fascism and Bolshevism as “brothers in the spirit of violence,” as well as “left Fascism” for Communism and “right Bolshevism” for Fascism (p. 447). And, as I had hoped, there were many historical tidbits hitherto unknown to me (e.g. Hitler’s refusal to cede North Africa to Spain because of considerations to Vichy France and Italy – p 432).
My only real disappointment with the book (and this may be a result of Payne’s probable usage of the book as a textbook or parallel reading assignment at the university) is that there weren’t as many narrative anecdotes as one would have expected in such a large tome. I kept expecting a major section of anecdotes from various perspectives, but Payne stuck to the facts. I would give this book a four-star rating as a textbook or parallel reading assignment, but as a personal reading project, I really missed more human interest stories to balance the avalanche of, admittedly sometimes fascinating, data assembled in this volume.
Now, to be sure, Payne isn’t as concerned with small extremist cells of neofascists as he is with a neofascism with the potential to make radical changes in the culture and infrastructure of a nation (or as with some Eurofascists, all over Europe). So, he discounts neofascism as taking hold outside of the preconditions that existed in early 20th century Europe (1—intense nationalistic and imperialistic sentiments, 2—liberal democracies in first generation, 3—opportunity to mobilize on a national scale without relying totally on elites or institutions, and 4—new cultural orientation arising out of fin de siècle cultural/intellectual ferment, p. 353). For example, he observes that even in the last part of the 20th century, the U.S. has had a proliferation of small, but often violent neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups, but notes their lack of political significance (p. 511). In addition, he pokes pins in the trial balloon implied in Sinclair Lewis’ It Can’t Happen Here that subtly suggested Charles E. Coughlin might have been a model for the U.S. Mussolini (p. 451). [Lewis had the Coughlin figure forming a paramilitary group called the MinuteMen with an MM armband that was clearly modeled on Coughlin’s Christian Front groups. Yet, Payne simply doesn’t think the extremists can organize sufficiently to gain enough power to control a government and impose a regime.
Although the similarities between a charismatic figure taking control of a semi-democratic government and encouraging paramilitary terrorism resonates well with the current climate in the U.S. and those similarities were what drew me to A History of Fascism: 1914-1945, this isn’t Payne’s purpose. He is more circumspectly academic (and at times, sterile) in viewing the history of and prospects for future fascist regimes. So, naturally, it is his study of what happened rather than what might happen that is most valuable in this volume. I fervently appreciate his insistence that there is no rigorous fascist model for the birth and growth of the phenomenon because there are too many national specificities to reduce the incubatory factors to a formula. The closest he comes to being able to do that is in the chapter on a retrodictive theory of fascism, nicely summarized in a chart of cultural, political, social, economic, and international factors (p. 489). Payne does note, however, that one should not naively look for all of the factors to exist in a given fascist movement, merely a majority of the factors will be helpful in looking at these phenomena (p. 488).
Much of what Payne introduces is common knowledge such as the importance of violence in establishing a fascist movement (p. 28), but he also implicitly explains some of the Nazi fascination with the occult by citing the fin de siècle rise of occult interest (p. 32), coinciding with ennui within the middle classes (p. 33) and the so-called le culte du moi (p. 40) and Innerlichkeit (“inwardness”) in German thought, art, and political movements (p. 72).
Indeed, I learned about Ariosophy, an occult philosophy from that era which had tremendous influence on Hitler (pp. 58-59). In addition, I knew about the significance of cultural heritage and folklore in the Italian and German experiences, but hadn’t realized until reading this book that there was a völkisch element to almost all fascist movements (p. 52). It is intriguing to me how rejection of morality in Italy (p. 64) and spiritual subjectivity in Germany (p. 72) served as an incubator for the superficial mysticism found in many expressions of fascism.
Frankly, I was intrigued by quotations, citations, and observations like: “Fascism is capitalistic rationalism turned on itself” (p. 179), “Unser Wille werde Gesetz” (“Our will becomes law”—p. 250), “Falangism seemed so fastidious, rhetorical, and averse to direct action that rightist critics labeled it ‘franciscanism” rather than fascism.” (p. 263), and the 1924 description of Fascism and Bolshevism as “brothers in the spirit of violence,” as well as “left Fascism” for Communism and “right Bolshevism” for Fascism (p. 447). And, as I had hoped, there were many historical tidbits hitherto unknown to me (e.g. Hitler’s refusal to cede North Africa to Spain because of considerations to Vichy France and Italy – p 432).
My only real disappointment with the book (and this may be a result of Payne’s probable usage of the book as a textbook or parallel reading assignment at the university) is that there weren’t as many narrative anecdotes as one would have expected in such a large tome. I kept expecting a major section of anecdotes from various perspectives, but Payne stuck to the facts. I would give this book a four-star rating as a textbook or parallel reading assignment, but as a personal reading project, I really missed more human interest stories to balance the avalanche of, admittedly sometimes fascinating, data assembled in this volume.
December 21, 2009
Not as good as Paxton, imo. But a very solid, thorough review of a large mass of material. Payne occasionally does give way to some social science jargon --, which Paxton really never does. Still, it is really the best single-volume 'history' of the topic (whereas Paxton is more topical and analytical).
February 2, 2009
I had to read this book for my comprehensive exams (aka prelims). While the introductions to fascism in various countries were useful, what I really appreciated was the attempt to link various movements together into one group. What is 'fascism' if you try to define it beyond Italy? Can one speak of a generic version of fascism? What is fascism? The later chapters of this book go a long way to answering these questions, and thus contribute to an expansive scholarly debate about the nature of one of the most influential political movement (or movements) of the twentieth century.
April 9, 2024
Possibly the most comprehensive effort to define and analyze Fascism as a historical phenomenon. I genuinely regret not having read this sooner. It's not enough on its own to understand fascism, if such a thing can be achieved at all anyway, but despite not being very suitable as an introduction, it nonetheless provides a vast foundation on which one can build a better understanding of fascism and 20th century.
May 13, 2019
A very impressive work on fascism not only in Europe but also about the (possible) spread of the ideology beyond the borders of Europe. As that turns out, it is not self evident that there is much that could be called fascism outside of Europe. Payne seems to argue that Saddam Hussain might be the most evident case. Of course it is very complex to define what fascism is and I'm not able to recall the exact definition simply by writing from heart, but in terms of the origins of fascism it is interesting how socialism appeared to be an important part of it. Mussolini appear to have gleaned towards Soviet Russia and also for Hitler there appear to have been an emphasis on some type of socialism. But it is of course a movement on the right, but Payne emphasises how there are ideologies on the far right that are not for that sake fascism. Anyway, with Payne line of thinking it is not as difficult to understand why there appears to be similarities between fascist dictatorial regimes and communist ones. The former was inspired by the latter.
A new fact to me was that Mussolini appear to have been the person coining the term "totalitarian". I thought this term was a term that was applied on nazi-Germany and Soviet from the outside, but it rather was a term used internally and as a goal. Payne argues that Italy never was totalitarian in that way, and that Hitler Germany never quite reached that goal either (but was long was along the line). Nazism in Germany never really had a "normal" year according to Payne so it is difficult to say what the application of the nazi-politics would have looked like. But there is little doubt that it would have been totalitarian and incredibly oppressive. For Payne Soviet is the clearest example of a totalitarian regime. But Payne does not discuss it much since it was not fascist in the terms he defines.
A new fact to me was that Mussolini appear to have been the person coining the term "totalitarian". I thought this term was a term that was applied on nazi-Germany and Soviet from the outside, but it rather was a term used internally and as a goal. Payne argues that Italy never was totalitarian in that way, and that Hitler Germany never quite reached that goal either (but was long was along the line). Nazism in Germany never really had a "normal" year according to Payne so it is difficult to say what the application of the nazi-politics would have looked like. But there is little doubt that it would have been totalitarian and incredibly oppressive. For Payne Soviet is the clearest example of a totalitarian regime. But Payne does not discuss it much since it was not fascist in the terms he defines.
April 18, 2021
Scholarly and interesting history of fascism. We live in a time where no one knows what fascism is, but everyone uses the word regularly to describe people they dont like politically. Its nice to now have a well rounded grasp of what each iteration of this political view believed. Fascism got a bad rep due to Hitler, but not all fascist movements were racist, genocidal, or totalitarian. Highly recommend it if you want to have a more historically grounded understanding of these political ideas as opposed to an emotionally charged popular understanding.
December 29, 2018
A History of Fascism: 1914-1945 by Stanley Payne
Please give my Amazon review a helpful vote: https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-re...
The last several years have seen a "Brown Scare" of sorts, where college students and sophisticated city dwellers have started seeing "Fascists" everywhere, although, in fact, fascism was eliminated in 1945 in a decisive war, after which it has retreated to the margins. In contrast, Communism was one of the victors in that war and came out of the war with enhanced prestige. Nonetheless, although Communism had the support of powerful nations, the suggestion that there are Communists or Communist-supporters anywhere is met with skepticism.
Of course, the claims that there are fascists is a politically-motivated charge that plays on emotions rather than reason. The people charged with being Fascists are in no way Fascists, but the stigma associated with Fascism is effective in smearing the recipients of the charge.
So what is fascism and how does one know how to identify a fascist if one meets one?
A History of Fascism: 1914-1945 by Stanley Payne may be the definitive book on fascism. Payne dissects the history of Fascism on a country by country basis for the period 1914 through 1945 through a survey of the nations of Europe, South America and Asia. The results of this survey are often surprising; I had thought that most Eastern European countries were Fascist in the 1930s. In fact, those countries were generally able to suppress their fascist movements, until those countries received help from Germany.
The first thing that Payne discusses is the definition of fascism. It turns out that defining fascism is not easy. Fascism did not have a central text or originating philosopher. Payne affirms that fascism did have a philosophical core, although its tenets were eclectic. Often, fascism was defined in negative terms, but its characteristics included ultranationalism, a desire for a national rebirth, and a revolutionary rejection of traditional authority structures. Fascism was generally secular, anti-liberal, anti-Marxist, and anti-conservative. Payne explains:
"Fundamental to fascism was the effort to create a new “civic religion” of the movement and of its structure as a state. This would build a system of all-encompassing myths that would incorporate both the fascist elite and their followers and would bind together the nation in a new common faith and loyalty. Such civic religion would displace preceding structures of belief and relegate supernatural religion to a secondary role, or to none at all.
This orientation has sometimes been called political religion, but, though there were specific examples of religious or would-be “Christian fascists,” fascism basically presupposed a post-Christian, postreligious, secular, and immanent frame of reference. Its own myth of secular transcendance could earn adherents only in the absence or weakness of traditional concepts of spiritual and otherworldly transcendance, for fascism sought to re-create nonrationalist myth structures for those who had lost or rejected a traditional mythic framework. Ideologically and politically, fascism could be successful only to the extent that such a situation existed."
Fascism emerged out of the left. Mussolini was originally a leftist and fascism grew out of the leftist radical syndicalist movement. Payne explains:
"The nucleus that eventually founded Fascism in Italy did not, however, stem either from the cultural elite or from the right-wing nationalists, but from the transformation of part of the revolutionary left, particularly the sector known as revolutionary syndicalists. Revolutionary syndicalism originated in France early in the 1890s, as a reaction against the weakness and moderation of socialism and the trade union movement. It sought to overcome such limitations through “direct action” or what its proponents termed la manière force (the tactics of force), with the goal of achieving revolution through a grand general strike that would make it possible to restructure society around the syndicates (trade unions). Revolutionary syndicalists detested reformism, compromise, and parliamentary government, or what they called “the superstitious belief in majorities.” They were more influenced than most socialists by the cultural crisis of the fin de siècle, particularly by Social Darwinism, the importance of group conflict, and Sorelian ideas about the moral value of violence. In France their apogee occurred in 1902– 6, after which their influence quickly waned."
Fascists split from the left over the issue of World War I, which the proto-fascists viewed in a positive light as being restorative of the nation.
In Germany, the Nazis called each other "comrade" and adopted red flags, the color of the left.
Fascism was not inherently racist. German National Socialists were racist, but Italian Fascism was not. Italian Fascism defined "Italian" as including Jews and another group who claimed or participated in Italian culture.
Violence was common to both fascism and communism, with fascism tending to glorify violence in the abstract:
"Equally if not more important was the positive evaluation of violence and struggle in fascist doctrine. All revolutionary mass movements have initiated and practiced violence to a greater or lesser degree, and it is probably impossible to carry violence to greater lengths than have some Leninist regimes, practitioners of, in the words of one Old Bolshevik, “infinite compulsion.” The only unique feature of the fascist relationship to violence was the theoretical evaluation by many fascist movements that violence possessed a certain positive and therapeutic value in and of itself, that a certain amount of continuing violent struggle, along the lines of Sorelianism and extreme Social Darwinism, was necessary for the health of national society."
In discussing the success of fascism in the European context in the 1930s, Payne noted that democracy was essential to fascism victory. Where Fascism came to power, it came to power through the electoral system rather than through a violent revolution. On the other hand, democracy could block the development of fascism. In discussing the failure of the Arrow Cross movement in Hungary, Payne notes:
"The elections nonetheless produced a stalemate for the Arrow Cross. The government remained fully in control, and Teleki was a prime minister undisposed to experiment with the right radical ploys of Daranyi and Imredy. Governmental power was fully entrenched in most rural areas and small towns as well, while the upper-class Hungarian senate was now given more voice by the government to counter the presence of the national socialists in the lower house. Szalasi himself would remain in prison until the following year, and though there was a certain amount of street disorder in Budapest and the larger cities during 1939– 40, he had set the Arrow Cross on the legal road to power. That road was now effectively blocked by a semiauthoritarian government. In Hungary, as in Austria, Romania, and elsewhere, the lack of political democracy would be decisive in blocking the political success of a large, broad-based, and popular fascist movement, one that in 1939 could rival the Nazi Party of seven years earlier in proportionate popular support. With access effectively controlled by a nondemocratic government, the Arrow Cross would have to await foreign intervention or military defeat to have an opportunity to seize power."
This an encyclopedic book that captivates and persuades by its details. It is good history and a useful source of information.
Please give my Amazon review a helpful vote: https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-re...
The last several years have seen a "Brown Scare" of sorts, where college students and sophisticated city dwellers have started seeing "Fascists" everywhere, although, in fact, fascism was eliminated in 1945 in a decisive war, after which it has retreated to the margins. In contrast, Communism was one of the victors in that war and came out of the war with enhanced prestige. Nonetheless, although Communism had the support of powerful nations, the suggestion that there are Communists or Communist-supporters anywhere is met with skepticism.
Of course, the claims that there are fascists is a politically-motivated charge that plays on emotions rather than reason. The people charged with being Fascists are in no way Fascists, but the stigma associated with Fascism is effective in smearing the recipients of the charge.
So what is fascism and how does one know how to identify a fascist if one meets one?
A History of Fascism: 1914-1945 by Stanley Payne may be the definitive book on fascism. Payne dissects the history of Fascism on a country by country basis for the period 1914 through 1945 through a survey of the nations of Europe, South America and Asia. The results of this survey are often surprising; I had thought that most Eastern European countries were Fascist in the 1930s. In fact, those countries were generally able to suppress their fascist movements, until those countries received help from Germany.
The first thing that Payne discusses is the definition of fascism. It turns out that defining fascism is not easy. Fascism did not have a central text or originating philosopher. Payne affirms that fascism did have a philosophical core, although its tenets were eclectic. Often, fascism was defined in negative terms, but its characteristics included ultranationalism, a desire for a national rebirth, and a revolutionary rejection of traditional authority structures. Fascism was generally secular, anti-liberal, anti-Marxist, and anti-conservative. Payne explains:
"Fundamental to fascism was the effort to create a new “civic religion” of the movement and of its structure as a state. This would build a system of all-encompassing myths that would incorporate both the fascist elite and their followers and would bind together the nation in a new common faith and loyalty. Such civic religion would displace preceding structures of belief and relegate supernatural religion to a secondary role, or to none at all.
This orientation has sometimes been called political religion, but, though there were specific examples of religious or would-be “Christian fascists,” fascism basically presupposed a post-Christian, postreligious, secular, and immanent frame of reference. Its own myth of secular transcendance could earn adherents only in the absence or weakness of traditional concepts of spiritual and otherworldly transcendance, for fascism sought to re-create nonrationalist myth structures for those who had lost or rejected a traditional mythic framework. Ideologically and politically, fascism could be successful only to the extent that such a situation existed."
Fascism emerged out of the left. Mussolini was originally a leftist and fascism grew out of the leftist radical syndicalist movement. Payne explains:
"The nucleus that eventually founded Fascism in Italy did not, however, stem either from the cultural elite or from the right-wing nationalists, but from the transformation of part of the revolutionary left, particularly the sector known as revolutionary syndicalists. Revolutionary syndicalism originated in France early in the 1890s, as a reaction against the weakness and moderation of socialism and the trade union movement. It sought to overcome such limitations through “direct action” or what its proponents termed la manière force (the tactics of force), with the goal of achieving revolution through a grand general strike that would make it possible to restructure society around the syndicates (trade unions). Revolutionary syndicalists detested reformism, compromise, and parliamentary government, or what they called “the superstitious belief in majorities.” They were more influenced than most socialists by the cultural crisis of the fin de siècle, particularly by Social Darwinism, the importance of group conflict, and Sorelian ideas about the moral value of violence. In France their apogee occurred in 1902– 6, after which their influence quickly waned."
Fascists split from the left over the issue of World War I, which the proto-fascists viewed in a positive light as being restorative of the nation.
In Germany, the Nazis called each other "comrade" and adopted red flags, the color of the left.
Fascism was not inherently racist. German National Socialists were racist, but Italian Fascism was not. Italian Fascism defined "Italian" as including Jews and another group who claimed or participated in Italian culture.
Violence was common to both fascism and communism, with fascism tending to glorify violence in the abstract:
"Equally if not more important was the positive evaluation of violence and struggle in fascist doctrine. All revolutionary mass movements have initiated and practiced violence to a greater or lesser degree, and it is probably impossible to carry violence to greater lengths than have some Leninist regimes, practitioners of, in the words of one Old Bolshevik, “infinite compulsion.” The only unique feature of the fascist relationship to violence was the theoretical evaluation by many fascist movements that violence possessed a certain positive and therapeutic value in and of itself, that a certain amount of continuing violent struggle, along the lines of Sorelianism and extreme Social Darwinism, was necessary for the health of national society."
In discussing the success of fascism in the European context in the 1930s, Payne noted that democracy was essential to fascism victory. Where Fascism came to power, it came to power through the electoral system rather than through a violent revolution. On the other hand, democracy could block the development of fascism. In discussing the failure of the Arrow Cross movement in Hungary, Payne notes:
"The elections nonetheless produced a stalemate for the Arrow Cross. The government remained fully in control, and Teleki was a prime minister undisposed to experiment with the right radical ploys of Daranyi and Imredy. Governmental power was fully entrenched in most rural areas and small towns as well, while the upper-class Hungarian senate was now given more voice by the government to counter the presence of the national socialists in the lower house. Szalasi himself would remain in prison until the following year, and though there was a certain amount of street disorder in Budapest and the larger cities during 1939– 40, he had set the Arrow Cross on the legal road to power. That road was now effectively blocked by a semiauthoritarian government. In Hungary, as in Austria, Romania, and elsewhere, the lack of political democracy would be decisive in blocking the political success of a large, broad-based, and popular fascist movement, one that in 1939 could rival the Nazi Party of seven years earlier in proportionate popular support. With access effectively controlled by a nondemocratic government, the Arrow Cross would have to await foreign intervention or military defeat to have an opportunity to seize power."
This an encyclopedic book that captivates and persuades by its details. It is good history and a useful source of information.
May 21, 2020
(A 3.5 star rating to be more precise)
In today's political climate (at least the anglo-american one I see in social media), the terms fascism and nazism are used quite a lot to attack a wide variety of groups and people with differing ideas. The terms are clearly abused by the modern socialists and the mainstream promotes a general ignorance of what they actually were supposed to mean by their creators. I guess due to this I started to view the term "fascism" as irrelevant and void of meaning; This is clear for me now to not be true, but it does have a lot of ambiguity. A common counter attack against the extreme socialists is that the socialist experiments of the last century were also fascist. This is true in the sense that they were totalitarian. The word totalitarian has it's origin in Italian fascists. Yet fascism was different from communism, the difference is more in abstract ideology not in outcome witch is a totalitarian state with a command economy, with mass murder in order to enforce it.
From the start of the book the author states that the notion of fascism (and what is fascism) is ambiguous and hard to pin point. As my observation:
A marxist party is easily identified as marxist because they adhere to Marx's views; and we can fairly reasonable say how marxist is a party by judging how much they take as party dogma the words of Marx.
Yet fascism, originated in Italy from non-marxist socialists to be very simple, first called themselves fascists in the 20's and only in the 30's they actualy gave a thought on what is fascism supposed to entail. Problem get's more interesting: german national-socialists(nazi) did not view themselves as fascists and fascists did not view themselves as nazis. Many parties who were fascist did reject this label. The label was used by the soviet union as a pejorative term; thus many anti communist groups took the label upon themselves as a badge of honor.
The author gives a proposed answer (among other by various historians) to "what is fascism" as a set of negations of western values that makes a party fascist like anti liberal/capitalist, anti marxist, anti materialism, anti-determinism, anti rationalist and anti christian. As positive values we have: individual will in the service of the state,nationalism, vitalism, mysticism, and sometimes paganism.
After being taken through all the radical parties of all Europen nations and beyond (I really did not care for quite a few of them) the obvious conclusion is that many so called "fascist" regimes of the inter war period did not make the cut to be fascist, they are actually authoritarian regimes who did not intend to be totalitarian and implemented a mix of liberal and socialist measures as the specific leader saw fit to maintain power and stability; in many of this cases a core of classical-liberalism prevailed to keep the regime from going to extreme. Not all non-marxist socialist were by default fascist as the soviet union once claimed; not all nationalists are fascists.
What I did dislike was the use of the label "right", "radical right" "authoritarian right". The left-right political simplification is again something very ambiguous. What I got from the author, that he understands through "right" is the rejection of egalitarianism and an acceptance of hierarchy and a submission to hierarchy. But this is an argument in the abstract, despite what the soviet union and the modern radical socialist claim, their systems are as hierarchical as fascism, at least fascism was honest in it's acceptance of inflexible political hierarchy.
Among the many informations that surprised me are: Italian fascism coined the notion of totalitarianism yet they were very far from it, many of it's institutions were quite liberal and the regime was violent but not bloody. Mussolini is more stranger than Hitler (imo) , he must have had a serious personality disorder from the beginning of his career; bi-polar or something. The most strangest fascist party was the Array Cross of Hungary, and it's leader. The Romanian Iron Guard is the odd one of the fascist family.
In today's political climate (at least the anglo-american one I see in social media), the terms fascism and nazism are used quite a lot to attack a wide variety of groups and people with differing ideas. The terms are clearly abused by the modern socialists and the mainstream promotes a general ignorance of what they actually were supposed to mean by their creators. I guess due to this I started to view the term "fascism" as irrelevant and void of meaning; This is clear for me now to not be true, but it does have a lot of ambiguity. A common counter attack against the extreme socialists is that the socialist experiments of the last century were also fascist. This is true in the sense that they were totalitarian. The word totalitarian has it's origin in Italian fascists. Yet fascism was different from communism, the difference is more in abstract ideology not in outcome witch is a totalitarian state with a command economy, with mass murder in order to enforce it.
From the start of the book the author states that the notion of fascism (and what is fascism) is ambiguous and hard to pin point. As my observation:
A marxist party is easily identified as marxist because they adhere to Marx's views; and we can fairly reasonable say how marxist is a party by judging how much they take as party dogma the words of Marx.
Yet fascism, originated in Italy from non-marxist socialists to be very simple, first called themselves fascists in the 20's and only in the 30's they actualy gave a thought on what is fascism supposed to entail. Problem get's more interesting: german national-socialists(nazi) did not view themselves as fascists and fascists did not view themselves as nazis. Many parties who were fascist did reject this label. The label was used by the soviet union as a pejorative term; thus many anti communist groups took the label upon themselves as a badge of honor.
The author gives a proposed answer (among other by various historians) to "what is fascism" as a set of negations of western values that makes a party fascist like anti liberal/capitalist, anti marxist, anti materialism, anti-determinism, anti rationalist and anti christian. As positive values we have: individual will in the service of the state,nationalism, vitalism, mysticism, and sometimes paganism.
After being taken through all the radical parties of all Europen nations and beyond (I really did not care for quite a few of them) the obvious conclusion is that many so called "fascist" regimes of the inter war period did not make the cut to be fascist, they are actually authoritarian regimes who did not intend to be totalitarian and implemented a mix of liberal and socialist measures as the specific leader saw fit to maintain power and stability; in many of this cases a core of classical-liberalism prevailed to keep the regime from going to extreme. Not all non-marxist socialist were by default fascist as the soviet union once claimed; not all nationalists are fascists.
What I did dislike was the use of the label "right", "radical right" "authoritarian right". The left-right political simplification is again something very ambiguous. What I got from the author, that he understands through "right" is the rejection of egalitarianism and an acceptance of hierarchy and a submission to hierarchy. But this is an argument in the abstract, despite what the soviet union and the modern radical socialist claim, their systems are as hierarchical as fascism, at least fascism was honest in it's acceptance of inflexible political hierarchy.
Among the many informations that surprised me are: Italian fascism coined the notion of totalitarianism yet they were very far from it, many of it's institutions were quite liberal and the regime was violent but not bloody. Mussolini is more stranger than Hitler (imo) , he must have had a serious personality disorder from the beginning of his career; bi-polar or something. The most strangest fascist party was the Array Cross of Hungary, and it's leader. The Romanian Iron Guard is the odd one of the fascist family.
April 12, 2020
A History of Fascism, 1914-1945 by Stanley G. Payne is a study of Fascism from before World War I th the end of World War II. Of course it includes, and even focuses on, the usual suspects of Mussolini's Italy and Hitler's Germany. But the author also looks at many other versions in various countries around the world and discusses why they are similar to Germany or Italy or not and what forms they actually had taken. Many of these have their roots in socialist states including Nazi Germany where the means of production were mostly privately owned but were controlled and told what to produce by the government. In fact their name stands for the National Socialist German Workers Party. The author presents a wide-ranging discussion of what characteristics define a fascist state, what is a totalitarian state, The differences between fascism and communism, and much more. This is the most comprehensive study on this topic that I've read.
August 17, 2015
Thorough, readable, and fair. Payne is most strongly opinionated in his periodic anticommunist asides, but if their almost total irrelevance to the subject matter means they detract from the quality of the work a little, it also means that they can't detract from its quality to any great degree. Although he comes to no particularly interesting opinions himself, he represents those of others fairly well; and his is also the best comparative narrative history of fascist movements that I am aware of. Ranks with Mann's "Fascists" and Paxton's "Anatomy of Fascism" as among the best general books on the subject.
October 14, 2007
This book provides a great overview to all the fascist movements going during the time period. My only criticism is that I had the author as a professor, and reading his writing is sort of like listening to him lecture. But, if you are looking for an excellent resource book on fascism, and I know you are, this is your book!
March 19, 2019
Very detailed, but very dry in parts. And I'm saying this as someone who doesn't mind dry history books. You have to be really into this subject to enjoy this book. The author does know his stuff and I did learn quite a lot about the minor right-wing ultra-nationalist movements in Europe in the late 19th century.
April 26, 2024
Helpful introduction to discussion of how complicated the topic of Fascism is. Starting to get all of the 'is it fascism' debates of the last few years a bit better, in light of the fact that fascism was never really a single coherent ideology and lacked much of the unifying universalist principles of Marxist movements (which also had lots of variety but key unifying ideas). Definitely does what is says on the tin, but only a starting point for deeper dives into the subject.
Best thing I got out of it is the ability to ask better questions about the history of fascism.
Best thing I got out of it is the ability to ask better questions about the history of fascism.
September 15, 2023
The author's liberal slant as well as limited knowledge of the subject matter make this of little value aside from collecting the names of some of the more well-known members of the fascist movement for independent review.
Read
December 19, 2020I want to read this book
June 17, 2023
Probably the best single-volume history of fascism out there. Extremely dense and highly informative.
October 12, 2023
A very good overview of the complex and diverse phenomenon of fascism, how it emerged and grew to power, and how it interacted with other forces in Europe between the wars.
Read
January 24, 2024Pp. 277-289, 391-397
May 4, 2024
This book is perfect for someone who wants a detailed view of how fascism came to be in Europe and how interpretations of it (especially the Marxist 'agent' theory) tend to be quite ahistorical. While it does not necessarily explain the philosophy of National Socialism in a satisfactory way, it covers the history of the NSDAP very well.
After reading this, it is very easy to detect someone who uses 'fascist' as a pejorative without any understanding of what fascism is.
After reading this, it is very easy to detect someone who uses 'fascist' as a pejorative without any understanding of what fascism is.
May 13, 2012
Stanley Payne provides one of the most thorough and accurate overviews of Fascism in this book. The biggest problem with much of the fascist literature is that it combines fascism and Nazism into one category when in fact they are quite different. Payne grasps these nuances quite well and shows the nature and development of each. He tracks not only the rise of fascism in Italy but across Europe and the world. It looks at the failed movements in Scandinavia and Eastern Europe and the budding movements of the Middle East and the crushing defeats of fascism in Asia. The book is well written and thoroughly covered with an excellent bibliography for further study. All and all a great overview of fascism and one not to be missed.
May 22, 2014
a bit dated now but quite enjoyable and it seems well researched. shows the variety of the national approaches to fascism rather well, each in their own historical and national context. The book does also a good job of explaining the diverse interpretations and approaches to understanding and explaining the emergence and the nature of fascism, making this a good historical entry-level read on the subject.
plus it's always fun to see how similar are the blood brothers of communism and fascism, and I like to point this out to leftists and watch them go berserk.
plus it's always fun to see how similar are the blood brothers of communism and fascism, and I like to point this out to leftists and watch them go berserk.
April 15, 2010
This book did a good job of attempting to tackle a vast subject, but the author has absolutely no flow to his writing, and even the interesting parts of this book were unreadable. As I told people this semester: "Payne" didn't just describe the author, it was also an apt adjective for the book.
October 21, 2013
As a university history major this book definitely became one of my go too books during my time of thesis writing. Payne has the the wonderful ability to offer an in-depth history of fascism in such a manner that even those with little to no knowledge of what fascism is can understand what the author is writing about.
January 3, 2016
Payne provides an exhaustive review of the fascist phenomenon, largely in Europe, in the early years of the 20th Century. He not only chronicles the rise and fall of fascist movements but comprehensively analyzes what made a fascist movement and what did not. It can at times be rather dry reading but it's a valuable use of time.
April 12, 2014
Perhaps a little dated now (2014), but still a very detailed and perceptive analysis of historical fascism. Part II, dealing with interpretations of fascism, is still quite good for revealing the conceptual problems that exist in understanding this terrible political movement.
January 4, 2008
He was my professor for the European History between the World Wars class I took as an undergrad. Dr. Payne knows his stuff (and was a very interesting professor in the classroom)!
February 14, 2011
An impressive synthesis and analysis, meticulously researched. Outstanding bibliography, and extremely well written.
June 16, 2011
Very invaluable work.
October 31, 2011
penetrating analysis of intellectual foundations and practice of fascism.
February 12, 2012
Payne's "History of Fascism" is the standard text on the subject and holds up well years after it was first published. If you want to learn about the rise of Fascism in Europe start here.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 33 reviews