5 ms·

I’d recommend Anatomy of Fascism, also by Robert Paxton. Paxton’s work is fastinating and a little scary. He treats Fascism as a historical movement, not an se

I’d recommend Anatomy of Fascism, also by Robert Paxton. Paxton’s work is fastinating and a little scary. He treats Fascism as a historical movement, not an set of ideas. It’s scary because it shows that rigorous study of historical Fascism hasn’t really happened. It’s been too colored by the WWII propaganda. For example, fascism was implemented very differently in different countries. Pre-Anschluss’s Austrian fascism was very very different from German Nazism. Mussolini didn’t implement any anti-Semitic legislation until after making an alliance with Hitler (12 years of Fascist rule with no anti-semitism). Fasicists in Portugal (Salozaro) became increasingly moderate. They split strongly from international Fascism (Mussolini), condemned the name “fascism” while claiming to be a “nationalist third way between capitalism and and socialism.” No real elections. Was a very pro-Allied neutral in WWII. Became a founding member of NATO and stayed in power until the 1960s. He doesn’t feel obligated to follow the safe “Hitler is bad, Hitler was bad, Hitler was a Fascist, therefore Fascists are bad” syllogism that we find so safe. He asks hard questions like “how much do Mussolini in 1921, Hitler in 1939, and Hungarian Fascism from 1935 really have in common?” He really pissed people off when he pointed out that the Vichy Regime in France was an independent, preoccupation movement, and not merely “German occupation.” Not what the French want to hear.

Bayart 5y ago
> He really pissed people off when he pointed out that the Vichy Regime in France was an independent, preoccupation movement, and not merely “German occupation.” > Not what the French want to hear. The pre-war French far-right, which could be associated to the broader fascist trend, had very little to do with what the Vichy governement ended up being a few years down the line. You could argue the Vichy regime was a genuine artifact of French politics in 1940, but not in 1942.

Bayart 5y ago

> He really pissed people off when he pointed out that the Vichy Regime in France was an independent, preoccupation movement, and not merely “German occupation.” > Not what the French want to hear. The pre-war French far-right, which could be associated to the broader fascist trend, had very little to do with what the Vichy governement ended up being a few years down the line. You could argue the Vichy regime was a genuine artifact of French politics in 1940, but not in 1942.