Changes

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 examines fascist movements, primarily in Germany and Italy, to create a thorough explanation of what explanationHitler's constitutes fascism. To define the boundaries and stages that makeup make up fascism, Paxton spends the majority of the book examining fascism in two of the locations where it was most successful, violent, and noteworthy: Italy and Germany. Paxton examines the examples of Fascist Italy and Nazi Hitler's Germany in comparison to each other – and occasionally in contrast to other different regimes often considered fascist, such as Francoist Spain – . He trys to understand the differences not just in how authoritarian leaders got into power, but in their actions once they were in controlwMussolini'srol. For example, Paxton argues that one of the defining qualities of a fascist power is its appeals to the public and popular support in the years before their ascension to power as well as . These appeals continue after taking power – something characteristic of both Adolf Hitler countries' and Benito Mussolini’s reign in their respective countries.

Paxton closely carefully examines the history of fascist movements in Germany and ItalyGermanyPaxton'sly, which provides insight into the history of those two countries at pivotal moments. The comparison demonstrates clear parallels between the two countries ' fascist movements as well as the failure of democracy in each of these two countries. The examples Paxton's view of these two movements make Paxton’s makes his argument convincing. His portrayal of the rise of fascism was as much a failure of democracy as it was the rise of an authoritarian group of thugs. Fascists successfully took advantage of democratic institutions for non-democratic ends.

To do this, Paxton examines the history of German and Italian fascism fairly in-depth, documenting and comparing . He compares how both of these examples countries gained support. While violence was a tool of both parties, utilized violencearguably, and were helped the unwillingness of conservatives elected to power by elected officials who would rather work with fascists than socialists or and communists. This last point is of particular interest because Paxton uses it was critical 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 uprisingtheir rise.

In the This last chapter point is of <i>The Anatomy particular interest because Paxton uses it to diminish the myth of Fascism</i>Mussolini’s “March on Rome” – in other words, Paxton offers up a definition and a list of ideas or “mobilizing passions” which define a fascist movementhe argues that fascists didn’t merely use brute force to gain power. As Paxton admits, these ideals are rarely explicitly stated While the coup staged by fascists but are rather implied in fascist language and action. This Romania is a good approach, for the most partdiscussed, but it is primarily shown in some ways almost contradictory. Paxton himself discusses some of contrast to the problems associated with creating a singular definition for fascism, paths taken by Hitler and while the definition that he offers here offers more room for differentiation between fascist movementsMussolini, it is still somewhat limitingwhich 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.

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 . But Paxton's work needs more of this type of comparison, especially these examples between fascist states like Romania, because it would have been beneficial to producing a more well-rounded analysis of fascism.