What do you think?
Rate this book
A History of Fascism, 1914-1945
Stanely G. payne here presents a full history of fascism in interwar Europe, as well as a survey of fascist theory and postwar fascism. The author examines all major fascist movements as well as other forms of authoritarian nationalism and provides a comprehensive work on generic fascism to date. The book traces the phenomenon of fascism through the history of ideas, previous political movements, and the events of the First World War. Although the focus is principally fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, the book also gives detailed attention to the Romanian Iron Guard, Franco's Spain, Japan and proto-fascist movements around the globe. The author explores the reasons for both the limits of fascism's appeal and the historical transcendence of the "fascist era".The inclusion of other forms of authoritarian nationalism lays a foundation for comparative analysis and leads to a more workable definition of authoritarianism. It should be useful reading for students studying the rise of totalitarianism in twentieth-century Europe and for those concerned about the rise of ultranationalism today.
628 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1995
101 people are currently reading
1430 people want to read
About the author
Stanley G. Payne
81 books103 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 43 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 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.
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.
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.
October 10, 2025
[DNF] This book sucks. The author sucks.
The US sub-section about fascist movements outside Europe was 3 pages long. The author intentionally omitted or downplayed critical historical events regarding the close ties Nazi Germany had with the United States before and during WW2.
“[Father Charles] Coughlin was the most important direct apologist for fascism in the United States.”
That’s crazy. Top 5, definitely. But #1? Meanwhile Henry Ford doesn’t even get a name drop in the entire book. Ford went to Germany and got an award from the Nazis! He was lauded in the first draft of Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf!’ He wrote longingly about race science, antisemitism, and other fascist propaganda in his company-funded newsletter that came free with every Ford Car!
But the author didn’t think that was worth mentioning apparently.
“The Ku Klux Klan, which enjoyed a brief apogee between 1920 and 1924, was ultraconservative and not receptive to fascistic radicalism.” That’s wild. Anyone who fails to describe the KKK in the 1920’s as anything short of a “proto-fascist movement” is just whitewashing US history.
“The only theoretical precondition for fascism which existed in the United States was ethnoracial tension, and the only aspects of prefascist culture which flourished were racialist and eugenicist doctrines, from the 1880s to the 1920s.” Wow. That’s really interesting, Professor Payne. Could you elaborate on this? Who was involved in this ‘flourishing racial and eugenicist doctrines?’ Any specific names come to mind? Do they rhyme with Shmenry Shmord? Oh you don’t elaborate further? Ok great…
Here’s several critical historical tidbits the author fails to mention:
• US company IBM’s involvement in the Holocaust: no mention.
• The Business Plot to overthrow FDR and install Smedley Butler as a figurehead for a fascist dictatorship: no mention.
• The other people and organizations covered in “Nazi Nexus”: No mention.
• The actual literal Nazis coming to the United States in the 1930’s to use Jim Crow as a blueprint for the Nuremberg Laws (Nazi race laws): zero fucking mention.
• Allen Dulles, director of the OSS (precursor to the CIA), saying in 1942 “We’re fighting the wrong enemy” in reference to Nazi Germany and his treasonous back room deals with the Nazi high command while the war was still happening: Zero mention
Absolutely asinine. A complete whitewash and downplay of history.
The author seemingly limits his definition of fascism is to political parties in Europe, 3 pages about the US, a few pages about other non-europeans countries, and then just gobs and gobs of paper on Lenin and Stalin.
“The notion, however, that the Fascists had somehow invented modern political violence is lamentably superficial. Some sort of military or paramilitary militia was more or less inherent in the Jacobin tradition and was characteristic of the left and even of liberals in countries like Spain and Portugal during the nineteenth century.”
These are such stupid sentences. You don’t think there might be any examples of modern political violence used in the colonies ruled by European empires? Or does ‘modern political violence’ only count if it’s done to white people? Maybe there’s a good way to explain this…hmmmm… say ‘Fascism is Imperialism come home?’ Nah that’s too catchy. Better not include that vital description in this fascism book….
The author has little to no discussion about European colonialism and imperialism, geopolitical ideologies that are far more aligned with fascism in both action and belief. But no, just prattling on about various failed political parties across the Western world. Seems pretty obvious this guy’s got no interest in legitimate historical analysis of fascism as an ideology, choosing instead to analyze fascism as a political party.
As shown in the far superior historical text "Legacy of Violence: A History of the British Empire" by Caroline Elkins (2022), British Imperialism was also offered a spectacular blueprint for European Fascism, yet somehow the author of this book mysteriously ignores all the obvious connective tissue. British soldiers and officers in their imperial vassal states (Palestine 1938, India 1933, etc, all knew they were functionally identical to Nazism. They said so themselves!
The British Empire invented the modern concentration camp during the Boer War in South Africa (1899-1902). They went on to making that a mainstay of imperial control: Ireland (1920), Malaya (1948-1960), Kenya (1950’s). Yes, those others are outside the timeframe of the book, but the FIRST HISTORICAL INSTANCE of concentration camps might have warranted a mention. But according to the author, supposedly the Nazis got it from Lenin? Alright man sure.
Meanwhile this quote from Mein Kampf somehow wasn’t worth mentioning: “No people has ever with greater brutality better prepared its economic conquests with the sword, and later ruthlessly defended them, than the English nation.” I feel like…when you’re trying to historically contextualize Fascism from 1914-1945, maybe it’s worth mentioning who the number one fascism guy said he looked up to (Henry Ford, the British Empire, etc). I feeeel like that might be valuable information if you want your book to have some legitimacy. But no. alright man. Great. Yeah. Sure.
This is seemingly how a lot of those "proper old white guy history books" operate: couch your obvious biases in dull prose, eye watering statistics, and just outright remove critical historical events that go against your insidious agenda. This guy's agenda: "Lenin bad, leftists bad." That's about it.
Here’s some quotes I did actually genuinely like:
“Another fundamental characteristic was extreme insistence on what is now termed male chauvinism and the tendency to exaggerate the masculine principle in almost every aspect of activity. All political forces in the era of fascism were overwhelmingly led by and made up of men, and those that paid lip service to women’s equality in fact seem to have had little interest in it. Only fascists, however, made a perpetual fetish of the virility of their movement and its program and style, stemming no doubt from the fascist militarization of politics and need for constant struggle.”
Pretty apt.
“Griffin has termed this fascist reality a ‘radical misogyny or flight from the feminine, manifesting itself in a pathological fear of being engulfed by anything in external reality associated with softness, with dissolution, or the uncontrollable.’ No other kind of movement expressed such complete horror
at the slightest suggestion of androgyny.”
This is why fascists hate gay people, trans people, queerness. It’s just diametrically opposed to their machismo male chauvinist ideology. So the adage “be gay, do crimes” really is more appropriate now than ever.
These quotes are the only reason why I didn’t give it the lowest possible score.
Fuck this book. Fuck this guy. I’m not gonna read any more.
The US sub-section about fascist movements outside Europe was 3 pages long. The author intentionally omitted or downplayed critical historical events regarding the close ties Nazi Germany had with the United States before and during WW2.
“[Father Charles] Coughlin was the most important direct apologist for fascism in the United States.”
That’s crazy. Top 5, definitely. But #1? Meanwhile Henry Ford doesn’t even get a name drop in the entire book. Ford went to Germany and got an award from the Nazis! He was lauded in the first draft of Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf!’ He wrote longingly about race science, antisemitism, and other fascist propaganda in his company-funded newsletter that came free with every Ford Car!
But the author didn’t think that was worth mentioning apparently.
“The Ku Klux Klan, which enjoyed a brief apogee between 1920 and 1924, was ultraconservative and not receptive to fascistic radicalism.” That’s wild. Anyone who fails to describe the KKK in the 1920’s as anything short of a “proto-fascist movement” is just whitewashing US history.
“The only theoretical precondition for fascism which existed in the United States was ethnoracial tension, and the only aspects of prefascist culture which flourished were racialist and eugenicist doctrines, from the 1880s to the 1920s.” Wow. That’s really interesting, Professor Payne. Could you elaborate on this? Who was involved in this ‘flourishing racial and eugenicist doctrines?’ Any specific names come to mind? Do they rhyme with Shmenry Shmord? Oh you don’t elaborate further? Ok great…
Here’s several critical historical tidbits the author fails to mention:
• US company IBM’s involvement in the Holocaust: no mention.
• The Business Plot to overthrow FDR and install Smedley Butler as a figurehead for a fascist dictatorship: no mention.
• The other people and organizations covered in “Nazi Nexus”: No mention.
• The actual literal Nazis coming to the United States in the 1930’s to use Jim Crow as a blueprint for the Nuremberg Laws (Nazi race laws): zero fucking mention.
• Allen Dulles, director of the OSS (precursor to the CIA), saying in 1942 “We’re fighting the wrong enemy” in reference to Nazi Germany and his treasonous back room deals with the Nazi high command while the war was still happening: Zero mention
Absolutely asinine. A complete whitewash and downplay of history.
The author seemingly limits his definition of fascism is to political parties in Europe, 3 pages about the US, a few pages about other non-europeans countries, and then just gobs and gobs of paper on Lenin and Stalin.
“The notion, however, that the Fascists had somehow invented modern political violence is lamentably superficial. Some sort of military or paramilitary militia was more or less inherent in the Jacobin tradition and was characteristic of the left and even of liberals in countries like Spain and Portugal during the nineteenth century.”
These are such stupid sentences. You don’t think there might be any examples of modern political violence used in the colonies ruled by European empires? Or does ‘modern political violence’ only count if it’s done to white people? Maybe there’s a good way to explain this…hmmmm… say ‘Fascism is Imperialism come home?’ Nah that’s too catchy. Better not include that vital description in this fascism book….
The author has little to no discussion about European colonialism and imperialism, geopolitical ideologies that are far more aligned with fascism in both action and belief. But no, just prattling on about various failed political parties across the Western world. Seems pretty obvious this guy’s got no interest in legitimate historical analysis of fascism as an ideology, choosing instead to analyze fascism as a political party.
As shown in the far superior historical text "Legacy of Violence: A History of the British Empire" by Caroline Elkins (2022), British Imperialism was also offered a spectacular blueprint for European Fascism, yet somehow the author of this book mysteriously ignores all the obvious connective tissue. British soldiers and officers in their imperial vassal states (Palestine 1938, India 1933, etc, all knew they were functionally identical to Nazism. They said so themselves!
The British Empire invented the modern concentration camp during the Boer War in South Africa (1899-1902). They went on to making that a mainstay of imperial control: Ireland (1920), Malaya (1948-1960), Kenya (1950’s). Yes, those others are outside the timeframe of the book, but the FIRST HISTORICAL INSTANCE of concentration camps might have warranted a mention. But according to the author, supposedly the Nazis got it from Lenin? Alright man sure.
Meanwhile this quote from Mein Kampf somehow wasn’t worth mentioning: “No people has ever with greater brutality better prepared its economic conquests with the sword, and later ruthlessly defended them, than the English nation.” I feel like…when you’re trying to historically contextualize Fascism from 1914-1945, maybe it’s worth mentioning who the number one fascism guy said he looked up to (Henry Ford, the British Empire, etc). I feeeel like that might be valuable information if you want your book to have some legitimacy. But no. alright man. Great. Yeah. Sure.
This is seemingly how a lot of those "proper old white guy history books" operate: couch your obvious biases in dull prose, eye watering statistics, and just outright remove critical historical events that go against your insidious agenda. This guy's agenda: "Lenin bad, leftists bad." That's about it.
Here’s some quotes I did actually genuinely like:
“Another fundamental characteristic was extreme insistence on what is now termed male chauvinism and the tendency to exaggerate the masculine principle in almost every aspect of activity. All political forces in the era of fascism were overwhelmingly led by and made up of men, and those that paid lip service to women’s equality in fact seem to have had little interest in it. Only fascists, however, made a perpetual fetish of the virility of their movement and its program and style, stemming no doubt from the fascist militarization of politics and need for constant struggle.”
Pretty apt.
“Griffin has termed this fascist reality a ‘radical misogyny or flight from the feminine, manifesting itself in a pathological fear of being engulfed by anything in external reality associated with softness, with dissolution, or the uncontrollable.’ No other kind of movement expressed such complete horror
at the slightest suggestion of androgyny.”
This is why fascists hate gay people, trans people, queerness. It’s just diametrically opposed to their machismo male chauvinist ideology. So the adage “be gay, do crimes” really is more appropriate now than ever.
These quotes are the only reason why I didn’t give it the lowest possible score.
Fuck this book. Fuck this guy. I’m not gonna read any more.
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.
August 22, 2025
According to Payne’s A History of Fascism: 1914-1945, he explores the initial idea proposed in Allardyce’s article, “What Fascism is Not” (linked below), that there is no true generic example of fascism. My own personal understanding and synopsis of fascism based on these readings is a hyper-nationalized right-wing party that espouses elements of volunteerism and self-determination while creating a secular culture. They have a positive opinion of waging war as a means of building an empire and engaging with other powers. The end goal is to create a truly authoritarian state with a unique model that does not emulate more traditional models with a strict socioeconomic hierarchy steeped in some form of national corporatism, socialism, or syndicalism. This is apparent in the goals of the Italian and German contexts through their willingness to engage militarily with others for resources and living space (“spazio d’italia” for the Italians and “Lebensraum” for the Germans). In understanding the various fascist movements, however, it is interesting to see that Germany was the only one that reached a full-fledged fascist regime in which all opposition parties and opinions were nearly stamped out by its collapse in 1945, whereas in the Italian context the fascist system was still subject to the state and it existed in a limited semi-pluralist state. According to Benito Mussolini’s famous decree in 1928 that “Fascism is not for export” the unique experience associated with the Roman fasci, and the cultural specifics of the Italian movement were different from those of the 40 other countries in which groups were either calling themselves fascists or were identified by others as such. Understanding the varying degrees to which fascism took root in other countries and contexts, while understanding that the Italian version was unique and sought to maintain hegemonic status in Europe, is important in evaluating how fascist movements came to be in other places, and how they developed.
Link to Allardyce Article: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1855138
Comments on Allardyce Article, "What Fascism is Not"
In Allardyce’s article, What Fascism is Not, explores three crucial aspects of scholarly inquiry and examination of fascist history that addresses common misconceptions of the word “fascist” and tries to narrow the broad spectrum of its uses to create a more precise definition. In doing so, Allardyce examines the arguments of other scholars to identify three main points about fascism - 1. fascism is not a generic concept, 2. fascism is not an ideology, and 3. fascism is not a personality trait. The most intriguing aspect of this article was trying to understand the development of fascist movements in Rome and Berlin and contextualize their rise such that these two experiences fit under the same mold, even though the concept of the fascismo is distinctly an Italian idea and has no meaning in other places where fascism took place. The terminology itself is highly specific.
Link to Allardyce Article: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1855138
Comments on Allardyce Article, "What Fascism is Not"
In Allardyce’s article, What Fascism is Not, explores three crucial aspects of scholarly inquiry and examination of fascist history that addresses common misconceptions of the word “fascist” and tries to narrow the broad spectrum of its uses to create a more precise definition. In doing so, Allardyce examines the arguments of other scholars to identify three main points about fascism - 1. fascism is not a generic concept, 2. fascism is not an ideology, and 3. fascism is not a personality trait. The most intriguing aspect of this article was trying to understand the development of fascist movements in Rome and Berlin and contextualize their rise such that these two experiences fit under the same mold, even though the concept of the fascismo is distinctly an Italian idea and has no meaning in other places where fascism took place. The terminology itself is highly specific.
August 1, 2024
There was a nice quote about defining facism in the book. I listened to it so I cannot recall it exactly.
It was something like this: 'To define facism, you need to look at its entire history'.
Payne's book is a history of facism in the interwar years. All the defeated axis powers and successor states from WW1 turned authoritarian. Why?
Not all authoritarian states were facistic but all facistic states were authoritarian, however. Furthermore, Payne distinguishes National Socialism in Germany from facism in Italy and Spain.
Also interesting that the negation of what facism is not: liberal, anti-communist does not define it.
Could German National Socialism have existed at any time other than the 20th century? Payne argues no.
National Socialism derived from the extremes of the Enlightenment: the state as an agent of 'human betterment', the importance of the supposed will of the people, and that a professional bureaucracy can anonimise individuals and treat them as mindless cogs.
Could facism exist again in the 21st century? I hope not! Payne argues that there is a hard ceiling to its appeal. To appeal to more of the population, it needs to be more moderate, for example, Spain under Franco.
There are also not examples of eighty-year strong democracies slipping to facism. Payne argues that India is a candidate. Maybe if he was writing now he would include the USA?
It was something like this: 'To define facism, you need to look at its entire history'.
Payne's book is a history of facism in the interwar years. All the defeated axis powers and successor states from WW1 turned authoritarian. Why?
Not all authoritarian states were facistic but all facistic states were authoritarian, however. Furthermore, Payne distinguishes National Socialism in Germany from facism in Italy and Spain.
Also interesting that the negation of what facism is not: liberal, anti-communist does not define it.
Could German National Socialism have existed at any time other than the 20th century? Payne argues no.
National Socialism derived from the extremes of the Enlightenment: the state as an agent of 'human betterment', the importance of the supposed will of the people, and that a professional bureaucracy can anonimise individuals and treat them as mindless cogs.
Could facism exist again in the 21st century? I hope not! Payne argues that there is a hard ceiling to its appeal. To appeal to more of the population, it needs to be more moderate, for example, Spain under Franco.
There are also not examples of eighty-year strong democracies slipping to facism. Payne argues that India is a candidate. Maybe if he was writing now he would include the USA?
October 27, 2025
appreciated the attempt to define facism without simply working backwards from Germany 1933.
there were a few points that I thought could have benefitted from elaboration: why is it meaningfully different that Italy only engaged in 'normal' racism against their African colonial subjects, can what the Afrikaan (forget the name) fascist party achieved be described as 'popular' support when only a small minority of the population could vote and to what extend did Germany really effectively de-nazify (a lot of the leadership in West Germany were Nazi beaurocrats during the war)
an interesting topic is the way that some proto-fascist movements were defeated when the regular conservative movements adopted key policies and thus their votes, this feels quite relevant to the United Kingdom over the last ~10 years
there were a few points that I thought could have benefitted from elaboration: why is it meaningfully different that Italy only engaged in 'normal' racism against their African colonial subjects, can what the Afrikaan (forget the name) fascist party achieved be described as 'popular' support when only a small minority of the population could vote and to what extend did Germany really effectively de-nazify (a lot of the leadership in West Germany were Nazi beaurocrats during the war)
an interesting topic is the way that some proto-fascist movements were defeated when the regular conservative movements adopted key policies and thus their votes, this feels quite relevant to the United Kingdom over the last ~10 years
November 8, 2025
As far as a concise history of fascism and an even more concise history on the history of the study of defining fascism, it’s a very informative read. Maybe even essential reading for being able to intelligently discuss fascism.
The only disappointment is the book only covers up to 1995, the year of publishing. And his theories on what the 21st Century would look like in relation to neo-fascism are disappointing, and makes you wish we had an updated insight from one of fascism’s foremost English language scholars on the global political developments of the last 30 years.
Other than that, be prepared to take notes and look up a lot of definitions. But it’s very much worth it.
The only disappointment is the book only covers up to 1995, the year of publishing. And his theories on what the 21st Century would look like in relation to neo-fascism are disappointing, and makes you wish we had an updated insight from one of fascism’s foremost English language scholars on the global political developments of the last 30 years.
Other than that, be prepared to take notes and look up a lot of definitions. But it’s very much worth it.
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.
July 27, 2025
It's interesting, this book filled in a lot of gaps in knowledge I didn't know I had, and I like the term "fin de siècle" generation and its relation to the fascist movements I never thought about that before.
November 24, 2025
Payne's history of fascism is a must read for anyone desiring a solid and detailed history of said phenomenon. I found the discussion on the relationship of fascism to modernism especially intriguing.
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
June 20, 2025
Paxton’s interpretation is better.
November 3, 2025
Thorough and well researched, if a bit dry.
May 5, 2025
A thorough look at fascist movements with one major flaw: I think any discussion about a reactionary movement should include a glimpse at the thing the movement is reacting to. In his view, Payne presents fascism as an intellectual offshoot of nationalism and fringe scientific-turned-social theories. There is however a common thread that ties fascism and liberalism together both in nationalist impulses as well as a - for example - a worldview adopting social darwinism.
If his main thesis - that fascism required liberal democracy and was mainly countered by emerging radical right and nationalist right movements - is right then it would indicate a common set of behaviors among all these movements and indeed among all modern post-enlightenment political forms: pursuing doctrine and failing to live up to its promise, upholding values and abandoning them, movements in utopical radicalism and cynical compromise. Heresies can't be fully understood or explored if we don't uncover the underlying faith they are deviating from - and this would have been a far more interesting perspective from which to study fascism.
If his main thesis - that fascism required liberal democracy and was mainly countered by emerging radical right and nationalist right movements - is right then it would indicate a common set of behaviors among all these movements and indeed among all modern post-enlightenment political forms: pursuing doctrine and failing to live up to its promise, upholding values and abandoning them, movements in utopical radicalism and cynical compromise. Heresies can't be fully understood or explored if we don't uncover the underlying faith they are deviating from - and this would have been a far more interesting perspective from which to study fascism.
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.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 43 reviews