What do you think?
Rate this book
From Hitler to Codreanu
This book examines fascist ideology in seven leaders of parties and movements in the interwar period. It makes use of the conceptual morphological approach, focused on core and adjacent concepts, as well as on the interlinkages between them. With such an approach, the book seeks to offer an innovative perspective on fascism and arrive at a conceptual configuration of fascist ideology, capable of highlighting its main concepts and combinations. Furthermore, it examines the major texts of seven leaders from Germany, Italy, the UK, Portugal, Spain, France and Romania – Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Oswald Mosley, Rolão Preto, Primo de Rivera, Marcel Déat, and Corneliu Codreanu. With the conceptual approach, the book reasserts the possibility of finding a definition of generic fascism at the same time as depicting the ideological varieties espoused by each leader. This title will be of interest to students and scholars of fascism, extremism and the far right.
234 pages, Hardcover
Published December 31, 2020
14 people want to read
About the author
Carlos Manuel Martins
3 books2 followersCarlos Martins é doutorado em Política Comparada pelo ICS da Universidade de Lisboa e investiga a história do fascismo e de outras ideologias de extrema-direita. Doutorou-se com uma tese sobre a ideologia de líderes fascistas e publicou o livro From Hitler to Codreanu: The Ideology of Fascist Leaders, bem como, em português, Fascismos: Para Além de Hitler e Mussolini.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
March 31, 2021
An interesting book. I'd might say an important book in a field that is quite ignored for juicier issues. Yet, from the start the book starts bad. The documentation is shallow at least and the understanding equally superficial.
To start with, Hitler is not the first, as the title implies, the same way Codreanu is not the last. Talking Fascism, Mussolini is the first, and probably the pure version, and the rest are just variations. Hitler was a Nazi. And there are some big differences, like Hitler started from early rise of power as an anti-Semite, while Mussolini had no issue with the Jews, some of the big wigs in his movement were Jews. Codreanu was at the core an anti-Semite, and it can be argued he was even more rabid than Hitler on the subject.
Turning the pages, there are some selections. But the selection is crap. Although Admiral Horty is better described as a conservative, than a fascist, there is no trace of Ferenc Szálasi. Actually, Codreanu is the only one east of Germany. And if Romania is included, there were quite a lot others: A.C. Cuza. O. Goga. Ion Antonescu. Horia Sima. All leaders. At times in competition.
Back to the title, it is also stupid to call it this way, because Hitler started preaching AFTER Codreanu, and died quite a few years later.
Now, leaving the practical aspects aside, Martins is just another academic leech making a good life by rehashing the school textbook orthodoxy. What has happened is useless to him and will not secure him a tenure the same way his PhD will. So like the horde of goveling governmental bureaucrats, Martins needs to make a lot of mental gymnastics to draw the line between a Stalin and a Hitler.
The worst part is the text's ignorance by design (p. 63):
> Thus, Hitler comes close to defending a Corporatist solution for Germany when he supports a system that conciliates the interests of workers and employers, at the same time that he affirms that ‘the trade unions are necessary as building stones for the future economic parliament, which will be made up of chambers representing various professions and occupations’.
At least he should have had the decency to leave this part out, the same way he leaves other parts out when they don't fit his narrative. Because Trade Unions are just another form of Corporatism.
On page 65 Martins will pull out of thin air a conflict:
> Contradictions: individual/collectivity and people/leader
There is no individual in the story. Just like the European Politics of today, to which Martins is just a humble servant, there is no *I*, only talks of Unity, and how the public as a collective is going to be served the moment the target group receives its payment. Now this part is the key of the way the facts and observations are twisted: to fit the 2020 political narrative and hit the grant jackpot, Martins has to explain how ”them” are disregarding the needs of the individual and ”us” are doing everything for each member of the public.
To start with, Hitler is not the first, as the title implies, the same way Codreanu is not the last. Talking Fascism, Mussolini is the first, and probably the pure version, and the rest are just variations. Hitler was a Nazi. And there are some big differences, like Hitler started from early rise of power as an anti-Semite, while Mussolini had no issue with the Jews, some of the big wigs in his movement were Jews. Codreanu was at the core an anti-Semite, and it can be argued he was even more rabid than Hitler on the subject.
Turning the pages, there are some selections. But the selection is crap. Although Admiral Horty is better described as a conservative, than a fascist, there is no trace of Ferenc Szálasi. Actually, Codreanu is the only one east of Germany. And if Romania is included, there were quite a lot others: A.C. Cuza. O. Goga. Ion Antonescu. Horia Sima. All leaders. At times in competition.
Back to the title, it is also stupid to call it this way, because Hitler started preaching AFTER Codreanu, and died quite a few years later.
Now, leaving the practical aspects aside, Martins is just another academic leech making a good life by rehashing the school textbook orthodoxy. What has happened is useless to him and will not secure him a tenure the same way his PhD will. So like the horde of goveling governmental bureaucrats, Martins needs to make a lot of mental gymnastics to draw the line between a Stalin and a Hitler.
The worst part is the text's ignorance by design (p. 63):
> Thus, Hitler comes close to defending a Corporatist solution for Germany when he supports a system that conciliates the interests of workers and employers, at the same time that he affirms that ‘the trade unions are necessary as building stones for the future economic parliament, which will be made up of chambers representing various professions and occupations’.
At least he should have had the decency to leave this part out, the same way he leaves other parts out when they don't fit his narrative. Because Trade Unions are just another form of Corporatism.
On page 65 Martins will pull out of thin air a conflict:
> Contradictions: individual/collectivity and people/leader
There is no individual in the story. Just like the European Politics of today, to which Martins is just a humble servant, there is no *I*, only talks of Unity, and how the public as a collective is going to be served the moment the target group receives its payment. Now this part is the key of the way the facts and observations are twisted: to fit the 2020 political narrative and hit the grant jackpot, Martins has to explain how ”them” are disregarding the needs of the individual and ”us” are doing everything for each member of the public.
June 11, 2021
Me ha encantado el libro, aunque no tenga comprendido todo. Gustaría de saber quando va a ser editado en español. He aprendido mucho sobre el concepto de Fascismo y sus manifestaciones en España, Portugal e Inglaterra, que no son muy estudiadas. Sobre ese período hablamos de Salazar, Churcill y Franco, pero muy poco de Primo de Riviera y de los otros
June 26, 2021
being a philosophy teacher very interested in politics I loved the book and I recomend it.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews