I wrote a long review but goodreads ate it! Basically

+ Easily readable
+ Nice survey, covers important details of all fascist movements

- Doesn't cover WW2 at all, with only occasional references and a page of discussion
- Doesn't define fascism - confusing and ultimately concludes by rejecting every other theory and saying "I don't know"
- Presents evidence and then provides an interpretation that the evidence questions, often saying things like "it's obvious" or the like. Regularly criticises Marxist interpretations but doesn't provide convincing arguments. Refuses to consider the impact of establishment forces. Refuses to consider the ways in which it wasn't a renewal of society. Treats all fascisms as monolithic

= OK book that's useful but probably much better books that cover same out there.

This is a good, albeit contradictory history of the history of fascism in Europe during the interwar years and World War II. Ultimately, Morgan's argument, if there is one, is that fascism does exist, in contrast to Gilbert Allardyce's argument that it is something that exists only in the minds of historians and political scientists. Moreover, he argues the characteristic that linked together fascist parties under one umbrella as "fascist" is their hypernationalism. Perhaps, but I think there needs to be more to this explanation than just "hypernationalism." Liberal organizations can be hypernationalist (although in practice they rarely are), as can conservative organizations, and even "traditionalist" organizations (if there is such a thing, and I would argue there is). Theoretically, hypernationalist socialism seems unlikely, but it this element has shown through at times in history (for example, under Maoist China). To me, the dream of national rebirth mixed with populist support of authoritarianism seems crucial to add to this (at first glance, Maoist China seems also to fit this bill, but I think that Mao looked to break with the past, rather than to reignite it--hence the Cultural Revolution).

Although I can't fairly say this, I do think that Morgan should have looked further afield at fascism in postwar Europe, as well as fascism in the rest of the world (did Nationalist China have a fascist element to it? What about fascism in the United States? Is Ba'athism a variant of fascism? What about Nasserism? And Salafism?). More than any other political ideology, fascism is a nightmare to grapple with because it does not have a body of literature to support it. Perhaps this supports Allardyce's opinion that fascism was an empty vessel for political opportunism, but I'm more in agreement with Zeev Sternhell's opinion that it had its roots in both revolutionary syndicalism and nationalism.

Nonetheless, this book is especially good when paired alongside authors like Robert Paxton (who I think best describes all of the complexities of interwar fascism), Roger Eatwell, and Stanley Payne. There are two chronological chapters, as well as chapters of analysis. As a result, the history isn't particularly deep, but the historical context is probing and Morgan is generally fair to other historians (except Allardyce because he's outright wrong).