Status
Available
Genres
Collection
Publication
Amsterdam Bakker 2005
Description
What is fascism? By focusing on the concrete: what the fascists did rather than what they said, the esteemed historian Robert O. Paxton answers this question for the first time. From the first violent uniformed bands beating up "enemies of the state," through Mussolini's rise to power, to Germany's fascist radicalization in World War II, Paxton shows clearly why fascists came to power in some countries and not others, and he explores whether fascism could exist outside the early-twentieth-century European setting in which it emerged. The Anatomy of Fascism will have a lasting impact on our understanding of modern European history, just as Paxton's classic Vichy France redefined our vision of World War II. Based on a lifetime of research, this compelling and important book transforms our knowledge of fascism-"the major political innovation of the twentieth century, and the source of much of its pain.".… (more)
User reviews
LibraryThing member niklin
In his trial to dissect out the essential parts of the ideology of fascism, Robert Paxton naturally concentrate on Germany and Italy, even though he also gives the reader examples of non successful fascist movements from all over the world. The author describes fascism in five steps: 1. Creating of
Paxton s’ description of Fascism is very detailed and some of the chapters are brilliant. His major theory is placing himself in between researchers describing Fascism as a part of totalitarianism, and on other hand Leninism dogma that portray the ideology as a capitalist reaction to Communism. The major point is that while others have over valuated the first face of Fascism when it is small and pure, Paxton instead focus on 2 and 3 how Fascism came to power in Italy and Germany by abandoning most of the initial ideology. He summarize his own point of view with a citation of Frans Neuman: ”National socialism’s ideology is constantly shifting. It has certain magical beliefs...but it is not laid down in a series of categorical and dogmatic pronouncements”. The author certainly has a point showing that fascism is a populistic movement, but this is also the major weakness of this book. By putting the spotlight on how Hitler and Mussolini got to power, he certainly over valuates the ideological implications of the lack of scrutiny in two of histories worst power mongers. Both of these dictators would positively have sacrificed everything including their own mothers in their way to the top. So why do ideological interpretation of the alliances and baby kissing they used to get what they wanted? Does that really tell us of what kind of society these fascist leaders wanted? Instead that would be better shown in studying the fascist countries. Actually the chapters about just that hardly reach the level needed. The description of the radicalization of Nazi Germany and fascist Italy is confined to show how both countries had a certain goal of going to war, and the coming of the Holocaust. Thereby Paxton misses how both these countries transformed to plan and state controlled economies. Paxton also down play the similarities between Fascism and socialism by proposing that the victims of Stalin was mostly not women and children, which seems odd looking at, for example, the terror famine in Ukraine.
Also, there are some not especially well thought threw sentences associating Thatcherism and gun libertarians in US with Fascism that more qualifies as political slurs devoid of any resemblance of the level argumentation otherwise presented in this book. Interesting to read but lack some logic. A weak three out of five.
Show More
a Fascist movement, where the maturation of the ideology is described. The focus is on the ideological purity in the very minuscule movements. 2. Taking root: Here we find out how, and why Fascism managed to become a rather popular force in Italy and Germany, and mainly how the fascists started to compromise their ideology for that reason. Thereby some of the less popular goals, such as anticapitalism, were set aside for others, such as anticommunism, which attracted more supporters. The author also lists important conditions in a society for Fascism to become popular, such as crisis, a lost war or faltered current order. The next step, 3. “Getting Power”, we find out how Hitler and Mussolini managed to get to the top spot in their countries. Amazingly neither of them really had to fight for it, but was given power by naïve conservatives who were sure that they themselves with ease would be able to manipulate the new comers. The world had to pay dearly for their misjudgments. The two last parts, “Exercising power”, and “Radicalization or Entropy” describe the different possibilities for a Fascist leader in power.Paxton s’ description of Fascism is very detailed and some of the chapters are brilliant. His major theory is placing himself in between researchers describing Fascism as a part of totalitarianism, and on other hand Leninism dogma that portray the ideology as a capitalist reaction to Communism. The major point is that while others have over valuated the first face of Fascism when it is small and pure, Paxton instead focus on 2 and 3 how Fascism came to power in Italy and Germany by abandoning most of the initial ideology. He summarize his own point of view with a citation of Frans Neuman: ”National socialism’s ideology is constantly shifting. It has certain magical beliefs...but it is not laid down in a series of categorical and dogmatic pronouncements”. The author certainly has a point showing that fascism is a populistic movement, but this is also the major weakness of this book. By putting the spotlight on how Hitler and Mussolini got to power, he certainly over valuates the ideological implications of the lack of scrutiny in two of histories worst power mongers. Both of these dictators would positively have sacrificed everything including their own mothers in their way to the top. So why do ideological interpretation of the alliances and baby kissing they used to get what they wanted? Does that really tell us of what kind of society these fascist leaders wanted? Instead that would be better shown in studying the fascist countries. Actually the chapters about just that hardly reach the level needed. The description of the radicalization of Nazi Germany and fascist Italy is confined to show how both countries had a certain goal of going to war, and the coming of the Holocaust. Thereby Paxton misses how both these countries transformed to plan and state controlled economies. Paxton also down play the similarities between Fascism and socialism by proposing that the victims of Stalin was mostly not women and children, which seems odd looking at, for example, the terror famine in Ukraine.
Also, there are some not especially well thought threw sentences associating Thatcherism and gun libertarians in US with Fascism that more qualifies as political slurs devoid of any resemblance of the level argumentation otherwise presented in this book. Interesting to read but lack some logic. A weak three out of five.
Show Less
LibraryThing member thierry
What is fascism? Definitive overview of the origin, rise and manifestations of fascism. Germane in a way, a warning to all. Fascist regimes need friends and accomplices among the conservative elites to reach power. The politics of fear, of identity, of community at its most dangerous. Truly, the
Show More
first modernist ideology in an age of mass democratization. While its origin might be in Boulangiste France, its name from Mussolini, Fascism found its bloody apotheosis in Nazi Germany. Seminal work, how an overview of a political ideology should be covered. Great bibliographical sources. Show Less
LibraryThing member Kade
Never was there a more fitting analysis and explanation of the tenets of Fascism and its ideological underpinnings. Unlike Marx, who wrote with the strength of academic credentials, the leaders of Fascism were almost never social scientists. So the most effective analysis of Fascism comes from
Show More
looking back on the ideology and analyzing its patterns to create a set of identifying characteristics. Easy reading, even for non-academics. Highly recommended for political scientists, or just anybody living in a liberal democracy who has ever tired of hearing the word fascist thrown around without merit. Also, for people who want to know when Godwin's Law is appropriate. Show Less
LibraryThing member rivkat
What are the defining characteristics of fascism? This book argues that the question is difficult because fascism has different stages, including stages of cooperation with other right movements and then stages where it peels away. It was fine, though I’m not sure I advanced my understanding a
Show More
lot. Show Less
LibraryThing member experimentalis
the best introduction to the subject; at the same time, an excellent scholarly synthesis. It contains the most cogent available definition of fascism, approached not as an ideology, but rather as «a form of political behaviour marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation
Show More
or victimhood, and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion». This point however -that fascism is not really an ideology- is something that certain posters here seem to have missed. Show Less
LibraryThing member ebethe
Very well researched, constructed and written book. Helped me to understand how wrongly the term "fascist" is often used. Paxton leads the reader through a review of "5 stages" to get t Facisim and examines several countries wrt those stages. Nicely put together, and one of those books that I would
Show More
like to discuss with people of all political and social stripes. Show Less
LibraryThing member kant1066
In "Il Gattopardo," Guiseppe di Lampedusa said of the Sicilian nobility that, "if we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change." Robert Paxton asserts that the same can be said for the scholarship of fascism in "The Anatomy of Fascism," his insightful analysis of the rise,
Throughout most of the nineteenth century, politics was the business of the educated elite; the common man was often disenfranchised from the most important parts of the political process. It wasn't until "the masses, full of beer and nonsense" (as Carlyle once acerbically noted) were fully integrated that fascism was possible.
Fascism is often associated with often any ideological stances, from anti-capitalism to anti-socialism to (perhaps most commonly) anti-Semitism. Paxton attempts to show that no one fascist regime espoused all of these ideas at the same time. For example, while fascists often did attack bourgeois capitalists for their flabby materialism, once they gained power, they often joined powers with them later in order to build political alliances. In fact, fascist hardliners usually fancied themselves as apolitical, and refused to engage in decadent liberal parliamentarianism. Of course, as history continually tells us, purity is no way to gain political power or legitimacy. It's simply not enough to don a colored shirt and start beating up foreigners and minorities. Paxton describes how fully realized fascist mobilization took "a comparable crisis, a comparable opening of political space, a comparable skill at alliance building, and comparable cooperation from existing elites."
Paxton states that, in the long term, all fascists regimes eventually devolve through a period of entropy in which they slough off their purist elements and become something much more resembling authoritarians than fascists. He refers to this as their period of "entropy," whereby they undergo a kind of political and cultural normalization along the lines of political elites. He claims that the one regime that did not undergo this phase was Hitler's Germany. The next-to-last chapter considers fascisms (or fascist-like regimes) in other parts of the world, especially Peron's Argentina.
All of this is meant as a series of lessons which should enable us to, in the end, limn some of the fascism's defining characteristics. His final analysis concludes that most successful fascisms have several common characteristics. Some of them include a "sense of overwhelming crisis," "the primacy of the group ... and the subordination of the individual to it," "dread of the group's decline under the corrosive effects of individualism liberalism," "the superiority of the leader's instincts over abstract and universal reason," and "beauty of violence and the efficacy of the will." While these aspects might not provide us with the fullest picture of fascism, it seems to provide a good baseline for scholarship, both past and future.
For a while, I have been reading "around fascism," especially William Johnston's "The Austrian Mind: An Intellectual and Social History, 1848-1938." I found Paxton's book really valuable in providing the material to connect some really important dots as far as setting the political tone for the possibility of fascism. Also, one of the most wonderful resources in the book is the thirty-page, topically organized bibliographical essay. There is enough material in there to keep anyone interested in the subject reading for quite a while.
Show More
entrenchment, and political development of this body of political movements in twentieth century Europe. Instead of arguing that fascism is "of the left" or "of the right," Paxton both escapes those narrow confines while at the same time detailing why these categories are woefully inadequate. The book considers fascism's development chronologically: first, the prerequisites for fascism, then how it "takes root," how it gains power, and finally how it exercises that power. It should be noted here that the only two regimes Paxton considers in detail are those of Hitler and Mussolini. Others are mentioned in passing, but the deepest, most important lessons are drawn from these two cases.Throughout most of the nineteenth century, politics was the business of the educated elite; the common man was often disenfranchised from the most important parts of the political process. It wasn't until "the masses, full of beer and nonsense" (as Carlyle once acerbically noted) were fully integrated that fascism was possible.
Fascism is often associated with often any ideological stances, from anti-capitalism to anti-socialism to (perhaps most commonly) anti-Semitism. Paxton attempts to show that no one fascist regime espoused all of these ideas at the same time. For example, while fascists often did attack bourgeois capitalists for their flabby materialism, once they gained power, they often joined powers with them later in order to build political alliances. In fact, fascist hardliners usually fancied themselves as apolitical, and refused to engage in decadent liberal parliamentarianism. Of course, as history continually tells us, purity is no way to gain political power or legitimacy. It's simply not enough to don a colored shirt and start beating up foreigners and minorities. Paxton describes how fully realized fascist mobilization took "a comparable crisis, a comparable opening of political space, a comparable skill at alliance building, and comparable cooperation from existing elites."
Paxton states that, in the long term, all fascists regimes eventually devolve through a period of entropy in which they slough off their purist elements and become something much more resembling authoritarians than fascists. He refers to this as their period of "entropy," whereby they undergo a kind of political and cultural normalization along the lines of political elites. He claims that the one regime that did not undergo this phase was Hitler's Germany. The next-to-last chapter considers fascisms (or fascist-like regimes) in other parts of the world, especially Peron's Argentina.
All of this is meant as a series of lessons which should enable us to, in the end, limn some of the fascism's defining characteristics. His final analysis concludes that most successful fascisms have several common characteristics. Some of them include a "sense of overwhelming crisis," "the primacy of the group ... and the subordination of the individual to it," "dread of the group's decline under the corrosive effects of individualism liberalism," "the superiority of the leader's instincts over abstract and universal reason," and "beauty of violence and the efficacy of the will." While these aspects might not provide us with the fullest picture of fascism, it seems to provide a good baseline for scholarship, both past and future.
For a while, I have been reading "around fascism," especially William Johnston's "The Austrian Mind: An Intellectual and Social History, 1848-1938." I found Paxton's book really valuable in providing the material to connect some really important dots as far as setting the political tone for the possibility of fascism. Also, one of the most wonderful resources in the book is the thirty-page, topically organized bibliographical essay. There is enough material in there to keep anyone interested in the subject reading for quite a while.
Show Less
LibraryThing member TheAmpersand
A solid introduction to what is probably the most bewildering of political movements. Instead of striving to find an exact definition of fascism, what Paxton refers to as a "fascist minimum," "The Anatomy of Fascism" goes wide-angle, considering fascism as a phenomenon that occurred all over the
Show More
globe and tended to undergo radical changes as it went from being a barely organized movement to a governing power. Paxton pays particular attention to the compromises that fascists and ruling parties tend to make in order to bring fascism to power and the parallel developments of democracy and fascism as relatively populist systems of governance. Since fascism can be studied from any number of angles and intellectual starting points, this book is unlikely to satisfy everyone, and I'm sure that there are lots of professional and semi-professional students of history out there leaving two-star reviews of this one all over the internet. Even so, the author devoted much of his intellectual life to researching the historical and intellectual questions that surround fascism, and "The Anatomy of Fascism" represents an admirably concise and thoughtful distillation of its most salient features. Recommended. Show Less
LibraryThing member KidSisyphus
If a liberal is a conservative who has been mugged, a fascist is a conservative whose wife has been given the vote.
LibraryThing member aleph123
More than a review, I will let the author speak, after doing my second run through the book, this time focusing on origins and how to avoid its recurrence (of which we keep having way too many examples, since the fall of the Berlin Wall)
The Anatomy of Fascism
Robert O. Paxton
P17:
Hannah Arendt
[Yes, the "neither right nor left" was part of European politics a century ago]
P215:
...some countries with a powerful cultural preparation (France, for example) became fascist only by conquest (if then).
P220:
Fascism... is still visible today. Fascism exists at the level of Stage One within all democratic countries... "Giving up free institutions," especially the freedoms of unpopular groups, os recurrently attractive to citizens of Western democracies... We know from tracing its path that fascism does not require a spectacular "march" on some capital to take root; seemingly anodyne decisions to tolerate lawless treatment of national "enemies" is enough. Something very close to classical fascism has reached Stage Two in a few deeply troubled societies. Its further progress is not inevitable, however. Further fascist advances toward power depend in part upon the severity of a crisis, but also very largely upon human choices, especially the choices of those holding economic, social, and political power. Determining the appropriate responses to fascist gains is not easy, since its cycle is not likely to repeat itself blindly. We stand a much better chance of responding wisely, however, if we understand how fascism succeeded in the past.
The Anatomy of Fascism
Robert O. Paxton
P17:
Hannah Arendt
Show More
observed that Mussolini "was probably the first party leader who consciously rejected a formal program and replaced it with inspired leadership and action alone" Origins, p. 325, n. 39[Yes, the "neither right nor left" was part of European politics a century ago]
P215:
...some countries with a powerful cultural preparation (France, for example) became fascist only by conquest (if then).
P220:
Fascism... is still visible today. Fascism exists at the level of Stage One within all democratic countries... "Giving up free institutions," especially the freedoms of unpopular groups, os recurrently attractive to citizens of Western democracies... We know from tracing its path that fascism does not require a spectacular "march" on some capital to take root; seemingly anodyne decisions to tolerate lawless treatment of national "enemies" is enough. Something very close to classical fascism has reached Stage Two in a few deeply troubled societies. Its further progress is not inevitable, however. Further fascist advances toward power depend in part upon the severity of a crisis, but also very largely upon human choices, especially the choices of those holding economic, social, and political power. Determining the appropriate responses to fascist gains is not easy, since its cycle is not likely to repeat itself blindly. We stand a much better chance of responding wisely, however, if we understand how fascism succeeded in the past.
Show Less
LibraryThing member MacDad
Over the past few years, the word "fascist" has been deployed increasingly to describe modern-day political movements in the United States, Hungary, Greece, and Italy, to name a few places. The word brings with it some of the most odious associations from the 20th century, namely Nazi Germany and
It was in part to answer that question that I picked up a copy of Robert O. Paxton's book. As a longtime historian of 20th century France and author of a seminal work on the Vichy regime, he brings a perspective to the question that is not predominantly Italian or German. This shows in the narrative, as his work uses fascist movements in nearly every European country to draw out commonalities that explain the fascist phenomenon. As he demonstrates, fascism can be traced as far back as the 1880s, with elements of it proposed by authors and politicians across Europe in order to mobilize the growing population of voters (thanks to new measures of enfranchisement) to causes other than communism. Until then, it was assumed by nearly everyone that such voters would be automatic supporters for socialist movements. Fascism proposed a different appeal, one based around nationalist elements which socialism ostensibly rejected.
Despite this, fascism remained undeveloped until it emerged in Italy in the aftermath of the First World War. This gave Benito Mussolini and his comrades a flexibility in crafting an appeal that won over the established elites in Italian politics and society. From this emerged a pattern that Paxton identifies in the emergence of fascism in both Italy and later in Germany, which was their acceptance by existing leaders as a precondition for power. Contrary to the myth of Mussolini's "March on Rome," nowhere did fascism take over by seizing power; instead they were offered it by conservative politicians as a solution to political turmoil and the threatened emergence of a radical left-wing alternative. It was the absence of an alternative on the right which led to the acceptance of fascism; where such alternatives (of a more traditional right-authoritarian variety) existed, fascism remained on the fringes. The nature of their ascent into power also defined the regimes that emerged, which were characterized by tension between fascists and more traditional conservatives, and often proved to be far less revolutionary in practice than their rhetoric promised.
Paxton's analysis is buttressed by a sure command of his subject. He ranges widely over the era, comparing and contrasting national groups in a way that allows him to come up an overarching analysis of it as a movement. All of this leads him to this final definition:
"Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion." (p. 218)
While elements of this are certainly present today, they are hardly unique to fascism and exist in various forms across the political spectrum. Just as important, as Paxton demonstrates, is the context: one in which existing institutions are so distrusted or discredited that the broader population is willing to sit by and watch as they are compromised, bypassed, or dismantled in the name of achieving fascism's goals. Paxton's arguments here, made a decade before Donald Trump first embarked on his candidacy, are as true now as they were then. Reading them helped me to appreciate better the challenge of fascism, both in interwar Europe and in our world today. Everyone seeking to understand it would do well to start with this perceptive and well-argued book.
Show More
the most devastating war in human history. Yet to what degree is the label appropriate and to what extent is it more melodramatic epithet than an appropriate description?It was in part to answer that question that I picked up a copy of Robert O. Paxton's book. As a longtime historian of 20th century France and author of a seminal work on the Vichy regime, he brings a perspective to the question that is not predominantly Italian or German. This shows in the narrative, as his work uses fascist movements in nearly every European country to draw out commonalities that explain the fascist phenomenon. As he demonstrates, fascism can be traced as far back as the 1880s, with elements of it proposed by authors and politicians across Europe in order to mobilize the growing population of voters (thanks to new measures of enfranchisement) to causes other than communism. Until then, it was assumed by nearly everyone that such voters would be automatic supporters for socialist movements. Fascism proposed a different appeal, one based around nationalist elements which socialism ostensibly rejected.
Despite this, fascism remained undeveloped until it emerged in Italy in the aftermath of the First World War. This gave Benito Mussolini and his comrades a flexibility in crafting an appeal that won over the established elites in Italian politics and society. From this emerged a pattern that Paxton identifies in the emergence of fascism in both Italy and later in Germany, which was their acceptance by existing leaders as a precondition for power. Contrary to the myth of Mussolini's "March on Rome," nowhere did fascism take over by seizing power; instead they were offered it by conservative politicians as a solution to political turmoil and the threatened emergence of a radical left-wing alternative. It was the absence of an alternative on the right which led to the acceptance of fascism; where such alternatives (of a more traditional right-authoritarian variety) existed, fascism remained on the fringes. The nature of their ascent into power also defined the regimes that emerged, which were characterized by tension between fascists and more traditional conservatives, and often proved to be far less revolutionary in practice than their rhetoric promised.
Paxton's analysis is buttressed by a sure command of his subject. He ranges widely over the era, comparing and contrasting national groups in a way that allows him to come up an overarching analysis of it as a movement. All of this leads him to this final definition:
"Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion." (p. 218)
While elements of this are certainly present today, they are hardly unique to fascism and exist in various forms across the political spectrum. Just as important, as Paxton demonstrates, is the context: one in which existing institutions are so distrusted or discredited that the broader population is willing to sit by and watch as they are compromised, bypassed, or dismantled in the name of achieving fascism's goals. Paxton's arguments here, made a decade before Donald Trump first embarked on his candidacy, are as true now as they were then. Reading them helped me to appreciate better the challenge of fascism, both in interwar Europe and in our world today. Everyone seeking to understand it would do well to start with this perceptive and well-argued book.
Show Less
LibraryThing member mcdenis
In the current toxic political environment in the United States the label Fascism is bandied about without much attention to its definition and dynamism. Paxton leads us through historical leaders and causal benchmakrs with academic presicion before actually defining Fascism. This parade through
Show More
history takes us through much of Europe and key figures like Hitler and Musollini and others of lessor importance and even shorter political endurance. Fascists were clever at mass manipulation and alliances but weak on substantive ideology. Common to every fascist rise to power was an existing dysfunctional political system, often corporate greed and a great devide between rich and poor. Many felt disenfranchised and were looking for a “leader”. Others whom we might term elitists were prone to collaborate for their own corporate financial well being. And always Facism promoted violence. This is a book worth reading as we approach making choices in our national elections. Show Less
LibraryThing member steve02476
Very readable analysis of Fascism, both the “successful” regimes of Hitler and Mussolini, and also the wide variety of fascist movements throughout the 20th century all through Europe and many other parts of the world. Good explanations of the “process” where fascism took over in Germany
Show More
and Italy. Also, explanations of how fascism differs from ‘normal’ dictatorships, military juntas, etc. Show Less
LibraryThing member RajivC
This book by Robert O. Paxton is excellent, readable and important. I learned many things when I read the book: the recent invention of fascism. He distinguishes between liberalism, etc., and fascism. The key difference is that liberalism targets intellectuals, while fascism targets the masses.
Robert Paxton helped us glean lessons from the actions - not speeches - of fascism. Unlike other writers who only studied Germany and Italy, he analyzed other countries where fascism didn't do well.
In the end, he left us with an excellent definition of fascism. This book is marvellous.
Show More
This difference is critical and helps to explain the mass appeal of fascism and its tools of propaganda. Robert Paxton helped us glean lessons from the actions - not speeches - of fascism. Unlike other writers who only studied Germany and Italy, he analyzed other countries where fascism didn't do well.
In the end, he left us with an excellent definition of fascism. This book is marvellous.
Show Less
LibraryThing member A.Godhelm
One of the best books on fascism I've read. It's general enough to be an introduction, but goes beyond the common surface tropes and actually tries to analyse the essence of the disparate fascisms that briefly existed. The book takes pains to recognize the overuse of the word as an ideological
Despite the deeper analysis the common threads of thought do appear throughout.
Show More
sledgehammer and tries to tease out more than the intentionalist view that makes a monolith of what was really a not very coherent group of ideological extremists. After an overview of the concept of fascism, the book gives overviews of the main lines of fascism - Italy and Germany, but also the lesser buds that died on the vine, and a crop of those that have been called fascist but share very little in common with the rest.Despite the deeper analysis the common threads of thought do appear throughout.
Show Less
Subjects
Awards
Language
Original language
English
Original publication date
2004
ISBN
9035127846 / 9789035127845