Authoritarian Regimes in the Long Twentieth Century: Preconditions, Structures, Continuities: Contributions to European Historical Dictatorship and Transformation Research ed. by Florian Kührer-Wielach and Oliver Rathkolb (review)

Reviewed by: Authoritarian Regimes in the Long Twentieth Century: Preconditions, Structures, Continuities: Contributions to European Historical Dictatorship and Transformation Research ed. by Florian Kührer-Wielach and Oliver Rathkolb Katlyn M. W. Rozovics Florian Kührer-Wielach and Oliver Rathkolb, eds., Authoritarian Regimes in the Long Twentieth Century: Preconditions, Structures, Continuities: Contributions to European Historical Dictatorship and Transformation Research. Zeitgeschichte 49, Vienna: Vienna UP, 2022. 208 pp. This edited collection of twelve essays, three of which are in German, are excerpted from the authors' dissertations, which were undertaken as part [End Page 127] of the European Historical Dictatorship and Transformation Research project (2009–2013). The essays are diverse, covering Central and Eastern European regimes in the twentieth century, yet many of them find common ground. Dreidemy and Thaler argue about the importance of myth and cult of personality in building an authoritarian regime. Soursos, Kouki, and Musil argue that state rituals, ceremonies, monuments, photography, and art exhibitions are extraordinary tools for legitimizing a regime and endearing the population to the leader. The arguments of Ebner, Soursos, and Dreidemy also highlight how authoritarianism can be sold to a population through a mixture of art, language, and mythos. Despite the wide range of nations and topics discussed, the unifying force of the collection is that it highlights the importance of interdisciplinary work and the success of comparative approaches to authoritarianism. The essays also follow common themes stated in the title, such as structure, continuity, and general contributions to authoritarian studies. On the theme of structure, Erker's piece, "The University of Vienna from 1933 to 1938 and the Dictatorship of Many Names," is an excellent micro-history of the University of Vienna, with the broader scope of Austrofascism in mind. By examining the internal structure of the university, Erker draws comparisons to the larger structure of the Austrian government and the process of becoming fascist. The university mirrors stages in the government's descent into authoritarianism; the republican parliament becomes authoritarian, National Socialist professors and students are pressed out of the institution, and then there is a return to National Socialism before the Anschluss. The processes that play out at the institutional level clarify the path to authoritarianism at the governmental level. On the theme of continuity, Zieliński's "The 'Golden Age' Narrative of Interwar Poland and its Effects on Democratization in 1989" is an intriguing piece on forging identity, forgetting, and making bridges to the past. The author brings up a particularly interesting point with the debate surrounding the Polish eagle on the national coat of arms. The return of the eagle reaches back in history to the Second Polish Republic, creating a bridge from the past to the present and emphasizing the continuities in Polish history. The newly forged democratic identity of the Polish state intentionally skips over the history of the People's Republic, with politicians even debating the arrangement of the eagle's feathers to avoid invocation of the Soviet five-pointed [End Page 128] star. In doing this, there is a sort of allergic reaction to symbols of authoritarianism. In the same eagle, though, a crown is bestowed, allowing for some symbols of authoritarianism—but only ones linked to the glorious past. Zieliński also helpfully suggests new avenues of research by the application of his research question to other eastern European nations. Soursos's essay, "Perceiving Fascism in Photographs of a Benign General," is a compelling examination of the "small dictatorship" of the Fourth of August regime in Greece. Metaxas's Greece is declared a "copycat" of fascist Italy, and therefore the article puts forth a comparative study between Greece and Italy with an emphasis on photographic similarities in state propaganda. The author raises parallels in these photos such as the Roman salute, the crowd of people in military dress, and the leader on steps. Soursos makes a convincing plea for comparison between authoritarian regimes using visual sources and the wider use of images by historians in their research. The collection could have benefited from a counterweight, even if only a single article. A discussion of England, which after all did not succumb to Oswald Mosely's British Union of Fascists, would have been compelling...