While the discussions relating to changes in current military strategy is a summary only of limited effectiveness that nothing significant added to the literature, unlike those relating to the definition of populism as oclocratia are of great interest at least as much as the parallelism between pacifism and place populism, comparison made on the lack of realism (although the author claims to openly share instances of the ideal anti-globalization movement). In this regard, in terms of elaboration of the methodological assumptions of the test-Gianuli emphasizes the absence of the anti-globalization movement a significant impact in relation to reality 'current impact was on the contrary increased in size by the Sixty-eight of the author and 'an ardent supporter. Moreover, the almost apologetic defense of the welfare state and the radical rejection of supranational economic oligarchies, are fully covered in the constellation of ideological movement of the sixty-eight. After you have paid so grossly superficial the epistemological premises of methodological individualism of Von Mises and Von Hayek without taking into account the complexity 'of their thinking and interpreting as crypto-fascist (thus confirming the traditional prejudice of the far left on the equivalence between fascism and liberalism), with equal rapidity 'strongly condemns the historiographical contributions of Furet and Nolte characterizing not only as the original low but above all as a shining example of historiographical enslaved to a specific political intent, and therefore lacks the necessary thickness scientifico.In reality ', Gianuli not only fails to realize that the same charge could easily be paid to his contributions to historiography but fails to note how the noltiana furetiana historiography and represents a formidable competitor to the Marxist (among other things, the comments made in Furet only only a paraphrase of those Losurdo). On the contrary, against De Felice, although grudgingly forced to acknowledge the obvious merit-ing of ambition in relation to the demystification of the myth defeliciana Resistance, thus confirming the ideological heavy mortgage burden on his essay, on the other hand easily detectable both dall'apologetico comment Spriano historiographical work is completely negative assessment of the contributions of Pomegranates and Pansa summarily dismissed and so sprezzante.Per Gianuli regard to considerations relating to the writings of De Lutiis Flamigni and top-performers in the strategy of tension-left, while not sharing the authors' thesis according to which carrier would have been a director only after the massacres of the state, however, agrees with the overall system, thus confirming once again the profound ideological biases-that feed his historiographical essays (we refer to the avoidance of doubt and to those antiwar antiatlantici). The same superficiality 'and partisanship' are found both in the assumptions made by the author complottistica-by-case Mitrokin British intelligence on both to those reflections Hundington.Ebbene-in our opinion, the only considerations are the most interesting are those concerning historical fasificazione tools (among such as falsification of data, reticence, handling and mounting suggestive) around which the essay was to polarize, rather than leaving room for the political opinions of the author-wise and those on the political manipulation of the Nuremberg Trials made by Israel . In conclusion, despite the statements of principle on the absolute need 'to distinguish clearly between legitimate use-politically-history and abuse it, the author's essay is an illuminating testimony of abuse history.
GAGLIANO GIUSEPPE
