How can one man fall so far
>Supported by John Maynard Keynes
>Supported by George Bernard Shaw
>Supported by Aneurin Bevan
>Supported by Franklin D. Roosevelt
>Supported by all the major papers
>Supported by supporters of both the Conservative and Labour party
>The greatest comet of British politics in the twentieth century...an orator of the highest rank. He produced, almost unaided, a programme of economic reconstruction which surpassed anything offered by Lloyd George or, in the United States, by F. D. Roosevelt...He has continued fertile in ideas...A superb political thinker, the best of our age
>No rising star in the political firmament ever shone more brightly than Oswald Mosley, none promised more surely to soar to the heavens – and none fell to earth with so deadening a thud. Never were such rich talents so wretchedly squandered. Never did success turn to failure so inscrutably
He probably would have done much better if he hadn't tried to emulate Italian fascism so much.
The whole 'uniforms and shoulder button shirts' thing was very alien to British culture.
Forming the actual Blackshirts was his biggest mistake because it meant violence started by communists at Olympia could be turned around and blamed on him because of the harsh reaction of the blackshirts.
If he'd instead run it as a normal party, with a normal membership structure he could have had a shot at power.
I mean the shoulder buttoned black uniforms of the regular blackshirts. As well as the idea of having a paramilitary uniformed group in the first place.
It might have been fine to have him wear his officer-like uniform, but the regular issue uniforms frankly look too 'european'.
Same with Enoch too, later on. Both men were tipped as future Prime Ministers and as some of Parliaments greatest orators.
Mixture of his tendency towards violence and the fact most Brits just didn't find fascism appealing.
Moseley had a natural tendency to prove points through aggression, and it fit into the fascist ideolology, so he had his blackshirts go out of their way to cause fights, such as at Olympia or at Cable Street. This turned public perception against him
OP missed out that he was popular as a member of the Labour party and started becoming unpopular after he got kicked out and started associating with fascism.
In many ways he was fucked over by the political consensus at the time, Moseley wanted to nationalise all the major industries and was kicked out of the labour party for being too extreme. He was originally attracted to fascism because it would allow him to do this. The ironic thing is that the first thing the Labour government did after WW2 was nationalise all the major industries.
Conditions in Britain were way too stable compared to Italy. Mussolini had perfect conditions. He had economic stagnation, increased socialist activity, a king who was scared of ending up like Nicholas II of Russia and irredentism.
Mosley was working with a culture who loved the status quo.
We actually had economic stagnation and increased socialist activity too, and we almost had a fascist king at one point. It was probably down more to the fact our political system was relatively stable, if you're worried about socialists, why turn to fascists when the conservative party is there?
they got the shit kicked out them at cable street lawl
Fascists had 2-3000 whereas the antifascists had 100,000 though to be fair
Have you seen the picture of ANIFTA facing up to Generation Identity in Vienna?
Fucking hilarious. GI is these tall, strong, well dressed, beautiful men and women with flags being calm and orderly; ANIFTA is all poorly dressed slobs, dyed hair, yelling etc.
Sure. It's not just the bunch of Jews from the district eh?
The leaders were from the local communist party.
The big Jewish organizations just told Jewish people to stay away from the rally. That said, a lot of Jew showed up to help the communists beat up the fascists.
for anyone interested in British Fascism:
Cronin, Mike, ed. The Failure of British Fascism: The Far Right and the Fight for Political Recognition. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan, 1996.
>Nine new essays, including some by such experts on generic fascism as Roger Eatwell and Roger Griffin, as well as such specialists on British fascism as Martin Durham and Richard Thurlow. Covers the entire period from the 1920s to the 1990s. Seeks to challenge the conventional wisdom by featuring the impact fascism has had in Britain as opposed to its failures, so often taken as virtually inevitable, in light of British political traditions.
Gottlieb, Julie V., and Thomas P. Linehan, eds. The Culture of Fascism: Visions of the Far Right in Britain. London: I. B. Tauris, 2004.
>A collection of eleven original essays, edited by two of the leading figures in British fascist studies. Taking the political marginality of British fascism for granted, the authors in this collection assess the wider cultural sources and import of fascist impulses in Britain. Most treat the interwar period, but some range into the years since 1945. Topics range from masculinity and uniforms to theater and film. Provides a good introduction to recent debates in fascist studies in Britain.
Griffiths, Richard. Fellow Travellers of the Right: British Enthusiasts for Nazi Germany, 1933–1939. London: Constable, 1980.
>A largely chronological account, beginning with the continuing admiration for Mussolini among British conservatives by the time Hitler came to power. Finds British enthusiasm for Nazi Germany to have extended well beyond self-proclaimed fascists. Such enthusiasm peaked in 1936–1937 and was declining sharply by 1939. Distinguishes enthusiasts from appeasers, though finds it hard to generalize about what people admired in Nazi Germany. Concerned more with public opinion than with governmental decision making, though shows that public opinion affected such decision making.
forgot free dl to second title:
Pugh, Martin. “Hurrah for the Blackshirts!” Fascists and Fascism in Britain between the Wars. London: Jonathan Cape, 2005.
>An engaging study intended for the general reader, argues that when we turn from a specialized focus on this or that individual group, fascism appears more central to the overall narrative of interwar Britain than has generally been recognized. Insists that British fascism was involved in an ongoing exchange of ideas and personnel with the conservatives on the Right. Even as features indigenous sources, stresses the ongoing import of the Italian model, taken as a far stronger influence than Nazi Germany.
Linehan, Thomas. British Fascism, 1918–1939: Parties, Ideology and Culture. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 2000.
>Although the BUF proves central, offers a comprehensive treatment covering background as well as movements exerting various modes of influence prior to the formation of the BUF in 1932. Considers how interaction with fascists abroad reinforced indigenous tendencies. Attentive not only to politics, but also to the impact of fascism on culture, including the visual arts, especially as it entailed anti-Semitism and opposition to much of artistic modernism, taken as morbid and symptomatic of decline and decay.
>Using archival materials, Thurlow traces the history of British fascism, including the British Fascists, the British Union of Fascists, and the Imperial Fascist League, which he concludes did not pose a serious threat. Also examines the formation of the extreme right British National Front.
Baldoli, Claudia. 2003. Exporting fascism: Italian fascists and Britain’s Italians in the 1930s. Oxford and New York: Berg.
>Using archival materials, Gottlieb documents Mussolini’s attempts to bring fascism to Britain through the establishment of schools and camps to serve the thirty thousand Italians living there, circulation of a weekly fascist newspaper, L’Italia Nostra, and through its ambassador’s (Dino Grandi) relations with the British Union of Fascists, the British right, and Italian expatriates.
Macklin, Graham. 2007. Very deeply dyed in black: Sir Oswald Mosley and the resurrection of British fascism after 1945. London and New York: I. B. Tauris.
>Many fascism scholars have overlooked Mosley’s Union Movement, which he formed after the war, or they have argued that Mosley thereafter abandoned biological racism and anti-Semitism. Macklin provides evidence that Mosley engaged in Holocaust denial and developed a pan-European vision rooted in biological racism.
Renton, Dave. 2000. Fascism, anti-fascism, and Britain in the 1940s. New York: St. Martin’s.
>Using primary sources, Renton examines the ideology and activities (institutional and direct action) of anti-fascists in Britain in the 1940s, particularly after the birth of Mosley’s Union Movement in 1948. A valuable analysis of the relationship between fascism and anti-fascism and for understanding the foundation of anti-fascism in Britain today.
Thurlow, Richard C. Fascism in Modern Britain. Stroud, UK: Sutton, 2000.
>The author of the standard history of British fascism, published first in 1987, then in a revised edition in 1998, offers a briefer treatment here. In covering origins, emphasizes left-wing roots. Goes on to consider developments in the interwar period and into World War II. Devotes considerable space to continuities and to the role of fascism after 1945, with due attention to the problem of characterizing new forms of racial populism.
If you're interested in Mosley in particular, Mosley and the new party is worth a read for sure, look into the early days of his flirtation with fascism through 1931, the year of the new party
Worley, Mathew, 2010. Oswald Mosley and the New Party. Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke
>In 1931, as Britain's economy sunk further into depression, Sir Oswald Mosley made a fateful decision. Having served in Ramsay MacDonald's minority Labour government, he chose to secede from the Labour Party and launch a new political initiative. This was the New Party, inspired by the economic theories of John Maynard Keynes and the emergent modern movements on the continent. Though ultimately a spectacular failure, the New Party burned brightly if briefly. It helped pave the way for a wider debate on the possibilities of economic planning; it simultaneously led Mosley into the realm of fascism. Throughout this process, Mosley sought counsel from many of the period's most well-known personalities. As Mosley searched to find a solution to Britain's economic ails, he drew inspiration from the likes of George Bernard Shaw and H. G. Wells; he looked to secure the backing of Lord Beaverbrook and Lord Rothermere; he endeavoured to strike political deals with Winston Churchill and Lloyd George whilst also hoping to draw on the support of young, radical politicians such as Aneurin Bevan, John Strachey and Bo Boothby. In the event, the New Party's appeal proved ephemeral. Nevertheless, its brief history proved integral to Mosley's adoption of the blackshirt. It was in the New Party that British fascism was formed in embryo; it was in the New Party that Mosley raised the slogan of a corporate state and struggled to conceive a new form of politics that transcended the perceived limits of parliamentary democracy.
Free download too, the actual book is extortionate to buy: http://libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=C78B156F989F8F06147CA9D6B482BC09
The council, like many others in England, has essentially been gerrymandered through mass immigration. It's around 90% ethnically none-European, and also overwhelmingly muslim, group that vote Labour no matter what.
You've got to feel sorry for the Labour party, they're a factional mess these days
Blairites - Centrist Tony Blair lovers
Old Labour - Left wing socialists, still prone to factionalism
Local councils - Branches of the Labour party in these gerrymandered councils pushing the agenda of the group which now makes up the majority
Yeah it's sad to be honest. Don't have much love for them but it's still sad to see a once respected national institution reduced to trotskyite infighting, as well as developing a penchant for postal vote fraud and machine politics in certain 'diverse' areas of the country.
He's old Labour economically, though with more of a modern progressive spin to it, you don't see him out there campaigning for multiculturalism or anything like that, but you don't see him out there actively supporting it or anything of the life. I like a lot of his economic policies, but I disagree with the man on foreign policy, he tries just a bit too hard to compromise with the Irish and Argentines, don't mind how he wants to work things out in the Middle East at least. All I can say is, he's at least better than any leader they've had since 1997.
The Liberal party suffered the same thing after WWI, actually splitting into free nominally independent factions for a long time, the Coalition/National Liberals, the Liberals, and the Independent Liberals, having already lost the Liberal Unionists in 1886.
And the Liberals have never made a strong comeback since WWI, all they've had was a brief alliance with Labour under Callaghan, coalition with Labour in the Scottish parliament 1999-2007, and then their coalition with the Conservatives in government 2010-2015
Meanwhile the Tories have just kept themselves together through brute force every time, just like the tariff debate at the turn of the century, the party is clearly split in two over a similar issue (the EU this time), but they've kept themselves together, always having been a top down party with high powered leadership, when the Conservatives have a split they normally don't break up, just do horribly in an election like in 1906
What's with this assumption that the British people are naturally inclined towards fascism?
Why do you think a country which:
-prides itself on its democratic tradition, to the extent of which many Brits consider modern democracy to be a British idea
-had a long history of groups struggling to extend suffrage, such as the chartists or suffragettes who had been a major presence in the country for decades
-had just gotten out of what it considered ''the war to end all wars'', to the extent of which they genuinely wanted to never go to war again
would be attracted to an ideology which is anti-democracy and pro-violence and war?