Does anyone think that there could be much of a chance for Great Britain to elect Oswald Mosely, etc. to form a government? What sort of changes would have to occur in order for this to be plausible - worse effects of the Stock Market crash? Also, I don't know much about the British fascists, but I'm guessing that they were less racial in tone than Hitler's National Socialists (more along the lines of the Italians, I would guess). Perhaps the fascist powers agree that there should be some sort of 'settlement' of the Danzig question. I'm not sure what else might be accomplished: a full blown alliance with Germany on the one hand doesn't seem too impossible, but on the other, the nastiness of the National Socialists might be a turn off for the middle class and the working class.
fascist Britain
- Thread starter unsunghero
- Start date
I think you will also need a change sin the makeup and politics of the East End of London. It was and still is an extremely diverse community and poitically active and generally left-wing. Anything that looks even vaguely like the Nazis is goign to cause a lot of trouble. Moesley's election is instantly going to be followed by large scale riots round here (I work in Newham you see and round here people are very proud of their stance against Moesley)
Oswald Mosely, while a fascinating character, is something of a red herring if you want a British fascism- quite simply there's never a chance in hell that he's ever going to get into power in his fascist guise. As a dynamic and reforming leader of the Labour party, perhaps, but that's a different TL (ATL 1931 election slogan; "New Labour- taking Britain Forward, not Back"? 
)
The closest thing Britain has to plausible, mainstream Fascism with a chance of power isn't to be found on the lunatic fringe- you're better off looking at the less democratic elements of the establishment such as the "backwoodsmen" of the 1911-1912 constitutional crisis. As Phillips says in this article in the JBS (http://snipurl.com/eqz9) and in a longer book that I know he wrote on the subject but I can't find the reference for, far from being inbred rural idiots the obstructionist peers were actually very politically active and can be seen as the driving force of the radical right in Britain.
These peers, and others like them could certainly be described as Fascist, or at least proto-Fascist- they were deeply concerned with the apparent moral and economic decline of Britain compared to other great powers, and advocated national rebirth through a dramatic expansion of the armed forces, the establisment of a welfare state, curtailment of the Unions and Labour in general, etc etc.
How to get them, and others like them in power in the interwar period? The general strike seems the best bet. The best thing I can recommend is to read this thread from SHWI- http://snipurl.com/eqzd . It's brilliant stuff, and gives a pretty definitive conclusion on the best way to get a Fascist (or at least Fascist-syle) Britain in the 1920's and 1930's.
) The closest thing Britain has to plausible, mainstream Fascism with a chance of power isn't to be found on the lunatic fringe- you're better off looking at the less democratic elements of the establishment such as the "backwoodsmen" of the 1911-1912 constitutional crisis. As Phillips says in this article in the JBS (http://snipurl.com/eqz9) and in a longer book that I know he wrote on the subject but I can't find the reference for, far from being inbred rural idiots the obstructionist peers were actually very politically active and can be seen as the driving force of the radical right in Britain.
These peers, and others like them could certainly be described as Fascist, or at least proto-Fascist- they were deeply concerned with the apparent moral and economic decline of Britain compared to other great powers, and advocated national rebirth through a dramatic expansion of the armed forces, the establisment of a welfare state, curtailment of the Unions and Labour in general, etc etc.
How to get them, and others like them in power in the interwar period? The general strike seems the best bet. The best thing I can recommend is to read this thread from SHWI- http://snipurl.com/eqzd . It's brilliant stuff, and gives a pretty definitive conclusion on the best way to get a Fascist (or at least Fascist-syle) Britain in the 1920's and 1930's.
How to get them, and others like them in power in the interwar period? The general strike seems the best bet. The best thing I can recommend is to read this thread from SHWI- http://snipurl.com/eqzd . It's brilliant stuff, and gives a pretty definitive conclusion on the best way to get a Fascist (or at least Fascist-syle) Britain in the 1920's and 1930's.
Sadly I could not access this article. Anyone know of other links in a similar vein?
However I would be vary of confusing fascism with assorted arch-conservative and reactionary views. Today them seem so different to what we know that they seem of the same ilk, in fact fascism and arch-conseratism are quite different.
The arch-conservatives tended to find this out too late, to their cost!!
In Britain, as elsewhere in Europe arch-conservatives could certainly have proved a vehicle for letting the radical right into power.
Sadly I could not access this article. Anyone know of other links in a similar vein?
However I would be vary of confusing fascism with assorted arch-conservative and reactionary views. Today them seem so different to what we know that they seem of the same ilk, in fact fascism and arch-conseratism are quite different.
The arch-conservatives tended to find this out too late, to their cost!!
In Britain, as elsewhere in Europe arch-conservatives could certainly have proved a vehicle for letting the radical right into power.
On the potential confusion between reactionary aristocrats, arch conservatives etc and Fascists;
The 'backwoodsmen' of the 1910's were not reactionary old duffers of the sort that enabled the rise of Fascism in say Germany, seeing them as a good means of stopping a Communist seizure of power- they were the radical right and had the same simultaneous distaste for democracy and liking for large government that the Fascists did. There were differences of course, which is why I'd term them proto-fascists rather then fascists per se, but the similarities are striking. Of course there were plenty of 'Sir Bufton Tufton' characters in the Lords as well, but to lump these reactionaries in with the radical right is a big mistake, although an easy one to make.
My point is that there's really no plausible way (short of a PoD sometime in the 19th century) that you're going to get traditional continental-style Fascism in inter-war Britain with jackboots, a rejection of many elements of past society and friendship with Germany. It is however very (actually scarily) easy to get yourself a Britain that could objectively be called Fascist in the period, although it would not use that term to describe itself.
I'd argue that Fascism, being an essentially nationalist phenomenon, is obviously going to differ sharply in its different national incarnations- contrast Nazism to Italian Fascism or the Spanish Falange. Each shares some basic similarities but differ widely in style and detail. British Fascism is naturally going to be as dependent on the national myth, perceptions of nationhood and national character etc as any other form of Fascism. In Britain's case, this means unswerving support for the Empire, the Monarchy etc-
Such a movement isn't going to have a revolutionary tinge as in Germany or Italy, instead it needs to come from authority. We're not talking mass rallies, dodgy racial theories and all the trappings of Nazism here though- British *Fascism is going to be more "Pomp and circumstance" then "Horst Wessel Lied". Think Ian McKellen in Richard III (http://desires.com/2.0b3/Perf/Movies/Richard/Images/rich.jpg), although more subtle.
It's a real pity that the link I gave doesn't work, as it summarises the idea far better then I possibly could; try this one just on the off chance. http://groups-beta.google.com/group...fascist+Britain&rnum=9&hl=en#6740e89723a5a2ca
I think this quote best sums up the conclusions the group came to;
Alan Lothian <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:230720020000474953%nobody@nowhere.com:
"This TL has Winston Churchill leading Fascist Britain after nasty
general strike in 1926, with vast war veteran support and probably
(Churchill did have some real political skills) sucking in Cook. (TUC
leader 1926. Note that Churchill could have done the demagogic
transition from putting down strikers to we are all one big family...we
almost certainly need a charismatic politican for this and Ramsey
Macdonald is not he.)...
...British Fascism turns out to be really cool and not racist. (The
Italians almost managed that, btw. Not the coolness, the unracistness.)
Near-hysterical cheers and much throwing of flowers as the 33rd West
Indian Division marches through London after its famous despoiling of
Bremen. Becomes fashionable in certain circles to have a black baby.
This not as weird as may seem, btw. And if it happens, makes the
Fascist British Empire really scarily capable.
Fascist Britain also has a large number of senior Labour Party people
in its inner circles. Needless to say.
Note that relative lack of racism in British Fascism does not imply
lack of snobbery. Absolutely the opposite. Raja-types, not
Gandhi-types, in the Imperial Parliament. Snobbish as all hell, with
about the same chance of jumping up a social level as in 18th-century
OTL Britistan. Which is to say, not too bad a chance if you are brave,
greedy and lucky. Racism subdued for the purpose of jobbing snobbism
and world empire..... wow. How do you think the Brits seized India with
about 12 sober people in the 1750s? (The unsober chaps did most of he
job, but there weren't very many of them.)
Bad news if you don't like the new state, of course. Rubber truncheons?
We used to dream of the happy days of rubber truncheons. You're off to
a camp in Scotland, equipped with a teaspoon and ordered to move Ben
Left to Ben Right. But black, brown or whatever is not a problem for
the British Fascist state. Huge influx of German Jewish physicists who
can make more superbombs in ten minutes than....they can put up with
nasty Jewish jokes from troops of the 33rd WI getting rat-arsed in
London."
Long quote, but it kind of shows the route a Fasicst Britain has to take IMO.
The 'backwoodsmen' of the 1910's were not reactionary old duffers of the sort that enabled the rise of Fascism in say Germany, seeing them as a good means of stopping a Communist seizure of power- they were the radical right and had the same simultaneous distaste for democracy and liking for large government that the Fascists did. There were differences of course, which is why I'd term them proto-fascists rather then fascists per se, but the similarities are striking. Of course there were plenty of 'Sir Bufton Tufton' characters in the Lords as well, but to lump these reactionaries in with the radical right is a big mistake, although an easy one to make.
My point is that there's really no plausible way (short of a PoD sometime in the 19th century) that you're going to get traditional continental-style Fascism in inter-war Britain with jackboots, a rejection of many elements of past society and friendship with Germany. It is however very (actually scarily) easy to get yourself a Britain that could objectively be called Fascist in the period, although it would not use that term to describe itself.
I'd argue that Fascism, being an essentially nationalist phenomenon, is obviously going to differ sharply in its different national incarnations- contrast Nazism to Italian Fascism or the Spanish Falange. Each shares some basic similarities but differ widely in style and detail. British Fascism is naturally going to be as dependent on the national myth, perceptions of nationhood and national character etc as any other form of Fascism. In Britain's case, this means unswerving support for the Empire, the Monarchy etc-
Such a movement isn't going to have a revolutionary tinge as in Germany or Italy, instead it needs to come from authority. We're not talking mass rallies, dodgy racial theories and all the trappings of Nazism here though- British *Fascism is going to be more "Pomp and circumstance" then "Horst Wessel Lied". Think Ian McKellen in Richard III (http://desires.com/2.0b3/Perf/Movies/Richard/Images/rich.jpg), although more subtle.
It's a real pity that the link I gave doesn't work, as it summarises the idea far better then I possibly could; try this one just on the off chance. http://groups-beta.google.com/group...fascist+Britain&rnum=9&hl=en#6740e89723a5a2ca
I think this quote best sums up the conclusions the group came to;
Alan Lothian <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:230720020000474953%nobody@nowhere.com:
"This TL has Winston Churchill leading Fascist Britain after nasty
general strike in 1926, with vast war veteran support and probably
(Churchill did have some real political skills) sucking in Cook. (TUC
leader 1926. Note that Churchill could have done the demagogic
transition from putting down strikers to we are all one big family...we
almost certainly need a charismatic politican for this and Ramsey
Macdonald is not he.)...
...British Fascism turns out to be really cool and not racist. (The
Italians almost managed that, btw. Not the coolness, the unracistness.)
Near-hysterical cheers and much throwing of flowers as the 33rd West
Indian Division marches through London after its famous despoiling of
Bremen. Becomes fashionable in certain circles to have a black baby.
This not as weird as may seem, btw. And if it happens, makes the
Fascist British Empire really scarily capable.
Fascist Britain also has a large number of senior Labour Party people
in its inner circles. Needless to say.
Note that relative lack of racism in British Fascism does not imply
lack of snobbery. Absolutely the opposite. Raja-types, not
Gandhi-types, in the Imperial Parliament. Snobbish as all hell, with
about the same chance of jumping up a social level as in 18th-century
OTL Britistan. Which is to say, not too bad a chance if you are brave,
greedy and lucky. Racism subdued for the purpose of jobbing snobbism
and world empire..... wow. How do you think the Brits seized India with
about 12 sober people in the 1750s? (The unsober chaps did most of he
job, but there weren't very many of them.)
Bad news if you don't like the new state, of course. Rubber truncheons?
We used to dream of the happy days of rubber truncheons. You're off to
a camp in Scotland, equipped with a teaspoon and ordered to move Ben
Left to Ben Right. But black, brown or whatever is not a problem for
the British Fascist state. Huge influx of German Jewish physicists who
can make more superbombs in ten minutes than....they can put up with
nasty Jewish jokes from troops of the 33rd WI getting rat-arsed in
London."
Long quote, but it kind of shows the route a Fasicst Britain has to take IMO.
We may be debating semantics. But I do not even think proto-fascist is appropriate.
You have identified the backswoodsmen as:
nationalist
anti-democratic
anti trade union
big government
and I would guess well into patriarchy.
Well, so was Stalin!!! So were vast numbers of other people in the first half of the 20th century. We do not remember them, or, like Stalin, we remember them for different elements of their beliefs.
Proto-fascist implies the belief system leads to fascism (as a next line of theoretical development if not practical.)
This seems most unlikely.
This system seems more like the Hindenburg-Schleicher regime in 30-32 Germany (Germany was a far-right dictatorship before the Nazis got there.)
A good example of the great diversity of hard right thought is Oppenhoff, the American appointed mayor of Aachen murdered by the werewolves in 1945, he was anti-democratic, anti-trade union, pro-established elites running things as beneficent patricians, he was also virulently anti-Nazi.
This was a regime was dominated by the old elites. Like the British authoritarian system you describe
not 100% sure about the backwoodsmen being pro-welfare state either I must say. Unless we are talking about slightly different groups of people
Italian Fascism and Nazism are differentiated by mass party membership and a genuine commitment to totalitarianism and state control of huge swathes of people's leisure time and social activities.
Where can we read more of the fascist Britain timeline you quote from?
the other link worked by the way
You have identified the backswoodsmen as:
nationalist
anti-democratic
anti trade union
big government
and I would guess well into patriarchy.
Well, so was Stalin!!! So were vast numbers of other people in the first half of the 20th century. We do not remember them, or, like Stalin, we remember them for different elements of their beliefs.
Proto-fascist implies the belief system leads to fascism (as a next line of theoretical development if not practical.)
This seems most unlikely.
This system seems more like the Hindenburg-Schleicher regime in 30-32 Germany (Germany was a far-right dictatorship before the Nazis got there.)
A good example of the great diversity of hard right thought is Oppenhoff, the American appointed mayor of Aachen murdered by the werewolves in 1945, he was anti-democratic, anti-trade union, pro-established elites running things as beneficent patricians, he was also virulently anti-Nazi.
This was a regime was dominated by the old elites. Like the British authoritarian system you describe
not 100% sure about the backwoodsmen being pro-welfare state either I must say. Unless we are talking about slightly different groups of people
Italian Fascism and Nazism are differentiated by mass party membership and a genuine commitment to totalitarianism and state control of huge swathes of people's leisure time and social activities.
Where can we read more of the fascist Britain timeline you quote from?
the other link worked by the way
Wozza said:
Fair point- it's something of a grey area, isn't it? Which is why a specific term for this ATL's political philosophy would be quite handy- I agree Fascism isn't the right word but can think of nothing immediately better. New Imperialist? The sort of British regime I envisage wouldn't be a hugely ideological one, which doesn't help- although I can see Churchill calling for a form of 'national socialism' for the sake of irony. The SHWI thread eventually settled on the term 'UnFascist' for such a state, which I suppose is as good as any alternative. I just don't think you can get an ideologically Fascist state in Britan without serious changes a lot earlier on- what is certainly possible though is an authoritarian 'national' government which adopts many of the characteristics of Fascism while retaining the semblance of the old order.
Perhaps describing many backwoodsmen as 'pro-welfare state' is something of a bad choice of words- however, the Edwardian radical right were very enthusiastic about state intervention, to the point where their welfare policies were often indistinguishable from 'New Liberal' thought. An example- in 1903, ‘Die Hard’ influence on their old alma maters made the Head-Teachers’ conference of 1903 adopt a resolution recommending the introduction of military-style drilling and marching within the public schools that made up the membership of the organisation. The embarassment of the vast numbers of volunteers turned away during the Boer war for being malnourished also made many of those calling for a 'national reawakening' (Lord Willoughby's words) very enthusiastic about public health legislation.
As for the TL I quoted from, the bulk of it is in the thread I linked to- it's also worth going on to google groups and searching for 'unfascist' as the original thread spawned a series of further discussions on the subject. Sadly it was never turned into something specific- all the ideas are there though and it makes for some fascinating reading.