john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,780 
|
Post by john07 on Nov 1, 2014 11:28:15 GMT
I saw a lecture on U-tube about Moseley that suggested the reason he backed off at Cable Street was that he was due to get married to Diana Mitford a few days later in the home of Joseph Goebbels with Adolf Hitler as a witness. He was not going to disrupt his plans for confronting the authorities.
That reinforced my view that Moseley was more of an 'amateur dictator' in the style of Spode in the Jeeves and Wooster books and not a Hitler or Mussolini.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Nov 1, 2014 11:48:22 GMT
Can we all just note:
Mosley not Moseley
|
|
|
|
Post by Tangent on Nov 1, 2014 19:11:21 GMT
I fear that it is a tad too sanguine. There was a very good book/film in the 60s called It Happened Here - yes IMO it could have (and let's not forget that in the Channel Islands, to at least a degree it *did*) Indeed. The other thing is that not all the collaborative regimes in Europe were run by Fascists- indeed, in some the fascists were kept at arm's length. Plenty of other people from all parts of the political spectrum joined in. I forget who it was, but someone once described Vichy as the revenge of the rejected. And it was Laval I think who said that the Third Republic had "vomited up" the leading figures of Vichy. Indeed. Where they were not aiming to reduce a nation to a state of permanent servitude, as with Poland, the Nazis needed to attempt to co-opt what was left of the political mainstream to their views. People like Quisling simply had far too narrow a political base. A British government under occupation would have been formed on the same lines, and could easily have included people who actually served in Churchill's government. Like Hácha in Bohemia & Moravia, they could find themselves forced into making increasing concessions to collaboration by the force of events. |
|
right
Conservative
Posts: 18,763
|
Post by right on Nov 1, 2014 19:29:38 GMT
Indeed. The other thing is that not all the collaborative regimes in Europe were run by Fascists- indeed, in some the fascists were kept at arm's length. Plenty of other people from all parts of the political spectrum joined in. I forget who it was, but someone once described Vichy as the revenge of the rejected. And it was Laval I think who said that the Third Republic had "vomited up" the leading figures of Vichy. Indeed. Where they were not aiming to reduce a nation to a state of permanent servitude, as with Poland, the Nazis needed to attempt to co-opt what was left of the political mainstream to their views. People like Quisling simply had far too narrow a political base. A British government under occupation would have been formed on the same lines, and could easily have included people who actually served in Churchill's government. Like Hácha in Bohemia & Moravia, they could find themselves forced into making increasing concessions to collaboration by the force of events. There was also Lloyd George who, apparently, did not serve in Churchill's government because he thought that the government would have to make concessions to the Germans and he was getting prepared for that. |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Nov 2, 2014 10:17:37 GMT
Indeed. The other thing is that not all the collaborative regimes in Europe were run by Fascists- indeed, in some the fascists were kept at arm's length. Plenty of other people from all parts of the political spectrum joined in. I forget who it was, but someone once described Vichy as the revenge of the rejected. And it was Laval I think who said that the Third Republic had "vomited up" the leading figures of Vichy. Indeed. Where they were not aiming to reduce a nation to a state of permanent servitude, as with Poland, the Nazis needed to attempt to co-opt what was left of the political mainstream to their views. People like Quisling simply had far too narrow a political base. A British government under occupation would have been formed on the same lines, and could easily have included people who actually served in Churchill's government. Like Hácha in Bohemia & Moravia, they could find themselves forced into making increasing concessions to collaboration by the force of events. Totally agree. Just looking at France alone, the regime included, or embraced, at different times: - Socialist renegades like Deat and Laval. - Orthodox right-wingers like Flandin. - Dubious chancers like Darlan. Charles Williams' excellent biography makes it clear that a lot of the ideas advanced by Petain personally, and some of those he imposed, were de rigueur for a section of the pre-war centre-right, and on economic and social policy there was little difference between Petain and De Gaulle. Indeed, despite Vichy being regarded as illegal, a surprising amount of Vichy-era legislation was deliberately left in place. |
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,780
|
Post by john07 on Nov 2, 2014 10:36:55 GMT
Indeed. Where they were not aiming to reduce a nation to a state of permanent servitude, as with Poland, the Nazis needed to attempt to co-opt what was left of the political mainstream to their views. People like Quisling simply had far too narrow a political base. A British government under occupation would have been formed on the same lines, and could easily have included people who actually served in Churchill's government. Like Hácha in Bohemia & Moravia, they could find themselves forced into making increasing concessions to collaboration by the force of events. Totally agree. Just looking at France alone, the regime included, or embraced, at different times: - Socialist renegades like Deat and Laval. - Orthodox right-wingers like Flandin. - Dubious chancers like Darlan. Charles Williams' excellent biography makes it clear that a lot of the ideas advanced by Petain personally, and some of those he imposed, were de rigueur for a section of the pre-war centre-right, and on economic and social policy there was little difference between Petain and De Gaulle. Indeed, despite Vichy being regarded as illegal, a surprising amount of Vichy-era legislation was deliberately left in place. Including the separation of Loire Atlantic Department from Brittany.. |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Nov 2, 2014 10:48:41 GMT
Totally agree. Just looking at France alone, the regime included, or embraced, at different times: - Socialist renegades like Deat and Laval. - Orthodox right-wingers like Flandin. - Dubious chancers like Darlan. Charles Williams' excellent biography makes it clear that a lot of the ideas advanced by Petain personally, and some of those he imposed, were de rigueur for a section of the pre-war centre-right, and on economic and social policy there was little difference between Petain and De Gaulle. Indeed, despite Vichy being regarded as illegal, a surprising amount of Vichy-era legislation was deliberately left in place. Including the separation of Loire Atlantic Department from Brittany.. A terrible decision- and one you'd think that the nephew of one of the leading Celticist scholars would revoke when he was president, given how much he traded on his uncle's legacy when he was in Brittany. De Gaulle re-legalised rugby league, but inexplicably the following governments (including his own) forced it to call itself "jeu a treize" until 1991. |
|
cibwr
Plaid Cymru
Posts: 3,589
|
Post by cibwr on Nov 2, 2014 11:13:31 GMT
Including the separation of Loire Atlantic Department from Brittany.. Indeed |
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,780
|
Post by john07 on Nov 8, 2014 11:10:47 GMT
I saw a lecture on U-tube about Moseley that suggested the reason he backed off at Cable Street was that he was due to get married to Diana Mitford a few days later in the home of Joseph Goebbels with Adolf Hitler as a witness. He was not going to disrupt his plans for confronting the authorities. That reinforced my view that Moseley was more of an 'amateur dictator' in the style of Spode in the Jeeves and Wooster books and not a Hitler or Mussolini. Spode was based on Mosley wasn't he? Certainly was. I am not sure if Mosley made his money by designing ladies underwear though? |
|
