The rise of nationalist-populist regimes throughout the world echoes developments in the first half of the twentieth century. That experiment ended in disaster, but are we about to do it all again? In his book 'Hitler: A Study in Tyranny', Alan Bullock examines the forces that brought Hitler to power and almost destroyed Europe.
'Hitler: A Study in Tyranny' is available from Amazon.
The view has often been expressed that Hitler could only have come to power in Germany, and it is true - without falling into the same error of racialism as the Nazis - that there were certain features of German historical development, quite apart from the effects of the Defeat and the Depression, which favoured the rise of such a movement.
This is not to accuse the Germans of Original Sin, or to ignore the other sides of German life which were only grossly caricatured by the Nazis. But Nazism was not some terrible accident which fell upon the German people out of a blue sky. It was rooted in their history, and while it is true that a majority of the German people never voted for Hitler, it is also true that thirteen millions did. Both facts need to be remembered.
From this point of view Hitler's career may be described as a 'reductio ad absurdum' of the most powerful political tradition in Germany since the Unification. This is what nationalism, militarism, authoritarianism, the worship of success and force, the exaltation of the State and 'realpolitik' lead to, if they are projected to their logical conclusion.
There are Germans who would reject such a view. They argue that what was wrong with Hitler was that he lacked the necessary skill, that he was a bungler. If only he had listened to the generals - or Schacht - or the career diplomats - if only he had not attacked Russia, and so on. There is some point. they feel, at which he went wrong. They refuse to see that it was the ends themselves, not simply the means, which were wrong: the pursuit of unlimited power, the scorn for justice or any restraint on power; the exaltation of will over reason and conscience; the assertation of an arrogant supremacy, the contempt for others' rights. As at least one German historian, Professor Meinecke, has recognized, the catastrophe to which Hitler led Germany points to the need to re-examine the aims as well as the methods of German policy as far back as Bismarck.
The Germans, however, were not the only people who preferred in the 1930s not to know what was happening and refused to call evil things by their true names. The British and French at Munich; the Italians, Germany's partners in the Pact of Steel; the Poles who stabbed the Czechs in the back over Teschen; the Russians, who signed the Nazi-Soviet Pact to partition Poland, all thought they could buy Hitler off, or use him to their own selfish advantage. They did not succeed, any more than the German Right or the German Army. In the bitterness of war and occupation they were forced to learn the truth of the words of John Donne which Ernest Hemmingway set at the beginning of his novel of the Spanish Civil War:
"No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the Continent, a part of the main; If a clod be washed away by the Sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a Promontory were, as well as if a Manor of thy friends or of thine own were; Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankind; And therefor never sent to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."
Hitler, indeed, was a European, no less a German phenomenon. The conditions and the state of mind which he exploited, the malaise of which he was a symptom, were not confined to one country, although they were more strongly marked in Germany than anywhere else. Hitler's idiom was German but the thoughts and emotions to which he gave expression have a more universal currency.
Hitler recognized this relationship with Europe perfectly clearly. He was in revolt against "the System" not just in Germany but in Europe, against that liberal bourgeoise order, symbolized for him in the Vienna which had once rejected him. To destroy this was his mission, the mission in which he never ceased to believe; and in this, the most deeply felt of his purposes, he did not fail. Europe may rise again, but the old Europe of the years between 1789, the year of the French Revolution, and 1939, the year of Hitler's War, has gone forever - and the last figure in its history is that of Adolf Hitler, the architect of its ruin. "Si monumentum requires, circumspice" - "If you seek his monument, look around."
Hostile Propaganda
Supporters of Oswald Mosley were disappointed at the result of the North Kensington general election of 1959. Mosley achieved 8.1% following a hostile propaganda campaign by the local and national press. But considering that it was only 14 years after the Second World War the result was not too bad. Mosley was standing on Union Movement's policies which called for a government with the power to act, and concentrated on housing, employment, and immigration, but the newspapers insisted on linking him to Adolf Hitler and the Holocaust.
From its foundation in 1948 Union Movement was vilified by the mass media. They never forgave Mosley for opposing Churchill's war and they ignored his call for European unity. In answer to their critics UM produced a pamphlet entitled 'Union Movement: is it Fascist?' in which Alfred Norris examined the charges brought against the Movement and outlined Mosley's revolutionary post-war policies. He concluded:
In conclusion, we can acquit Union Movement of the popular accusation of being "Fascist." It is in fact neither Fascist or Democratic but is a synthesis of both going beyond past conflicts to bring hope of a better future. If any creed can bring balm to the gaping wounds of European culture and reunite Europeans in common endeavour, the new concept of Union Movement offers that opportunity by uniting all that is best in the rival ideologies which perished in the war.
Unfortunately, Union Movement never managed to convince the general public. If they had listened to Oswald Mosley in 1959 we could have restored the economy of the West Indies and ended the mass migration that has transformed our country. We could also have entered the old Common Market under much better terms. Instead, they listened to the Old Gang and we are still suffering the consequences.
With thanks to Robert Best who kindly supplied this material.
Why do I promote Union Movement policies when Oswald Mosley has been dead for thirty years The answer is that his ideas were so far ahead of their time that they are still relevant. Many of the problems of 1948 are still with us; a housing shortage, an unbalanced economy, a defence crisis, and our relationship to Europe. The coronavirus pandemic has forced the government to act in the national interest and manage the economy. Laissez-faire capitalism has failed and Mosley's interventionist policies are at last being adopted.
Andrew Brons
I disagree with the National Front on European unity but I generally agree with them on immigration. I therefore welcome Andrew Brons' speech to the 2019 National Front conference in which he stressed the importance of upholding the law. He offered no sympathy to the National Action group that was banned under the Terrorism Act 2000. They broke the law by glorifying the brutal murder of the Labour MP Jo Cox. He pointed out that ambivalence is not good enough, we need to condemn violence and those who excuse it.
He reminded us that the British people are natural conservatives who think that anyone charged with an offence is guilty. It doesn't matter that the naïve students involved with National Action committed no acts of violence; it's sufficient that they condoned such actions.
He also warned us of agent provocateurs who infiltrate movements in order to discredit them. I would add that some of them are police informers, some are 'anti-fascists', and some are simply trouble makers. But whatever their motives they are a nuisance.
Andrew Brons' speech should be heeded by those of us who reject racial replacement. It's still possible to campaign for sensible immigration policies as long as we stay within the law and avoid threatening or abusive language. The coronavirus pandemic is likely to cause a worldwide recession that will shake up politics and reinforce calls for the protection of our people. When the crisis is over we will have a great opportunity to promote our policies but we must not act like hooligans.
https://www.youtube.comwatch?v=YEd4ncFg2SU
Boris Johnson's Unpublished Article on Brexit - reprinted from the London Evening Standard
The European Union deal is not perhaps everything that we would have liked. It is not what we Eurosceptics were hoping, not when the process kicked off. We were hoping he was going to get really deep down and dirty, in the way that the Bloomberg speech seemed to indicate. He was going to probe the belly of the beast and bring back British sovereignty, like Hercules bringing Eurydice (sic) back from the underworld. I had the impression that this was going to be the beginning of a wholesale repatriation of powers over fisheries, farming, the social chapter, border controls, you name it: all those political hostages joyfully returning home like the end of Raid on Entebbe.
It was going to be a moment for the ringing of church bells and bonfires on beacons, and union flags flying from every steeple, and peasants blind drunk on non-EU approved scrumpy and beating the hedgerows with staves while singing patriotic songs about Dave the hero.
I don't think that we can pretend that this is how things have turned out. This is not a fundamental reform of Britain's position in the EU, and no-one could credibly claim it is.
It is not pointless; it is not wholly insignificant; it is by no means a waste of time. But it will not stop the great machine of EU integration, and it will not stop the production of ever more EU laws - at least some of which will have deleterious effects on the economy of this country and the rest of Europe.
Never mind the Tusk deal; look at the elephant in the room: the great beast still trampling happily on British parliamenraty sovereignty, and British democracy. So there are likely to be a significant number of people - perhaps including ypou - who will feel rhat in all honour we can now only do one thing.
We said we wanted a reformed EU. We said that if we failed to get reform, then Britain could have a great future outside. We have not got a reformed EU - so; nothing for it then - ho for the open seas! That would seem to be the logic, and yet I wonder if it is wholly correct.
Shut your eyes. Hold your breath. Think of Britain. Think of the rest of the EU. Think of the future. Think of the desire of your children and your grandchildren to live and work in other European countries; to sell things there, to make friends and perhaps to find partners there.
Ask yourself: despite all the defects and disappointments of this exercise - do you really, truly, definitely want Britain to pull out of the EU? Now? This is a big thing to do, and there is certainly a strong philosophocal imperative leading us to the door.
We are being outvoted ever more frequently. The ratchet of integration clicks remorselessly forward. More and more questions are now justiciable by the European Court of Justice, including that extraordinary document, the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. This bestows on ever one of our 500m EU citizens a legally enforceable right to do all sorts of things across all 28 states; to start a business, to chose any occupation they like, to found any type of religious school, to enjoy 'academic freedom'. I shudder to think what is going to happen when EU citizens start vindicating these new "rights" in Luxembourg.
There is going to be more and more of this stuff; and I can see why people might just think, to hell with it. I want out. I want to take back control of our democracy and our country.
If you feel that, I perfectly understand - because half the time I have been feeling that myself. And then the other half of the time, I have been thinking: hmmm, I like the sound of freedom; I like the sound of restoring democracy. But what are the downsides - and here we must be honest.
There are some big questions that the "out" side need to answer. Almost everyone expects there to be some sort of economic shock as a result of Brexit. How big would it be? I am sure that the doomsters are exaggerating the fallout - but are they completely wrong? And how can we know?
And then there is the worry about Scotland, and the possibility that an English-only "leave" vote could lead to the break-up of the union. There is the Putin factor: we don't want to do anything to encourage more shirtless, swaggering from the Russian leader, not in the Middle East, not anywhere.
And then there is the whole geostrategic anxiety. Britain is a great nation, a global force for good. It is surely a boon for the world and for Europe that she should be intimately engaged in the EU. This is a market on our doorstep, ready for further exploitation by British firms; the membership fee seems rather small for all that access.
If sovereignty is the problem - and it certainly is - then maybe it is worth looking again at the prime minister's deal, because there is a case for saying it is not quite as contemptible as all that. He is the first prime minister to get us out of ever closer union, which is potentially very important with the European Court of Justice and how it interprets EU law. He has some good stuff on competition, and repealing legislation, and on protecting Britain from further integration of the euro group.
Now if this was baked into a real EU treaty, it would be very powerful. Taken together with the sovereignty clauses - which are not wholly platitudinous - you can see the outlines of a new role for Britain: friendly, involved, but not part of the federalist project.
Yes, folks, the deal is a bit of a dud, but it contains the germ of something really good. I am going to muffle my disappointment and back the prime minister.
Comments
Please use the facility at the end of this blog to leave your comments and see what others have to say.
European Outlook
All articles are by Bill Baillie unless otherwise stated. The opinions of guest writers are entirely their own. We seek reform by legal means according to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19:
"We all have the right to make up our own minds, to think what we like, to say what we think, and to share our ideas with other people."
This blog will appear occasionally in support of Nation Revisited which is posted monthly.
Labour MP Jo Cox was a member of Labour Friends of Palestine.
ReplyDeleteShe was murdered by Thomas Mair who subscribed to ex-NF member and current Swinton Circle chairman Alan Harvey's pro-Zionist, pro-Israel, reactionary right-wing Tory, pro-UKIP, Springbok Club magazine, and Mair had letters published in Harvey's rag.