Talk:British Union of Fascists

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

To the anonymous person who reverted the last change: your changes are very dubious, if you change again I will look into seeking ajudication. It would help if you abandoned anonymity. PatGallacher 11:14, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)


Apologies for anonymity. This page needs a bit of a clean up. In one paragraph we have a BUF that did well in local elections, and the next a BUF that is disillusioned with its electoral success. Which is correct? I've also removed the incorrect statement that there is no evidence of linkage with the German Nazi party - on the contrary there is plenty of evidence, starting with the proposed anglo-german fascist radio station and ending with the fact that Oswald and Diana Mosley were married in Goebbels office.

To Pat Gallacher,

You have spelled the adjudication wrong, and its usage is also somewhat incorrect; an adjudication is simply a judicial ruling. You will want to supplement it to better convey your intentions.

To the author of the above

I think that you mean "wrongly". Historygypsy (talk) 12:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Anonymous,

Your assertions about connections between the National Socialist German Workers Party and British Union of Fascists are correct; there are many accounts of personal relationships between BUF leaders and NSDAP leaders, such as the one you have mentioned between Sir Oswald and Goebbels. William S. Morris

to those above

Mosley and Mitford married Goebbels office for the sake of Diana, she refused to marry Mosley without her sister Unity's presence, Unity wouldnt leave Germany and as a Fascist politician Mosley was offered the grand premises of Gobbels' estate for their wedding which they accepted. the BUF was anti-german, atleast until Joyce gained greater power within the party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.150.125.43 (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

I have asked for there to be certification in certain areas of this page as it seems to exhibit a rather sympathetic rather than objective POV about the BUF without hard evidence. If there is even scholarly opinion which suggests these interpretation, it would be nice to know of it.--Tdgtdg 16:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Far right in UK[edit]

I have added the far right in the UK category box to this article, but unfortunatley I don't know how to add the BUF into the category box Dexterj 12:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would question whether the BUF was far right. Fascism is a form of socialism [Mussolini], and Nazism is a composite of socialism and nationalism [Hitler was on the nationalist side of the party, the SS leaders tended to be on the socialist side]. Fascism may therefore be seen as far left rather or far right, but more accurately just far left (nationalists). It may more simply be described as neither left nor right, but simply fascist!101.98.175.68 (talk) 06:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fascism is always considered far-right, regardless of any socialist policies. — Richard BB 07:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, although I've seen a number of right wingers try to suggest the opposite. Dougweller (talk) 08:01, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. And there are even those who claim that there are or were no fascists apart from Mussolini's lot. Emeraude (talk) 08:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well nobody forced the BUF to call themselves the BUF but maybe if you got no chance then what you choose is be losers. Right-wing is often rather conservatism than purely nationalism, but nationalism to them can be worth good glue. --Askedonty (talk) 10:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A heavy bias against women[edit]

Like unfortunately many other articles in the Wikipedia also this article has a heavy bias against women. Although women have played a major part in the BUF, and even a bigger part in other Fascist organizations such as the IFL (Imperial Fascist League) and the Right Club, not one of them appears in the article and neither does the fact that 25 per cent of the members of the BUF were women, which is a truly enormous figure, if you consider the general low state of feminine political participation of that time and the on the surface antifeminine sound of the BUF slogans. Among these women can be found such illustrated figures as Rotha Lintorn Orman (the founder in 1923 of the first British Fascist Movement), Mary Sophia Allen (the Commandant Allen), Valerie Arkell-Smith (the Colonel Barker), and and. The importance of the Fascist women even far exceeded their proportion in the 1938 anti-war movement, when they started a separate Women's Peace Campaign in support of Mosley's "Four Steps for Peace". The parade of the blackshirted Women's Drum Corps was the highlight of the 1939 Earl's Court Peace Rally. All this has received extensive treatment in uncounted books and journal articles. The fact that it is possible in the Wikipedia, to simply ignore all the scientific evidence, and present instead a completely distorted image, gives us to think. -- Hanno Kuntze 08:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you like, you're absolutely free to edit the article yourself, and add any/all information you consider German germane, as long as you follow Wikipedia guidelines. Are you aware that you can do this? If you are, and you still choose not to participate, it seems to me that you're just as guilty of "ignoring," as anyone else involved in the writing/editing of this article. As for me, I'm not fascist and don't actually know much about the BUF, which is why I read the article in the first place, and in that process saw the need for copy-editing. I'd welcome input from a user as knowledgeable about the subject as it sounds like you are, so please do come back and help make the article perfect. Sugarbat (talk) 01:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article Badly Needs Copy Edit[edit]

Example: The main attraction to this is that it would separate the British economy from the falls and fluxes of the world market Great Depression and prevent the loss of industrial production within Britain from the influence of "... labour the east, paid a third of our wages and working for ten hours a day.", and "Cheap slave competition from abroad." These were referring to the rise of western backed mass production in Indo-China similar to what is said about Chinese labour today.

This excerpt makes very little sense -- the syntax is odd, there are lots of punctuation problems, and it's just below par, generally. Can someone who knows a bit more about the material fix up the whole article? Otherwise I'll come back in a day or so and do it myself -- but I'll very likely delete things that don't make sense. I'd much rather someone edit for clarity, at least, so I don't have to delete anything.

Sugarbat (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re-write?[edit]

I've only just joined Wikipedia and so am not sure of the etiquette.

I'm a published historian who has done a lot of work on the BUF and feel that this article could be considerably improved in terms of writing style, content (there seem to be certain parts of BUF history missing, and the layout of the whole article is a bit jumbled and haphazard - I wouldn't call events in 1934-5 part of the BUF's 'Final Years'), academic style (e.g. there are no citations in whole 'Prominence' section), and some of the dubious claims it makes (e.g. 'Its policy throughout the 1930s was not officially anti-Semitic' - Mosley himself happily admitted that the BUF first began to tackle the 'Jewish problem' from October 1934, and the movement was officially antisemitic from 1935 onwards).

I'm happy to do a thorough re-write of many sections of the article, with appropriate footnoting. But, as I said, wasn't sure of the etiquette involved in deleting so much of someone else's writing FictionalEmu (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, look at Wikipedia:Be Bold. G-Man ? 19:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The anti-Semitic propaganda put out by the BUF was very strong by today's standard. I have seen a reprint of a 1937 LCC election leaflet put out by BUF candidate Mick Clarke in East London and it is full of very lurid anti-Jewish stuff. If you want to see this leaflet it's reprinted in the picture book: Blackshirts: Fascism in Britain New York: Ballantine, 1971. Author: Rooney.Irisismykid (talk) 15:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should the BUF be changed to the British Union[edit]

Considering the name of the organisation was changed in 1936 and 1937 to The British Union, should the name of the Article be changed to represent the first or the last name of the party, considering that the redirection points will not be changed and other pages containing the BUF description will redirect to this page anyway. another alternative would be Brtitsh Union (British Union of Fascist). A comparison to this can be made with the National Front (United Kingdom) page, in which some people have been wrting British National Front possibly getting it confused with the British National Party, this represents a mistake by the authors of alternative pages but the principal is the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by U6j65 (talk • contribs) 12:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We should use the most commonly used name, which in this case is the British Union of Fascists. TFD (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support using British Union. Hawjam (talk) 16:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)Hawjam[reply]

This article needs cleaning up[edit]

It is a morass of confusion The BUF and the Union were virtually the same, Mosely changed the name after he was released from internment at the end of WW2, because the name "Fascist" was no longer attractive". There is no mention of the very influential "Right Club". There is no mention of the role of the "43 Group" that played a deciding role in ending the BUF movement after WW2. Historygypsy (talk) 12:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flags and colours parameters to the infobox[edit]

Raised at Template talk:Infobox political party#Flags and colours? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Working class are violent?[edit]

Interested to read; "BUF's violent clashes with opponents began to alienate some middle-class supporters". Is there a source which states that only the middle class was opposed to violence? It implies the working class are indifferent to violence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.90.23 (talk) 22:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag[edit]

In May 2012, Brendanh added the POV tag to the section listing prominent members. His edit rationale states: ""Think need some refs here, as this list could certainly be construed as defamatory in certain instances." While it is the case that refs were/are needed, and it could be defamatory to list as a member someone who was not, this is not a POV issue. That tag has been in place ever since and there has been no discussion about its continuing existence. I've therefore deleted it. (But, the need for refs remains.) Emeraude (talk) 16:33, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Supporters/members[edit]

There have been attempts recently to remove names form this list, originally with no justification given, later that they were Conservatives (as if someone cannot at different time - or even simultaneously - be a member of both) and most recently on the grounds that "Ive checked the articles of each deleted member and there is nothing there that states they support the BUF". Some checking - one of the deleted was even a BUF parliamentary candidate! Check again, or check properly - all are correctly cited. For example:

John Frederick Charles Fuller:

Fuller was placed on the retired list in December 1933. Even before this date he had become involved with fringe politics. In June 1934 he attended Sir Oswald Mosley's ill-fated meeting of the British Union of Fascists (BUF) at Olympia, and wrote to Mosley afterwards: ‘this is the worst day of your life; you should always join a man in his worst moment’ (Holden Reid, Studies, 185). Fuller was appointed Mosley's adviser on defence matters. Contrary to his post-war apologia, Fuller was an ideological fascist, and his dedication to Mosley's movement in 1937 cost him his friendship, albeit not permanently, with Liddell Hart, who abhorred fascism. Yet though Fuller did not take the formal step until 1934, in a very real sense he had been a proto-fascist all his intellectual life. By embracing social Darwinism, anti-materialism, mechanization, and the cult of the great man, and by rejecting mass democracy, Fuller imbibed from what Azar Gat calls the ‘proto-fascist and fascist outlook or mood’, since he was 20 years old.
Fuller wrote a pamphlet for the BUF, March to Sanity (1935, 3rd edn, 1937). In 1934 he wrote a report on fascist organization. He criticized rowdyism and the wearing of political uniforms. He advocated the creation of a triumvirate with himself as chief of staff. Fuller argued that the BUF should become more respectable and not imitate the Nazis. His report caused an outcry; critics claimed that he was trying to take the movement over. Thereafter he remained rather aloof from leadership of the BUF (which became the British Union after 1936). He was adopted in 1938 as the British Union candidate to fight Duff Cooper's parliamentary seat, St George's, Westminster. Fuller withdrew after Cooper's resignation over the Munich agreement. During the late 1930s Fuller spoke to the Link and other pro-German bodies. He opposed war with Germany, advocating a policy of isolation based on rearmament and imperial consolidation. ODNB article

Malcolm Campbell:

The BUF marketed itself as the ‘modern movement’, with its newspapers full of enthusiasm for modern technology, the flight industry, and motoring. This can be seen to account for the support of men such as Alliott Verdon-Roe and Malcolm Campbell. ODNB

John Erskine, Lord Erskine and Lord William Montagu Douglas Scott:

Both listed in MI5 report on Mosley supporters (PRO HO 144/20144/110)

These names restored. Emeraude (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on British Union of Fascists. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on British Union of Fascists. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ideology[edit]

You have the BUF's ideology as Antisemitism, but the article on Oswald Mosley has a section that reads: "The BUF was protectionist, strongly anti-communist, strongly anti-zionist and nationalistic to the point of advocating authoritarianism.[citation needed] However, it seems not to have been anti-Semitic; movement founder Arnold Leese mocked the BUF as "Kosher fascists"." I think this fits more to the BUF, so it needs to be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiamCorbettWiki (talk • contribs) 18:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:23, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Cable Street[edit]

Does anyone object to me changing/removing more or less everything written here in regards to the Battle of Cable Street?Kuiet (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reason for wanting to do that? DuncanHill (talk) 22:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
led to increasingly violent clashes with opponents, notably the 1936 Battle of Cable Street in London's East End.
There were frequent and continuous violent clashes between BUF party members and anti-fascist protesters, most famously at the Battle of Cable Street in October 1936
suggest the appalling violence of the Battle of Cable Street has arisen from a clash between BUF and the protestors.Kuiet (talk) 07:58, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those strike me as accurate descriptions of events in the East End in 1936 and are certainly no reason for "changing/removing more or less everything". Emeraude (talk) 10:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no clue what you are trying to say. Which "events" are you talking about? Why aren't you addressing why there are no citations for the quotes I posted? Why didn't you read Battle of Cable Street before replying to see it is in disagreement with the quotes I posted above and that its disagreeing statements are referenced? (although [4] seems somewhat unauthoritative, I'll get on that too).Kuiet (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I find the idea of removing mention of the Battle of Cable Street from an article about the BUF to be explicable only as an attempt to whitewash fascism. I find the behaviour of your account, from its blatantly anti-Semitic original username to its concentration almost exclusively on matters of "race" to be extremely concerning. DuncanHill (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don’t think we should be removing it, but irrespective of the political views of editors concerned, it isn’t “an accurate description” as far as I can see. My understanding has always been that – contrary to subsequent leftist mythology - the so-called Battle of Cable Street actually consisted largely of the police trying to beat a way through the demonstrators for the march to proceed. The law was later changed so that political marches required prior permission to go ahead, but at that time the BUF were within their rights to want to walk down the public highway, provocative or not. The article on the so-called Battle itself does say that. See also the discussion of Cable Street on p405 of Robert Skidelsky’s authoritative life of Mosley – Mosley eventually ordered his men to go home when ordered to do so by the Police Commissioner Sir Philip Game. He discusses violence at fascist meetings for about 40-odd pages beforehand – most people in general thought that fascism was a Bad Thing, and the police were under strict orders to monitor their meetings (speakers given a warning by the inspector beforehand, although they were usually careful to keep within the law, and police shorthand writers taking down the speech), especially in the East End where the Jewish community were in fear of them. Nonetheless most of the violence (p361) was instigated against them, usually by the hard left, rather than by them.Paulturtle (talk) 02:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have every right to find whatever you wish to be extremely concerning. Race is only the first of the many controversial topics whose articles I intend to improve upon. If you find me adding any inaccuracies I will be most grateful if you correct them and warn me. But let's stay on the topic at hand. Do you consent to corrections of the above quotations?Kuiet (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for the improper phrasing of my intent in the original question. I intend to change the two parts I've quoted. I find no fault with other mentions. And under no account do I intend to delete anything without setting up something more accurate in its place.You might also be interested in what I've posted to Talk:Battle_of_Cable_Street.Kuiet (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's clearer - "changing/removing more or less everything" did seem rather drastic. Emeraude (talk) 13:03, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DuncanHill: explain why you've reverted the article to once again include something factually incorrect and further why you have done so without making your case here. Have you forgotten your own participation in this section?Kuiet (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020 edis[edit]

Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "Original research sourced to Oswald Mosley". --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's nonsense. Quoting Oswald Mosley or naming his books is not "original research by Mosley". What next: remove from Karl Marx every reference to anything he wrote? Deleting from every author's article the titles of books they wrote? Emeraude (talk) 08:18, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Headquarters[edit]

My edit today added the address of the premises used as the BUF headquarters for most of the organisation's lifetime. It seems likely from this blog entry that prior to the BUF's move to the Black House, yet other addresses were used for short periods. I expect that finding easily accessible online RS for them will be very difficult, however. Harfarhs (talk) 14:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Far-left or far-right?[edit]

The political spectrum, specifically the left-right 1 dimensional spectrum, is controversial at best. Putting an entire ideology on one spectrum is idiotic and while giving a very basic oversight, it quickly gets complicated. Case in point: the BUF. Fascism, overall, is generally considered to be far-right. Culturally, the party was far-right but economically, it seemed to favour a leftist point of view like Mosley himself; essentially National Syndicalist. The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FET_y_de_las_JONS, another fascist party, is labelled far-right despite having a leftist National Syndicalist economic policy. Because of this, and the fact that Fascism is generally far-right, I think it should remain far-right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombricks (talk • contribs) 20:02, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[the] British Union?[edit]

After the party was renamed to British Union in 1937, Mosley never referred to it as "the British Union", only "British Union". So should it be referred to as British Union in the article for post-1937 events? BoringLifeBoringWife (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Normal usage from everyone else was/i1 "British Union of Fascists" or just "BUF". Emeraude (talk) 11:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"violent anti-fascist confrontations"[edit]

The current wording of this article suggests that only anti fascists were engaged in violence during these confrontations, when in reality the violence was mutual. "violent confrontations with anti fascists" would be a more accurate way of phrasing this that accurately represents the fact violence was engaged on both sides DParkinson1 (talk) 13:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_Union_of_Fascists&oldid=1216331953"