Blackshirt: Sir Oswald Mosley and British Fascism [Hardcover]

I found Dorril's work on the whole hard going, enjoyable and fun in places, and extremely revealing in others, but then slow and uncompromising, like a walk in wet weather. It could have been much more ruthlessly edited - there is a staggering degree of repetition - and biographers are now of the curious tendency to put absolutely eveything in that might or might not be relevant. The result is an uneven text that somehow looses its focus. There is no doubt that Mosely was flawed, that his politics were unprincipled as opposed to, in the main, principally offensive, but Dorril keeps dashing off from the man himself like a Retriever, keen to show the dubious, rank outsiders that attracted themselves to him, their mediocre intellectual visions, and the murky world of British intelligence mushrooming during the war (and at heart it seems, rather fond of fascists, as if they were good old tories gone slightly astray). What I did enjoy, and found to be original, was the sense in which - in the context of the 1930s - certainly until 1938 - the sheer ideological confusion of British politics made the trip from Labourite to British Union of Fascists a small one to make indeed - the ferment and the chaos of the pre-war years is well done. I also found Mosely's curious musings on the Right with regard to Europe very odd, especially given the BNP's position today. Perhaps the book peters out as Mosely too peters out. Dorril's digression into psycho babble is irritating - but there is much here to enjoy. As a fascist movement, Mosely headed up a poor imitation, a facimile, of someone elses movement: its failure to take root here is instructive and highly relevant today.

In order to understand the Fascist phenomenom which Sir Oswald Mosley represented during the 1920/30's; it is first necessary to understand the historic circumstances into which he and his generation were born.

From the chaos of the Dark Ages, several 'Dynastic Families' had arisen in Europe. Like Rome's Patrician Families before them, these Great Houses had established themselves as hereditary rulers in various European regions which over time, became the nation states we recognise today; which they ruled/led with the assistance of a large and vigorous aristocracy. Although frequently at war with one another, these Great Houses were in fact very closely linked by religion, culture, and blood-ties resulting from centuries of inter-marriage.

With the discovery of the Americas in 1492, these Dynastic rulers immediately realized that compared to Europe's narrow boundries; Asia, Africa and the Americas are both vast and rich, possessing fertile land, massive mineral reserves and other treasures in abundance. Europe's kingdoms were soon raising armies, closely modelled on the Legions of Rome. As the Brutii, Jullii and Scipios had divided Europe between them, so their descendants divided the world. The Hapsburgs and Romanoffs marched East, while the Boubons and Hannoverians looked West across the Atlantic to the Americas, and South round Africa to the lands conquered by the fabled Alexander!

Equipped with the most modern gunpowder weapons, and officered by an aristocracy schooled from birth in the heroic deeds of Achilles, Leonidas, Caesar and Scipio; those European armies with their blackpowder muskets outfought even the hero's of legend! Mere handfuls of Spaniards shattered the stone-age Aztecs, and took South America for King Phillip. The Tsar's troops didn't stop until they reached the Pacific Ocean 6,000miles from Moscow, smashing all opposition on the way; while Great Britain's red coated legions took both the North American continent in the West, and the Indian sub-continent in the East, driving the French from both regions; an action which contributed to the fall of the House of Bourbon.

Therein lay the problem. European civilization had come to rule the world, but her system of government carried within it the same flaw that had destroyed her Roman mentor. The cost, savagery and duration of Napoleon's wars first exposed the deadly potential of that division, entrenched at the apex of the 'European World Order'. The sheer carnage of WWI; compounded by the loss of an entire generation of Europe's young aristocratic officer class, made clear to any who wished to see; that another industrially fuelled fratricidal war in Europe would so weaken even the victors, that Europe's world domination would be irretrevably destroyed.

When Sir Oswald Mosley returned to England in 1918 he, along with huge numbers of those fortunate enough to survive, was determined to prevent that repetition; but as he looked at the sadly inept crop of 'political leaders' the new 'democratic' elections had produced; he also knew these were men of straw compared to the patriotic young heros who had died in their thousands around him, in the killing fields of Flanders.

Ironically; at that time the answer was deceptively simple. To survive, European civilization had to unite rather than fight itself again. The unsurmountable question however, which eventually unleashed the armies in WWII was equally simple:- Around which doctrine/leader should this unification take place?

There were three rival options:-
1. Marxist/Communism. A fiercely totalitarian, egalitarian ideology advocating the massacre of the previous aristocratic leadership, transfer of all property to the state, and the systematic stimulation of revolution worldwide; which would inevitably lead to the rebellion and loss of the Empires on which Europe's industrial/military power rested.
2. Nazism/Fascism. A totalitarian, elitist/Darwinist ideology, advocating militarism, rapid expansion of Europe's population and industrial/military strength, the preservation of private property/empires and expulsion of Europe's highly influencial Jewish minority.
3. Capitalist/Democracy. A pluralistic, materialistic non-totalitarian ideology, in which Europe's industrial production would be used to raise living standards, not in Europe; but throughout the woefully poverty stricken/exploited empires. These would eventually be given self-rule, but continue in reality to be controlled by financial leverage and puppet governments.

Considering the social background from which he came, can anyone really blame Sir Oswald for the choice he made? A choice which the majority of Europe's aristocracy, including the English heir to the throne, strongly approved of at that time. Churchill himself, also an aristocrat; was virtually ostracised by his peers for championing the anti-Nazi Capitalist ideology, advocated mainly by America's highly influential Jewish business community. This is made clear in:- Winston Churchill The Wilderness Years [2005] [DVD].

I purchased this book expecting to gain a deeper understanding of Sir Oswald, his Blackshirt movement, and even perhaps how his personal dislike of 'Der Fuhrer' caused Hitler to cut/end his clandestine funding of the British Union of Fascists. What I got was subtle but systematic character assassination, reminicent of Russian/Stalinist authors writing about Trotsky; with whom Sir Oswald holds a comparably controversial position in British history. It also failed to explain clearly that Churchill's Government had him jailed, largely from fear of the popularity of his anti-war message even in 1940.

This is, I believe, something like the fifth biography of Mosley; the first being A K Chesterton's 1930s hagiography, the best known being Skidelsky's mid-seventies portrayal of OM as flawed statesman. Now comes Dorril's work with OM as Machiavellian ogre.

Much is made of the sensational "discovery" of previously unseen evidence outlining Nazi funding of British Union. It certainly makes for disturbing reading; the sums involved are fantastic, huge. Yes, disturbing, that is, until the reader takes the time to look hard at the actual history of British Union. Probably one of the defining features of BU was its poverty. Throughout the history of the post-Rothermere period it lurched from one financial crisis to another: giving up Black House, the staff cuts, the move to Smith Square, the sub-letting of part of the Smith Square building in order to try and generate desperately needed funds. None of that squares with Dorril's claims of Nazi money. Now OM may have been many things some flattering, some far less so, but I don't believe anybody had ever accused the man of being a thief! So where did the money go? Did it exist at all? I honestly believe that the funding stories are nothing more than mischievous nonsense. Chewing gum for the eyes of the gullible.

If, as is likely, this book is a readers first introduction to Mosley then ask yourself this.... If Mosley was really the monster that Dorril's has portrayed then how could he have inspired the loyalty that he did? If he and his Blackshirts were really the vile anti-Semites we are led to be believe then where were the bodies? Ask yourself these and a dozen questions besides and you may just catch a glimpse of the truth.