Great response BTW Brett.

As for the Soviet Union, what Kristijan so conveniently fails to point out is that it would have never been in a position to dominate Eastern Europe for fifty years had not a certain German strategic genuis decided to extend the boundaries of his own empire eastwards in June 1941.

‘What you call the occupation of the rest of Czechoslovakia,I call creating of independent Slovakian state.’

Are you trying to tell me that Nazi Germany violated the Munich agreement and occupied Bohemia in order to nobly set the Slovakian people free? They invaded Yugoslavia in order to set the non-Serbs free? Because it most certainly did not.

I haven’t been able to confirm this, but apparently, the Slovakian puppet state actually paid Germany to take its Jews away. (Eg, see here.) Certainly it stripped them of their citizenship and expelled them. I doubt democratic Czechoslovakia could have treated its minorities any worse than that.

‘As far as I know,USSR invaded Poland the same day as Germany,and after two weeks gave explanation it did so in order to protect Poland(which is quite funny,considering that they were allies with Germany at that point).’

No. Again, the USSR invaded Poland on 17 September 1939, two weeks after the German invasion. Any decent history of WWII will note this, as does Wikipedia.

‘Now,when most of the files from WW2 are open,it is clear that British Goverment preffered cooperation with Stalin’s Russia instead with Germany.It was probably to please Labour party,which had strong connection with Stalin.’

This last is nonsense. Yes, of course Britain preferred to co-operate with the USSR rather than Germany. As I explained, Germany was the problem, not USSR. Britain had tried to co-operate with Germany (appeasement) and this had failed (German occupation of Bohemia), so Britain cast about for military options. Poland looked like the next target (hence the guarantee), but the USSR was the only power which could actually help Poland on the ground (hence the alliance talks). There is no need to invoke some connection between the Labour party and the USSR (which I think you exaggerate; the Labour Party was not the CPGB). Besides which, Labour was not in power, had no power, and Chamberlain was certainly no friend to them, so why he would try to commit his country to an extraordinary peacetime alliance with a nation he despised just to please his ideological opponents and political rivals is beyond me.

‘One of the many favours made to Labours was interment of the BUF members in exchange for Labour support for Churchill’s government.’

Again, no. The decision for internment came not from pressure from Labour (who anyway were about Churchill’s strongest supporters in 1940) but because of fears of spies, fifth columnists, Quislings and a German invasion. As I said, I think it was the wrong decision, but it doesn’t take a genius to see why the British government made it.

‘I completely agree with that.It just shows how wrong was British Government in those days,thinking that Germany was main threat to British Empire.Unless you really believe that it went to a war for some other reason!?’

You misunderstand me. Britain and the British Empire are not the same thing. Germany was a threat to BRITAIN, not so much to the EMPIRE. British foreign policy for centuries had been based upon the need to make sure that no one country dominated Europe (particularly the Low Countries), because that threatened Britain itself.

‘Destruction of dictatorships in Europe was one of the formal reasons of entering the war(of course it was not the real reason,I mean,who really believes today that the USA has attacked Iraq because of WMD!?)’

Again, no, it was NOT one of the formal reasons for Britain’s declaration of war. The only formal reason was the invasion of Poland. And again, I can’t understand where you would get the idea that Britain claimed that it was going to destroy ALL dictatorships in Europe. I don’t think regime change in Germany was called for until much later in the war (it’s implicit in unconditional surrender, perhaps, but not actually required but it), but even so — ALL dictatorships? No, Britain never claimed this.

‘For this one,You said it all,it really is only something used by international diplomacy.It is unbelievable how many people actually believed those words then.’

Once more you misunderstand me. I’m not just saying such a foreign policy would be incredibly unrealistic, I’m saying that nobody in power in 1939 believed, or even claimed to believe in such a foreign policy. It’s just not true that the British government claimed to be fighting for ‘Eternal peace and happiness for all European nations’.

‘I think that Britain should do what Mosley proposed,which was ‘Mind Britain’s business’ policy.First duty of every government is to take care of it’s own people and it’s own country.As I said before,their biggest mistake was wrong conclusion that Germany is after British colonies.The only thing they had to do is to read ‘Mein Kampf’,where Hitler has described his ideas about german’s ‘lebensraum’.’

No. As I already explained, Britain wasn’t worried about Germany grabbing its colonies, and in fact probably would have given Germany back its old colonies, had it wanted them.

‘I think that the best answer to that is the fact that not a single BUF member who was interned was ever charged.’

Best answer? That’s not even an answer at all to the question which I asked, which was whether being patriotic means that one’s political beliefs are correct, or even moral.

‘Who would they locked up(and for what reason) is completely hypothetical question,we’re talking about the facts here.’

You’re the one who opened the door to counterfactual speculation by asserting that BUF policy was a better policy for Britain than the one actually followed. You have to follow the implications of that all the way through.

‘Finally,about fascism.I personally think that the fascism is the political option which belongs to the past,although one of it’s main characteristics should be very useful today(the election of the parliament on franchising profile,rather than geographical;so called ‘Corporate state’).’

Few fascists today would disagree with any of this, I suspect.

If you want to see the fight between good and evil,go and see ‘Lord of the Rings’.
The wars are not started because of good and evil things,but because of political,religious,teritorial,or some similar reasons.

When asked does he realise what will be with half of Europe if it comes under the Stalin rule,Churchill said to his advisor:”Are you planning to live in that part of Europe?Neither do I”.
Enough said about that good and wise leader…

1.Main difference between your and mine point of view can be seen from one part of your post:
“the last straw came just before the Polish guarantee, when Germany occupied the rest of Czechoslovakia”.
What you call the occupation of the rest of Czechoslovakia,I call creating of independent Slovakian state.The same thing is probably with the Yugoslavia,USSR,etc.You and people like you(I don’t mean that in a negative way,just as people different than people like me)were always looking at them as nice,homogenic states,not realising that there was aways one dominant nation in those quasi-states(Czechs in Czechoslovakia,Serbs in Yugoslavia,etc)who were exploiting other nations who were part of that country.
As far as I know,USSR invaded Poland the same day as Germany,and after two weeks gave explanation it did so in order to protect Poland(which is quite funny,considering that they were allies with Germany at that point).
The explanation for my ‘I wonder why’ is very simple.Now,when most of the files from WW2 are open,it is clear that British Goverment preffered cooperation with Stalin’s Russia instead with Germany.It was probably to please Labour party,which had strong connection with Stalin.One of the many favours made to Labours was interment of the BUF members in exchange for Labour support for Churchill’s government.

2.You said:”Germany did not have the capability to threaten any British imperial possession.”I completely agree with that.It just shows how wrong was British Government in those days,thinking that Germany was main threat to British Empire.Unless you really believe that it went to a war for some other reason!?

3.Destruction of dictatorships in Europe was one of the formal reasons of entering the war(of course it was not the real reason,I mean,who really believes today that the USA has attacked Iraq because of WMD!?)
It all comes to the basic reason,the battle between two types of political options;National-Socialism and Democracy.

4.For this one,You said it all,it really is only something used by international diplomacy.It is unbelievable how many people actually believed those words then.

I’m glad that we agree that Britain was,after WW2,only formally a winner(quote:”not just Britain, which after all was in no position to insist on anything in 1945″.
I think that Britain should do what Mosley proposed,which was ‘Mind Britain’s business’ policy.First duty of every government is to take care of it’s own people and it’s own country.As I said before,their biggest mistake was wrong conclusion that Germany is after British colonies.The only thing they had to do is to read ‘Mein Kampf’,where Hitler has described his ideas about german’s ‘lebensraum’.

I’m also glad that you think the interment was a mistake.Now,few things about Mosley.Yes,he did receive the funds from both Italy and Germany,same as the labour and GBCP from Russia,which was completelly legal.

Next,you said:”Does being patriotic mean they were right? Does being patriotic mean they were not deluded? Does being patriotic mean they did not hold thoroughly despicable beliefs?”

I think that the best answer to that is the fact that not a single BUF member who was interned was ever charged.
Who would they locked up(and for what reason) is completely hypothetical question,we’re talking about the facts here.

Finally,about fascism.I personally think that the fascism is the political option which belongs to the past,although one of it’s main characteristics should be very useful today(the election of the parliament on franchising profile,rather than geographical;so called ‘Corporate state’).
Mosley realised that at the end of the war,that’s why he advertised ‘Europe a Nation’ policy(which was,by the way,something completely different than EU today).

Why?

Brett has attempted to intelliegently and respectfully respond point by point.

My response is lot sharper. The British Empire for all its many and vicarious faults still always had a certain streak of decency running through it, if only so they could look at themselves in the mirror.

And since the early 19th century, the Brits proudly took the lead in stamping out slavery. So everyone from their smarter ruling class to the trade unionist on the Clapham omnibus was well aware that Hitler’s vision for Germany would eventually create a new slave state in mittle Europa. And even worse, one run by those bloody Krauts.

So the Brits drew a line in sand. Not over Chezcho but Poland. My parents. living in London in September 1939, remember vividly Neville declaring war. And they told me the prevailing attitude was basically weary resignation – here we go again. But very very few complaints we shouldn’t.

And that was before everyone found about how one of the most civilised and educated countries in the world developed an industrial nation-wide killing machine for people that I hope that we shall never see the like of again.

Or to put it really fucking bluntly, the prevailing ethos of western civilisation today sees the likes of you Kristijan as surplus to our requirements. But you’ll get left alone anyway instead of having your hair and body fat turned into blankets and soap for SSBN crews, and the rest of you sent up a chimney.

1. My understanding is that formally, Britain’s alliance with Poland obligated it to assist only in the event of a German attack (which was fully expected). Legal niceties aside, of course the Polish guarantee was aimed at stopping German expansionism. Hitler had been rattling European cages since 1933, broken promise after promise — the last straw came just before the Polish guarantee, when Germany occupied the rest of Czechoslovakia, only months after guaranteeing its independence at Munich, and Hitler explicitly saying that the Sudetenland comprised his last territorial claims in Europe. The USSR was not seen as expansionist before September 1939 (and by the way, it invaded Poland two weeks after Germany had done so: it was practically already done for) and in any event did not threaten British interests like Germany did. Even so, some military action against the USSR was contemplated over the winter of 1939/40, mainly looking to restrict the flow of supplies to Germany.

I have no idea what explanation you are darkly referring to (‘I wonder why!?’), so please enlighten me.

2. This was not directly a reason for attacking Germany. How could it be? Germany did not have the capability to threaten any British imperial possession. It didn’t gain that capability until Italy entered the war in June 1940 and did not exercise it until Rommel landed in North Africa in 1941. Besides, Britain was willing to return the German colonies it held as League Mandates, if that would keep Hitler quiet. But he was not in the least bit interested.

In passing, I note that this is a strange argument to use in 2006, as I don’t think many Britons today actually want the Empire back, and so whether going to war with Germany in 1939 helped or hindered the task of holding onto the Empire is nowadays beside the point.

3. Again, ‘Destruction of all dictatorships in Europe’ was not a war aim in 1939. Where did you get that idea? Can you show me which politicians in Britain in 1939 were saying, let’s go and liberate all of Europe? Of course that wasnt the aim; otherwise Britain would have declared war on the USSR, Italy, Spain and 6 or 12 other unpleasant regimes (including its ally, Poland!) And been squashed like a bug. As I said before, the war was to stop Germany. That’s all. (And it did.)

4. ‘Eternal peace and happiness for all European nations’. This is just silly. Again I ask when did Britain ever give any indication that this is why it went
to war with Germany? Sounds like the La-la-land school of international diplomacy to me, rather than any position held by any British statesman, ever.

I get the feeling that your real complaint is that having gone to war to ostensibly protect Poland, Britain allowed it to become a Communist dictatorship after the war — along with half of Europe. It can certainly be argued that the Allies (not just Britain, which after all was in no position to insist on anything in 1945) did not do enough to prevent or even protest this. But getting back to 1939, what, exactly, do you think Britain should have done instead? What do you think would, or even could have happened? Would the Nazis dominating all of Europe have been better than the Soviets dominating only half of it? It’s hard to imagine any better future arising out of British inaction in the face of Nazi aggression, but please, be my guest if you think you can do so.

Now, on the internment of the BUF. I actually agree that this was a mistake by the British government, as I think all such mass internments are a mistake. But, two points. First, Mosley did have strong links with Germany and Italy, aside from the obvious ideological alignment. He accepted thousands of pounds in funding from both of those countries, his wedding was held in Germany with Hitler as one of the guests, he had commercial interests in Germany. When he spoke of peace with Germany, it’s hardly surprising that he was viewed with suspicion, therefore. Secondly, I’ve never said BUF members weren’t ‘patriotic’. It would be surprising if they were not, as fascists generally are ultra-nationalists (on Roger Griffin’s definition, anyway). But … so what? Does being patriotic mean they were right? Does being patriotic mean they were not deluded? Does being patriotic mean they did not hold thoroughly despicable beliefs? Fair enough; they shouldn’t have been locked up. But you should ask yourself who the BUF would have locked up if it had ever gained power in Britain. And whether it would have stopped with just locking them up.

Finally, perhaps David was wrong to assume that you are yourself a fascist. But your shocked outrage that anyone today could think poorly of those nice BUF people is slightly disturbing. Fascism, as such, is today reviled in most places around the world, and rightly so. So it’s odd that you seem so surprised to encounter criticism of it. I struggle to imagine a place where fascists are nowadays welcome in polite society, but I’d like to know where it is, so that I can leave it out of my travel plans.