United Kingdom and the Inter-war years

Gamers can also use this forum to chat about any game related subject, news, rumours etc.

Moderator: maddog986

User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

United Kingdom and the Inter-war years

Post by warspite1 »

I got home from work only to see the “Buckingham Palace” thread locked due to modern politics which was a shame.

I asked Matrix if the thread can be re-started and Pip has kindly agreed. I would ask anyone keen to participate to keep the discussion historical please.

What I am keen to pick up on is Loki100’s post 67 and the aristocracy and the fascists in the run up to World War II. The inter-war years are so interesting and the position of the British and French in the lead up to WWII is a fascinating topic.

Supporters of the left are always keen to raise the notion that the aristocracy and the ruling classes were - or at least according to Loki100 a “substantive chunk” were - fascist sympathisers. The first question is where does “substantive chunk” come from? What proof is there that there were large numbers of aristos so inclined? Who were these people? Sources?

These aristos are of course individuals – they did not all think exactly the same, there was no one common goal (if there was and this was organised then they were a pretty rubbish ineffectual bunch weren’t they?). That being the case, when this subject is brought out from time to time and those aristos are so accused, what exactly is meant by “sympathetic” to the Nazis? Sure, there will no doubt be low-life (Loki100 quoted one such) that perhaps really knew what Hitler was about and supported his views lock, stock and barrel. But all of them? Really? Or is perhaps being sympathetic with the Nazis being confused in some (many?) cases with sympathy for the German position post Versailles? or maybe driven by the fear of Communism? In the case of the former were they any different to the thoughts of Joe Public (remember the reception Chamberlain got for Peace in our Time)?

And if there were that many – the substantive chunk, with an even more substantive chunk of cash and influence and clout - how did history turn out as it did?

There are a number of strands I would like to explore here but these opening questions are designed to get the ball rolling.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
loki100
Posts: 11699
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 12:38 pm
Location: Utlima Thule

RE: United Kingdom and the Inter-war years

Post by loki100 »

all fair questions, to which the honest answer is no-one really knows. Not least there are a number of Venn diagrams at work.

So one could believe that Germany had been harshly treated at Versailles (so that includes Keynes and much of the Labour Party) and have some sympathy for a regime that broke those rules. One could be a social darwinist and anti-semitic but be opposed to Hitler simply because of the perceived threat to the British Empire. One could be an out and out fascist. Or the sort of authoritarian right winger who could see little wrong in breaking the power of the organised left but feel a bit queasy at some of the Nazi actions (even as early as 1933).

for sources, there are a number of known individuals, these were often senior in Conservative circles (if not necessarily part of the Govt etc) and there is little evidence that they were politically unwelcome. Plenty of contemprorary journalism, but probably near impossible to bring together.

The other side of this debate is the idiotic response of much of the left to the Soviet Union. Ranging from the 'useful idiots' of the Fabian Society (the Webbs were convinced there was no crime in the Soviet Union and that the Soviet penal system was a model of rehabilitation). On the other hand were hard line Stalinists who were pretty aware of exactly what was going on but felt that was a price to pay (and of course in their attitude to others had a lot in common with the hard right). On one side of my family, my grandparents fell into this category, my grandfather served as a commissar in the International Brigades (and in 1941-2 was busily training SOE personnel in sabotage and guerrilla warfare till someone in Whitehall felt this was #maybenotagoodidea).
ezzler
Posts: 864
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 7:44 pm

RE: United Kingdom and the Inter-war years

Post by ezzler »

European aristocratic ties continued as pre WW1. The 'aristocracy' only really began to lose power after WW2. In the UK it was inheritance that destroyed their wealth.And that shot up after ww2.

Prince Philip's sisters all married into German aristocracy.
During 1931-1932, Philip's four older sisters married as follows:

Margarita to a Czech-Austrian prince named Gottfried von Hohenlohe-Langenburg, a great-grandson of England's Queen Victoria

Theodora to Berthold, the margrave of Baden

Cecilia to Georg Donatus, grand duke of Hesse-by-Rhine, also a great-grandson of Queen Victoria

Sophie to Prince Christoph of Hesse


GaryChildress
Posts: 6746
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: The Divided Nations of Earth

RE: United Kingdom and the Inter-war years

Post by GaryChildress »

Found this list of prominent members of the British Union of Fascists which apparently thrived for a brief period in the interwar years. There are a couple Dukes and Earls in the list. Also a couple members of the labour party apparently. Not sure what conclusions can be drawn from this, other than that politics is messy and confusing business. Like who rubbed shoulders with who at the King's wedding party and so on.
Despite the short period of operation the BUF attracted prominent members and supporters. These included:
Hastings Russell, 12th Duke of Bedford[15]
Josslyn Hay, 22nd Earl of Erroll - Member of the Happy Valley set, famed for the unsolved case surrounding his murder and the sensation it caused during Second World War Britain[16]
Harold Sidney Harmsworth, 1st Viscount Rothermere - owner of the Daily Mail[17]
William Edward David Allen, was the Unionist Member of Parliament (MP) for Belfast West.[18]
David Freeman-Mitford, 2nd Baron Redesdale, his wife and two of his daughters: Lady Redesdale
Diana Mitford (Lady Mosley, after marriage to Sir Oswald Mosley in 1936)
The Hon. Unity Mitford

Lady Cynthia Curzon (known as 'Cimmie'), second daughter of George Curzon, Lord Curzon of Kedleston and the wife of Sir Oswald Mosley until her death in 1933
Edward Frederick Langley Russell, 2nd Baron Russell of Liverpool CBE MC[19][20] Lady Russell[19][20]

John Francis Ashley Erskine, Lord Erskine, GCSI, GCIE, was the Conservative and Unionist MP for Weston-super-Mare and Brighton and assistant Government whip.[19][20]
Lieutenant-Colonel Lord William Walter Montagu Douglas Scott, MC, was the Conservative and Unionist MP for Roxburgh and Selkirk[19][20]
John Beckett MP, was the Labour MP for Member of Parliament for Peckham[21]
Robert Forgan MP, was the Labour MP for West Renfrewshire[22]
Group Captain Sir Louis Leisler Greig, KBE, CVO was a British naval surgeon, courtier and intimate of King George VI.[19][20]
Sir Alliott Verdon Roe OBE, FRAeS - the first Englishman to make a powered flight (in 1908 at Brooklands) and the first Englishman to fly an all-British machine a year later, on Walthamstow Marshes[22]
Sir Reginald Goodall - noted English conductor[23]
Major General John Frederick Charles Fuller CB, CBE, DSO - military historian, former Conservative MP for Ardwick[22][24]
Frank Cyril Tiarks OBE - Director of the Bank of England
St. John Philby CIE
A. K. Chesterton MC[25]
Neil Francis Hawkins[22]
Arthur Gilligan
Jeffrey Hamm
William Joyce[22]
Tommy Moran
Alexander Raven Thomson[22]
Henry Williamson - writer[26]
Frank Bossard[27]
Malcolm Campbell - racing motorist and motoring journalist

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_U ... supporters
jwolf
Posts: 2493
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2013 4:02 pm

RE: United Kingdom and the Inter-war years

Post by jwolf »

One of the things about the interwar years that is difficult for us to understand is the incredible naivety that intellectuals had toward the supposed efficiency or even beneficence of totalitarian states. You can find many accounts, for example, from very bright people who just took it for granted that the latest Soviet 5 year plan would rocket their economy ahead of the "backwards" Western states with their "archaic" capitalism. And much the same for Hitler or even Mussolini. The fashionable view was very much that capitalism had been a total failure due to the great depression, so anything that could be advertised as a superior system was accepted -- not by all or most, but by many -- very sympathetically.

With that background, I personally don't get too upset to hear that Person X, who really should have known better, was sympathetic to Fascism or Communism during the 1920s or early 30s. It's different once you get to the late 30s and the horrors became increasingly undeniable.
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: United Kingdom and the Inter-war years

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: loki100

all fair questions, to which the honest answer is no-one really knows. Not least there are a number of Venn diagrams at work.

So one could believe that Germany had been harshly treated at Versailles (so that includes Keynes and much of the Labour Party) and have some sympathy for a regime that broke those rules. One could be a social darwinist and anti-semitic but be opposed to Hitler simply because of the perceived threat to the British Empire. One could be an out and out fascist. Or the sort of authoritarian right winger who could see little wrong in breaking the power of the organised left but feel a bit queasy at some of the Nazi actions (even as early as 1933).

for sources, there are a number of known individuals, these were often senior in Conservative circles (if not necessarily part of the Govt etc) and there is little evidence that they were politically unwelcome. Plenty of contemprorary journalism, but probably near impossible to bring together.

The other side of this debate is the idiotic response of much of the left to the Soviet Union. Ranging from the 'useful idiots' of the Fabian Society (the Webbs were convinced there was no crime in the Soviet Union and that the Soviet penal system was a model of rehabilitation). On the other hand were hard line Stalinists who were pretty aware of exactly what was going on but felt that was a price to pay (and of course in their attitude to others had a lot in common with the hard right). On one side of my family, my grandparents fell into this category, my grandfather served as a commissar in the International Brigades (and in 1941-2 was busily training SOE personnel in sabotage and guerrilla warfare till someone in Whitehall felt this was #maybenotagoodidea).
warspite1

Thanks Loki - nice response.
Wow - so what happened to Grandpa Loki?
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: United Kingdom and the Inter-war years

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Found this list of prominent members of the British Union of Fascists which apparently thrived for a brief period in the interwar years. There are a couple Dukes and Earls in the list. Also a couple members of the labour party apparently. Not sure what conclusions can be drawn from this, other than that politics is messy and confusing business. Like who rubbed shoulders with who at the King's wedding party and so on.
Despite the short period of operation the BUF attracted prominent members and supporters. These included:
Hastings Russell, 12th Duke of Bedford[15]
Josslyn Hay, 22nd Earl of Erroll - Member of the Happy Valley set, famed for the unsolved case surrounding his murder and the sensation it caused during Second World War Britain[16]
Harold Sidney Harmsworth, 1st Viscount Rothermere - owner of the Daily Mail[17]
William Edward David Allen, was the Unionist Member of Parliament (MP) for Belfast West.[18]
David Freeman-Mitford, 2nd Baron Redesdale, his wife and two of his daughters: Lady Redesdale
Diana Mitford (Lady Mosley, after marriage to Sir Oswald Mosley in 1936)
The Hon. Unity Mitford
Lady Cynthia Curzon (known as 'Cimmie'), second daughter of George Curzon, Lord Curzon of Kedleston and the wife of Sir Oswald Mosley until her death in 1933
Edward Frederick Langley Russell, 2nd Baron Russell of Liverpool CBE MC[19][20] Lady Russell[19][20]
John Francis Ashley Erskine, Lord Erskine, GCSI, GCIE, was the Conservative and Unionist MP for Weston-super-Mare and Brighton and assistant Government whip.[19][20]
Lieutenant-Colonel Lord William Walter Montagu Douglas Scott, MC, was the Conservative and Unionist MP for Roxburgh and Selkirk[19][20]
John Beckett MP, was the Labour MP for Member of Parliament for Peckham[21]
Robert Forgan MP, was the Labour MP for West Renfrewshire[22]
Group Captain Sir Louis Leisler Greig, KBE, CVO was a British naval surgeon, courtier and intimate of King George VI.[19][20]
Sir Alliott Verdon Roe OBE, FRAeS - the first Englishman to make a powered flight (in 1908 at Brooklands) and the first Englishman to fly an all-British machine a year later, on Walthamstow Marshes[22]
Sir Reginald Goodall - noted English conductor[23]
Major General John Frederick Charles Fuller CB, CBE, DSO - military historian, former Conservative MP for Ardwick[22][24]
Frank Cyril Tiarks OBE - Director of the Bank of England
St. John Philby CIE
A. K. Chesterton MC[25]
Neil Francis Hawkins[22]
Arthur Gilligan
Jeffrey Hamm
William Joyce[22]
Tommy Moran
Alexander Raven Thomson[22]
Henry Williamson - writer[26]
Frank Bossard[27]
Malcolm Campbell - racing motorist and motoring journalist

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_U ... supporters
warspite1

Thanks Gary. This was a really interesting article and highlights an important point toward understanding who these "sympathisers" were and what they believed in. While there are some "big"names here, the text makes clear that support for such parties was far from constant - and many that were initially attracted by the likes of Mussolini and later Hiter, were capable of changing their mind once the reality started to hit home.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: United Kingdom and the Inter-war years

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: jwolf

One of the things about the interwar years that is difficult for us to understand is the incredible naivety that intellectuals had toward the supposed efficiency or even beneficence of totalitarian states. You can find many accounts, for example, from very bright people who just took it for granted that the latest Soviet 5 year plan would rocket their economy ahead of the "backwards" Western states with their "archaic" capitalism. And much the same for Hitler or even Mussolini. The fashionable view was very much that capitalism had been a total failure due to the great depression, so anything that could be advertised as a superior system was accepted -- not by all or most, but by many -- very sympathetically.

With that background, I personally don't get too upset to hear that Person X, who really should have known better, was sympathetic to Fascism or Communism during the 1920s or early 30s. It's different once you get to the late 30s and the horrors became increasingly undeniable.
warspite1

Good points.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
loki100
Posts: 11699
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 12:38 pm
Location: Utlima Thule

RE: United Kingdom and the Inter-war years

Post by loki100 »

ORIGINAL: warspite1

...

And if there were that many – the substantive chunk, with an even more substantive chunk of cash and influence and clout - how did history turn out as it did?

my instinct is many of those who were pro-Nazi to a limited extent shifted stance once it became clear that Nazi Germany was a threat to the British Empire, in other words they had no big complaint about fascism, but put that to one side when facing a threat to their own state?
ORIGINAL: warspite1
...

Thanks Loki - nice response.
Wow - so what happened to Grandpa Loki?

he went back to being a coal miner, remained a lifelong member of the CPGB. According to my gran (who was actually far more reasonable than I perhaps indicated), he came close to leaving the party in 1956 (not as was conventional over the invasion of Hungary but because he felt Kruschev was a traitor after the 'secret speech'). Died in 1983, he mellowed a lot as a person in older age but I'm sure his underlying politics didn't change much.

as my Gran put it after Gorbachev came to power, 'its a good thing your Grandfather is dead ... the shock would have killed him'.
ORIGINAL: jwolf

One of the things about the interwar years that is difficult for us to understand is the incredible naivety that intellectuals had toward the supposed efficiency or even beneficence of totalitarian states. You can find many accounts, for example, from very bright people who just took it for granted that the latest Soviet 5 year plan would rocket their economy ahead of the "backwards" Western states with their "archaic" capitalism. And much the same for Hitler or even Mussolini. The fashionable view was very much that capitalism had been a total failure due to the great depression, so anything that could be advertised as a superior system was accepted -- not by all or most, but by many -- very sympathetically.

With that background, I personally don't get too upset to hear that Person X, who really should have known better, was sympathetic to Fascism or Communism during the 1920s or early 30s. It's different once you get to the late 30s and the horrors became increasingly undeniable.

agree,

Eric Hobsbawn in his essay In the era of antifascism I think offers a good explanation for the attraction of the USSR, but he had his eyes open. There is no doubting the 'flaws' of the Soviet system, just a belief that it offered a way forward and a key defense against fascism. Its right wing social democrats like the Fabian Society, I have no time for, they just simply refused to even look at what was going on before their eyes.
ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Found this list of prominent members of the British Union of Fascists which apparently thrived for a brief period in the interwar years. There are a couple Dukes and Earls in the list. Also a couple members of the labour party apparently. Not sure what conclusions can be drawn from this, other than that politics is messy and confusing business. Like who rubbed shoulders with who at the King's wedding party and so on.

Gary - don't think the open members/supporters of the BUF were the real issue. In a way they were the odd-ones out. What matters was the dominant discussion in the places where the British establishment met up, carefully out of sight. In this era, that was the endless round of country house parties and 'gentlemen's clubs' in London. Thats why I think this is so hard to really understand the extent of sympathy for the Nazis.

There was no lack of antagonism towards the left/the poor/those who were not anglo-saxon etc, but that was a discourse held out of sight.

In a way, on the other side, people like my Grandfather were no threat to the UK (much to his disgust). A card carrying member of the British Communist Party with a strong glaswegian accent from a working class family was never likely to be allowed near any point of real influence. The real threat were the Kilby's/Blunts et al, who kept their political loyalty secret.
ezzler
Posts: 864
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 7:44 pm

RE: United Kingdom and the Inter-war years

Post by ezzler »

if you didn't know about it already - i recommend the Dark valley

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Dark-Valley ... 0712667148

Brendon's survey of the 1930's, The Dark Valley: A Panorama of the 1930's, is just that and more. Not only do we see the actions that shaped the 1930's but the vignettes included with regard to both the acts and actors show how petty acts literally drove the world to war. Reading Brendon's excellent work, one wonders if perhaps it should be required reading for all the politicians who seem intent on making the same mistakes. For lovers of history and those with an interest in how and why the 1930's were such an important decade, it is required reading. Brendon takes you around the world from the battlefields of WWI, through the depression to the eve of WWII and it is indeed a journey through a dark valley.One need not agree with all the conclusions he reaches to recognize the value of his work.
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: United Kingdom and the Inter-war years

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: ezz

if you didn't know about it already - i recommend the Dark valley

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Dark-Valley ... 0712667148

Brendon's survey of the 1930's, The Dark Valley: A Panorama of the 1930's, is just that and more. Not only do we see the actions that shaped the 1930's but the vignettes included with regard to both the acts and actors show how petty acts literally drove the world to war. Reading Brendon's excellent work, one wonders if perhaps it should be required reading for all the politicians who seem intent on making the same mistakes. For lovers of history and those with an interest in how and why the 1930's were such an important decade, it is required reading. Brendon takes you around the world from the battlefields of WWI, through the depression to the eve of WWII and it is indeed a journey through a dark valley.One need not agree with all the conclusions he reaches to recognize the value of his work.
warspite1

I read that back in the 90's I think....

Thanks - I will have to dust it off and re-read.
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
Jagdtiger14
Posts: 1685
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:58 pm
Location: Miami Beach

RE: United Kingdom and the Inter-war years

Post by Jagdtiger14 »

I dont want to give Matrix "moderators" an excuse to close another thread, so wont get into a political debate here, but I find it amazing how Fabian socialists, and others are identified by some on a political left-right spectrum. I guess it depends on your perspective.



Conflict with the unexpected: two qualities are indispensable; first, an intellect which, even in the midst of this obscurity, is not without some traces of inner light which lead to the truth; second, the courage to follow this faint light. KvC
User avatar
loki100
Posts: 11699
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 12:38 pm
Location: Utlima Thule

RE: United Kingdom and the Inter-war years

Post by loki100 »

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

I dont want to give Matrix "moderators" an excuse to close another thread, so wont get into a political debate here, but I find it amazing how Fabian socialists, and others are identified by some on a political left-right spectrum. I guess it depends on your perspective.

Hi

if its my comment you are referring to then I was perhaps a bit sloppy in wording. What I meant was if you just look at the left (which was my point in terms of response to the Soviet Union) then groups like the Fabians are on the right of that part of the political spectrum.

At that time, and reflecting the pre-WW1 dynamics in the Second International, you can usefully split the left up into three basic groups (of course no simple taxonomy ever works but it helps get the basic debate clear).

The revolutionary left in effect argued there was no peaceful road from Capitalism to Socialism and you needed a radical rupture (I'd argue this is a wilful mis-reading of Marx but there you are).

What for the sake of a lable can be called a 'socialist' perspective which was that there was a need to end capitalism but this could be done democratically and over time ... but the goal in the end was to replace capitalism with socialism. This was probably more common in Europe than the UK (where it was the dominant formal goal of most main left parties up to the 1960s and had echoes in things like the Miedner programme of the Swedish Social Democrats in the late 1970s) but was the position of say the 'Independent Labour Party' (which despite its name was actually part of the Labour Party in this era).

Then what I'd call social democratic which had evolved to an argument that the real issue was to manage capitalism so as to mitigate its worst effects. This was probably the dominant position in the British Labour Party and its intellectual circles. The Fabians were particularly cautious about just what this entails. It is that caution in matters that could affect them personally (the Webbs were very rich) that makes me so contempuous of their disinterest in the horrors being inflicted on people living in the USSR at the time.

[if this post crosses the line into stuff not really for the forum ... please delete rather than close thread? ... just trying to explain an earlier post in some detail]
User avatar
Jagdtiger14
Posts: 1685
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:58 pm
Location: Miami Beach

RE: United Kingdom and the Inter-war years

Post by Jagdtiger14 »

Thanks Loki! That was exactly what I was looking for! I would ask another question as to where a certain movement were to be placed on the left spectrum, but I'm afraid that might lock the thread.
Conflict with the unexpected: two qualities are indispensable; first, an intellect which, even in the midst of this obscurity, is not without some traces of inner light which lead to the truth; second, the courage to follow this faint light. KvC
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: United Kingdom and the Inter-war years

Post by warspite1 »

Further to the above discussion around the left, CPGB etc, I am reading an excellent book at the moment: The Devil's Alliance (Roger Moorhouse) about the Nazi-Soviet pact. The current chapter concerns the reaction of the Communist parties overseas (inc the UK, US, France and Germany) at the news of the pact and the subsequent Soviet invasions of Poland and Finland.

Echoing Loki100's comment above about the 'idiotic response', the naivety, indeed the stupidity on display was quite shocking.... I had never really given any in depth thought of this episode from the view point of the Communists before.

Incredible [X(]
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24520
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: United Kingdom and the Inter-war years

Post by Chickenboy »

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Further to the above discussion around the left, CPGB etc, I am reading an excellent book at the moment: The Devil's Alliance (Roger Moorhouse) about the Nazi-Soviet pact. The current chapter concerns the reaction of the Communist parties overseas (inc the UK, US, France and Germany) at the news of the pact and the subsequent Soviet invasions of Poland and Finland.

Echoing Loki100's comment above about the 'idiotic response', the naivety, indeed the stupidity on display was quite shocking.... I had never really given any in depth thought of this episode from the view point of the Communists before.

Incredible [X(]

Does it describe the early years of the Baltic states and their independence movements before being subsumed by the bear?
Image
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: United Kingdom and the Inter-war years

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Further to the above discussion around the left, CPGB etc, I am reading an excellent book at the moment: The Devil's Alliance (Roger Moorhouse) about the Nazi-Soviet pact. The current chapter concerns the reaction of the Communist parties overseas (inc the UK, US, France and Germany) at the news of the pact and the subsequent Soviet invasions of Poland and Finland.

Echoing Loki100's comment above about the 'idiotic response', the naivety, indeed the stupidity on display was quite shocking.... I had never really given any in depth thought of this episode from the view point of the Communists before.

Incredible [X(]

Does it describe the early years of the Baltic states and their independence movements before being subsumed by the bear?
warspite1

No. This book deals with the two year period (August 1939-June 1941). The chapter on the Baltic States outlines the way the Soviets went about 'negotiations' with the three, the Germans (predictable thanks to the pact) reaction, the method by which each was subsumed into the Soviet Union and, most sad of all, the repercussions for much of the populace.


Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
loki100
Posts: 11699
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 12:38 pm
Location: Utlima Thule

RE: United Kingdom and the Inter-war years

Post by loki100 »

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Further to the above discussion around the left, CPGB etc, I am reading an excellent book at the moment: The Devil's Alliance (Roger Moorhouse) about the Nazi-Soviet pact. The current chapter concerns the reaction of the Communist parties overseas (inc the UK, US, France and Germany) at the news of the pact and the subsequent Soviet invasions of Poland and Finland.

Echoing Loki100's comment above about the 'idiotic response', the naivety, indeed the stupidity on display was quite shocking.... I had never really given any in depth thought of this episode from the view point of the Communists before.

Incredible [X(]

aye, there is a lot in social psychology about attachment and identity theory that goes a long way to explaining some of this. In essence, if you really make a strong commitment to something (so in this context orthodox marxism-leninism and the USSR) then its very hard to break, and oddly the less attractive your object becomes, the harder it is to break away.

One problem, specifically with the CPGB is a lot of the party archives were lost in 1991 when it split between the short lived Democratic Left (which got the buildings etc) and the 'Morning Star' group which got the paper and printing presses (which actually was probably more valuable). So the full nature of its internal debates in 1939 are hard to follow but there is some evidence that Pollit (who was the leader at the time) was a bit more independent minded than he gets credit for and it took a bit of threatening to make him agree with the Soviet line. Since he'd also angered Stalin by fishing a few British Communists out the gulags in the 1930s he was not too popular and was sidelined soon after.

At a level of real politik, the Soviet stance made some sense. Just that to see it that way means you have to see the Soviet state as a state not, as it claimed, the embodiment of an ideology. The Soviets probably had been sincere in 1938 when they offered to intervene to protect Czechoslavakia and felt badly let down by the British and French. That their intervention would have probably have meant war with Poland was, of course, no concern to the Soviets.
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: United Kingdom and the Inter-war years

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Further to the above discussion around the left, CPGB etc, I am reading an excellent book at the moment: The Devil's Alliance (Roger Moorhouse) about the Nazi-Soviet pact. The current chapter concerns the reaction of the Communist parties overseas (inc the UK, US, France and Germany) at the news of the pact and the subsequent Soviet invasions of Poland and Finland.

Echoing Loki100's comment above about the 'idiotic response', the naivety, indeed the stupidity on display was quite shocking.... I had never really given any in depth thought of this episode from the view point of the Communists before.

Incredible [X(]

aye, there is a lot in social psychology about attachment and identity theory that goes a long way to explaining some of this. In essence, if you really make a strong commitment to something (so in this context orthodox marxism-leninism and the USSR) then its very hard to break, and oddly the less attractive your object becomes, the harder it is to break away.

One problem, specifically with the CPGB is a lot of the party archives were lost in 1991 when it split between the short lived Democratic Left (which got the buildings etc) and the 'Morning Star' group which got the paper and printing presses (which actually was probably more valuable). So the full nature of its internal debates in 1939 are hard to follow but there is some evidence that Pollit (who was the leader at the time) was a bit more independent minded than he gets credit for and it took a bit of threatening to make him agree with the Soviet line. Since he'd also angered Stalin by fishing a few British Communists out the gulags in the 1930s he was not too popular and was sidelined soon after.

At a level of real politik, the Soviet stance made some sense. Just that to see it that way means you have to see the Soviet state as a state not, as it claimed, the embodiment of an ideology. The Soviets probably had been sincere in 1938 when they offered to intervene to protect Czechoslavakia and felt badly let down by the British and French. That their intervention would have probably have meant war with Poland was, of course, no concern to the Soviets.
warspite1

According to Moorhouse, the chronology was:

- First week of September Pollitt (General Secretary of the CPGB) wrote ‘How to Win the War’ to keep the party faithful abreast of the situation. He was comfortable with the Nazi-Soviet pact “a victory for peace and socialists” – and felt that this was in response to Britain’s failure to deal fairly with the Soviet Union. In his leaflet he called for a two-front war – externally against Hitler and internally against the fascist Chamberlain government, pronouncing “the Polish people are right to fight against the Nazi invasion” and “the Communist Party supports the war”.

- 50,000 copies of this 32-page, and no doubt riveting read, were printed and published on the 14th September. The publication met with mixed reaction as can be imagined.

- However, the response from the party faithful aside, there was only one slight problem with all that…..

- That same day a telegram arrived from Moscow…. The party line had changed of course. [AWKWARD] Apparently the current war was an “imperialist and unjust war”….. Whoops! “Under no conditions can the international working class defend fascist Poland”….

- And we know what happened on the 17th.

- Consequently a meeting was held to discuss the issue on the 2nd October in Covent Garden. In fairness to Pollitt he refused to back down from his original interpretation – but he was outvoted 21 – 3.

- A revised leaflet was issued on the 7th in line with Moscow’s official line.

I do not have any issue with Stalin acting in his own (USSR) self-interest over the pact – after all it’s what all countries do and the fact that he was a disgusting animal in charge of a hideous state, does not make ‘looking after no.1’ wrong – and as you say, we have to look at it from the point of view of USSR being a country. Spreading the revolution throughout Europe was the USSR’s way of saving – and then expanding - the revolution according to Lenin. Stalin’s policies were entirely consistent with that.

However, by the same token I have absolutely no sympathy with him ‘feeling badly let down’. The fact was, there was nothing practical that the poor British and French could do. Even if Stalin was sincere (doubtful) the Poles were not having the Soviets on their soil – and that kind of makes a pact or any earlier assistance for the Czechs pretty meaningless.

Chamberlain and Daladier vs Hitler and Stalin. The former never stood a hope because they had nothing they could offer..

Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
loki100
Posts: 11699
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 12:38 pm
Location: Utlima Thule

RE: United Kingdom and the Inter-war years

Post by loki100 »

read a review of Maisky's diaries today. He was the Soviet ambassador to Britain from 1932-43 and the publication includes Munich. Couple of good summaries here and here.

Does suggest the Soviets were sincere about offering to help (even if their capacity to do so was limited) protect Czechoslavakia. Think its a classic case of the problem that afflicts states which become pathological liars. When they are being truthful, no-one really believes them. Doesn't make the M-R pact any less odious, but its always a good idea to remember that states (and individuals) ground their actions on beliefs that seem real to them.
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”