Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Dedication
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction: The Extremes of Englishness
- 1 Oscar Levy: A Nietzschean Vision
- 2 Anthony Mario Ludovici: A ‘Light-Weight Superman’
- 3 Nietzsche and Eugenics
- 4 Race and Eugenics
- 5 The ‘Lethal Chamber’ in Eugenic Thought
- Conclusion: From ‘Underman’ to ‘Underclass’
- Notes
- Bibliography
- Index
Introduction: The Extremes of Englishness
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Dedication
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction: The Extremes of Englishness
- 1 Oscar Levy: A Nietzschean Vision
- 2 Anthony Mario Ludovici: A ‘Light-Weight Superman’
- 3 Nietzsche and Eugenics
- 4 Race and Eugenics
- 5 The ‘Lethal Chamber’ in Eugenic Thought
- Conclusion: From ‘Underman’ to ‘Underclass’
- Notes
- Bibliography
- Index
Summary
The historian should not aim at completeness, he should aim at relevance.
R. G. Collingwood, ‘Notes on Historiography’The standard explanation for the failure of fascism in Britain is the Whiggish one, that British parliamentary institutions were too strong and well developed to fall prey to such an ephemeral movement. This explanation is based on the argument that fascism was a foreign invention, alien to British ways. British fascists, in particular Oswald Mosley and the British Union of Fascists (BUF), were basically imitators, in thrall to Mussolini and, later, Hitler. No such peculiar imports would ever succeed on British soil. As a letter writer to the New Age put it in response to an article by Oscar Levy praising Mussolini,
I trust you do not suggest that the doctor's ideas should be adopted by our nation. The principles of the Italians, Machiavelli and Mussolini, and the philosophy of the Polack Nietzsche, may be suited to the Latin and other Mediterranean races, but they are alien to the northern genius. Benevolent tyranny is the best thing for nations composed of gods and worms, but leadership without too much rule is better for the more homogeneous nations of the north.
With the exception of the extravagances of national self-aggrandisement, this view of Britain is one that still basically underpins the historiography of British fascism. After surveying the potential challengers to parliamentary stability – the Irish question, suffragism, trade unions, the effects of the First World War – one scholar notes that ‘During the 1920s, then, there was little opportunity for extremist parties to gain any purchase on the political system’, and goes on to conclude that ‘Ultimately, the failure of the BUF and of the earlier fascist movements to gain greater support must be attributed to the established parties’ success during the interwar years in maintaining and even increasing their support.’ Among historians and political theorists, British fascism is usually treated as something of a joke, only marginally less risible than the Irish Blue Shirt movement. Even its most careful historian believes that, in the last instance, British fascism ‘was small beer’, and that, ‘In terms of its impact on society and politics, British fascism has been over-rated.’
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Breeding SupermanNietzsche, Race and Eugenics in Edwardian and Interwar Britain, pp. 1 - 11Publisher: Liverpool University PressPrint publication year: 2002