Oswald Mosley and Charles Lindbergh in charge of a neutral UK and US during WWII

On the question of how Mosley and the BUF would have behaved in the event of a German invasion, see Illusions of Grandeur: Mosley, Fascism, and British Society, 1931-81 by David Stephen Lewis:

View attachment 571305

Of course the assumption that Hitler would want Mosley to rule the UK in the event of a successful invasion is questionable. As John Lukacs notes in The Hitler of History:

"All over Europe (for example, in Holland, Denmark, France, Romania, and in a few remarkable instances even in Austria), local National Socialist leaders were abashed when they found that Hitler did not support them and paid them hardly any interest at all. He preferred to work with the established pro-German governments of such provinces and states. The most telling example of this occurred in Romania in January 1941. There the National Socialist and populist Iron Guard (whose anti-Semitic ideology and practices were perhaps the most fanatic and radical in all Europe) got into conflict with the nationalist and military government of General Antonescu, whom Hitler respected and liked. When in January 1941 fighting broke out between the Antonescu and Iron Guard forces, the Germans unequivocally supported the former at the expense of the latter, on occasion with German armor and tanks.

"Of course he had his reasons. While the war lasted, he needed order in the countries that were his allies or satellites--a kind of stability that must not be endangered by revolutionary experiments, and that assured undisrupted deliveries of necessary material supplies to the Reich. Thus he put up for a long time with allied chiefs of state—a Petain, an Antonescu, Regent Horthy of Hungary, King Boris of Bulgaria—some of whom he knew were not wholly loyal or unconditional adherents of a National Socialist Germany. Still, it is significant that he did not offer the slightest promise or give the slightest indication to the effect that sooner or later, perhaps after the war, his foreign National Socialist followers would get their rewards.* [FN] He would, of course, recognize and support some of them in 1944, when his former satellites or junior partners deserted him; but that was no longer important." https://books.google.com/books?id=oRwJs6qCMvIC&pg=PA162
Thanks for that. The "Mosley becomes PM of Britain under German rule" schtick always seemed to me to be rather too "comic book". So does the "Duke of Windsor appointed King by Hitler" line.
 
The implication was fairly clear, at least it was to me.

Planning for a ‘36 election or not, the complete lack of a party apparatus in ‘35 is not a good sign for their OTL organisation. Again, I know that’s OTL, but it’s a whole bunch of changes required for the OP’s scenario to come about. It’s one thing saying Mosley becomes PM, it’s quite another for it to be OTL Mosley with his almost nonexistent support base and (as discussed) shambolic party organisation.
Given the same user is throwing quotes around like nobodies business I would have appreciated their acknowledgement of mitigating factors instead of just dropping a factoid.

This is a bit of an over exaggeration. Its not that there was a complete lack of party organisation so much as there wasn't one ready to fight a full scale election. The BUF still campaigned in the election under a 'Fascism Next Time' slogan and the decision to not stand candidates was very much a strategic one. Mosley knew that the BUF was unlikely to win seats (not least because the National Government had called a snap election to take advantage of a small economic upswing since their formation) and he wished to avoid the same disaster as the New Party which would have killed the BUF. So yes, its hardly a positive that they didn't field candidates at that election but it is not the definitive proof of the BUF's 'inevitable' failure that certain users are presenting it as.
The BUF showed some strength in local elections in East London where Jewish-Gentile relations were often hostile. But that was the only place in the UK the BUF made a substantial showing (though even there they didn't actually win any London County Council seats, Labour comfortably retaining the seats in question.) "This proved to be the only area of the country where fascism acquired a significant mass base ."
https://books.google.com/books?id=7A7oAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA259 Sorry, you can't become Prime Minister on the votes of East London anti-Semites alone...
Well that's good, because the BUF enjoyed support from rather more than just East End anti-Semites.

Over the course of its existent, the BUF went through periods of massive support and near insignificance. For example, in 1934 they packed out the Royal Albert Hall for a rally but when Rothermere withdrew the backing of his papers (particularly the Daily Mail), that support plummeted. In the Abdication Crisis, they grew in stature and support but this melted away when Edward VII did indeed abdicate.

The issue here, IMHO, is you've fallen into the trap of associating the BUF primarily with the East End. This is understandable, it gained notoriety there, not least because of the misleadingly named and remembered Battle of Cable Street, but it fails to acknowledge that the BUF enjoyed considerable support among far more groups than just East End thugs. As I have noted before, they enjoyed the support of landowning farmers, textile workers, a considerable portion of the 'establishment' (which we conveniently ignore these days), a decent number of working class people who regarded socialism/communism as unpatriotic (indeed, the BUF themselves noted that many of their best members for street campaigning were ex-Communists) and I could go on.

The problem they had in translating this support into quantifiable voting numbers was two fold, first they stood in one election (they did stand in three by-elections during WW2 to unsurprisingly poor returns), the London City Council Elections you've cited. So not only did they not actually did their supporters the opportunity to vote for them but the only election they did stand in had a rate-paying electorate, namely only people who paid property rates (that is property owners) could vote, which wipes out basically all of their most loyal support, the young. So again you've just dropped a factoid without actually exploring the contributing factors. Their second problem was the crisis that fascism at the end of the day relies on for people to reject the status quo never materialised in Britain. There were hints at it, but every time it wither fizzled out, was resolved or came too late. If Britain is hit worse by the Great Depression (or rather, hit differently, IOTL it endured a long running unemployment problem that never quite reached crisis levels), if Edward VII actually showed some fight in the Abdication Crisis, etc. then could have been a very different story.

And since you like throwing quotes around, I'll end with an extract from "Hurrah for the Blackshirts!": Fascists and Fascism in Britain between the Wars by Martin Pugh
Fascism in inter-war Britain was not just a failure, it was an inevitable failure. While it flourished in Italy and Germany, the British simply failed to see the relevance to them. In fact, fascism seemed fundamentally alien to British political culture and traditions; the British people were too deeply committed to their long-standing parliament, to democracy and the rule of law to be attracted by the corporate state, and they found the violent methods employed by Continental fascists offensive. Fascist organisations arrived late in Britain and when they did they were easily marginalised by the refusal of conventional right-wing politicians to have anything to do with them. When the fascist movement under Sir Oswald Mosley shower itself in its true colours in 1934 the government took prompt and effective action to suppress the violence and the paramilitary organisation. The outbreak of war in 1939 promptly put and end to the movement.

Such assumptions reflect a comforting and widely held British view that fascism is simply not a part of our national story. Yet, although these beliefs are not wholly wrong, they are, without exception, misleading and are based as much on prejudice as on evidence. In fact, doubts about the received wisdom were down as long ago as 1975 when Robert Sidelaky published his biography of Oswald Mosley. By demonstrating that fascism was not simply a matter of mindless thuggery but involved a set of well thought out ideas, Sidelsky forced us to take the subject more seriously. And by showing how a typical member of the war generation could arrive at a fascist position as a result of his experiences, he implicitly issued a warning against simplistic psychological explanations of fascism as the product of a warped mentality.
 
Last edited:

Coulsdon Eagle

Monthly Donor
Could Mosley as a Labour MP become leader of the party and then PM in ‘36? Possibly.

Could he turn the Labour Party fascist from within and completely change British foreign policy in less than 3 years? No.
Probably the least worst path to follow for the OP's outcome. Say Macdonald fails to form a National Government, a general election is called and Labour is caned. Baldwin's Conservative government fails to meet the financial challenges, and the Abdication crisis comes in the middle of the 1936 general election. Many of the old-serving Labour leaders & MPs either lost their seats in 1931 or stand down in the interim. Mosley, one good source of socialist policies, and a charismatic speaker, becomes Labour leader in 1932 and leads it to a narrow win in 1936. Britain's financial situation is poor, and money is concentrated upon a public works programme and relief for the unemployed. There is little money for rearmament. the UK enters another period of "splendid isolation" rather than destroy the economy (& Empire) and suffer the costs of another World War.
 
Top