Why was fascism so popular in Germany and Italy yet so unsuccessful in Britain?

This makes me wonder if Churchill simply held a grudge against the Germans for threatening British Economic Dominance. Hitler showed nothing but a desire for Brotherhood with the English.

>Hitler showed nothing but a desire for Brotherhood with the English.

BS

Hitler wanted to upset the balance of power in Europe, which was the paramount goal of British diplomacy since like 16th century. This just had to put him at the collision course with Britain. If Britain allowed one lunatic to have Europe's resources, she'd be hopelessly dwarfed and reduced into a secondary role.

Hitler started to make ouvertoures towards Britain only in 1940, when it became obvious that he has no idea how to finish the war. Before that, he made basically every possible thing to piss Britain off, including lying to them in Munich.

it may have seemed far off but it's actually scary how close Britain could have been to fascism, there were a lot of sympathies within government and opposition to it, luckily our prime minister was anti fascist

Mosley was for all purposes isolationist and Britain-first kind of politician. While BUoF didn't adopt his policies in entirety, those two parts were still there.

That answers every single of your questions.

It was unsuccessful because British elites knew that isolationist, passive Great Britain paves a way to continental hegemony of Germany, France or USSR. And I don't think I have to explain why is continental hegemony bad for Britain. Fascist movements always succeeded with elites supporting them and always failed without that support.

The relationships depended on the way he'd handle the monarchy and the extent in which he would for instance - enforce some of his policies on dominions. For Australia, News Zealand and Canada there was nothing wrong with isolationism but had he started to intervene into their internal policies and they would get pissed off. Whether Mosley wanted to do so - I don't know, hope Veeky Forums will tell us.

Maybe yes. Maybe not. There is a question whether Mosley would actually remain neutral in face of France falling. Had he joined right away and British would be in better position than they were in "historical" 1940 since they wouldn't leave so much equipment in France.

i know this is bait but it's so retarded i have to respond

P G Wodehouse's "Roderick Spode" satire of Oswald Moseley actually did a lot of damage:
youtube.com/watch?v=JYWRu8uT8z8
The general public in the UK found it difficult to take fascism seriously. Combine that with the fact their pride hadn't taken the beating endured by the Germans' since Versailles.

>This makes me wonder if Churchill simply held a grudge against the Germans for threatening British Economic Dominance.
Perhaps, but considering how involved Chruchill was with WWI (First Lord of The Admiralty), it seems hard to imagine him even contemplating an alliance with Germany.

The Jews assassinated all the early fascist leaders. The fascists wanted to stay out of the war. See T. E. Lawrence

this
I expect both Germany and Italy being young nation states, only established in the mid 19th C. was also a significant factor in the nationalist appeal of fascism.

Fascism grows out of weakness

Fascism feeds from chaos, not weakness
It is difficult to imagine how fascism would change once they achieved peace and had no more treats.

chaos is weakness

>British arguing skills

>holiday destination greentexting

This.

Brits are politically conservative, meaning they have been thoroughly broken by their rulers into never questioning the status quo, and leaving politics to their betters.

Chesterton put it quite well in that poem where he retraces the history of England, showing how for a thousand years the English have always been just passive spectators, mindlessly following orders and never taking things into their own hands.

post the poem

Smile at us, pay us, pass us; but do not quite forget;
For we are the people of England, that never have spoken yet.
There is many a fat farmer that drinks less cheerfully,
There is many a free French peasant who is richer and sadder than we.
There are no folk in the whole world so helpless or so wise.
There is hunger in our bellies, there is laughter in our eyes;
You laugh at us and love us, both mugs and eyes are wet:
Only you do not know us. For we have not spoken yet.

The fine French kings came over in a flutter of flags and dames.
We liked their smiles and battles, but we never could say their names.
The blood ran red to Bosworth and the high French lords went down;
There was naught but a naked people under a naked crown.
And the eyes of the King's Servants turned terribly every way,
And the gold of the King's Servants rose higher every day.
They burnt the homes of the shaven men, that had been quaint and kind,
Till there was no bed in a monk's house, nor food that man could find.
The inns of God where no man paid, that were the wall of the weak.
The King's Servants ate them all. And still we did not speak.

And the face of the King's Servants grew greater than the King:
He tricked them, and they trapped him, and stood round him in a ring.
The new grave lords closed round him, that had eaten the abbey's fruits,
And the men of the new religion, with their bibles in their boots,
We saw their shoulders moving, to menace or discuss,
And some were pure and some were vile; but none took heed of us.
We saw the King as they killed him, and his face was proud and pale;
And a few men talked of freedom, while England talked of ale.

A war that we understood not came over the world and woke
Americans, Frenchmen, Irish; but we knew not the things they spoke.
They talked about rights and nature and peace and the people's reign:
And the squires, our masters, bade us fight; and scorned us never again.
Weak if we be for ever, could none condemn us then;
Men called us serfs and drudges; men knew that we were men.
In foam and flame at Trafalgar, on Albuera plains,
We did and died like lions, to keep ourselves in chains,
We lay in living ruins; firing and fearing not
The strange fierce face of the Frenchmen who knew for what they fought,
And the man who seemed to be more than a man we strained against and broke;
And we broke our own rights with him. And still we never spoke.

Our patch of glory ended; we never heard guns again.
But the squire seemed struck in the saddle; he was foolish, as if in pain,
He leaned on a staggering lawyer, he clutched a cringing Jew,
He was stricken; it may be, after all, he was stricken at Waterloo.
Or perhaps the shades of the shaven men, whose spoil is in his house,
Come back in shining shapes at last to spoil his last carouse:
We only know the last sad squires rode slowly towards the sea,
And a new people takes the land: and still it is not we.

They have given us into the hand of new unhappy lords,
Lords without anger or honour, who dare not carry their swords.
They fight by shuffling papers; they have bright dead alien eyes;
They look at our labour and laughter as a tired man looks at flies.
And the load of their loveless pity is worse than the ancient wrongs,
Their doors are shut in the evening; and they know no songs.

We hear men speaking for us of new laws strong and sweet,
Yet is there no man speaketh as we speak in the street.
It may be we shall rise the last as Frenchmen rose the first,
Our wrath come after Russia's wrath and our wrath be the worst.
It may be we are meant to mark with our riot and our rest
God's scorn for all men governing. It may be beer is best.
But we are the people of England; and we have not spoken yet.
Smile at us, pay us, pass us. But do not quite forget.

>never questioning the status quo

What did he mean by this?

Mosley was very popular. But they outlawed the party (by banning parties that had uniforms or something, not outright outlawing the party) which effectively killed it.

>attempting to refute truth with a small failed plot
Nigel pls

Do you seriously think this had anything to do with the common people of England? It was a power struggle between the crown and parliament, the people were just spectators as always.

>a small failed plot

What the fuck are you on about?

Nevermind, you're just trying to /int/ me aren't you?

>by banning parties that had uniforms or something

the weimar regime in Germany tried the same thing. Didn't work out

It was pretty successful in Britian but the war interrupted its growth before it could become a real possibility.

Really extreme circumstances killed it off.

The classic dogma of Franco-British foreign policy since Napoleon was that europe should have a 'balance of power'. In reality this meant that German nations which were divided into dozens of small independant states must not unite because if this happened they would be the new power in europe overthrowing the French dominance. France barely had a dominance as it was.

Churchill was motivated to go to war with Germany purely based on adherence to this doctrine, despite it being a century old and despite it pre-dating communism, Fascism, and to an extent liberal europe.

His foolish policy lead to th destruction of a potential ally, the destruction of the British Empire, and communist dominance of eastern europe for 70 years.

Its honestly a miracle that he was able to win the propaganda battle and have WWII come off as a victory for the british when, despite it being a military victory, it was a huge strategic defeat and foreign policy blunder.

A blunder that UK nor eastern europe has recovered from.

A complete failure.

Kek.

This is what happens when the /int/ posters come to Veeky Forums.

You've humiliated yourself.

So you want a peasant revolts and shit?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasants'_Revolt
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_miners'_strike_(1984–85)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_Tax_Riots

I'm fairly sure most peasants were spectators pre-nationalism anyway

Oh wow it's fucking nothing.

>I'm fairly sure most peasants were spectators pre-nationalism anyway
You mean before the French Revolution. And then pretty much every Western country had revolutions of one form or another, except for Britain.

>And then pretty much every Western country had revolutions of one form or another, except for Britain.

Aside from the Glorious Revolution of 1688? Which happened before the French Revolution?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_Revolution

But sure. keep those goalposts moving

It's because eternal anglo and his fuccbois got BTFO by gommies and trade unionists at cable street.

Learn some fucking history instead of memes.

The "Glorious Revolution" was a parliamentary coup supported by a Dutch invasion. Again the common people had jack shit to do with it.

Fine then, I'll put my boots on again

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobite_risings#The_rising_of_1689.E2.80.9392

Jacobites had no common people involved at all.

A royal pretender who drummed up the support of some Scottish clan leaders and lost? Are you just posting random events now?

>Why was fascism so popular in Germany and Italy yet so unsuccessful in Britain?

Because fascism is very collectivist which is the complete opposite of British national ethos. The Brits more or less created individualism as we know it today.

>More widely, commoners developed communities in areas where they could fraternise in Jacobite alehouses, inns and taverns, singing seditious songs, collecting for the cause and on occasion being recruited for risings.

>some guy managed to get some people vaguely interested in his claim for the throne by giving them alcohol, and then failed
>this is English people taking charge of their destiny

Loving
Every
Laugh

>this is English people taking charge of their destiny

That's not we're talking about.

It's about Brits "*never* questioning the status quo". They obviously did and have, and still do.

Even a revolt from the nobility counts for this, unless they don't count as "English People" or "Brits" to you.

But anyway I'm done with you; make the shitpost you reply to this with at least entertaining.

Britain wasn't as poor or didn't lose WW1 as hard.

>- the bloody most powerful empire of the time
Britain had been eclipsed by the US for over half a century.

the US isn't really an empire though is it

No they didn't. Some lord paid them or told them to fight for him and they obeyed, that's all they ever did.

>Even a revolt from the nobility counts for this
Are you retarded? We're talking about the people.

Uh yes? Are you...retarded or something?

>No they didn't. Some lord paid them or told them to fight for him and they obeyed, that's all they ever did.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasants'_Revolt

And the shitpost cycle begins again...

Um no? It's...not? Are you ergh? Um, stupid? Or...something?

Good God he looks like Freddie Mercury. Was he gay cause holy shit he's so flaming that Moseby could spontaneously combust

I think there may be a correlation between repressed homosexuality and reactionary politics.

Peasants don't count as "the people".

Britain was never had fascist but had the most fascist leanings more than any other country, after WWII.

At least Orwell though so.

nice

>a country that took over an entire continent and had territories all over the pacific was not an empire

>fascism
>reactionary

Stop.

I mean, Hitler and his "Golden Boy". His fabulous uniforms by designer Hugo Boss.

you're right

Hungry peasants revolting happened all over the place dumbass, that's not a fucking revolution.

>Hungry peasants revolting happened all over the place dumbass, that's not a fucking revolution.

That's not we're talking about.

It's about Brits "*never* questioning the status quo". They obviously did and have, and still do.

A revolt of peasants counts for this, even if they happen all over the place.

But anyway I'm done with you; make the shitpost you reply to this with at least entertaining.

and adding to this:

revolution
rɛvəˈluːʃ(ə)n/Submit
noun
1.
a forcible overthrow of a government or social order, in favour of a new system.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Civil_War

Result
Parliamentarian victory
Execution of King Charles I
Exile of Charles II
Establishment of the republican Commonwealth under Oliver Cromwell

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_England

>NOOOOO MOM I'M NOT A FASCIST I'M A TRIBALIST TRADITIONALIST TORY REACTIONARY IT'S NOT THE SAME THING I SWEAR

If you don't understand how fascism isn't reactionary you're too stupid to post on Veeky Forums.

Oh for the love of fuck, if you can delude yourself to the point where you can't tell the difference between the common people deciding to take their country into their own hands and change the political system, and a bunch of power struggles between aristocrats or hungry peasant revolts, then I can't help you.

Just stop posting, you obviously have no interest in understand history if you're trying to pass off the English Civil War as a popular revolution.

>Why was fascism so popular in Germany and Italy yet so unsuccessful in Britain?
Because Britain was a pretty unified government at the time. Germany was getting completely shat on economically and Italy was a boiling political pot.
Also, the british people were already brainwashed about the germans being "the bad guys" from WWI, so getting them together under the fasces would of been complicated.

>How would Britain's relationship with the commonwealth be affected if it had progressed to a fascist government? Would Canada and Australia break off from Britain entirely?
War would of waged off agaisnt whatever allies there were, and a successful fascist Canada would of influenced fascism in the US.
Japan and Germany would of probably been way more succesful without british ships helping them rather than shitting on them.

>Could fascist British empire push the axis to victory?
Yup.

Fascism was out in Britain, or at least the party was. I'm sure that didn't help.

>you can delude yourself to the point where you can't tell the difference between the common people deciding to take their country into their own hands and change the political system, and a bunch of power struggles between aristocrats or hungry peasant revolts

That's not we're talking about.

It's about Brits "*never* questioning the status quo". They obviously did and have, and still do.

A revolt of peasants counts for this, even if they happen all over the place.

But anyway I'm done with you; make the shitpost you reply to this with at least entertaining.

>as a popular revolution

This following post didn't specify popular revolutions

>And then pretty much every Western country had revolutions of one form or another, except for Britain.

>had revolutions of one form or another

I think the English War was a revolution of "one form or another"

but the british never invaded Czechoslovakia you retard.

Autism

>those teeth

You're diagnosed autistic aren't you.

>half a century
ridiculous statement

us and the British empire were about equal in 1910. us overtook britain in about 1925

Uh maybe it was the fact that Churchill threw every suspected axis symphatizer into concentration camps? He said he'd rather personally burn europe to the ground than let the axis establish hegemony over it

The man was insane and saw it as his mission to sabotage the brotherly bond between germany and britain even if it meant the ultimate decline of the latter
"Should Germany merchandise again in the next 50 years we have led this war (WW1) in vain." - Winston Churchill in Times (1919)

There was no popular revolution in Britain for two reasons; the resurgence of the common enemy (France) and the comparative liberalism of Britain's political system. The power of the aristocracy in Britain had been diluted by the growing middle class in the previous century, parliamentary debate was alive and well and the freedom of the press (secured after the Wilkes riots) allowed a degree of expression not found in France, for example. Following the Civil War the parliamentary system meant that no monarch or minister could impose his unpopular will for long, therefore there was no need for a revolution. The 'power struggles' between King/Parliament/nobility that you keep mentioning kept having small gradual effects that eventually ensured that Britain was not ruled so badly it constituted a revolution.

Germans are and always will be sissy followers

This and yet they love to spout about the freedoms granted to them by their Anglo-Saxon traditions. There's a reason why democracy only works in a broken half-assed manner in Anglo nations.

Germans are based and white

because britain was controlled by the jews

White yes, but not based whatsoever

>it was the fact that Churchill threw every suspected axis symphatizer into concentration camps
>this is what germaniggers actually believe

Not him, but while they didn't put them in camps, they did put them in prison. Mosley, for example, was imprisoned for daring to call for peace just before Dunkirk under this law en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_Regulation_18B.

So was Germany according to the fascist narrative

>based
>white

Not anymore, thanks to Frau Merkel

Reactionarism is the desire to return to the status quo ante. Fascists really did not desire this. Reactionary movements in the 1920-1945 would have been monarchists etc.

Fascism = new society, new man, futurism, economic and social order that hasn't been tried before
Reaction = back to the past: the ideology

Fascism is literally progressive, revolutionary and radical AKA the opposite of reaction.

I'm guessing long standing democratic tradition was a big factor as well, in Germany and Italy monarchy had had much larger role then in countries such a France, and Britain where the power of the monarchy had become more and more symbolic. In France for example fascism was perhaps even less of a political force then it was in Britain. France only really started having trouble with communism. Current day countries with less of a democratic tradition, such as Poland and Turkey have also elected fascist like governments. While in countries like France and Britain a Front national or ukip government is still a very distant reality.

Its because of Britain's long history as a free and democratic society governed by the rule of law. Fascism is to Brits what Communism is to Americans.

What are these obscure memes?

>Why was fascism so popular in Germany and Italy yet so unsuccessful in Britain?
beady-eyed Anglos
No seriously the history of Anglos better prepared Britain to resist changes to their political landscape
-well-established rule of law
-long history of representative government
Also the state was much more powerful than in Italy or Germany, Britain could maintain control over its streets more or less
Italy and Germany both only united in the 19th century both have spotty records with representative governments and both have weird continental ideas about if they even like rule of law, juries democracy etc etc
Also both got fucked over at a time when their expectations were so high both Italy and Germany were rising in power after being united and suddenly they are the losers of a great war
>How would Britain's relationship with the commonwealth be affected if it had progressed to a fascist government? Would Canada and Australia break off from Britain entirely?
Doubtful because if fascism had succeeded in Britain it would have further solidified fascism as a legitimate political system and gave enormous prestige and legitimacy to it
Also it would have been like Italian fascism, simply a mask over the basic underlying society
>Could fascist British empire push the axis to victory?
If Britain was fascist there probably would not even have been a war or it would have been a war solely against Poland and USSR which would be really interesting because then we would see if the US still tries to fight against Germany by supporting Russia and if Japan still attacked US, which they would have, whether Britain would ally with Japan against the US

It spews the same kind of "tradition" and "return to when x was great."

Why the fuck do you think Nazi Archaeologists promoted that whole "every civilization was founded by Aryans" myth? Why did they not instead focus solely on doing that in the future? Because Fascism relies on the past for legitimacy and wants to return to that past.