Friday
22Jun2007
what opposites look like
Friday, June 22, 2007 at 01:57AM Yesterday on one of the threads there was much argument over that old favourite "pin the swastika on the ideological donkey", or to put it another way "of course the nazis were leftwing/rightwing (- delete as apropriate)".
Although I think the left/right paradigm is a simplism ad absurdum, certainly when dealing with the political turmoil of the inter-war years, the one thing I'm sure of is that whatever differences you can find between the nazis and the communists, as illustrated in the posters below(both 1932), the similarities are greater.
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (40)
Frankly Richard, that debate baffled me. Why is it necessary to define the Nazis as Left or Right? They were fucking Nazis, for Christ's sake. I don't think there is a current ideological twin to that particular historical horror. Hitler took what worked best from any ideology to consolodate his power and wreak havoc across Europe. His legacy has no bearing on current politics, other than as an example of evil and a retarded bastard of a bitch-slap that right and left use to throw at each other in denuciation of partisan ideology.
Richard, I think if you want to have decent debate on this topic you need to seriously define the political labels that get tossed about so randomly when the words Hitler and Nazi are spoken. You know the words - label them. Old posters don't seriously make the point. With all due respect.
National Socialism is leftwing.
your words.
which dont stand up to any scrutiny of the facts whatsoever. and you continue to confuse totalitarian similarities with ideological similarities.
that they both used strong typeface and bold modernist art to make their point proves little more than they both saw the power in such modes of design. i went to see an exhibition in barcelona a few years back on propaganda posters from the civil war era. there were virtually no differences in terms of concept or design. elavate the worker/people/soldier and demonise the enemy.
that both extremes were/are totalitarian tells you little more than both were/are willing to use any methods to achieve their opposing ideological aims, and more importantly absolute control.
The left has its rogues and the right does too. end of. though it is a little concerning that the right wants nothing to do with its worst offenders. obviously in an effort to distance themselves from the ultimate conclusions of their own ideology when given the breathing space to run riot.
As I said yesterday totalitarianism is in a different axis to Left right. Hitler and Stalin are joined in being both totalitarians. That incluses left and right.
Brilliant comment, Daphne (4:30)
>>whatever differences you can find between the nazis and the communists, as illustrated in the posters below(both 1932), the similarities are greater<<
Richard, I think a big problem in the inter-war years was that the people took the propaganda at face value, as you are now doing, and didn't enquire too much about consequences.
The difference isnt in what they stood for, its in how 'right' and 'left'. The fact is that for every 'rightwing' apologist for Nazism in 2007, you can find 100 'leftwing', 'progressive', 'liberal' apologists for the equal evil of Communism.
It *is* spurious to call the Nazis 'leftwing' across the board - they bastardised socialism and capitalism in equal measure for their own ends and economically they were quite successful at it - China anyone?
Throwing the Nazis are leftwing line out does come across as a bit desperate guys. Where the BNP is concerned we have a lot more justification as they are decidedly anti-capitalist where the Nazis weren't, and the fact that their membership seems to be shilling for Ron Paul now kinda says it all really...
Whoops, typo time. Ah well...
"The left has its rogues and the right does too. end of. though it is a little concerning that the right wants nothing to do with its worst offenders. obviously in an effort to distance themselves from the ultimate conclusions of their own ideology when given the breathing space to run riot."
That's an interesting thought - after all, there is little doubt that socialsm is a left wing ideology and the left were quite happy to give that the breathing space to run riot with the result that - even with conservative estimates - some 120 million people were killed during the 20th century alone. Quite a substantial number more than the Nazi ideology managed.
Equally interesting is the fact that in both cases - nazism and socialism - the political wing that opposed them was the right. Indeed, it is hard to think of a more conventional right wing nationalist country than Great Britain prior to the start of WW2.
Marx considered Britain to be the biggest stumbling block to the march of left wing ideology. In 1849, he wrote in the New Rhenish Gazette that "England will only be overthrown by a world war, which is the only thing that could provide the Chartists, the organised party of the English workers, with the conditions for a successful rising against their gigantic oppressors."
In a way, he was correct - as Britain post WW2 became a socialist nation. Unfortunately for Marx, another right wing nation emerged to take Britain's place - the USA.
And all through the 20th century as the left committed their hateful crimes against people all over the world amassing bodies on an unprecedented scale, the left pretended it was a benign system. There are members of our government who supported these murderous regimes - even when they were aware just how despicable they were.
My view is that an overwhelmingly statist, centralised, regulation obsessed government is left wing - and that was nazism. Nazism is considered right wing because it was "nationalistic", but, again as Marx noted, the nation state was an essential step towards socialist world domination.
But whether it was left or right - the point is that the ideology that stood up to it was undoubtedly right wing.
And no, the Soviet Union did not stand against nazism - it was an ally of the Nazis up until 1941. The only thing the Soviet Union stood up for was itself - the ideology of Sovietism - not the people of Russia the lives of which they threw away with careless abandon.
Stan posted:
"Equally interesting is the fact that in both cases - nazism and socialism - the political wing that opposed them was the right."
Really? Who on the right opposed Hitler in the 1930s in Germany or Britain? The Daily Mail was falling over itslef in admiration for the corporal.
And this :
"My view is that an overwhelmingly statist, centralised, regulation obsessed government is left wing - and that was nazism. Nazism is considered right wing because it was "nationalistic""
As previously posted, Hitler did not nationalise anything and he left property rights and profits intact. Stalin did exactly the opposite. But we are told that both of them were lefists. Total crap.
"Really? Who on the right opposed Hitler in the 1930s in Germany or Britain? The Daily Mail was falling over itslef in admiration for the corporal."
Contrary to the rabid imaginings ofthe left, the Daily Mail does not run the country and did not run the country in 1939 either.
Who opposed Germany? Don't you think going to war with them was "opposition" then? And what was the Soviet Union doing at this time? Carving Poland up with their Nazi allies is what.
"As previously posted, Hitler did not nationalise anything and he left property rights and profits intact. Stalin did exactly the opposite. But we are told that both of them were lefists. Total crap."
Such ignorance is astounding.
Although, the Nazi economy retained a facade of private enterprise, it is well known that it was primarily directed by the state - often under threat of nationalisation. Profit levels, investment levels and even wage levels were set by the state. The Nazis also oversaw a massive increase in the public sector spending - again, typical of a socialist government. Restrictions on imports, foreign capital and spending were also introduced - all at odds with right wing economic principles, but completely in keeping with socialist economic principles.
All this is well documented historical fact - as is the grim toll of other leftist regimes through the 20th century.
The Right DO consistently draw up nazi analogies and 1930s analogies to a variety of current debates. The Left do exactly the same and each side leans on extremes. So it is a worthwhile discussion.
I think everyone has missed the point of Richards post. Read it again.
"people took the propaganda at face value, as you are now doing, and didn't enquire too much about consequences".
OK so chuck Hitzbollahs poster into that mix, look at who consistently rallies to their defence, who calls them fascists and enquire about the consequences?
Peter,
As usual you are getting your words and definitions all mixed up.
"As previously posted, Hitler did not nationalise anything and he left property rights and profits intact. Stalin did exactly the opposite. But we are told that both of them were lefists. Total crap.
a) "Hitler did not nationalise anything"
No of course he didn't - that is one of the fundemental differences between Communist, and Nazi (fascist), with the former, the state owns everything and everyone. With the latter the state seeks to control the creation of wealth, not by owning it, but by controlling it by means of legislation. The major industrial companies in pre-war Germany all had their 'political appointee', on the board.
Usually when 'nationalist' is mentioned in terms of Germany, it refers to Germany's desire to build a European empire, and to their belief that they were superior to others, and the best, - more to do with 'national pride', not to how many companies it can send to the wall. Hence their desire to purify the gene pool...it refers to pride in their nation...
Russia, Germany and Italy, all had their roots in socialism, and none believed in the rights of the individual, - everything was about 'the collective approach'.
"Fascism - A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, and stringent socioeconomic controls, - note that last bit! - nothing there about state ownnership.
"Communism, a theory and system of social and political organization that was a major force in world politics for much of the 20th century, involving control by means of state ownership."
Perhaps Hitler wasn't quite so simplistic as Stalin, -and allowed a degree of private ownership, to enable some sort of rapport between the state and the proles. that way he didn't have to kill quite so many of his own countrymen to get them to behave. Stalin was nothnig more than a homicidal maniac, killing anyone who got in his way, and killed far more people than Hitler.
"though it is a little concerning that the right wants nothing to do with its worst offenders. obviously in an effort to distance themselves from the ultimate conclusions of their own ideology when given the breathing space to run riot".
What an infuriatingly ignorant comment. If you went along to these exhibitions did it not occur to you how often these posters are used now? Whose face appears on the uniquely 'freedom valuing' 'power to the people' 'peace loving' 'perfect' leftist fucking ideologues? *Terrorists* and mass murderers like Che Guevara, Lenin, Stalin, Mao all acceptable loveable rogues who merely stuck it to the man as fas as the left are concerned.
the African communist movement in london uses almost identical images, with black skin and big fists instead of white.....
Daphne,
I think it's a debate worth having, not so the nazis can finally be placed on the correct point of the left/right axis, but so that the left/right axis can be seen to be what it is - a simplism ad absurdum, that doesn't aid understanding, rather the opposite. The posters don't prove a lot, I concede, but I was struck by their similarities.
DT,
" 'National Socialism is leftwing.'
your words.
which dont stand up to any scrutiny of the facts whatsoever. and you continue to confuse totalitarian similarities with ideological similarities."
I note you quote me from yesterday, and remove the qualification I placed on my pronouncement, namely:
"The leftwing/rightwing view is simplistic and sterile, but I can't resist it! If people insist on left/right paradigms, National Socialism is leftwing"
I'm not convinced you want to scrutinise facts, rather you want to reinforce the orthodox view. As such, you will dismiss facts as irrelevant. Your notion that I am confusing "totalitarian similarities with ideological similarities" presupposes that the two things are separate, when in fact totalitarianism was central to the ideologies of nazism, fascism and communism.
As others (Stan/Ernest/Alison) have said some of the things that I would have said, I won't go on too long.
Raising this issue is to challenge the orthodox view. What I hope is that people will look into the History, examine not only the similarities between nazism and communism, but also the differences between nazism and fascism, and the origins of all these movements, the parallels between them and the "New Deal" period in America etc.
Such issues should be uncomfortable for self-proclaimed leftists and progressives, but won't give conservatives and patriotic British too much to crow about seeing what their government was up to in the same period and the Real Politik it engaged in during the 1930's, for these ideologies didn't form in a vacuum.
Richard,
I agree with your statement,
"but so that the left/right axis can be seen to be what it is - a simplism ad absurdum, that doesn't aid understanding, rather the opposite."
That is a debate worth having.
Also DT you took Richards words out of all context - he had already said yesterday 'The leftwing/rightwing view is simplistic and sterile' because he had been challenged on the left right thing. The point was and is shown in the posters to a degree that absolute power transcends the lot.
Although, the Nazi economy retained a facade of private enterprise, it is well known that it was primarily directed by the state - often under threat of nationalisation. Profit levels, investment levels and even wage levels were set by the state. The Nazis also oversaw a massive increase in the public sector spending - again, typical of a socialist government. Restrictions on imports, foreign capital and spending were also introduced - all at odds with right wing economic principles, but completely in keeping with socialist economic principles.
stan, again thats into the domain of totalitarianism. not the underlying ideaology.
"Hitler did not nationalise anything"
No of course he didn't - that is one of the fundemental differences between Communist, and Nazi (fascist), with the former, the state owns everything and everyone. With the latter the state seeks to control the creation of wealth, not by owning it, but by controlling it by means of legislation. The major industrial companies in pre-war Germany all had their 'political appointee', on the board.
ernest,
so elitism, class, priveledge and money could secure you a place at the table. the industrialists etc backed hitler to the hilt. their equivalents in USSR never even heard the gunshot.
Perhaps Hitler wasn't quite so simplistic as Stalin, -and allowed a degree of private ownership, to enable some sort of rapport between the state and the proles. that way he didn't have to kill quite so many of his own countrymen to get them to behave. Stalin was nothnig more than a homicidal maniac, killing anyone who got in his way, and killed far more people than Hitler.
Hitler never would have got into power without the industrialists. end of. they were in it together.
OK so chuck Hitzbollahs poster into that mix, look at who consistently rallies to their defence, who calls them fascists and enquire about the consequences?
valid point. but an example of how many labour under the assumption that mere proximity to a banner or poster demonstrates approval. personally, i do everything but spit at SWP activists.
And no, the Soviet Union did not stand against nazism - it was an ally of the Nazis up until 1941. The only thing the Soviet Union stood up for was itself - the ideology of Sovietism - not the people of Russia the lives of which they threw away with careless abandon.
and we were Russias allies immediately after. whats your point?
I'm not convinced you want to scrutinise facts, rather you want to reinforce the orthodox view. As such, you will dismiss facts as irrelevant. Your notion that I am confusing "totalitarian similarities with ideological similarities" presupposes that the two things are separate, when in fact totalitarianism was central to the ideologies of nazism, fascism and communism.
actually you couldnt be more wrong. when it comes to WW2 i always keep right up to date with current major works on the subject. in the post-cold war era new light is being shed on the orthodaxy of WW2 constantly. its just a pity more people dont take the time and effort to do the same. most western common knowledge on the subject is still rooted in the context of the cold war. remove that and it becomes a vastly different and even more complex event in our history.
Such issues should be uncomfortable for self-proclaimed leftists and progressives, but won't give conservatives and patriotic British too much to crow about seeing what their government was up to in the same period and the Real Politik it engaged in during the 1930's, for these ideologies didn't form in a vacuum.
thats why liberals and leftists ended up in "re-education" in the early 30s and conservative nationalists roamed free only too willing to suspend everything for "stability"?
The point was and is shown in the posters to a degree that absolute power transcends the lot.
yes alison, absolute power is totalitarianism. regardless of the ideology. and i didnt take it out of context. he feathered his statement and jumped right in.
Daytripper,
you still seem to want to separate totalitarianism from the ideologies of those that implemented it. You cannot do so. The ideology of fascism was "everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State," and nazism and communism had their own variations on this theme. It is simply impossible to conceive of these ideologies existing in any way other than in a totalitarian manner.
If you disagree, please explain why.
Actually the point shown in the posters is people power transends both totalitarian ideologies and is symbolic of it
As Hayek noted, totalitarianism is the destination of socialism - anyone know which country was the birthplace of socialism?
Incidentally, my point regarding the Soviet Union being allies of Germany in 1939 is that they were not the ones "opposing" Nazi Germany. Britain was - good old nationalist, imperialist, capitalist, right wing Britain.
From the Time Magazine article making Hitler "man of the year" (not a valediction, btw):
" The Fascintern, with Hitler in the driver's seat, with Mussolini, Franco and the Japanese military cabal riding behind, emerged in 1938 as an international, revolutionary movement. Rant as he might against the machinations of international Communism and international Jewry, or rave as he would that he was just a Pan-German trying to get all the Germans back in one nation, Fuhrer Hitler had himself become the world's No. 1 International Revolutionist—so much so that if the oft-predicted struggle between Fascism and Communism now takes place it will be only because two revolutionist dictators, Hitler and Stalin, are too big to let each other live in the same world.
But Fuhrer Hitler does not regard himself as a revolutionary; he has become so only by force of circumstances. Fascism has discovered that freedom—of press, speech, assembly—is a potential danger to its own security. In Fascist phraseology democracy is often coupled with Communism. The Fascist battle against freedom is often carried forward under the false slogan of "Down with Communism!" One of the chief German complaints against democratic Czechoslovakia last summer was that it was an "outpost of Communism."
A generation ago western civilization had apparently outgrown the major evils of barbarism except for war between nations. The Russian Communist Revolution promoted the evil of class war. Hitler topped it by another, race war. Fascism and Communism both resurrected religious war. These multiple forms of barbarism gave shape in 1938 to an issue over which men may again, perhaps soon, shed blood: the issue of civilized liberty v. barbaric authoritarianism. "
http://www.time.com/time/subscriber/personoftheyear/archive/stories/1938.html
>> Britain was - good old nationalist, imperialist, capitalist, right wing Britain.<<
But why was it, Stan?
Was it because it was against Nazism on principle (hardly credible, as Naziism - with its well published evils - had been around for over 6 years) or because Germany had invaded an ally of Britain that Britain was treaty-bound to defend?
Remember, Oswald Mosley and Lord HawHaw were also two good old nationalist, imperialist, right-wing Britons.
Check out this story for what British fascism in the 193ß's looked like, who supported it, who tolerated it and who opposed it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/articles/2006/10/03/cablestreet_battle_feature.shtml
Noel,
what are you talking about? Mosley started as a Tory, and then what happened?:
"Mosley was at this time falling out with the Conservatives over the issue of Irish policy, and the use of the Black and Tans to suppress the Irish population. Eventually he 'crossed the floor' and sat as an Independent MP on the opposition side of the House of Commons. Having built up a following in his constituency, he retained it against a Conservative challenge in the general elections of 1922 and 1923. By 1924 he was growing increasingly attracted to the Labour Party, which had just formed a government, and in March he joined. He immediately joined the Independent Labour Party (ILP) as well and allied himself with the left.
When the government fell in October, Mosley had to choose a new seat as he believed that Harrow would not re-elect him as a Labour candidate. He therefore decided to oppose Neville Chamberlain in his constituency of Birmingham Ladywood. An energetic campaign led to a knife-edge result but Mosley was defeated by 77 votes. His period outside Parliament was used to develop a new economic policy for the ILP, which eventually became known as the Birmingham Proposals; they continued to form the basis of Mosley's economics until the end of his political career. In 1926, the Labour-held seat of Smethwick fell vacant and Mosley returned to Parliament after winning the resulting by-election on 21st December.
Mosley and his wife Cynthia were ardent Fabian Socialists in the 1920's and 30's. Mosley appears in a list of names of Fabians from Fabian News and Fabian Society Annual Report 1929-31. He was Kingsway Hall lecturer in 1924 and Livingstone Hall lecturer in 1931."
This is from wikipedia, and you can find out more on how he left Labour and went on to form the New Party and then the British Union of Fascism. The case of Mosley, rather than supporting your view, completely undermines it.
Check out this story for what British fascism in the 193ß's looked like, who supported it, who tolerated it and who opposed it.
Noel, the 'Battle of Cable Street' was the biggest boost Moseley and the BUF ever received, It gave the Blackshirts the chance to pose as law abiding citizens who were being attacked by thugs. If the march had gone on unimpeded it would have been a disaster for Moseley.
Ross,
I don't think Mosley was ever going anywhere one way or another.
Daytripper,
you still seem to want to separate totalitarianism from the ideologies of those that implemented it. You cannot do so.
no. what im trying to explain (albeit poorly) is that the similarities lie in totalitarianism which rises above even ideology. it is possible to have fascist regimes that are not totalitarian and likewise with socialist regimes. thus. the similarities lie with totalitarianism in the centre but the underlying ideologies that separate them are driven to the left and right.
but lets not stop there. why not also observe the similarities of these ideologies and the historical organised church. Hitler admired religous "fanaticism" and the ruthlessness with which the early church dispatched pagan competition.
Incidentally, my point regarding the Soviet Union being allies of Germany in 1939 is that they were not the ones "opposing" Nazi Germany.
stan they signed a non-aggression pact. a purely strategic alliance.
>>It gave the Blackshirts the chance to pose as law abiding citizens who were being attacked by thugs. If the march had gone on unimpeded it would have been a disaster for Moseley.<<
Exactly, that was the attitude of the Right in Britain vis-a-vis fascism at the time - appease it!
I can see some of you are blissfully ignorant of your own country's history in the inter-war period.
But check out this website "A Century of British Facism" on this "low, dark decade"
http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/features/century/cbf.php?include=page1
Exactly, that was the attitude of the Right in Britain vis-a-vis fascism at the time - appease it!
Allowing the Blackshirts to exercise their lawful rights to demonstrate was appeasement? How do you work that out, unless you regard appeasement as not preventing political parties with which you disagree from holding rallies?
Noel,
"Check out this story for what British fascism in the 193ß's looked like, who supported it, who tolerated it and who opposed it."
Yes, not a very pleasant chapter was it?, with members of the Royal Family openly siding with Hitler, enjoying many a tete a tete at Hitlers residence.
To be fair, it was not until WWII really got under way that people had any idea of just how evil Nazism was, to most it was another socialist movement, which appealed to so many of the 'toffs'.
It seems that the Oxbridge 'elite', have always supported the 'socialist' philosophy, whether Fascist - as in the case of Mosley, - I seem to remember he was an MP at one time, or Communism, with that group of traitors who worked at the Foreign Office, up to and during the war, - one - Blunt was in the employ of the Royal Family until well after the war.
The love of all things socialist, and a hatred of anything remotely capitalist seems to be a prerequisite if you wish to teach at University, and that exists even today, both here and in the USA along with the 'Loveys' in the arts, who pride themselves on their 'socialist' stance. Even the pride of polite London society - the Mitford sisters were involved, one, I believe married Mosley.
The damage caused to British politics in the early
twentieth century, by these pseudo intellectuals, is still being felt today, the EU being one of the best - or worst examples, of the damage caused by their fantasies of some sort of impossible world Nirvana..
Noel,
why not deal with the issue of Mosley, and how he passed from conservative to labour and then on to fascism?
On the left/right analysis, he moved from right to left and then rebounded all the way to far right!
His example is indicative of many of the leading figures of fascism, who realised the weaknesses of socialism and so moved on to more radical solutions. In this way, fascism can be seen as a rejection of socialism, as it was in the case of Mosley and Mussolini, but there is a relationship between the two ideologies, one of opposition indeed, but an opposition that takes place after the rejection of bourgeois liberalism.
Daytripper,
"it is possible to have fascist regimes that are not totalitarian and likewise with socialist regimes"
who are you thinking of here?
latin america had varying degrees of both.
Peter wrote:
"Who on the right opposed Hitler in the 1930s in Germany or Britain? The Daily Mail was falling over itslef in admiration for the corporal."
I would say that the short, fat guy with the cigar was rather right-wing. Who was he? I'm amazed that on a thread about the nature of totalitarianism, the name of the man who recognised islam as dangerous and retrograde, who spotted the nature of nazism but who was gagged by the BBC, and then who alerted the free world to the Iron Curtain "from Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic", could be omitted by contributors.
It's getting late - I'm sure that I'll remember the name of the greatest Briton tomorrow.
Stan posted:
"Incidentally, my point regarding the Soviet Union being allies of Germany in 1939 is that they were not the ones "opposing" Nazi Germany. Britain was - good old nationalist, imperialist, capitalist, right wing Britain."
If you read the history of the pre-war period you would know that the Soviet Union tried agaian and again to get a defensive pact with Britain and France. They well knew that Hitler was a major threat with his anti-slav views. But Britain and France refused all the Soviet overtures because they were led by right-wing governments which preferred fascism to communism as the lesser of two evils. That's why they stood by in 1938 and let the democratically elected government of Spain be overthrown by a right wing general backed by Hitler's dive bombers.
The Nazi-Soviet pact was only signed in 1939, when Russia had given up on the west as possible allies agaionst Hitler. Of course, in right-wing revisionist circles this is enough to damn the soviets forever. If Britain had been really anti-Nazi, it would not have capitulated at Munich in 1938. And there were several Tories in Churchill's war cabinet in 1940 who were all in favour of making peace with Germany after the fall of France. People in glass houses and all that...
Peter,
"they were led by right-wing governments which preferred fascism to communism as the lesser of two evils"
which do you prefer?
I'm not sure about your comments on the USSR seeking alliances, but it's possible. I'd add that Mussolini had sought alliances against Hitler with Britain and France. However the non-aggression pact benefitted Uncle Joe no end, as he helped himself to half of Poland and the all the Baltic States etc.
I don't doubt the appeasement of Hitler, nor can you deny the opposition of the Labour Party to rearmament in the 1930's.
As for Churchill, I think it's safe to say without him the government would have tried to negotiate out of the war.
(are you happy now, Allan?)
which do you prefer?
personally, neither. as a liberal i would have died at the hands of both.
btw. i answered your question. fwiw.
DT,
I saw that, I was reflecting on it, wondering how bringing Peronism into the mix would cloud the waters, and send me ransacking books for things I half-remember, or maybe making a joke about that leftwing firebrand Pinochet...
lol, reflect away. im off to bed. nn
how did the reflection go then richard?
do you see my point? Or are the Nazis still leftwing?
You have to remove totalitarianism from the equation. then look for similarities.
"Remember, Oswald Mosley and Lord HawHaw were also two good old nationalist, imperialist, right-wing Britons."
Again, like the earlier diversion to the Daily Mail, what has this got to do with Britain's national government? Oswald Mosley and Lord Haw Haw were not in power and never achieved power.
In comparison we have members of our government NOW who were supporters of the murderous Soviet Union - and they ARE in power. Right here, right now.
You ask why Britain stood against Nazi Germany - because it was perceived as threat to the freedom of European nations - just like Napoleon - and it was traditionally Britain's role to defend that freedom. How different today and how shameful to see the nation that defended Europe from tyranny for hundreds of years laying down and rolling over to command from our new masters
"If you read the history of the pre-war period you would know that the Soviet Union tried agaian and again to get a defensive pact with Britain and France."
We refused to enter into agreements with them because they, like Hitler, were ideologically repulsive to Britain
"They well knew that Hitler was a major threat with his anti-slav views."
The Soviet Union also had immense sympathy with Hitler for his anti-semitic views - something which they had in common along with imperialist ambitions of their own.
"But Britain and France refused all the Soviet overtures because they were led by right-wing governments which preferred fascism to communism as the lesser of two evils."
In terms of numbers dead, they were right. Franco's fascist dictatorship (which was also remarkably socialist) lasted until 1975 - that didn't stop hundreds of thousands of Britons and Europeans travelling to Benidorm, Majorca or Tenerife though.