Religion Compass (2015): 110, 10.1111/rec3.

12142

The Imperial Spirit: British Fascism and Empire, 19191940

Paul Stocker*
School of Arts & Media, Teesside University

Abstract

This article analyses the relationship between British fascism and Empire during the interwar period.
Based on the premise that historians have neglected the imperial dimension of fascist ideology in
interwar Britain, a brief review of existing scholarship will be undertaken before an analysis of fascist
ideological conceptions of the British Empire. Looking at the three major fascist parties during the
interwar era, the British Fascisti (BF), Imperial Fascist League (IFL) and British Union of Fascists
(BUF), it will be demonstrated that whilst unequivocal support for the Empire was a consistent
theme throughout fascist rhetoric, individual parties adapted their imperial visions according to their
respective ideology. For the BF, the Empire was under constant threat from communist subversion
at home and abroad. The IFL looked to demonstrate how international Jewry was attempting to
destroy the British Empire. The BUF, developing the most sophisticated ideology and policies
relating to Empire, believed a unified organic Empire must be consolidated through trade and
one ruler if Britain was to remain a global power fit to fight off the pincers of Jewish and
communist subversion. This article will conclude by highlighting the need for further enquiry into
the relationship between the extreme right and Empire.

Introduction
One of the less surprising facets of the extreme right, from their inception in the early 20th century
until the present day, is that they have held an unambiguously positive view of British
imperialism. Whilst the contemporary extreme right, from the National Front to the British
National Party, are perhaps most well known for their criticisms and attacks on immigration
from former British colonies, the romanticisation of Pax Britannica and Britains past as a
dominant imperial power are nevertheless central to British ultranationalism past and present.
Despite this somewhat obvious fact, historians of the extreme right and fascism in Britain, as
well as imperial historians, have neglected the opportunity to explore this trend in any great
detail. Julie Gottlieb, author of the most innovative volume on British fascism Feminine Fascism
(2002), was the first to suggest in 2004 that imperial historians may have much to learn from
studying the extreme right and its relationship with imperial politics. She argues that fascists
were preoccupied by imperial policy, spun fantasies of racial purity and the hierarchies of
nations, been obsessed by visions of British imperial decline and its alleged attendant cultural
decadence (Gottlieb 2004, p. 113). The object of this article will be to elaborate on this brief
hypothesis provided by Gottlieb. Firstly, a brief review of the historiography of British fascism
will be presented, before an overview of interwar fascist conceptions of Empire. The article
will conclude by arguing that scholars of British fascism have not offered the imperial question
because of attention and suggest future avenues for research.
Historiography of British Fascism, 19191940
Scholarship on interwar British fascism has been prolific during the last 20 years, no doubt
inf luenced by the pioneering work of historians of generic fascism (Sternhell 1995; Payne 1995;
2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Paul Stocker

Griffin 1993) during the 1990s and early 2000s (Gentile 2006; Paxton 2005). The major
volumes on interwar British fascism that have appeared since the turn of the 21st century
have moved away from the traditional Whiggish understanding of fascism in Britain
(Benewick 1969; Skidelsky 1981; Thurlow 1987) as a foreign implant and aberration in
British history towards a more nuanced understanding of fascism as containing both native
and generic components (Gottlieb 2003; Pugh 2006; Dorril 2007; Linehan 2000; Gottlieb &
Linehan 2004). Dozens of journal articles have sought to explore more specific aspects of
fascism in Britain such as religion (Linehan 2007; Jackson 2011), ideology (McMurray
2012; Worley 2010), membership patterns (Webber 1984) and use of political violence
(Tilles 2006). Several PhD dissertations have extended our understanding of British fascism
at a local level (Barrett 1998; Morgan 2008; Mitchell 1999), as well as ideological
developments (Pugh 2003; Coupland 2000; Woodbridge 1998).
One of the key overall debates within the historiography of British fascism, which implicates
all parties, is the extent to which fascism was home-grown or merely a continental import
(Love 2007). More specifically, the debate over the extent that British fascism was an explicit
imitation of Mussolinis Italian Fascist movement, or Hitlers National Socialists, (particularly
the latter after 1936) or rather a product and enhancement of ideas present within British
political culture before the fascist epoch. More recently, whilst scholarly attention has largely
focused upon on the political origins of British fascism, historiography has more recently begun
to emphasise the Britishness of British fascism. Gary Love has explored the relationship
between generic and British fascism further to examine the extent to which they derived their
ideas from an internationalist set of fascist ideals or home grown ideology. He argues that it was a
blend of both, clearly, however, the degree remains a subject of debate. Using the example of
corporatism, Love confirms that the BUFs economic policy was almost entirely imitative of
Mussolinis but applied the particular circumstances of postwar Britain, or as Love puts it;
Mosleys economic solutions, then, were a cocktail of both native and derivative inf luences,
but they were also part of a wider European fascist view of the need to revitalise decadent
Western society (Love 2007, p. 453).
Scholarly enquiry has been dominated by the largest and most successful fascist party, the
BUF (19321940). Two minor fascist parties that were overshadowed by the BUF were the
BF (19231934) and IFL (19291940). Whilst scholars often cite the anti-Semitic organisation
The Britons (founded in 1919) as the first, at least proto-fascist group, the first explicitly fascist
movement in Britain was the BF, founded in 1923 by Rotha LintornOrman. As the name
indicates, the party was heavily inf luenced by Benito Mussolini, namely his alleged success at
rooting out the Red Menace in Italy. The BF were defined by their anti-communism and
saw the British Empire as being threatened by various subversive forces, all ultimately linked
to revolutionary socialism and the Soviet Union. Scholars tend to agree that the BF were a
relatively insignificant political movement who understood little about fascism, and was, as
future leader of the IFL Arnold Leese claimed, essentially conservatism with knobs on
(Thurlow 1987; Linehan 2000). However, the claim that the BF didnt understand fascism
must be taken with caution, given that fascist ideology at the time of their founding was
ambiguous and subject to adaptation in a range of national contexts. Whereas the BF
represents a more native variant of fascism, in as much as their ideological roots lay firmly within
Die-Hard conservatism rather than fascist ideology, the IFL demonstrates more of an attempt to
replicate a foreign movement, Adolf Hitlers Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei.
The IFL was founded in 1929 with Arnold Leese as its leader. Leese was a former activist in
the BF and a significant figure in the interwar fascist movement, as well as after the Second
World War. Scholarly output on the IFL tends to focus on their violent anti-Semitism,
biological racism and critique of democracy. Linehan argues that the IFL possessed a much more
2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Religion Compass (2015): 110, 10.1111/rec3.12142

The Imperial Spirit

coherent and doctrinaire ideology than the BF and tended to be more along the lines of Hitlers
National Socialists rather than Italian Fascism. Pugh argues that the IFL was highly anti-Semitic
and adopted a more explicit fascist ideology (Pugh 2006, p. 53) than the BFs, of whom Arnold
Leese had been a member (and indeed served as a councillor in Stamford). If there was one idea
that guided the IFL and indeed Leeses political ideology, it was biological anti-Semitism;
however, the IFL was incredibly hostile to modernism, liberalism, democracy and communism
(Linehan 2000, pp. 5556). Much like the BF and even perhaps to a greater extent, the IFL is
largely dismissed as a political insignificance, with which the majority of Britons probably never
bothered. The IFL would also be completely eclipsed by the largest and most notable fascist
party in Britain, the BUF, led by Sir Oswald Mosley.
Following his resignation as a Labour Member of Parliament (MP) (19261931) and the failure of his New Party (19311932) to gain any traction, Mosley founded the BUF in 1932. The
BUF hit the ground running and reached its peak in 1934, when media magnate Lord
Rothermeres Daily Mail endorsed Mosley and the BUF. The party had reached a membership
of around 30 00040 000 (Webber 1984, p. 575). Following this however, the BUF fell into
rapid decline. The dominant scholarly opinion for the steady decline of the BUFs brief popularity attributes it to the scenes of violence at its 1934 Olympia rally, when thuggish fascist
paramilitaries violently ejected disruptive anti-fascists from the meeting. The rally resulted
in bad publicity for Mosley and the BUF and led to middle-class support dwindling.
Rothermere withdrew his support shortly after, following pressure from advertisers, and the
party soon turned to more doctrinal anti-Semitism. This interpretation is not without its
critics however, notably Martin Pugh who argues that the impact of Olympia on the fortunes
of the BUF was negligible (Pugh 1998). Many of the central policies of the BUF can first
found in Mosleys book The Greater Britain (Mosley 1932). The book preaches a wide-range
of ideas some of which generally follow on from the Mosley Memorandum from his time as
a Labour MP, which also formed much of the policy of the New Party. The implementation
of a corporatist economic structure with imperial preference, protected from world markets
was how Mosley saw the rejuvenation of Britains economy. Mosley wanted to remove the
democratic system with a powerful executive and a cabinet of less than a handful of ministers.
A significant development in BUF ideology was the endorsement of anti-Semitism around
1934 that showed the increasing inf luence of anti-Semites William Joyce (also known as
Lord Haw Haw and was hanged for treason in 1946), A. K. Chesterton and John Beckett.
Why did the BUF fail? Robert Benewick argued in 1969 that the introduction of fascism
was inappropriate and irrelevant in terms of British political development and its chances for
success were therefore remote (Benewick 1969, p. 12). Moreover, its use of political violence
was alien to the traditions of British political life as a longstanding democracy (Benewick 1969,
pp. 1213). Despite this argument, being conventional wisdom for some time after, historians
have recently begun to shy away from Benewicks initial conclusion as to why British fascism
failed. Whilst this viewpoint does maintain a certain amount of purchase, the scholarly
understanding of the BUF has generally moved towards fascism being more native than
imported. Accordingly, the suspiciously whiggish argument of British immunity has become
less convincing. Skidelsky, for one, argues that the crisis in liberal democracy that would
have allowed a fascist takeover never came. Many scholars, including Martin Pugh, concur
with the view that the BUF was never able to capitalise on a crisis, and more damaging,
misunderstood what the crises that could have led to a real destabilisation of the state were.
He cites their attempts to hijack the 1925 General Strike, 1930s Great Depression and
Abdication crisis as being wholly unsuccessful. Dan Stone particularly notes the relatively mild
effect of the Great Depression on Britain at least in comparison with Weimar Germany as
another factor for the public not turning to Mosley and the BUF (Stone 2003). Thurlow argues
2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Religion Compass (2015): 110, 10.1111/rec3.12142

Paul Stocker

that despite Mosley being the BUFs greatest strength, he was also a large weakness as the
leader and manager of the party, noting his organisational weaknesses, his personal f laws, his
counter-productive obsession with secrecy and security consciousness, and his failure to paper
over the developing fissures within the movement, all of these contributed to the BUFs
impotence (Thurlow 1987, p. 279).
More generally, in attempting to explain fascisms failure in Britain, Stanley Payne argues that
Britain during the fascist epoch was one of several satisfied imperial powers and as such did not
preach war or expansion, but peace and prosperity (Payne 1995, p. 305). Paynes contribution
to understanding British fascism helps in identifying the context in which fascism was to
develop: a country that remained a global imperialist power following victory in the First World
War. However, maintaining the status quo was not on the agenda of British fascists. Rather,
they saw both long-term decline in Britains world status and feared the prospect of collapse,
which was perceived to be imminent. Accordingly, all fascist parties in Britain during the
interwar period made a conscious effort to be seen as imperialist, viewing British imperialism
and fascism as one and the same. The following section will provide an overview of the
relationship between British fascism and Empire. The article will conclude by arguing that
the relationship between British fascism and Empire is one ripe for further inquiry, given that
it speaks to a key debate within the scholarship of British fascism, the relationship between
domestic and native currents.
The British Fascists and Empire
Several scholars have noted the BFs tendency to champion the British Empire. The BF
were, according to Barbara Farr, successors to the missionaries of Empire (Farr 1987,
p. 184) and were closely linked to imperial hawks on the conservative sides who wanted
closer ties with the Empire economically. Linehan expands on this line of enquiry by
arguing that the BFs heroic mission, therefore, was to save England, and ultimately the
Empire, from the socialist menace (Linehan 2000, p. 61). Stephen Dorril importantly
highlights the historical precursors to the BF, stating that they recalled the jingoism of
Chamberlains social imperialist campaign (Dorril 2007, p. 194). Scholars have not,
however, developed the relationship of the BFs extreme right or revolutionary conservative
ideology with their imperialism.
Nesta Webster was an important propagandist within fascist and ultra-conservative circles and
a prominent member of the BF (and later, the BUF). Webster has been offered derisory
attention by historians of British fascism particularly in terms of the impact of the Empire on
her conspiracy theories. Thurlow describes Webster as the Grand Dame of British conspiracy
theory (Thurlow 1987, p. 38), and similarly, Dorill argues that her views inf luenced many
key fascists, including Beamish, Leese and Chesterton (Dorril 2007, p. 196). Her works,
especially, The Need for Fascism in Britain (1926) and The Surrender of an Empire (1931) both focus
on the threat to the British Empire by the hidden hand of JudeoBolshevism. An excerpt from
the latter demonstrates her hypothesis of the British Empires decline and her belief that
mainstream politicians had been cowed by clandestine forces seeking the destruction of Britain.
The rulers of a nation that stood up to a Ludendorff and a Tipitz quail beneath the threats of a
Ghandi! They were afraid of putting up a determined opposition to the devastating force of
Sovietism; they were afraid of what has been described as setting the powerful force of
international Jewry against them (Webster 1931, p. 371). Websters works, most of which link
Jewish communist conspiracy theory to major world historical events, became important texts
for British fascists and the far right during the 1920s and 1930s and perhaps even more so during
the post-war period on both sides of the Atlantic (Lee 2005).
2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Religion Compass (2015): 110, 10.1111/rec3.12142

The Imperial Spirit

Rather than seeing the British Empire as a physical entity that was merely a matter of policy,
the BF saw it as Britains very constitution. It was the duty of every fascist to uphold King and
Empire and to maintain Britains greatest source of pride and greatness. Furthermore, the BF
saw fascism as a method of governance that could be applied throughout the Empire. The
BF imperial vision was a new authoritarian government that could act as a bulwark against
the growing threat of communist subversion in every corner of the Empire. Thus, from the
partys inception, the BF championed the British Empire as both the countrys proudest heritage
and completely essential to a British fascist state.
The Empire was portrayed as the anchor of British strength in the world both in the past and
present, as well as in a future vision of Britain. It was seen as an ongoing project, in which it was
the undoubted duty of every British fascist to pull his weight in the effort to keep our
wonderful empire in the position of importance and world prestige to which it has been
brought by scores of Empire builders in the past Raleigh, Drake, Cook, Wellington, Nelson
and others whose names are revered around the world (The British Lion 1928, no. 25, p. 12).
The naming of unequivocal British heroes of the past was used to legitimise the BF as a purely
British force determined to uphold British traditions amid criticism that fascism was un-British.
This was a project that transcended class in the name of hyper-patriotism that meant that each
fascist can be an Empire builder (The British Lion 1928, no. 25, p. 12). The working class
would benefit from preferential tariffs and the exclusion of sweated foreign labour; even
women were encouraged to join the League of Empire Housewives, a small sub-group who
wore distinctive badges in order to demonstrate to shopkeepers that they wish to only buy
home or Empire produced products (The British Lion 1928, no. 25, p. 2).
According to the BF, the Empire was the greatest power for good the world has ever known
and the strongest bulwark of civilisation against the rising tide of Bolshevism (The Fascist
Bulletin 1925, no. 24, p. 4). Therefore, a mobilisation of all British patriots determined to lead
Britain and the Empire to glory once more in the name of global stability was sought. The
Empire wasnt just described in terms of its strength in the world balance of power; it was also
described as a force for civilisation. It is also argued that the British Empire stands for liberty and
freedom (The Fascist Bulletin 1925, no. 23, p. 2). It is somewhat ironic that the BF both
describes the Empire in terms of its importance to the new and revolutionary political creed
of fascism, whilst also upholding historical tendencies to describe the Empire as a civilising
mission, in terms of Christianity as well as a force for progress. It is notable that the BF are
prepared to accept the role of British imperialisms civilising mission as not irreconcilable with
the goals of fascism.
The Imperial Fascist League and Empire
Given the extreme nature of the IFLs anti-Semitism and criticisms of democracy, it is perhaps
not surprising that their relationship with the British Empire has been neglected by historians.
Linehan does point out the strong impact of Empire and race on IFL ideology and that its
attachment to Empire was underwritten by a belief in the inherent natural propensity of the
European Aryan race to supervise and lead the non-white peoples (Linehan 2000, p. 76).
However, the belief in white people supremacy over non-white people was hardly specific
to the IFL or indeed fascism but a relatively mainstream view during the interwar period.
The IFL provided a distinctly racialist perception of the British Empire. The IFL propaganda
argued that the Empire represented the highest achievements of the Nordic race and was proof
of the innate superiority of white European civilisation. However, the imperialism of the IFL
was overshadowed by their extreme anti-Semitism. Jewish conspiracy pervaded every single
aspect of the IFLs relationship with the British Empire. Leese was convinced that imperial
2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Religion Compass (2015): 110, 10.1111/rec3.12142

Paul Stocker

policy was beholden to Jewish financial interests from at least as early as the Second Boer War.
One area where this was particularly apparent was in Palestine, and Zionism was definite proof
of Jewish financial inf luence over British politicians (The Fascist 1930, no. 10, p. 2). The IFL
would frequently outline their support for the Arab cause in Palestine, seeing Zionism as a
dangerous development and proof of the paramountcy of Jewish money power that controlled
the British Empire. The League of Nations was seen as a Jewish-dominated threat to the British
Empire and was subject to frequent criticism, described as anti-British, anti-Imperial and
destructive of patriotism (The Fascist 1929, no. 1, p. 4).
The IFL conception of Empire was defined by the biological superiority of the Aryan
coloniser, which argued that the strongest race must maintain complete dominance over the
inferior race, as according to natures law. The IFLs rejection of democracy in Britains colonial
possessions in India and Africa was couched in the same terms as traditional conservative
rhetoric, which argued that the indigenous population were unfit to govern themselves. For
example, in response to Colonial Secretary Lord Passfields (Sidney Webb) 1931 Memorandum
on Native Policy in East Africa, which argued that the interests of the native population should
be held paramount in government policy; the IFL argued that more autonomy for indigenous
peoples would subordinate the interests of civilised Britons to those of a race whose capacity for
further development has yet to be proved (The Fascist 1930, no. 10, p. 4). They criticised
Passfields memorandum on the grounds of the absurdity of any policy which lays down that
the interests of African natives must be paramount, a principle which can only mean that the
White Man is to play second fiddle to the Black! (The Fascist 1931, no. 21, p. 1). The IFL
claimed to be realists on the subject of race and claimed that the government failed to grasp
the incapacity of all coloured races and their ability to govern themselves.
The British Union of Fascists and Empire
Scholarly interest in the BUFs imperial vision has been negligible. The partys relationship with
British imperialism has predominantly been discussed in terms of economics, notably their
policy of Empire Free Trade (Skidelsky 1981; Linehan 2000; Pugh 2006). Scholars have also
noted the impact of Joseph Chamberlain and Edwardian debates on imperial preference as
important to BUF ideology, particularly economic philosophy. However, this has led to the
implication that the BUFs attachment to Empire was simply derivative of conservative
imperialists who sought to economically unite the Empire in order to protect British industry
from upheavals in the global economy. As will be demonstrated below, several BUF ideologues
developed a new specifically fascist conception of Empire that was important in their thinking.
Also, fascist foreign policy was heavily inf luenced by ideas of a united British Empire.
As the largest and most programmatic fascist party during the interwar period, the BUF
developed the most coherent conception of Empire and imperial policies. The BUF sought
to portray themselves as the only true defenders of Empire who would strive for a unified
imperial unit that could defend its white people from growing subversive activity. This was
clearly designed to appeal to conservatives disturbed by the prospect of India reform that
promised to lead to increasing self-government and potentially mark the end of British imperial
dominance. Accordingly, the BUF looked to tap into traditional linkages between patriotism
and Empire, portraying it in similar terms as the BF as Britains greatest achievement that must
be maintained at all cost. However, the BUF also sought to make the Empire seem relevant to
their working class voters by stressing the economic benefits of Imperial trade.
From their inception, the BUF sought to embrace and champion the language of imperial
greatness. Inspired by fascism in Italy, Mosley sought to make direct connections between
Britains Roman heritage and the new political creed of fascism. In the opening of his first fascist
2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Religion Compass (2015): 110, 10.1111/rec3.12142

The Imperial Spirit

manifesto The Greater Britain, it stated: fasces are the emblem which founded the power,
authority and unity of Imperial Rome. From the Rome of the past was derived the tradition
of civilisation and progress during the past two thousand years, of which the British Empire is
now the chief custodian (Mosley 1932, intro). Imperial decay was often described in relation
to the fall of the Roman Empire, and the same forces were deemed to be at work in its
successor, the British Empire that was being rotted from within. Mosley was portrayed not just
as the saviour of Britain but the saviour of the whole Empire that would be revitalised and
cleansed of decadence.
William Joyce presented the most sophisticated fascist conception of Empire that
detailed how fascism and the British Empire intertwined. Joyce viewed the British Empire in
the same manner as Britain itself an organic entity in need of palingenesis: an Empire
is great when this common organisation becomes a vital and impregnable system. Such is
the Fascist and organic conception of Imperialism (The Fascist Quarterly 1935, no. 1,
p. 91). By seeing the Empire as an organic unit and made up of components working with
one another, unity was the key to future strength. Joyce saw totalitarianism as the best
method of fostering imperial unity, so as to function like the human body: synthesis is
the only alternative to disintegration; and synthesis is the fundamental character of fascist
policy. By the fascist, every Imperial value is assessed on the criterion of its power to
increase synthesis towards unity and to stop disintegration towards chaos (The Fascist
Quarterly 1935, no. 1, p. 97). Joyce decried what he believed the mainstream conception
of Empire to be, which he described as the view of Empire as a fortuitous conglomeration
of various territorial or racial entities which somehow came into association closer to that
which prevails between independent sovereign states (The Fascist Quarterly 1935, no. 1,
p. 91). Rather, the British Empire was testament to Britains greatness as a civilisation
and as Empire builders, and a revolutionary renewal of imperial dynamism was needed
to reassert these values upon Britain. Joyce laid the blame of the decline in imperial values
at the feet of democratic politics, mainstream political corruption and parasitical forces such
as Jews who were decaying the Empire from within.
The Empire would be paramount in the planning of BUF foreign policy. Robert Gordon
Canning, the BUFs Director of Overseas Policy, was highly inf luenced by Oswald Spengler
and his theories on the rise and fall of Empires and argued that Oswald Mosley was the saviour
of Britains Empire, and Gordon Canning called upon him to prevent the British Empire from
following in the footsteps of the Spanish Empire (The Fascist Quarterly 1936, no. 2, p. 71).
Gordon Cannings set aims for BUF policy were somewhat simplistic: (i) The consolidation
and development of the Empire: a stable Empire. (ii) A progressive advance towards European
peace: a stable Europe. (iii) The creation of a League of National States in place of the present
International League based upon the Treaty of Versailles: a stable world (The Fascist Quarterly
1936, no. 2, p. 70).
Gordon Canning was a fierce critic of the League of Nations, seeing as an organisation
with no legitimacy and as a rival to Britain and his imperial interests. The British Empire,
he argued, should be a strong bulwark against the organisation, which he believed was a
JudeoBolshevik conspiracy. Thus, he argued that British strength in the world was
completely dependent on imperial unity; Before a foreign policy can carry weight in
European and world councils an absolute unity must be established within the Empire
(The Fascist Quarterly 1936, no. 2, p. 74). Imperial unity would not mean however that
all nations within the Empire would be equal, and imperial unity or bringing the Empire
into closer union with the Mother Country (The Fascist Quarterly 1936, no. 2, p. 68)
essentially meant that Britain should dominate and co-ordinate the Empire, ultimately to its
own advantage. Accordingly, he was totally against the Statute of Westminster, seeing it as
2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Religion Compass (2015): 110, 10.1111/rec3.12142

Paul Stocker

the first steps towards dissolving the Empire and turning dominions into independent states.
Similar to Gordon-Canning, Defence Spokesman JFC Fuller was also sceptical of the notion
of a mythological or organic Empire united by culture and race; he was a cold realist who
saw the Empire as mutually beneficial for all concerned. He therefore believed that affording
dominions too much autonomy was wrong, given that they rely for their freedom as nations
upon the military might of Great Britain, to which they subscribe virtually nothing (The Fascist Quarterly 1938, no. 2, p. 22). That being said, Fuller also referred to Britain and her dominions possessing a common moral basis-a common origin, a common tradition and a
common idea of freedom, can build such a league rooted in British soil and cemented by
British blood (The Fascist Quarterly 1938, no. 2, p. 33).
Conclusion
This article has sought to demonstrate that in terms of British fascisms relationship with Empire,
what scholars have offered amounts to little more than repetition of the basic argument that
fascists were imperialist; fascist thought in Britain was inf luenced by British imperial culture,
and that fascists sought a more virile and strong British Empire. These arguments, whilst ringing
true, remains insufficiently f leshed out and unpacked. This article has sought to highlight
different visions of Empire from several fascist organisations in interwar Britain. In doing so, it
has demonstrated that whilst British fascism and the championing of imperialism went hand
in hand, the form it took and extent to which parties can be considered imperialist differs
greatly. In light of the appreciation that British fascism contained both continental and native
inf luences, the importance of the role of Empire in fascist thought becomes obvious. The
British Empire was, clearly, a British invention, and thus debates over it can be largely witnessed
within domestic political culture. Therefore, understanding the importance of Empire in fascist
ideology is critical if one is to gain a better understanding of the native elements of fascist
thought that are often overlooked in favour of more generic traits such as nationalism, rituals,
political violence and anti-Semitism.
What is clear is the brief picture presented in this article requires further expansion.
There is plenty of room for more specific case studies such as British fascist responses to
specific imperial issues such as Irish and Indian nationalism, which dominated interwar
imperial politics. Further discussion is required on comparative visions of British imperialism
such as that of conservative Die-Hards whose rhetoric at times was indistinguishable from
that of fascists. The debate must be extended to beyond the interwar period, into the
20 years following the Second World War, when the British Empire disintegrated and fell
rapidly. There remained a significant presence of interwar fascists such as A. K. Chesterton,
Oswald Mosley and Arnold Leese following the war; did their experiences of the Second
World War and realities of impending imperial collapse lead them to change tact?
Furthermore, one could certainly look even further at postcolonial and multicultural
Britain. What does the National Front or British National Partys rhetoric and memory
of British imperialism say about the contemporary extreme right; who do not have to
concern themselves with imperial governance, but the cultural and social legacies experienced
by a former imperial power? A transnational perspective would also be welcome. Britain was
not the only imperial power during the interwar period; how did the French extreme right,
for example respond to perceived threats to their Empire and the prospect of imperial decline
comparatively? The possibilities are numerous, and if the already bulging literature on British
fascism is to expand meaningfully, historians should be encouraged to make their research on
this relatively small event in British history (fascism) relevant to scholars of other fields such as
imperial history.
2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Religion Compass (2015): 110, 10.1111/rec3.12142

The Imperial Spirit

Short Biography
Paul Stocker is a History PhD candidate at Teesside University, studying at the Centre for
Fascist, Anti-Fascist and Post-Fascist Studies founded in 2013. His previous work has related
to the Holocaust in Eastern Europe and studied in Estonia, Poland and the USA. His current
research relates to British fascism and its relationship to Empire.
Note
* Correspondence: School of Arts & Media, Teesside University. Email: pauloliverstocker@gmail.com

Works Cited
Anon. (1925). British Fascists Appeal. The Fascist Bulletin, (24).
Anon. (1925). Fascism and Empire. The Fascist Bulletin, (23).
Anon. (1928). Fascists as Empire Builders. The British Lion, (25).
Anon. (1930). Kenya and Rhodesia. The Fascist, 1(10), p. 4.
Anon. (1929). The League of Nations Union. The Fascist, 1(4), p. 2.
Anon. (1931). The Suicidal Ignorance of our Coolie Government. The Fascist, 1(21) p. 1.
Anon. (1930). This Palestine Business. The Fascist, 1(10), pp. 2-3.
Barrett, N. (1998) Organised Responses to British Union of Fascist Mobilisation in South Lancashire, 19321940.
Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Manchester.
Benewick, R. (1969) Political Violence and Public Order: Study of British Fascism, London: A. Lane.
Coupland, P. (2000) Voices from Nowhere: Utopianism in British Political Culture 19291945. Unpublished PhD Thesis,
University of Warwick.
Dorril, S. (2007) Blackshirt: Sir Oswald Mosley and British Fascism. London: Penguin Books.
Farr, B.S. (1987). The Development and Impact of Right-wing Politics in Britain, 190332. New York; London: Garland.
Fuller, J.F.C. (1938). Foreign Policy and Imperial Strategy, The British Union Quarterly, 2(3), pp. 20-33.
Gentile, E. (2006) Politics as Religion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Gordon-Canning, R. (1936). Some Aims and Principles of British Fascism in the Conduct of Imperial and Foreign Affairs,
The Fascist Quarterly, 2(1), pp. 68-80.
Gottlieb, J (2003) Feminine Fascism: Women in the British Fascist Movement, 19231945, London: I.B. Taurus & Co. Ltd.
. (2004) Women and British Fascism Revisited: Gender, the Far-Right, and Resistance, Journal of Womens History,
16(3), pp. 108-123.
Gottlieb, J & Linehan, T. (2004) The Culture of Fascism: Visions of the Far Right in Britain, London: I.B. Taurus & Co. Ltd.
Grifn, R. (1993) The Nature of Fascism. London: Routledge.
. (1996) British Fascism: The Ugly Duckling, In: M. Cronin (ed.), The Failure of British Fascism, pp. 14165. London:
Macmillan.
Jackson, P. (2010) Extremes of Faith and Nation: British Fascism and Christianity, Religion Compass, 4(8), pp. 507-517.
Joyce, W. (1935). Britains Empire Shall Live, The Fascist Quarterly, 1(1), pp. 91-107.
Lee, M. (2005) Nesta Webster: The Voice of Conspiracy, Journal of Womens History, 17(3), pp. 81104.
Linehan, T. (2000) British Fascism 19181939: Parties, Ideology and Culture. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
. (2006) The British Union of Fascists as a Totalitarian Movement and Political Religion, Totalitarian Movements and
Political Religions 5(3), pp. 397418.
Love, G. (2007) Whats the Big Idea?: Oswald Mosley, the British Union of Fascists and Generic Fascism, Journal of
Contemporary History, 42(3), pp. 447468.
Mitchell, A. (1999) Fascism in East Anglia: The British Union of Fascists in Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex, 19331940.
Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Shefeld.
Morgan, C. (2008) Black Country Blackshirts: The British Union of Fascists in Wolverhampton, 19321940. Unpublished
PhD Thesis, University of Wolverhampton.
McMurray, M. (2012) Alexander Raven Thomson, Philosopher of the British Union of Fascists, The European Legacy:
Toward New Paradigms, 17(1), pp. 3359.
Mosley, O. (1932) The Greater Britain, London: Greater Britain Publications.
Paxton, R. (2005) The Anatomy of Fascism, London: Penguin Books.
Payne, S. (1995) A History of Fascism 19141945. London: UCL Press.
Pugh, M. (2006) Hurrah for the Blackshirts! Fascists and Fascism in Britain Between the Wars. London: Pimlico.
2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Religion Compass (2015): 110, 10.1111/rec3.12142

Paul Stocker
. (1998) The British Union of Fascists and the Olympia Debate, The Historical Journal, 41(2), pp 529542.
Pugh, P. (2003) A Political Biography of Alexander Raven Thomson. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Shefeld.
Skidelsky, R. (1981) Oswald Mosley. London: Macmillan.
Sternhell, Z. (1995) The Birth of Fascist Ideology. NJ: Princeton University Press.
Stone, D. (2003) The English Mistery, the BUF, and the Dilemmas of British Fascism, The Journal of Modern History, 75(2),
pp. 336358.
Thurlow, R. (1987) Fascism in Britain: From Oswald Mosleys Blackshirts to the National Front, London: I.B. Taurus & Co. Ltd.
Tilles, D. (2006) Bullies or Victims? A Study of British Union of Fascists Violence, Totalitarian Movements and Political
Religions, 7(3), pp. 327346.
Webber, G. C. (1984) Patterns of Membership and Support for the British Union of Fascists, Journal of Contemporary History
19(4), pp. 575606.
Webster, N. (1931) The Surrender of an Empire, 3rd Edition, London.
Woodbridge, S. (1998) The Nature and Development of the Concept of National Synthesis in British Fascist Ideology
19201940. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Kingston University.
Worley, M. (2010) Why Fascism? Sir Oswald Mosley and the Conception of the British Union of Fascists, The Journal of the
Historical Association, 96(321), pp. 6883.

2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Religion Compass (2015): 110, 10.1111/rec3.12142