I’ve always been fascinated at how British fascism, specifically under Oswald Mosley, was so very different to fascism as previously understood, and how it bucks the trends of the standard ideas of what fascists even aim to do, the leaders of the various movements are also at odds with Mosley

Hitler was a message runner in WW1, an amateur artist who sold paintings for postcards, radicalised and then getting sucked into politics

Mussolini was a teacher, a news journalist, a socialist party member until being expelled. One day becoming the leader of the black shirts, the March on time and becoming Il Duce

So both mostly lower class men campaigning on anti establishment ideas

Which makes Mosley attempting fascism bizarre, as he was the definition of establishment as a literal aristocrat under the Mosley Baronet, being a representative in parliament for both the main parties crossing the floor each time, before finally becoming convinced fascism was the only correct way forward and founding his new party (which was called New Party)

Unlike Germany and Italy, Mussolini never once advocated for expansion… and why would he? Britain had the largest empire on earth.

What would a fascist Britain led by Mosley even do? I struggle to imagine major wars in honesty.

>USA aren’t gonna invade Europe to just liberate them when they’re not under threat anyway
>britain, Germany and Italy form a proto-EU to make trade easier, with Britain being the major trader for outside resources via their colonies, Germany for industrial goods. France would end up joining to try and not get invaded, others too possibly
>Germany and Italy still expand, but THIS time with no opposition from Britain or America, likewise British trade and open seas makes the Italian and German troops and vehicles remain well supplied
>italy mainly takes just Libya, parts of North Africa,cand Ethiopia off course. Germany pushes Russia hard but still struggles to reach the urals

Mostly wondering if Australia and Canada would be ok with this or split from Britain entirely.

Also, would the British re conquer Ireland? Seems like the only major semi recent loss thye may want to rectify.

They’d have the backing of the fascist allies, and I struggle to see America launching its biggest war in human history to protect… Ireland. And with the fascist doctrine of war Ireland would probably fade the first real genocide it ever had. Whole towns massacred over a couple Irish terrorists doing something who lived there etc

Other than that I don’t see Britain directly involving itself in many wars

I don’t think they’d care about race that much compared to the Nazis either, more Mussolini style in that case. (They literally had Disraeli as PM a few decades earlier and he was remembered as one of the best)

Bump

Would Hitler have accepted a British offer to accept any Jews he wanted gone to be deported, and resettled in a British colony?

Or was it not enough to remove Jews, killing them had to happen?

The often touted Madagascar plan for example never really got off the drawing board because they had no real way to implement it as things stood

>>17834594 (OP)
They were a joke movement in the UK, its like making an alt-his scenario where the Free Farmers Party of Thuringia seizes power in Weimar Germany

>>17834737
Why were they a joke though? They had also “won” in WW1 like Italy, and gained nothing but loss as a result in losing Ireland, and becoming much poorer and less influential

>>17834594 (OP)
>moar

>>17834734
>a British offer to accept any Jews
Lmao, the Brits wished they could have gotten rid of Jews themselves
>>17834749
>They had also “won” in WW1 like Italy
There was never a sense of "mutilated victory" like there was in Italy because they didn't go in for territorial gains, like Italy. And the predominant spirit in Britain after WW1 was "never again", which was the reason for the whole appeasement thing in the 30s