Abstract:
This thesis examines the following recent historical studies of the British Union of Fascists as a study in the writing of contemporary history. The works examined are C. Cross, The Fascists in Britain, W.F. Mandle, Anti-Semitism and the British Union of Fascists, R. Benewick, Political Violence & Public Older, R. Skidelsky, Oswald Mosley, G. Lebzelter, Political Anti-Semitism in England 1918-1939, C. Holmes, Anti-Semitism in British Society 1876-1939, and K. Lunn and R.C. Thurlow (eds), British Fascism.
The main difficulties of writing contemporary history are regarded as inadequate sources, excessive subjectivity and stunted historical perspective. These difficulties are seen to affect the historians' accounts of the BUF's anti-semitism, involvement in political violence, Mosley the leader, the Olympia meeting and the BUF's failure.
The two overall interpretative approaches to the history of the BUF have been classified as the conventional and revisionist interpretations. The most significant differences between the two interpretations are in their allocation of responsibility for political violence and anti-semitism, and in their analysis of the BUF's failure. The historians of the conventional interpretation are more inclined to consider the BUF responsible for political violence and anti-semitism than its political opponents. They also suggest that fascism could not succeed in Britain. The historians of the revisionist interpretation consider the answer to both issues less clearcut, being more inclined to divide responsibility for anti-semitism and political violence, and less inclined to see the BUF as necessarily alien to British political culture.
The thesis suggests that the difference in the two interpretations arises not from use of different or new evidence but from changing perspectives in modern Britain on racial issues. Racial issues in Britain today consciously and unconsciously influence the historians of the BUF. This can be seen in their emphasis on its anti-semitism, and in the abandonment by later historians of the explanation that anti-semitism was necessarily politically unacceptable in Britain.
The interest in the BUF occasioned by its continuing contemporary relevance has made the historians' goals of objectivity and perspective more difficult to attain. It has also prompted historians to write overviews of the BUF concentrating on political violence and anti-semitism, rather than to write specific studies, analysing and evaluating evidence more closely.
