Jump to content

Talk:43 Group

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Morris Beckman's WW2 service

[edit]

It says here he served on a Flower class corvette, but the Morris Beckman article says he served in the merchant navy. Neither seems to provide sources. 188.107.234.49 (talk) 18:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions and justifications for edits

[edit]

Question: was Moseley was forced to go into exile in France? If so that should be put back in article.

"Forced in exile" is POV language and was not the case. 'Exile' has a specific meaning (a legal obligation to leave a country), whereas Mosley left of his own free will and was not barred from returning. It's fair to say that his lack of post-war political sucess may well have been a significant factor in his retirement from politics and decision to move abroad, but it certainly isn't NPOV to say he was 'forced into exile' by his opponents! 80.255 22:36, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Mosley was an 18b detainee, a 5th columnist and Nazi collaborator. [1]Historygypsy (talk) 04:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion of the sentance was that the activities of the 43 Group made it imposible for him to continue to live in UK. (E.G. He felt he was at risk). I am not sure if this is true it seems unlikly to me.--JK the unwise 11:01, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Changed: "opposition from the Jewish community" to "opposition from moderate members of the Jewish community" as some members of Jewish community supported the group. (for example those that were members of it).

It was a small group. I don't think it's acceptable to give the impression that a considerable proprtion of the Jewish community were members or supporters of it (and only the 'moderates' didn't), unless some evidence can be provided of this. As it was a largely jewish group, of course the jews who were members supported it; it seems rather redundant to say so. 80.255 22:36, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)


The point still stands that opposition from the jewish community suggests opposition form whole community. The current statment is neutral with regards to the size of the opposition/support from within Jewish community. I expect that it was higher then you might imagine. Groups always have higher passive support then their active membership. And WW2, a massive use of violence against facism, had just taken place! Still we don't as yet have any source that could tell us the level of support for sure. As it stands the sentence is as neural as it can be on that question.--JK the unwise 11:01, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

COMMENT: There were well over 500 members, men and women, and not all Jewish Historygypsy (talk) 04:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed: "Once again in 1965 the 62 Group ceased operations and the group was finally smashed by the Special Branch when a number of their senior officers were arrested after attacking a number of elderly German ex-servicemen in Brighton." As this is about 62 Group it should go in that article.

Removed: "One criticism that is made against the group is that one of its members was Harry Bidney, a convicted child molester and night club owner" as, again, this is about the 62 Group
--JK the unwise 17:46, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You removed this very fact from the 62 Group article, and I noted it on its talk page. Do you have any intention of re-inserting it, or should I do so? 80.255 22:36, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Insert away.--JK the unwise 11:01, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Radicalization quote

[edit]

It is absurd to talk about the fascists and anti-fascists "Radicalizing each other". The BUF by definition was "Radical", the 43 Group initially started as a self defense organization aimed at protecting the harrased and Jewish community in the East End of London. The clashes escalated simply because the BUF "Upped the ante" and the 43 group were forced to reply in kind.Historygypsy (talk) 03:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is taken from Hillman, Nicholas (2001) Tell me chum, in case I got it wrong. What was it we were fighting during the war?' The Re-emergence of British Fascism, 1945-58', Contemporary British History, 15:4, 1 — 34

Renton has argued that ‘organised anti-fascism also played a major part in the Union Movement’s defeat.’226 The most detailed source on militant anti-fascism in the 1940s is Morris Beckman’s The 43 Group, which claims that two-thirds of fascist meetings were closed down by anti-fascists in the summer of 1947.227 According to Chanie Rosenberg, an anti-fascist, ‘If we had left them alone, Mosley would have had some brief blossoming of sorts, and he would have kept a nucleus there. But we didn’t. We smashed them. The anti-fascist activity more or less eliminated any possibilities they had.’228 Although little of it relates to the 1940s and 1950s, there is evidence to suggest that violence between fascists and anti-fascists can help both groups to grow. A police report shows the BUF gained 2,000 members in London soon after the Battle of Cable Street (1936), when the police fought a violent battle with anti-fascists.229 Six months later, BUF members standing for election to the London County Council secured the party’s best ever results. Other violent BUF meetings had a similar effect,230 although the 1934 meeting at Olympia probably harmed the movement’s long-term growth.231 Copsey argues that militant anti-fascists did hinder UM, but he also believes that ‘in the short term the 43 Group possibly added fuel to the fire by bringing about radicalisation in the fascist ranks.’

If you don't like my summary, how would you summarize the points made in this source? Tim Vickers (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

[edit]

Hi Tim Sorry that this is a bit late but, here goes The circumstances around pre WW2 in the UK were vastly different to post WW2. Pre WW2 there were a lot of Nazi sympathizers, including, Dukes and other "Aristocrats". Most were members of the "Right Club", which you should read up. You have lived in the UK at the time to understand just how revered the "Aristocracy" was, and how their beliefs shaped popular beliefs. They even shaped Nazi thought, it was the Duke of Hamilton (Right Club Member) in Scotland that the befuddled Rudolph Hess tried to contact by bailing out of his Me110 over Scotland. The exiled King Edward was another, who met with Hitler and others and agreed to be a puppet Nazi King in the UK. Post WW2 saw many of the "Right Club" (and others) run for cover, even if they did not abandon or soften their rascist beliefs. But after Britain's cities had been pulverized during the war, and with the revelation of the horrors of the death camps where millions were killed (and that included Christians) popular anti-Semitism was largely restricted to the militant (relatively) few in the BUF. Further, the reverence for the "Aristocracy" was, and continues to be declining, where today, for the most part, they are a scorned joke (except for them and their hangers-on and the fawning media). Historygypsy (talk) 18:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Macklin book

[edit]

"Very Deeply Dyed in Black: Sir Oswald Mosley and the Resurrection of British Fascism after 1945"

I'm wondering about the reliability of this source as it talks about "Jewish Gangsters" such as "Jack 'Spot' Como" and "Bud Flanagan". I can't find any reference to a Jack Como on the internet and can only assume he's referring to Jack Comer, who was indeed an infamous Jewish gangster operating in the East End of London at this time. The inclusion of Bud Flanagan has me utterly bemused: Flanagan was a very famous music hall entertainer from a very young age and whose credits include the title music for Dad's Army! No other source that is not derived directly from Macklin mentions him having a criminal career. The precise phrase is "Jewish gangsters like Bud Flanagan from the Crazy Gang": Flanagan was indeed a member of the Crazy Gang, but the Crazy Gang was a comedy troupe! If the book contains fundamental and damaging errors such as these, which can be the result only of the laziest of research combined with extreme general ignorance or deliberate fraud, I believe great doubt is cast on whatever other insights the book may offer on this subject.FrFintonStack (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Bud Flanegan might be a mistake, but equally it might be a gang or nickname named after the comedy troupe. Removing this source on our own interpretation would be original research. Jack Comer certainly seems to be one of the names Jack Comacho used, but since it looks like he changed his name several times it is also possible that several different spellings are correct. I'm therefore fine with removing Flanegan, sine it is best to err on the side of caution, but I'd argue that we should retain Comacho/Corner/Como. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the author Graham Macklin, I'm much more comfortable about using this as a source. This author has impeccable credentials in this area. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 43 Group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 43 Group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:00, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 43 Group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:43_Group&oldid=1197042814"