Talk:43 Group

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Questions and justifications for edits

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Radicalization quote

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)

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)