Nazi vs Neo-Nazi

Discussions on the propaganda, architecture and culture in the Third Reich.
gebhk
Member
Posts: 1703
Joined: 25 Feb 2013 20:23

Re: Nazi vs Neo-Nazi

Post by gebhk » 04 Mar 2021 16:16

This type of presence isn't exclusive to the right.
Of course not, or even to politics. I would suggest many criminal gangs serve the same purpose. I was however, trying to stay on point. :wink:
But, just like Farage was able to reach out to many voters, especially those sitting on the fence, left-wing populists also do the same when promising this and that for free and promising to tax the rich more and so forth.
Of course, because like nearly all politicians of whatever colour, Nigel Farage was selling the same old cobblers of simple solutions for complex problems and personal betterment for free. Some by promising taxing the rich, others by promising to eject immigrants and thereby liberate better-paid jobs for the natives. The reason politicians do this is because the electorate can be relied upon to fall for it every time - much the same as my cat can be relied upon to fall for the old trick of allowing himself to be locked up in his room when tempted by a few chicken-flavoured Dreamies. Certainly large numbers of people voted for Brexit because they genuinely believed that all the Pakistanis and their descendants would go home if they did...... 8O.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 9517
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: Nazi vs Neo-Nazi

Post by Sid Guttridge » 04 Mar 2021 17:42

Hi GLG,

Something I don't think you mention is that of all 630 MPs of all parties, it was Enoch Powell who raised the issue of British abuses during Mau Mau in Kenya in the late 1950s. Powell was a far more complex individual than the cartoon racist that he is usually presented as today. Even Michael Foot, leader of the Labour Party, apparently said that Powell was not a racist. Powel, although doubtless intellectually arrogant, was surprisingly humble in many ways. For example, he was the last MP without an office. Instead he worked from the House of Commons Library. Even the "Rivers of Blood" speech is usually misrepresented as a threat rather than a warning.

Powell was a complex individual who usually suffers from over simplistic analysis.

And, to keep the thread on period, he once said he thought he would have been happier to have died in action with some of his fellows in WWII than to have lived to witness Britain's post-war evolution.

Cheers,

Sid.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 9517
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: Nazi vs Neo-Nazi

Post by Sid Guttridge » 04 Mar 2021 18:02

Hi gebhk,

You post, "Since there is no Nazi state in the world today and no such 'enterprise' is up-and-running, therefore there are no Nazis in the world today (by that definition)." Surely, there doesn't have to be a Nazi state for there to be a joint enterprise? The Nazi Party had been a joint enterprise since its foundation. If you were a party member or voter in, say, 1926, you were still contributory to that joint enterprise, even if there was no Nazi state. The same holds today.

You post, "I would suggest a more useful approach might be to look at the various components over time and see if there are similarities today. For example do we have the equivalent of the storm-troopers? We probably do in the flag-waving tattooed fraternity, regularly ordering five beers with little real interest in or understanding of the politics or ideology of the 'party' and much more interest in pursuing their hobby of spreading mayhem. Membership gives them a sense of belonging and self-worth which society at large would not give them and would, therefore, otherwise be lacking from their lives. With a leavening of brighter (sometimes even very bright) individuals who get a kick out of controlling the yobs without the need for the hard work involved in becoming a democratic politician. Indeed, for some at least, it's an end in itself and they have little belief in the party 'faith'. Sound familiar?" Yup. No names, no pack drill.

I think your "if Tony Benn and Enoch Powell got married....." analogy stretches a bit far. Neither of them, so far as I am aware, was anti-Semitic.

You post, "Finally what about the common man (or woman) in the street? Again, here there are worrying similarities. I think the point about the uniting factor among the German Nazi voters of the 1920s - 30's being frustration with 'the system' is right on the money. I can't help thinking that, without getting into a debate on the issues themselves, the reason for some recent election and referendum results were more about sticking two fingers up at the 'establishment', than they were about the relevant issues; with little or no comprehension of or care for the consequences." Nevertheless, in joining or voting for the Nazi Party one was buying into the whole project. There was no Nazi Party Lite.

You post, "In much the same way, I doubt very much that the German voters of the 1920s/30s were voting for the Holocaust any more than they were voting for a catastrophic WW2 which too could be considered predictable from a careful analysis of the party faith and its 'bible'. They were just voting against the system and for the carefully crafted mirage of a better future for them, personally." We are, nevertheless, ultimately measured more by the consequences of our actions than our intentions. Whatever the intention, the ultimate consequences of the votes for the Nazi Party in 1933 were catastrophic, for Germans, Jews and tens of millions more besides.

Cheers,

Sid.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 9517
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: Nazi vs Neo-Nazi

Post by Sid Guttridge » 04 Mar 2021 18:13

Hi gebhk,

You post, "My point is that none of the 25 points addresses the 'Jewish question' directly and the Jews are mentioned in only one point (Point 4) as an illustrative example."

I believe the Jews are mentioned twice in the 25 points and were subsequently mentioned in a clarification of Point 17, which was to be understood as, "directed primarily against the Jewish land-speculation companies."

But one has to ask how many other racial groups were singled out in this way? None. The Jews were particularly and specifically in the Nazis' cross hairs for special attention from the very start in 1920.

This continues in Mein Kampf. I have just word searched "Jew" and "German" in its pages. The former comes up 705 times, the latter 2,059. (https://archive.org/stream/meinkampf035 ... p_djvu.txt)

The Jews were far from incidental to Hitler and the Nazis. Indeed, they seem to have been something of a fixation.

Cheers,

Sid.

gebhk
Member
Posts: 1703
Joined: 25 Feb 2013 20:23

Re: Nazi vs Neo-Nazi

Post by gebhk » 04 Mar 2021 19:23

I believe the Jews are mentioned twice in the 25 points and were subsequently mentioned in a clarification of a third. But one has to ask how many other racial groups were singled out in this way? None.
I have not found any other reference directly to Jews other than in Point 4. The 'Jewish-materialistic spirit' is referred to in Point 24. You are quite right that an explanatory note of 1928 was added to Point 17, in many ways supporting my proposition - which is that the public face of Nazism was trying to clothe its policies in anodyne pseudo-rationalism. Only when this backfired, in this case the demand for the ability of the state to expropriate land worried farmers, was Hitler forced to expose his true intent. You will undoubtedly find similar tactics employed by some if not most modern Neo Nazi parties.
The Jews were particularly and specifically in the Nazis' cross hairs for special attention from the very start
So were the Roma and black Germans. But I don't see how that makes any difference to the premise. No doubt if the Germany of 1920 had a large Turkish or Pakistani minority, Adolf like as not would have been in favour of victimising them too.
The Jews were far from incidental to Hitler and the Nazis. Indeed, they seem to have been something of a fixation.
I'm sorry, but so what? It just reinforces my point that they were careful to downplay that aspect in their public image. You also seem to be fixated on the Jewish question more so than the Nazis - they were quite prepared to extend their animus to the Roma and Black Germans who were slated initially for expulsion and later extermination; in exactly the same way as the Jews in the former case and by forced sterilisation in the later.

gebhk
Member
Posts: 1703
Joined: 25 Feb 2013 20:23

Re: Nazi vs Neo-Nazi

Post by gebhk » 04 Mar 2021 19:46

I think your "if Tony Benn and Enoch Powell got married....." analogy stretches a bit far. Neither of them, so far as I am aware, was anti-Semitic.
Nor do you have to be anti-tsar to be a communist. Or pro-German to be a Neo Nazi. However, EP was clearly anti-immigration, anti-foreign culture and as I said earlier it is difficult to see why someone who is not a racist would quote an overtly racist comment in the speech of their career. Nor do you have to be anti-Semitic to be a racist. Tony Benn was clearly for nationalisation of companies and the sharing of profits form wholesale trade. I doubt that either would have found much to object to in demands for greater welfare for the elderly, sports for kids, etc.

George L Gregory
Member
Posts: 583
Joined: 13 Nov 2020 15:08
Location: Britain

Re: Nazi vs Neo-Nazi

Post by George L Gregory » 04 Mar 2021 21:43

gebhk wrote:
04 Mar 2021 16:06
Neither Tony Benn nor Enoch Powell views things from a racial point of view.
Hmm, one then wonders why Enoch Powell felt the need to quote someone he allegedly spoke to who says: "In this country in 15 or 20 years' time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man". But I suggest that is somewhat besides the point.
Because he was one of the few politicians who actually listened to his constituents.

Below is the full quote:
After a sentence or two about the weather, he suddenly said: "If I had the money to go, I wouldn't stay in this country." I made some deprecatory reply to the effect that even this government wouldn't last for ever; but he took no notice, and continued: "I have three children, all of them been through grammar school and two of them married now, with family. I shan't be satisfied till I have seen them all settled overseas. In this country in 15 or 20 years' time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man."

I can already hear the chorus of execration. How dare I say such a horrible thing? How dare I stir up trouble and inflame feelings by repeating such a conversation?
The answer is that I do not have the right not to do so. Here is a decent, ordinary fellow Englishman, who in broad daylight in my own town says to me, his Member of Parliament, that his country will not be worth living in for his children.

I simply do not have the right to shrug my shoulders and think about something else. What he is saying, thousands and hundreds of thousands are saying and thinking - not throughout Great Britain, perhaps, but in the areas that are already undergoing the total transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English history.
My point is that none of the 25 points addresses the 'Jewish question' directly and the Jews are mentioned in only one point (Point 4) as an illustrative example.

Of course we all know who AH had in mind when he spoke of profiteers, unearned income, usurers, those whose activities clashed with the benefit of the whole and whatnot. The point is that it was being carefully clothed as seemingly reasonable, non-specific argument for the protection of German interests. There is plenty of similar thinly veiled references to other cultures ion EPs speech. I don't think he would have had much problem with the vast majority of the 25 points that addressed immigration, preservation of German values and such like. In short, that the 25 points are, at face value, pretty anodyne and attempt to be all things to all men (hence my inclusion of Tony Benn in my humoresque) - like most other political 'stalls' and attempt to hide more than they reveal.
I can’t really find many points Powell would have agreed with in the slightest. Powell was one of the first British politicians advocating for a free market, he didn’t want to annex more territory for British to repopulate, he didn’t want to restrict citizenship to only British people, he didn’t want to nationalise anything, etc.

George L Gregory
Member
Posts: 583
Joined: 13 Nov 2020 15:08
Location: Britain

Re: Nazi vs Neo-Nazi

Post by George L Gregory » 04 Mar 2021 21:47

gebhk wrote:
04 Mar 2021 19:46
I think your "if Tony Benn and Enoch Powell got married....." analogy stretches a bit far. Neither of them, so far as I am aware, was anti-Semitic.
Nor do you have to be anti-tsar to be a communist. Or pro-German to be a Neo Nazi. However, EP was clearly anti-immigration, anti-foreign culture and as I said earlier it is difficult to see why someone who is not a racist would quote an overtly racist comment in the speech of their career. Nor do you have to be anti-Semitic to be a racist. Tony Benn was clearly for nationalisation of companies and the sharing of profits form wholesale trade. I doubt that either would have found much to object to in demands for greater welfare for the elderly, sports for kids, etc.
How can one be a Nazi without being pro-German? It was an ideology precisely for the Germans and was only able to really be applied at that time it was. Joseph Goebbels said that it wasn’t for export.

Powell was anti mass-immigration, not immigration per se. He was not against foreign cultures but he was against multiculturalism.

He said the following:
India is India and England is England. And an Englishman can have a love for India without wishing to see India on the streets of Birmingham.
If someone quotes someone else it doesn’t necessarily reflect what that person thinks.

gebhk
Member
Posts: 1703
Joined: 25 Feb 2013 20:23

Re: Nazi vs Neo-Nazi

Post by gebhk » 04 Mar 2021 22:18

How can one be a Nazi without being pro-German
Which is where the 'Neo' in Neo Nazi comes in....
If someone quotes someone else it doesn’t necessarily reflect what that person thinks.
Errm, I think if, of all the quotes in the world, you choose to quote that one in support of your thesis in a speech carefully designed to be the speech of your career, it rather does.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 9517
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

Re: Nazi vs Neo-Nazi

Post by Sid Guttridge » 04 Mar 2021 22:40

Hi gebhk,

You post, "I have not found any other reference directly to Jews other than in Point 4. The 'Jewish-materialistic spirit' is referred to in Point 24. You are quite right that an explanatory note of 1928 was added to Point 17, in many ways supporting my proposition - which is that the public face of Nazism was trying to clothe its policies in anodyne pseudo-rationalism. Only when this backfired, in this case the demand for the ability of the state to expropriate land worried farmers, was Hitler forced to expose his true intent. You will undoubtedly find similar tactics employed by some if not most modern Neo Nazi parties."

How is clarifying to the German public in 1928 that Point 17 is directed at the Jews evidence that the Nazis were soft-peddling their anti-Semitism at this time or reinforce your "point that they were careful to downplay that aspect in their public image"? Surely it amplifies their public image of anti-Semitism? It also implies they believed that this clarification would find a receptive audience.

You post that, "So were the Roma and black Germans" "particularly and specifically in the Nazis' cross hairs for special attention from the very start". I can find no reference to either in the 25 Point Programme. Nor do the Gypsies/Romanies appear to be mentioned under either of those names in Mein Kampf which, I confess, rather surprised me. "Negroes" are mentioned 24 times in Mein Kampf and Blacks four times, which doesn't really equate with the 705 times the Jews are mentioned. So, while I have no doubt the Roma and Black people were, as you say, also targets of the Nazis, neither were perceived as such direct and immediate competitive threats and so were not the same focus of Nazi fixation in coming to power as were the Jews.

You post, "I'm sorry, but so what?" to "The Jews were far from incidental to Hitler and the Nazis. Indeed, they seem to have been something of a fixation." You are aware of the rising tide of brutality, murder and genocide that the Nazis later inflicted on the Jews and yet you ask of the Nazis' early and continuous fixation with them, "So what"? I am sure that you did not intend to leave an impression of callous indifference to this, so I would ask you to clarify what you actually meant.

You post of me, "You also seem to be fixated on the Jewish question more so than the Nazis." I am sorry, but the Nazis were so fixated as to attempt genocide on the Jews. I accept I have many demonstrable faults, but I would humbly suggest that fixation to the point of attempted genocide is not one of them!

You post, "Nor do you have to be anti-tsar to be a communist. Or pro-German to be a Neo Nazi." Nope, but you do have to be anti-Semitic to be anti-Semitic. Your sentence referred specifically to the Nazi 25 Point Programme, and this was the context in which I was writing.

You post, "However, EP was clearly anti-immigration, anti-foreign culture....." He was a classicist steeped in foreign culture (hence the "rivers of blood" reference). I also believe he may have been Health Secretary when the first large tranches of New Commonwealth health care workers were recruited for the NHS. What he wasn't envisioning, it would appear, was that they would stay. And he unarguably was the first British MP of any party who raised reported British excesses in the Mau Mau. And the fact that a political opponent like Michael Foote, who knew him for decades, thought he wasn't a racist carries some weight. Like I said, he was a complex character.

Cheers,

Sid.

George L Gregory
Member
Posts: 583
Joined: 13 Nov 2020 15:08
Location: Britain

Re: Nazi vs Neo-Nazi

Post by George L Gregory » 05 Mar 2021 17:17

gebhk wrote:
04 Mar 2021 22:18
How can one be a Nazi without being pro-German
Which is where the 'Neo' in Neo Nazi comes in....
But, Nazism is anti-Slavic and it's ironic that most "neo-Nazis" are Slavs. Nazism is a pan-German or pan-Germanic at a push nationalist ideology. It's main roots lie in German nationalism and other ideas related to pan-Germanism.
If someone quotes someone else it doesn’t necessarily reflect what that person thinks.
Errm, I think if, of all the quotes in the world, you choose to quote that one in support of your thesis in a speech carefully designed to be the speech of your career, it rather does.
Except the main point of the Rivers of Blood speech was more to do with the race relations bill. He was worried that the bill would allow immigrants to discriminate against the native British people:
The discrimination and the deprivation, the sense of alarm and of resentment, lies not with the immigrant population but with those among whom they have come and are still coming. This is why to enact legislation of the kind before parliament at this moment is to risk throwing a match on to gunpowder.
Powell was not against immigrants living in the UK, he said during the speech:
This does not mean that the immigrant and his descendants should be elevated into a privileged or special class or that the citizen should be denied his right to discriminate in the management of his own affairs between one fellow-citizen and another or that he should be subjected to an inquisition as to his reasons and motives for behaving in one lawful manner rather than another.
He was advocating for controlled immigration:
In these circumstances nothing will suffice but that the total inflow for settlement should be reduced at once to negligible proportions, and that the necessary legislative and administrative measures be taken without delay.
He was extremely worried about the consequences of uncontrolled immigration and ended the speech with:
As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see 'the River Tiber foaming with much blood'. That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the 20th century. Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.

George L Gregory
Member
Posts: 583
Joined: 13 Nov 2020 15:08
Location: Britain

Re: Nazi vs Neo-Nazi

Post by George L Gregory » 05 Mar 2021 17:20

Enoch Powell helped the Jewish-German classist Paul Maas escape Nazi Germany and obtain a British visa. Powell and Maas were really good friends.

George L Gregory
Member
Posts: 583
Joined: 13 Nov 2020 15:08
Location: Britain

Re: Nazi vs Neo-Nazi

Post by George L Gregory » 05 Mar 2021 17:35

Powell simply wanted people who came to the country to integrate. He stated this many times.
In my own constituency (where I estimate that about 10 per cent of the population are immigrants from Asia or the Caribbean) I have the impression that, as no doubt elsewhere, the first phase, the sudden impact of Commonwealth immigration, is over. I am going to prophesy, however, that there will be subsequent phases, when the problem will resume its place in public concern and in a more intractable form, when it can no longer be dealt with simply by turning the inlet tap down or off. Long before the coloured population reaches 5 per cent of the total, a proportion will have filtered into the general population, mingled with it in occupation, residence, habits and intermarriage. On the other hand, the rest, numerically perhaps much the greater part, will be in larger or smaller colonies, in certain areas and cities, more separated than now in habits, occupation and way of life. The irregular pattern of population and living which grew up higgledy-piggledy in the early years of immigration will have been tidied up. It is for these colonies, and the problems thereby entailed on our descendants, that they will curse the improvident years, now gone, when we could have avoided it all.
Enoch Powell, Still to Decide, page 295.
I heard him say that one day perhaps – and it will be a long time after we are dead and gone – there will be a lot of intermarriage which would help to reduce the risks. He thought that might happen.
Enoch Powell's wife Pamela comment in Enoch at 100: A Re-evaluation of the life, politics and philosophy of Enoch Powell.

Nick Ross told Powell that psychologists were measuring prejudice by asking people whether they would be happy to marry someone black or if they would be happy if their daughter were to marry someone black. Powell replied that "if there were inter-marriage on a large scale, the dangers which I foresaw and foresee would be very much less". He also claimed:
so far as I can judge from the behaviour towards me of what are now called black people, who frequently meet me in public, there is not only no resentment but there is far reaching comprehension, because nothing is commoner than for them to come up to me and say, 'You're Mr. Powell ... May I shake your hand, it's an honour to meet you. Well, thank you for what you're doing.'
Robert Shepherd, Enoch Powell: A Biography, page 365.

He also stated that his conviction was neither genetic nor eugenic. And, he argued that:
it is not racial because I can never discover what "race" means and I have never arranged my fellow men on a scale of merit according to their origins.
Ibid, page 366.

For Powell it was simply a matter of numbers and a question of national identity.
Last edited by George L Gregory on 05 Mar 2021 22:14, edited 1 time in total.

gebhk
Member
Posts: 1703
Joined: 25 Feb 2013 20:23

Re: Nazi vs Neo-Nazi

Post by gebhk » 05 Mar 2021 21:52

Surely it amplifies their public image of anti-Semitism? It also implies they believed that this clarification would find a receptive audience.
Or, and more likely, it amplified their public image as not being anti-landowners. No doubt because they were more worried about upsetting landowners than upsetting the non antisemites. It merely reinforces my point that when the Nazis were striving for respectability they were downplaying the more extreme aspects of their programme much as the modern neo-nazis do. Or I could just repeat what I wrote the first time around: which is that the public face of Nazism was trying to clothe its policies in anodyne pseudo-rationalism. Only when this backfired, in this case the demand for the ability of the state to expropriate land worried farmers, was Hitler forced to expose his true intent. You will undoubtedly find similar tactics employed by some if not most modern Neo Nazi parties."
I can find no reference to either in the 25 Point Programme. Nor do the Gypsies/Romanies appear to be mentioned under either of those names in Mein Kampf which, I confess, rather surprised me. "Negroes" are mentioned 24 times in Mein Kampf and Blacks four times, which doesn't really equate with the 705 times the Jews are mentioned. So, while I have no doubt the Roma and Black people were, as you say, also targets of the Nazis, neither were perceived as such direct and immediate competitive threats and so were not the same focus of Nazi fixation in coming to power as were the Jews.
I think you may be conflating Hitler with 'the Nazis'. They are not the same. And I think you will find a great deal more animus towards the 'Bastards of the Rhineland' in the relevant parts of Germany than towards the Jews - for the obvious reason that they were a very visible living, breathing reminder of Germany's humliation after WW1. Finally, as far as I can make out, the Jews were the biggest minority while all the others were very small. It makes sense that if you feel the need to quote an example you will quote one that most people could identify with. No doubt that is why Enoch Powell mentions Blacks and not, say, Lithuanians in his speech.
You are aware of the rising tide of brutality, murder and genocide that the Nazis later inflicted on the Jews and yet you ask of the Nazis' early and continuous fixation with them, "So what"? I am sure that you did not intend to leave an impression of callous indifference to this, so I would ask you to clarify what you actually meant.
Again, so what? How does any of this negate my point that the 25 points were soft-peddling the extreme aspects of the Nazi 'faith'? On the contrary, where do the 25 Points demand the Jews be subjected to brutality, murder ands genocide? In fact in the only Point which demands killing (Point 18) it goes out of it's way to pretend it is not racially motivated (Common national criminals, usurers, profiteers and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race).
Nope, but you do have to be anti-Semitic to be anti-Semitic. Your sentence referred specifically to the Nazi 25 Point Programme, and this was the context in which I was writing.
But you do not have to be anti-Semitic to be a racist, which is the point I am making. A Russian Communist would be against the Tsar, an English communist would be against the Queen. In much the same way just because a German National Socialist will be anti-Slavic (among many other antis, no doubt) does not mean a Russian or Japanese one has to be to be a National Socialist. They will have their own set of 'antis'.
rivers of blood" reference
Actually there was no 'rivers of blood' reference. That was made up by the press. EP quoted Virgil's 'the River Tiber foaming with much blood'. But, damn, I am clearly falling into the trap of following irrelevancies down various rabbit holes, so will desist.
Last edited by gebhk on 06 Mar 2021 08:07, edited 1 time in total.

George L Gregory
Member
Posts: 583
Joined: 13 Nov 2020 15:08
Location: Britain

Re: Nazi vs Neo-Nazi

Post by George L Gregory » 05 Mar 2021 23:55

gebhk wrote:
05 Mar 2021 21:52
I think you may be conflating Hitler with 'the Nazis'. They are not the same. And I think you will find a great deal more animus towards the 'Bastards of the Rhineland' in the relevant parts of Germany than towards the Jews - for the obvious reason that they were a very visible living, breathing reminder of Germany's humliation after WW1. Finally, as far as I can make out, the Jews were the biggest minority while all the others were very small. It makes sense that if you feel the need to quote an example you will quote one that most people could identify with. No doubt that is why Enoch Powell mentions Blacks and not, say, Lithuanians in his speech.
But, the Nazis needed a racial enemy - the Jews. In fact, the Jews were to blame for every thing because of their alleged racial inferiority.

The Rhineland Bastards as they were called were only mentioned and according to Hitler it was the Jews who brought them to Germany:
Jews were responsible for bringing Negroes into the Rhineland, with the ultimate idea of bastardizing the white race which they hate and thus lowering its cultural and political level so that the Jew might dominate.
However, racism towards the mixed-race small population in the Rhineland was not that uncommon in the early 1920s.
Germans across the political spectrum regarded the occupation as a national disgrace. Many considered all forms of collaboration and fraternization with the occupiers as immoral (if not illegal) treason. From the spring of 1920 onward, German newspapers frequently ran hysterical stories about the alleged "Black Horror on the Rhine", accusing Senegalese soldiers of routinely gang-raping thousands of German women and girls on a daily basis. In the popular 1921 novel Die Schwarze Schmach: Der Roman des geschändeten Deutschlands (The Black Shame A Novel of Disgraced Germany) by Guido Kreutzer, he wrote that all mixed race children born in the Rhineland are born "physically and morally degenerate" and are not German at all. Kreutzer also declared that the mothers of these children ceased to be German the moment they had sex with non-white men, and they could never join the Volksgemeinschaft.

As Germans considered the occupation to be carried out by "B-grade" troops (a notion that was drawn from colonial and racial stereotypes), their humiliation was heightened, increasing hostility toward the women and children in these unions. In May 1920 the foreign minister of the new German government lodged a protest to his French counterpart stating that "we will accept the inferior discipline amongst your white troops if you will only rid us as fast as possible of this black plague".
Jews were depicted in the stab-in-the-back myth conspiracy theory. Jews were depicted as being linked with communism, socialism, Marxism and other left-wing ideologies. The ‘international Jewry’ conspiracy theory was very popular amongst right-wing circles in Germany.

Powell didn’t quote what a constituent of his said about black people because he wanted to make blacks to be a racial enemy. In fact, after his speech he said the following:
...it depends indeed on whether the immigrants are different, and different in important respects from the existing population. Clearly, if they are identical, then no change for the good or bad can be brought about by the immigration. But if they are different, and to the extent that they are different, then numbers clearly are of the essence and this is not wholly – or mainly, necessarily – a matter of colour. For example, if the immigrants were Germans or Russians, their colour would be approximately the same as ours, but the problems which would be created and the change which could be brought about by a large introduction of a bloc of Germans or Russians into five areas in this country would be as serious – and in some respects more serious – than could follow from an introduction of a similar number of West Indians or Pakistanis.
You may also be interested in watching David Frost’s interview with Powell online. Blacks weren’t the enemy, but people were concerned about immigration and it took a politician to say what everyone else was thinking at the time. After the speech the results of polls show how concerned citizens of the UK were about immigration:
An opinion poll commissioned by the BBC television programme Panorama in December 1968 found that eight per cent of immigrants believed that they had been treated worse by white people since Powell's speech, 38 per cent would like to return to their country of origin if offered financial help, and 47 per cent supported immigration control, with 30 per cent opposed.

The Gallup Organization took an opinion poll at the end of April and found that 74 per cent agreed with what Powell had said in his speech; 15 per cent disagreed. 69 per cent felt Heath was wrong to sack Powell and 20 per cent believed Heath was right. Before his speech Powell was favoured to replace Heath as Conservative leader by one per cent, with Reginald Maudling favoured by 20 per cent; after his speech 24 per cent favoured Powell and 18 per cent Maudling. 83 per cent now felt immigration should be restricted (75 per cent before the speech) and 65 per cent favoured anti-discrimination legislation. According to George L. Bernstein, the speech made the British people think that Powell "was the first British politician who was actually listening to them".

Polls in the 1960s and 1970s showed that Powell's views were popular among the British population at the time. A Gallup poll, for example, showed that 75% of the population were sympathetic to Powell's views. An NOP poll showed that approximately 75% of the British population agreed with Powell's demand for non-white immigration to be halted completely, and about 60% agreed with his call for the repatriation of non-whites already resident in Britain.
Powell reduced 43,000 letters and less than one per cent showed any disapproval to his speech.

Return to “Propaganda, Culture & Architecture”