Sam N E Duffy
Arnold Leese, Out of Step: Events in the Two Lives of an Anti-Jewish Camel Doctor (London: Imperial Fascist League, 1951)
Arnold Leese was an English born animal lover and veterinarian who wrote the pamphlet ‘Fascism for Old England’ in 1924[1]. Having worked as a veterinary surgeon prior and during the Great War, Leese had developed anti-Semitic views after experiencing the kosher method of slaughtering animals. He had also been influenced by his neighbour, who had claimed that the source of money and finances led to power, and was being ‘controlled by the Jews’ [2]. The document is a pamphlet, which means its usage as a primary source is vast. A pamphlet allows a historian to gain a developed and concise understanding of the authors views during that period. This is because a pamphlet is composed for the exact reason of informing the potential readers about said authors intentions/opinions. The basic groundwork means that a pamphlet should involve important information, usually within a limited word count. Political parties, charities, religions and virtually any organisation still use this method or communication due to its proven effectiveness. Being published in 1924, the source was around at the early stages of fascism. It was published only two years after the march on Rome in Italy and Adolf Hitler was still serving his time in Landsberg Prison for the failed Munich Putsch [3]. Because of this, and with hindsight, it is worth noting that the reactions to fascists attempting to stand in local elections would not have been so resistant, compared to those in the late 1930’s, once fascism had taken place in the likes of Germany, Italy, and Spain, hence why there was no real opposition other than from the ‘reds’.
The source begins with a clever usage of language used to entice the reader. England has, for hundreds of years had very little change in the government system. Going from an Absolute to a constitutional monarchy, and short time as a republic under Cromwell, English politics had remained steadfast and resistant to change. Using the world ‘little’ and calling the pamphlet ‘Fascism for Old England’[4], suggests that the early and new ideology, is perfect for the traditionally conservative nation, with potential to grow into something greater.
Leese proceeds to mention how suffrage should be purchased and ‘equal to say one day’s income’[5]. It is claimed this would make man appreciate his vote far more, rather than simply wasting it by not voting at an election. This perspective is consistent with the wider consensus of Fascism in Britain, in the notion that democracy is still maintained to some extent. Whilst inspired by Italian fascism, British fascism was more based upon traditions and history [6], hence the usage of the name ‘old England’ to represent previous portrayals as a dominant superpower. An allusion is created, in which it attempts to link fascism to the grand victories of England in times gone by.
The author, is aware of the social image surrounding fascism. He is conscious of using the name ‘fascist’ as it would often draw negative associations with other fascist regimes. A modern example of this would-be countries that identify as ‘The Democratic republic’ or ‘Peoples Democratic republic’. These nations were often, not democratic but under totalitarian communist regimes, and those who genuinely were democratic, ended up falling under the same umbrella. The term ‘British fascists’ therefore risks the same fate, and consequently Leese ‘implores the party to change their name’ as the initials were ‘just asking for it’[7].
The source then begins to explain Leese’s disappointment that the British Fascists were in fact not actually fascist, but ‘merely Conservatism with Knobs on’[8]. His disappointment was a sentiment felt by many fellow fascists throughout the late 1920’s. As previously mentioned, British fascism was more based upon tradition, and as a result, fascism was often just used to describe pro-imperial and nationalistic identities, that the political parties of the time failed to address. It was not until the formation of the British Union of Fascists, led by Oswald Mosley, that the principles of racial superiority, anti-Semitic and radically nationalistic principles began to emerge [9]. His failed attempts to get the name changed, seemed to justify the attacks from the reds, who were known to have running battles against the fascists. Whilst not on the same scale as the Battle of Cable street in 1936, the ideological war between socialists and nationalists continues today as it had at the turn of the 20th century, with the likes of the ‘English Defence League’ or ‘British National Party’ in riots and demonstrations against ‘Unite against Fascism’ and ‘Hope not Hate’. A student studying modern British history who wishes to look at the origins of these current conflicts, would be wise to study the literature of fascists and communists alike, especially personal ones like this source. By doing so, they can identify the supposed source of these sentiments, and address whether there are religious, racial, or economic factors that created the origins of these ideologies.
Leese then begins to describe fascism by explaining his desire for a ‘revolt against democracy and a return to statesmanship’. The author has again been careful with his use of language, by using the terminology of a ‘revolt’, it doesn’t necessarily mean that he is calling for the complete eradication of democracy. Fascism can never truly take hold of a nation if they remain entirely truthful. Had Adolf Hitler told the German people in 1933 that in ten years, the majority of the citizens were to be deported, loose jobs, not vote for their leaders, or allowed to be critical of their state in any way, shape or form, then he would have likely been disposed of quickly. As previously mentioned, the British are slow to change[10] and fascists would need to slowly cultivate the British populace should they desire to ever take control.
The source is finally summarised by talking about the desire to compete against the failed conservative attempts to truly ‘fight socialism’ and prevent ‘socialist councillors returning without a fight’ [11]. The wording begins to describe this supposed great feat that two unknown fascist councillors had, against all the odds became the first constitutionally elected fascists in England.
The source provides a unique insight into the mind and views of a fascist supporter in the 1920’s. The author is clearly dedicated to the cause, as shown by his imprisonment during the war[12]. There is of course a heavily and obviously biased opinion from Arnold Leese in support of fascism throughout the text. The information gathered should be used in conjunction with other pamphlets or personal literature such as; journals, diaries, and memoirs. When compared with similar primary sources, it can help to build up a better understanding of the ideology and its impact on modern British history.
[1] R. Griffiths, Fellow Travellers on the Right, (Oxford University Press, 1983) p. 96.
[2] R. Thurlow, Fascism in Britain a History, 1918–1985, (Basil Blackwell, 1987) pp.74-81.
[3] B. Fulda, Press and Politics in the Weimar Republic. (Oxford, Oxford University, 2009) pp. 68-69.
[4] A. Leese, Out of Step: Events in the Two Lives of an Anti-Jewish Camel Doctor (London: Imperial Fascist League, 1951) p.1.
[5] Ibid., p.1.
[6] T.P. Linehan, British fascism, 1918-39: Parties, ideology and culture (Manchester, Manchester University Press, 2000) p.14.
[7] Leese, op.cit, p.1.
[8] Ibid,. p.1.
[9] J.V. Gottlieb and T.P. Linehan, The culture of Fascism: Visions of the Far Right in Britain (New York, I. B. Taurus & Co. Ltd, 2004) pp. 66-67.
[10] Linehan, op.cit, p.14.
[11] Leese, op.cit, p.14.
[12] Thurlow, op.cit, pp. 169-170.