RIGHT MODERN TECHNOLOGY, NATION, AND BRITAIN‟S EXTREME RIGHT IN THE INTERWAR PERIOD (1919 – 1940) A Dissertation Presented to The Academic Faculty by Patrick Glenn Zander In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the School of History and Sociology of Technology and Science Georgia Institute of Technology May, 2009 RIGHT MODERN TECHNOLOGY, NATION, AND BRITAIN‟S EXTREME RIGHT IN THE INTERWAR PERIOD (1919-1940) Approved By: Dr. Jonathan Schneer, Advisor Dr. Gus Giebelhaus, Committee Member 4 School of History, Technology and Society School of History, Technology and Society Georgia Institute of Technology Georgia Institute of Technology Dr. John Krige, Committee Member 2 Dr. David Edgerton, Outside Reader School of History, Technology and Society Centre for the Study of Georgia Institute of Technology Science, Technology, and Medicine Imperial College London Dr. John Tone, Committee Member 3 School of History, Technology and Society Georgia Institute of Technology Date Approved: February 9, 2009 This dissertation is dedicated to my father Glenn R. Zander who made my pursuit of such a dream possible, to my wife Pamela whom I love dearly and who has always supported my efforts despite the demands of graduate work, to my son Bennett who is the light of my life, and finally to my mother, Gayle L. Zander who tragically passed away during the writing of this dissertation and who helped make my new academic life possible – giving me life for a second time. ACKNOWLEGEMENTS I have accumulated many debts in assembling this dissertation. First, I must acknowledge and thank Dr. Jonathan Schneer whose teaching provided me the basis for my interest in 20th century British history and the extreme right wing in particular. He has been my mentor throughout my investigation of this subject from 2004 to the present. Next, Dr. John Tone worked with me tirelessly in understanding the complicated and tangled historiography of 20th century authoritarianism, often allowing me the space to come to conclusions on my own although I was sometimes slow in arriving at them. Dr. John Krige lent me valuable advice in the process of assembling a dissertation and particularly in the history of technology. Dr. Gus Geibelhaus has been a long time mentor who recommended including a comparison of the American Technocracy Movement – I have also learned volumes from simply sitting in his office. Dr. David Edgerton was an invaluable contributor to this work, both from the standpoint of his published work on 20th century Britain and as an active reader and examiner. Dr. Edgerton had many insightful suggestions that helped me find my theoretical footing often in areas where I could not readily find it myself. I also extend my warmest appreciation to the staffs of the University of Sheffield Special Collections, the Imperial War Museum, the Greenwich Maritime Museum, the University of Birmingham Archives, and the British Library. In each of these archives the staff was kind, courteous and helpful to a researcher trying to find his way among the sources. Finally, I must acknowledge and again thank my parents who encouraged me on this path, gave me a childhood most can only dream of, and who provided material assistance that made any of this possible. iv SUMMARY This study examines the extreme right wing political tendency in Great Britain during the interwar years and particularly its relationship to technological modernity. The far right has been much misunderstood and under-researched, often seen as part of ―Appeasement Conservatism‖ and as a group of out-dated elites inhibiting Britain‘s modernization. In fact, this study suggests, the extreme right was distinct from Tory Conservatism and promoted its own (exclusionary and objectionable) paradigm of modernism. In its policies, rhetoric, and practices, the far right, above all, advocated a technically modernized Britain. Only such a modernized state, they believed, (in terms of industrial and military strength), could take its place in the new generation of Great Powers in a predatory and chaotic world. Extreme right leaders were convinced that Britain must insulate itself from such economic and political chaos by preserving its Empire, creating an autarkic economy, eliminating ―foreign elements‖ at home, and by creating a lethal modern defense. For Britain to accomplish these objectives, it would have to master and apply modern science and technology on a national scale. For Britain to maintain (or re-assert) its former world leadership, said the far right, it had to become a ―Great Technological Nation.‖ Members of Britain‘s extreme right were especially influenced by the fascist dictatorships – their crushing of Marxism, their supposed elimination of class war, and especially their apparent accomplishments of modernization. A disproportionate number of British fascists and fascist supporters were key members of Britain‘s industrial and high-tech. elite. As they praised the dictatorships and attacked Britain‘s liberal-democratic system, they used issues of national modernization (aviation, modern highways, radio communications, military mechanization) as a key battlefield for political debate. In such debates they routinely positioned their own tendency v as the best hope for progress against the supposed irrationality of the left and the alleged ineptitude of professional politicians created by democracy. These campaigns did not produce any meaningful victories in electoral politics. Most of the politicians who sympathized with such views changed their public affiliations by the coming of WWII or were discredited. Nor did any explicitly fascist party in Britain ever win a seat in Parliament. Most studies, then, have focused upon the failure of British fascism or those societal and economic conditions which prevented authoritarianism from gaining purchase. This study, however, intersects with some of the most crucial questions of modern British history and forces a re-appraisal of the ―failure‖ of the far right. Explaining economic and industrial decline has long been the central question for historians of 20th Century Britain. A new interpretation, however, has recently been put forward by historian David Edgerton. He sees 20th Century Britain as dominated by its state sponsored military-industrial complex and as one of the most technologically modern nations in the world. Industrial Decline simply didn‘t happen, according to Edgerton. Far from a ―Welfare State,‖ mired in industrial decline, Britain forged ahead in the production of lethal defense technologies, engineered by a culture of technical experts. The declinist argument used by so many historians to explain Britain‘s postwar experience, took shape, in its broadest outlines, within the collective discourse of Britain‘s interwar extreme right. The far right deployed this declinist argument, in its most intensive form, in order to discredit existing institutions, to convince the public of an apocalyptic disaster if change were not made, and to support their own particular vision of high modernism. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page DEDICATION iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv SUMMARY v 1 INTRODUCTION 1 Foreword 1 What is Modernity? 7 Who Were the Extreme Right? A Brief Taxonomy 10 Why Study the Extreme Right and its Relationship to Modernity? 20 Organization 27 2 ―THE MODERN MOVEMENT‖ British Fascism, Science, and the Question of Modernity 34 British Fascism before Mosley 37 Mosley, the New Party and the BUF 45 ―Back to the Soil‖ and the Anti-Modern in Context 63 Brothers in Modernity: British Fascism and the American Technocracy Movement 76 3 ―IN A CRASH HELMET, NOT A TOP HAT‖ The Extreme Right Community and the New Technologies 87 The Automobile and Motoring 88 Aircraft 102 Radio Communications 131 Other Notables 137 vii 4 ―HITLER‘S WONDERLAND‖ Technology, Engineering, and the Admiration for Fascism Abroad 144 The Dictator at the Controls 145 Corporatism 150 Labor and Factories 157 Transport and Infrastructures 163 Aviation and Authoritarianism 174 Urban Planning and Architecture 183 Medicine and Medical Care 186 Modernizing the Colonies 191 Reality of Façade? 195 5 ―SHEER BARNACLE HABITS OF MIND‖ Technological Modernity and the Extreme Right‘s Attack on Democracy 202 Science, Fascism, and the Left 203 The Workers 207 Shipping 210 Motoring and the Roads 212 Democracy in the Air 220 Democracy on the Air 227 Rothermere and the Channel Tunnel 230 6 ―BRITAIN DEFENSELESS!‖ The Campaign to Modernize National Defense 234 ―Disarmament Means War‖ 237 On Land: JFC Fuller and Mechanization 241 On the Seas: ―A Parade of Tragedy‖ 253 viii And in the Air: ―We Need 5,000 War-Planes!‖ 262 Were Extreme Right Fears Justified? 276 7 ―AN INSULATED BRITAIN‖ The Extreme Right, Technological Modernity, and Exclusive Nationalism 279 Consolidating the Empire: ―Making one Great Family‖ 281 Economic Expressions of Exclusive Nationalism 292 Admiration for Fascist and Nazi Self-Sufficiency 300 The ―Oil from Coal‖ Campaign 307 The Language of Exclusive Nationalism, Walls, Shields and Moats 318 8 CONCLUSION 325 BIBLIOGRAPHY 340 ix CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Foreword In 1980 Richard Griffiths published Fellow Travelers of the Right: British Enthusiasts for Nazi Germany 1933-1939. It remains the most complete survey of Britain‘s extreme right wing and its relationship to fascism during the interwar years. Among the prominent Nazi sympathizers Griffiths profiled was Lord Londonderry, coal magnate, and one of Britain‘s wealthiest aristocrats. Londonderry was from an ancient and noble family and fought hard to protect the accumulated property and power of his class. He believed his aristocratic pedigree endowed him with innate talents and responsibilities and so he pressed for positions in public service. In Ramsay MacDonald‘s National Government he was appointed Secretary of State for Air, but was forced out of office in 1935, stained with the indignity of falling behind German air production. Out of politics he searched desperately for some way to remain engaged and relevant. Informal diplomacy with Nazi Germany during the tense years of the late 1930‘s provided an avenue for him to re-insert himself into the drama of politics.