My ancestors would be turning in their graves at the BNP's distortion of the reasons why they fought and died for Britain

The thrust of the BNP's party election broadcast tonight's seems to be on distorting the events surrounding the last two world wars and trying to make it fit their version of history.

Oddly, the BNP claim that Britain was fighting to stop a European super state from 1939-45. They do mention, in passing, the Nazis. But fail to mention how many members of the BNP are or have been involved in Nazi saluting, or other pro Nazi activities. They ask "Are you proud to be British ?" I am, but not when I see history being re-written in this way.

They also ask what those who have fallen in world wars would think if they saw the immigrant walking our streets today, claiming this is what the last two world wars were about. Actually, I imagine my ancestors who died fighting for this country would imagine how lucky we all are to have a free press, the right to travel freely and the rule of law in place instead of thuggery, hatred and protectionism.

When the BNP opened their broadcast claiming that all the other political parties were up to no good (expenses wise) and the BNP were different. I have to agree. After all the Tories, Lib Dems, Labour and UKIP are all led by people who are not convicted criminals. The leadership and executives of these parties are not made up of people with convictions for violence, racism and possessing weapons.

The BNP has a right under our freedoms to sell their message. However, it is a shame that they chose to distort history. I am making use of my democratic rights to say how much I oppose what they have to say, and I don't doubt for one moment that should their kind ever come to power these freedoms would disappear as quickly as they did in Nazi Germany in the 1930s.


HistoryChick said...

But the Nazi's did impose a European Super State - so the BNP were technically right about WW2 - not sure about WW1 - although Bismark's intention was always to unify Europe under German rule. (from Bismark's letter to the Emperor)

The problem with resorting to history is that there are so many different interpretations of what it all means. For instance, my father died in 1944 - but I doubt that any opinion on immigration ever sullied his mind. We had the Empire/Commonwealth and that was that, 'everyone had a decent life and there was no need to commonwealth citizens to leave their homes' and in fact no real migration in problematic numbers even happened until the 1950's.

So you too fall by your reliance on history to support your argument.

The BNP are odious in some of their policies, but then I think Labour's reliance on security legislation of which Hitler would be proud, are equally odious in some of their policies.

BUT - the BNP are coming out and saying some of the things that overtaxed and under-represented white english people are beginning to say. And the more you brush that under the carpet the more likely it is that these peo;ple will abondon main stream parties.

My worry is that some bright spark will come up with the idea of an English Liberation Army, based on the IRA - after all we can all see how successful terrorist organisatins have been in "highlighting" their causes; haven't we?

And that's history too.

Norfolk Blogger said...

The Nazi's did not want a European syuper state made up of a mix of nations. They wanted every other country in Europe to simply become controlled by German or become part of Germany. The aim was Germanification of Europe, which is not the same as European Super State.

My points were not intended tp bruch the BNP under the carpet. You are right about the grievances they the BNP highlightm but it is popularism without any real policies at putting it right. In the 1930s the Nazis blamed the Jews. Now the BNP blame immigrants. Any difference ?

Anonymous said...

churchill the son of an immigrant

a yank

ukip and bnp take note