Talk:Battle of Cable Street

message: Please remove the disinformation about the BUF believing in the "Protocols". Mosley firmly discouraged all forms of conspiracism; his motivation for opposing certain Jewish elements within British society was quite clear: he and his party members didn't want England to engage herself in another war perceived as suicidal, and most Jews, of course, sympathized with their mistreated kin in Germany and were actively pushing for engagement. I don't see how this makes Mosley some irrational monster of prejudice.
:You can remove that yourself, but you should reference this talk page in the edit summary when you do it. silsor 18:27, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)
You are familiar with the advertising for sale of the 'Protocols' in BUF literature? I would not remove this statement without further research. 
As for Mosley being against conspiracies - well, 'Anti-Semitism and the British Union of Fascists' by W. F. Mandle' is informative on this subject. Also,the swing from Mussolini to Hitler as a model, and the corresponding reliance on conspiracy theory is laid out very clearly in 'Mosley's Blackshirts: The inside story of the British Union of Fascists, 1932-1940'.
Reference to either of these scholarly works would help the Cable Street article. 66.238.90.187 (talk) 06:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Protocols

message: Added 'London History template', standardised the citation and 'rich linked' the text. Hopefully nothing contentious. I heard that the mural had been under threat - due to a change of use of the old library, but it appears to have been protected for the foreseeable future. Kbthompson 10:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  London History template 

message: Sorry folks, while somethings have a certain 'dwell time' on the BBC sites, can you note that somethings - broadcast programmes - tend to have a seven day life. Can you please bear that in mind when linking to them. Cheers Kbthompson 23:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BBC soundbites 

message: :dressed in uniforms styled on those of Nazi Blackshirts
I'm not sure what "Nazi Blackshirts" are. SA-troops were Brownshirts, some SS-troops wore a black uniform at that time but I don't think they were known as Blackshirts, and the Italian Fascists with their black shirts weren't Nazis. I'm no expert though; were there "Nazi Blackshirts"? I'm considering rephrasing this to avoid inexact connotations, unless someone can shed some light here. Naphra 17:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, and I've changed it, wiki'd to Blackshirt article. Kbthompson 19:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nazi Blackshirts

message: As the article on the BUF points out, it's position was always non anti-Semitic, despite being obviously fascist. Is there any substance to the labelling of them on this page? --Breadandcheese 06:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the assertion, since there is a preponderance of BUF sources expressly denying the anti-Semitic stance with which BUF opponents characterised them (and at that time in history, if a group as outspoken as the BUF were anti-Semites, they really would out and say it, unlike today where "white nationalist" groups try to hide their anti-Semitism under multiple layers of transparent rationalisation).  Using propaganda from any political party/movement is problematic, but it certainly is unacceptable to use propaganda published by a group's political opponents to label that group in an encyclopaedia article.  --41.243.221.52 09:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Far be it from me to hold up The Guardian as anything other than a trashy gossip rag, but despite their usual (from my perspective) anti-Jewish and anti-Israel tripe, on this question they take a decidedly different stance, as can readily be seen here.  Tomertalk 03:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It's possible, of course, that The Guardian was simply attempting to revive the old canard about "Jewish Communists" in their coverage, by juxtaposing mention of Jews with mention of Communists...  So, same old Guardian after all... Tomertalk 03:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right not to conflate the issue. From what I was told in my youth, however, the BUF attempted to carry out anti-Semitic activities from their headquarters in Cambridge Heath Rd. While the rhetoric may have been that of a political party, their followers beat up overtly Jewish people and trade unionists. The whole thing is confused, in the 1930s the national socialists, and then an emerging pro-Palestinian left consensus after the 1968 war. There were still many communist, anarchist and radical Jews around in Stepney in the 1970s and 1980s - including Max Levitas. I wonder where they all went? Anything that goes into the article should be well cited, Fishman, for instance, is an impeccable source, being a professor of social history at Queen Mary. Kbthompson 10:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Mosley was notoriously antisemetic. Duckmonster (talk) 03:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Anti-semitic nature of the BUF' 

message: Is there any connection between the banners statement "They Shall Not Pass" and Gandalf's cry to the Balrog ("You shall not pass!").  Anyone familiar with Tolkein know of a connection?  Tomertalk 03:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That phrase dates back to the Battle of Verdun.  It may well be assumed that Tolkien was familiar with that one.  :)  And on a slightly different tangent, I must say that it's more than a bit surreal to read about how Communists fought against a police escort for a political rally because they didn't agree with the views being presented, and they whoop it up as a big victory.  They seem to be the sort who like freedom of speech so long as they approve of what is being said.  Afalbrig 05:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  no pasarán 

message: It seems to me the "celebration" of this event is to glorify a mob attack on a group of peacefull, unarmed political protesters.  Maybe Alabama should erect a plague commemorating Bull Connor's "they shall not pass" activities? John celona (talk) 13:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Seems to you" maybe. The BUF "Defence Force" were antisemitic, racist, violent thugs just like their counterparts on the mainland of europe. They were not "peaceful, unarmed" political protesters as your attempt at revisionism suggests.  Paulzon (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seems to ME that the only reason for said march was to incite fear and terror amoung the populace of the East end, that is not free speech, that is terrorism.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.183.230 (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The fascists badly misjudged the British working class of the time, they thought that they would rise up and join in the "Jew bashing", but they didn't, they turned on the fascists instead. Paulzon (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text:  Yep, don't see what a communist 'victory' is something worthy of celebration. This wasn't a victory for democrats against fascists, it was totalitarians versus totalitarians.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.127.75.214 (talk) 00:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Celebrating tyranny 

message: The right to march in a district despite potential opposition from residents has been played out many times since, the Orange Parades in Northern Ireland being a typical example. In Israel in 2009 another group wished to march in a legal fashion, in the predominantly Israeli Arab town of Umm al-Fahm. How history repeats itself!
Dean Armond (talk) 13:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Umm al-Fahm, Israel 2009

message: The talk page is for discussion on how to improve the article, not for general discussion of its subject matter. Off-topic discussion may be removed by any editor.FrFintonStack (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Eyewitness Bill Fishman, 15 at the time of the battle, recalls, "I was moved to tears to see bearded Jews and Irish Catholic dockers standing up to stop Mosley. I shall never forget that as long as I live, how working-class people could get together to oppose the evil of racism."
I deleted this, because it is from the point of view of the anti-fascists and not objective. If this is in the article we must also look up a quote from a fascist saying how beautiful it was to see united people in black uniforms marching proud for their Fatherland.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.80.216 (talk) 21:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: eyewitness accounts should be from both sides of a camp. More so if there are unique statements.--82.134.28.194 (talk) 12:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted part 

message: This event is used as a piece of left wing political iconography and propaganda. So it's important to examine it objectively. As the article doeos point out this wasn't in fact a battle between fascists and the decent fair-minded working class folk of the East End of London. Rather it was a large scale riot, a fight between the largely slum-dwelling inhabitants of the roughest and most crime-infested part of London and the police. How the event has been used for propaganda purposes is as important as what really happened. The socio-political context of the time is a key issue. As is the subsequent post-holocaust revison of history. Before the war anti-semitism was a more a less respectable view, commonplace, unremarkable, not just in Germany but in almost every western country not least in both Britain and the USA as well as in most, probably all, European countries. Meanwhile, politically, the two extremes of communism and fascism (and its German variant, Nazism) were very hot issues for most people, especially the British working (and, given the very high unemployment, non-working) classes. The Spanish Civil War had recently seen well-intentioned international volunteers joining both sides (fascist and socialist/communist) depending on their political views. The Battle of Cable Street was really a case of a disaffected, impoverished, and in part (left-wing) politicised, mob of mixed origins, and with mixed motives, seizing on a good excuse to have a fight. The event has since been 're-written' to make it a glorious 'socialist' example of the community, Jewish and non-Jewish alike, (despite the latter having participated in anti-Jewish riots themselves on previous occasions!) collectively rising up to fight shoulder to shoulder against fascism and anti-semitism. If only history were quite so simple.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.2.26 (talk) 15:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political Iconography 

message: "Jewish, socialist, anarchist, Irish and communist" Why is Irish specified here? There were no specific Irish groups per se (ie ancient Order of Hibernians) and I'm sure a great many nationalities were present, so why not list them all? Incidentally Oswald Mosley was also of Irish origin. Jewish are arguably an ethnic and religious group demonstrably targetted by the BUF, the rest are political movements opposed to Fascism.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.212.218 (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Header 

message: Cottonshirtτ 10:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category for Renaming 

message: I notice the articles requires a citation for the statement that the Public Order Act 1936 "is widely considered to be a significant factor in the BUF's political decline prior to the Second World War." The Wikipedia article on the Act cites G. C. Webber's "Patterns of Membership and Support for the British Union of Fascists," in Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 19, No. 4 (Oct., 1984) that it "had the indirect result of actually improving the stance of the BUF." http://www.dkrenton.co.uk/anl/trent1.htm using Webber's figures has the low point of BUF membership as October 1935, with it having increased more than four-fold - to 22,500 by the outbreak of WWII. Can something be considered a significant factor in the non-existent? Kmitch87 (talk) 05:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aftermath 

message: The infobox used here is military conflict. I noticed there is an infobox for civil conflict. Which is more appropriate?--Darrelljon (talk) 14:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Template:Infobox civil conflict is a spin off of the template Military conflict and far younger. To make it complicated: you have also the template Template:Infobox civilian attack  The Banner talk 18:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military conflict? 

message: Removed Kiko4564's lumping fascists with police. Kiko4564 mentions no fighting between police and fascists. This isn't sufficient grounds to lump them together as some other conflicts involving more than two combatants can be split three ways.--Darrelljon (talk) 09:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lumping fascists with police under combatants 

message: A peaceful march being called off due to violent demonstrations isn't really noteworthy. (CoryHilton (talk) 15:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you referring to? The Banner talk 15:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It was just a minor incident in a small section of the East End of London. It wasn't the attack on Pearl Harbor. (CoryHilton (talk) 15:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The political meaning of this riot, with about thirty thousand participants, is far bigger than the location suggested. The Banner talk 16:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The march wasn't a riot. (CoryHilton (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope you are kidding. The Banner talk 20:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Disruptive sockpuppet blocked... The Banner talk 01:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this really need an article on this site? 

message: I read that the march itself was peaceful until it was attacked by Communist and socialist demonstrators. (165.120.157.227 (talk) 21:50, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The battle was between the police, trying to enable the march, and the anti-fascist protesters trying to prevent it. To that extent, the demonstrators didn't attack the march as such but stood their ground against the attempts by the police to clear them out of the way on the fascists' behalf so that the march could proceed. It's instructive that the law was changed as a result of the battle to ensure that future marches required police permission, though of course that hasn't prevented the continuation of what some communities in the UK would see as similarly provocative marches (for example, by the English Defence League and the Orange Order)  JezGrove (talk) 11:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: So only marches by white demonstrators are provocative? (81.132.48.136 (talk) 13:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Not white, proletarian. Pocketed</sup> 13:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that represents what I said at all! I simply chose a couple of the most prominent recent examples in the UK and you are, of course, welcome to name any others. In general, minority groups organising any mass protests in the UK will find it harder to intimidate the majority white population they live amongst by taking to the streets since, by definition, they will be outnumbered. So marches like those, say, in the wake of the publication of The Satanic Verses might be controversial, but they are unlikely to pose a direct threat to the residents of a particular residential area. (That isn't to say that the threat to Salman Rushdie wasn't real, or that a small subsection within any minority group can't find other ways to act in a manner that intimidates the majority population.) In terms of the Orange Order, Northern Ireland is 98.28% white (as of the most recent census in 2011), and so activists on both sides of the sectarian divide will be predominantly white. As for class (re User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi's comment), I'm not sure which side he/she thinks the proletariat represent in Cable Street but it was the (BUF) marchers who were protected by the police. Of course, for the reasons given above about minorities, the 1% are unlikely to (directly) participate in any mass protests any time soon, though other means may be available to them, too. JezGrove (talk) 22:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

text:  It is perfectly clear that the organised working class was attacked by the forces of the crown. Pocketed</sup> 07:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was the march peaceful? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Battle of Cable Street. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150209062940/http://www.thewallanalysis.com:80/main/waiting-for-the-worms.html to http://www.thewallanalysis.com/main/waiting-for-the-worms.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Isn't it true the march was peaceful until it was attacked by Communists? (2A00:23C4:638F:5000:E05A:7BA8:465C:A647 (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real story 

message: I was wondering if it might be helpful to have some more context? Covering the build up to the situation (e.g. the Olympia Rally) and the follow up? The riot was followed by the BUF committing the Mile End Pogrom (smashing shops, beating Jewish citizens), and led to the institution of the Public Order Act. (Which, interestingly, backfired because it gave the BUF more respectability and cachet in upper class society).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonlit321 (talk • contribs) 10:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Context 

message: Anonymous IP editor 2A00:23C4:7F89:2600:517F:20E8:B6BF:6F8E has deleted all references to non-Jewish organisations which took part in the action in Cable Street. Nevertheless, the article's own infobox includes a reproduction of a flyer from the London Communist Party calling for people to "Demonstrate against fascism in Spain and Britain, the butcher General Franco, and the Jew baiter Mosely", which suggests that a more widespread antifascist presence was likely. For what it's worth, a BBC report cited in the article includes the quote that, "It was the solidarity between the Labour Party, the Communist Party and the trade union movement that stopped Mosley's fascists, supported by the police, from marching through Cable Street". Whatever the Labour Party's current problems with anti-Semitism may be, they are no justification for trying to erase the Left's part in the fight against fascism and anti-Semitism in the 1930s. JezGrove (talk) 22:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Participation of non-Jewish organisations 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: * The Men They Couldn't Hang's album How Green Is the Valley features a song called "Ghosts of Cable Street" that celebrates the battle.
* Terry Pratchett's novel Night Watch features a riot/battle on Cable Street against Ankh-Morpork's secret police.
* Ken Follett's novel Winter of the World, part of his Century Trilogy, features the battle.
* Oi Polloi's song Let the boots do the talking, from their 7" EP of the same name commemorates the memory of those who fought against the fascists.
* The Young'uns' 2017 album Strangers includes an original song, "Cable Street", telling the story of the battle.
* In EastEnders, Dr Harold Legg and Dot Branning watch a documentary about the battle on DVD and Dr Legg recounts the events of the battle, where he met his wife Judith.
* In the play East by Steven Berkoff, "Dad" mentions the Battle of Cable Street in his rage, referring to Sir Oswald Mosley as someone with the "right ideas".
* Heaven Shall Burn featured the song "They shall not pass" on their 2016 album Wanderer, which referred to this incident.
Maybe add back a reference when a suitable source is cited. — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 13:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Find sources for refs 

message: The march subsequently took place several days later without incident. The Battle of Cable Street increased anti-Semitism in the UK, and led to a surge in membership for the BUF. This should all be mentioned. (86.147.59.129 (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There does seem to be some evidence of this, according to facinghistory.org: "By late October 1936, membership in the BUF had increased by 2,000, with many joining East End branches of the organisation. In March 1937, Tilles notes that the BUF received 18% of the East End vote, and around 30% of the non-Jewish vote, in the three main areas of the Cable Street confrontation between demonstrators, police, and Fascists." This does seem to suggest that the claim might have some merit, though of course more discussion and sources. Alssa1 (talk) 23:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: But "increased anti-Semitism in the UK"? Tilles, as quoted, does give those figures, but he does not say that Cable Street was the cause of growth. Emeraude (talk) 07:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Causation of this nature is always going to be difficult to demonstrate categorically, if we choose to mention the fact that BUF support rose after the event we suggest a causation even if we don't necessarily mean it. Alssa1 (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aftermath 

message: My rather hazy comment about these clashes was removed as being possibly doubtful. The source (East London Advertiser) does describe these in a bit more detail, such as the field dressing stations opened by both sides near Tower Hill, the anti-fascist attempt to occupy Minories etc. I intend to improve the article by going by more clearly describing what happened where and a what time of day (at least at a high level). I believe it would be better if events at Tower Hill, Aldgate, Cable Street and points in between were more clearly indicated. Thanks
Signing my previous comment of 15\3 AlasdairDaw (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the wording that was removed was "and there were a number of clashes" another editor added as a note "with whom". I suggest that you specifically address that point when you make the improvements you are suggesting. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Clashes at Tower Hill, Mansell Street, Minories etc

message: A week later Mosley addressed a large rally nearby and there was no violence. This should be mentioned. (Aardi18 (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? What is the relevance for this article that Mosley made more speeches? The Banner talk 17:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Afterwards 

message: I can only find one image of events on Wikimedia, are there any others?
Although the filename is in a script\language I can't read, some of the meta-data suggests this is Cable Street - but I think the contributor assumed. It looks a lot like footage of fighting at Tower Hill available on Youtube (I don't seem able to post a link)
I'd prefer to post it in context of the location so will seek confirmation of where it is.AlasdairDaw (talk) 21:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paucity of images