Originally published in Vanguard, January 1987 Print

In defence of our nation

By Roger Bower

SOME INDIVIDUALS in Nationalist circles have argued recently for what is termed 'the armed people'. The arguments are interesting but these individuals appear to have no knowledge of military affairs whatsoever. They argue that the British people should all be given arms to defend Britain against foreign invasion, to prevent a military coup against a Nationalist government, as well as to defend themselves against armed criminals.

Early last year several associated ideas were floated as regards defence. The Royal Navy, it was argued, was not needed as it would be unnecessary, as would large sections of the Army, by a militia system ― a system that has been obsolete since the invention of the railway system (and, arguably, unworkable even in Elizabethian England). This militia would be made up of the entire British people.

Another reason given for this harebrained militia/armed people system was that the British people would have the means to overthrow an anti-British government. While wishing to see the present government replaced by a Nationalist government all serious Nationalists will realise that it is impossible to infuse artificially a revolutionary tradition into a people where no such tradition exists.

TRADITION

Britain has no revolutionary tradition, and this is shown quite clearly in history. An obvious example is 1848 when the French Revolution spread across Europe with the French revolutionaries showing the way, providing the inspiration for the rest of Europe ― except Britain.

So history has shown we are not revolutionaries, or at least the British people are not, unfortunately. Giving the people the means to start a revolution does not mean there will be a revolution or that the British will become revolutionaries.

To return to the idea of an armed people as regards to defence. We will have to picture that World War Three has broken out and a Nationalist government has completed its aim of building up a large partisan army, has thrown US troops out of Europe and has withdrawn the British Army on the Rhine. The war, hopefully, will be conventional. With the Navy scrapped the entire Soviet Baltic Fleet would be released ensuring Russian control of the seas long enough for them to invade Britain.

With no British Army on the Rhine, the Soviet army would easily get to the Rhine and would seize North Sea ports. With no Navy to defend us the Red Army could attack us at will and, if we assume that Britain is attacked and falls, we would then have an occupied Britain with a partisan army of "armed people". It is argued that the presence of a large partisan army would "discourage invasion" and, according to the Gosste Feldherr Aller Zeit, would be able to "inflict fearful losses" on the enemy. History has shown the first assumption to be untrue. If you are an island nation, the enemy must cross the sea to get to you. This is the most obvious fact. A strong Air Force and Royal Navy would be a deterrent, not a few straggling scruffs with little training, no organisation, no air support, no heavy weapons etc.,etc.

In 1941 Germany invaded Russia, Yugoslavia and Greece. Partisan activity in occupied areas was not considered dangerous since the main threat would obviously be the regular forces. The partisans' only real contribution towards a victory to their country's allies was by tying down enemy forces and easing the way for approaching allied armies. In a stand-up fight, unless massively outnumbered, regulars will always win. Guerilla tactics are the only choice the irregulars have.

General military guidelines state that, to keep a hostile population down in time of war a very low soldier/civilian ratio is required. This is not to say that if Britain were invaded and occupied we would do nothing - we all know where our duty lies - but it must be realised that setting up a partisan army is the last resort, a last-ditch alternative. The defence of any country relies on its armed forces and this is where the money should be spent instead of wasting it on doling out expensive equipment to untrained masses.

So, militarily, the 'armed people' idea is as idiotic as it is naive ― a pie in the sky idea.

As regards the crime situation, it is argued by the exponents of the armed people idea that "by making weapons compulsory, we would merely even things up for law-abiding folk". In America, where almost all families have guns, there are over 10,000 shootings annually. In Britain there are relatively few. In America criminals have to go armed in case there is a shoot-out with the police, that is why so many are killed and why violence is so widespread.

IDOLISE

Not surprisingly, those who argue for the 'armed people' idolise Colonel Gadaffi. They quote from his Third Universal Theory and describe him as a "national revolutionary, freedom fighter and advocate of the armed people".

Yet the National Front is opposed to terrorism. Therefore we must not be two-faced. We must condemn all terrorism even if it means upsetting the Libyans and getting no money from their Embassy. We must be true to our principles and not accept blood money. Idolising a man who supports terrorism is sick and a most definite own goal!

The reality of widespread gun ownership - widespread murders by the gun.

Chesterton and other British Nationalists are being elbowed out of Nationalist thinking in favour of mad Arabs and dead Rumanians who have nothing in common with modern British politics or the real world. From such cultism we gain nothing and lose the credibility we once had with the electorate. We turn ourselves and our Party into a laughing-stock just to satisfy the whims of cranks on a crusade into obscurity.

Only when we correct these major flaws will we be taken seriously again by the British voter. We will need time, but with a democratically-run Party with relevant and serious publications that appeal to the man in the street and talk in everyday language; and with dedicated activists we will be back on the road towards that elusive Nationalist victory. Then and only then will we stand a chance of coming to power.

We have policies which we know to be right and which the British people know to be right. We have courageous and dedicated activists who make great sacrifices for our Party. With continued progress, and with the rejection of the crank notions like scrapping the Royal Navy and replacing it with "armed people", we will find ourselves advancing further than ever before towards a Nationalist victory.

With members having real power, thus rendering splits far less likely, it will not be long before we can see that victory approaching; and this time we will not squabble amongst ourselves and see that victory fade away.

We shall continue to fight our real enemies. We shall attain our goal. We shall win.