Michael Rosen replies to Peter Hitchens about Lineker
Published
by
Richard Kuper
JVL Introduction
In his column in the Daily Mail on 12th March, Peter Hitchens launched into an extraordinarily ill-informed attack on Gary Lineker, claiming that Lineker “knows as much about politics as I know about football”.
Not true, as Michael Rosen shows in an extended tweet drawing parallels between what the Nazis said in the 1930s and Tory rhetoric today.
This article was originally published by Facebook on Wed 15 Mar 2023. Read the original here.
Michael Rosen replies to Peter Hitchens
Loading article text…
Wasnt the Jewish community equally split in the 30’s between those who didn’t want to upset the Apple cart and those who could see exactly where it would all end
Theres nowt new in this sad auld world
Reading a history text about Fascism’s rise to power in Germany (written by a noted German historian, one of the things that struck me most was how ALL the normal aspects of life were made to carry the dominant messages.
When EVEN pictorial art is “weaponised” to suit a particular political objective, for example, how can the public escape indoctrination? No ordinary person is on guard for political messages when looking at art on display and deciding whether they like it.
I see the same thing happening here (in what words are used or not used, what films and drama get shown, etc). It terrifies me. The majority of us have still no need to fear draconian punishment but those “off message” are increasingly silenced and “drowned out” by a variety of means and by a variety of “influencers” reinforcing each other’s power.
Brilliant work, Michael.
Peter Hitchens is also one of the twits saying, once again, that the Nazis were socialists and therefore left wing. That would be news to the many real socialists the Nazis went for in the early days.
The problem is there are many parallels with Nazi Germany. Forbidding drawing those parallels is simply censorship designed to stop us seeing what is going on. Fascism is not an aberration but is the default setting of capitalism. It needs to be opposed on all fronts at all times. It is the use of the ‘othering of people’ that is the strongest parallel. In Nazi Germany the others included the Jews as a convenient other. The important aspects were the justifications for the othering and how the rest of the population were persuaded to be willing participate in that cruelty. In the case of the Jews, it was the description of them as a health hazard and the use of fear by the government. One of the justification for the Warsaw Ghetto was to stop the spread of contagion. The parallels with the state’s response to Covid19 as the ‘What’s app’ messages show with awful clarity, (but it was known before then) are also clear. What fundamental freedoms were taken away on the basis of ‘protecting people’, and not yet returned. A much better description of the parallels with Germany and other European Fascist states and the last 3 years can be seen in Vera Sharav’s documentaries ‘Never Again is Now’. (https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/events/never-again-is-now-global/) Also, a deep analysis of how capitalism is moving to fascism can be seen in Simon Elmer’s book The road to Fascism. Just as we see the parallels in Israel with the brutal enclosure of the Palestinians, it isn’t the only one. We mustn’t fall victim to wilful blindness but to be aware that from the point of view of capitalism and the super powerful, none of us matter, regardless of who we are. We cannot let them do awful things to one group of people simply because our beliefs differ, and then complain when those same things are done to us, as they will be.
It is no doubt painful for Peter Hitchens and others of anti-migrant persuasion to be remind of the comparisons with the Nazis but it is all the more necessary because of it. The Nazis did not come out of nowhere. They were part of the existing society, both in Germany and internationally. It’s a matter of record that Hitler took as his inspiration for his eugenic policies the laws and practices of US states which forcibly sterilised their members.
The 1933 ‘Law on the Revocation of Naturalisations and the Deprivation of the German Citizenship’ began the process of removal of citizenship. The parallels with what is happening in Britain with the revocation of citizenship are striking, whatever the context.
Most deprivations of citizenship took place under the 25 November 1941 ‘Eleventh Decree to the Law on the Citizenship of the Reich’, which automatically stripped all Jewish Germans of their German citizenship if they had taken up residence abroad. And that meant those who had been deported of course.
There is never an argument for removing someone’s citizenship whatever they have done. Was William Joyce (Lord Haw Haw) deprived of his citizenship before he was hanged for treason? On the contrary we denied him the right to claim another citizenship.
Far from hesitating to make comparisons we should always seek out historical precedents. The Nazis did not come from nowhere. It is often forgot how deep the ties were between the British Establishment and the Nazi state in the 1930s.
In my book on Fighting Fascist in Brighton I remark on how the Brighton and German Police exchanged delegations to each other despite the German police having been incorporated in the RSHA, which included the SS after 1936.
One of the most pernicious illustrations in the IHRA is to forbid comparison between Israel and nazi Germany. It is understandable what the Zionists fear but we should not be afraid to say that ‘Death to the Jews’ and ‘Death to the Arabs’ bear a remarkable similarity to each other
Brilliant response from the wonderful Michael Rosen.
Excellent points Michael. Surely if we are discouraged from making comparisons to 1930s Germany then we can draw no lessons from it in order to avoid what could follow.
All that Michael Rosen says in defence of Gary Lineker’s comment about the language of the 1930s, not just in Germany, is true. It was in some ways a shame that Lineker didn’t refer to the real echo of the 1930s that took place in a small French spa town called Evian in 1938. That summer had seen a humanitarian crisis on the Swiss borders as desperate Jews fled persecution in Austria orchestrated by the SS under Adolf Eichmann. Tragic scenes took place at the borders that have been well documented. In the face of this crisis the powers quibbled at the Evian conference over how many refugees each was prepared, or not, to take. The rest, as it were, is history.
If the flagwaving patriots find the comparison of Braverman’s language to that used in 1930’s Germany offensive, perhaps we should spare their delicate feelings by referring instead to the language used about refugees by our very own Tory cabinet ministers of that period. However since the Tory antisemitism of that period is relatively well known, I shall, with Starmer in mind, cite below the words reported in cabinet papers of December 1942 of the then Home Secretary, Labour MP Herbert Morrison. Morrison told his cabinet colleagues at the time that
“…he could not agree to the admission of more than 1000-2000 refugees into Britain and that one had to bear in mind that most of the 100,000 refugees then in Britain were Jewish. He stipulated that [even] this was contingent upon “the firm understanding that the United States and the Dominions would accept proportionate numbers”. He
also said that he “deprecated the tendency to regard the United Kingdom as the sole repository for refugees” and warned of an upsurge in domestic anti- Semitism if large numbers of Jews were to be admitted into Britain.”
(cited from cabinet papers https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/465258/1/933547.pdf)
This was a mere two weeks after the day on which the UK parliament was first told about the ongoing Holocaust and the enormity of the Nazi crimes. On 17 December members of parliament stood for a minute’s silence, an event whose 80th anniversary three months ago was commemorated with cosy self-righteousness by the entire UK media.
Four days before Herbert Morrison expressed his opinion in cabinet, my father’s cousin died in Australia, He had arrived in the UK aged 16 as a lone child refugee from Germany in 1935, attended school in Surrey and then worked as a technician. In 1940 was arrested as an ‘enemy alien’ together with thousands of other Jewish refugees. He was deported to Australia on the infamous military transport ship Dunera, whose antisemitic captain Scott openly encouraged his crew to rob and brutalise the 2000 Jewish refugee passengers during the 57 day voyage. After surviving further maltreatment in Australian internment camps, he was eventually admitted to a mental hospital in Sydney in March 1942, and was diagnosed as suffering from a “manic depressive psychosis”. By that time all his immediate family except for one sister in Palestine had perished. The hospital noted drily to the military authorities that if he were to be deported again (where to??) he would need to be provided with some clothing. He committed suicide aged just 23.
‘Linda’s’ reply speaks for my own fears exactly. Look at at the blatant ‘kulturkrieg’ now going on in the Labour Party which can even say that jewish people are being anti-semitic and be expelled. This is sinister and fascistic. Where does such speech control stop? What is behind it? If you want to drive socialists out from having any power, this is the way.
Dave, I was utterly shocked at that man saying that the nazis were socialists, because, and that is his reasoning, the party was called the Nazional sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiter Partei.
If you believe that then you believe the moon is made from cheese. This was in my view also a means of dividing society into us and them. But it was a fascist party, financed by capital. Still see before my eyes the poster titled “Millions are behind me” depicting Hitler holding his hand up and bend slightly backwards to receive wads of money.
Mr Hitchen has also not made the connections to the post ww1 scenario in respect of the economic challenges facing postwar Germany following the treaty of Versailles. Well if you start wars, you get made to live with the consequences of this acton. Globally there was the wall street stock market collapse, inflation on steroids resulting in poverty as well as concerted actions by the rich against rhe Treaty of Versailles.
All this was a fertile ground for ultra rightwing ideas to take roots.
When asking questions about the time between 1933 and 1945, we encountered all kind of reactions ranging from ignoring the question, people denying any knowledge of it, statements duch as “at least he built motorways” or “if you do not like it here, why don’t you go there” (meaning to the GDR).
In fact – as a recent couple of BBC films have demonstrated – anti-semitism was endemic throughout Europe and the US in the 1930s
and that was the only thing that Gary Lineker got wrong. As the film demonstrated – Jewish refugees were unwelcome just about everywhere with quotas set. Jewish US citizens provided evidence that their endangered relatives did not meet the conditions for entry to join their families there – and subsequently died, murdered by the Nazis..
I would say that there is much that is similar from both eras.
Further – this has been going on in the UK for years with barriers set against Afghani Translators for silly quibbles as to whether they were full or part time – as if the Taliban cared about that!
The Labour Government of 1997- 2010 were not absolved from blame either. A young woman who had come to the UK in good health for work/education purposes developed cancer after a few years here. After a certain amount of treatment in the UK she was still very poorly and (in my recollection?) in a hospice but in spite of that was deported to her home in Africa. The home office “were satisfied she would get suitable treatment there”. Of course this was not true and she died not long after she arrived in Africa too late to be able to take advantage of money donated for her treatment from a well-wisher.
Medics here could hardly find suitable words to express their disgust – though I remember “atrocity” being one.
[This was in the early days of “the web” – these days publicity would mean there would likely be support and monetary help from sympathetic UK citizens.]
Much as I have admired P Hitchens’ writing eg against lies about Corbyn, I also much admire Michael here. His FB article shows that you can’t easily challenge a good poet on word precision.