Potato peelings, anti-migrant sentiment and the Nazis

Kate Adie.

"The second world war ended over 70 years ago, and only those of a certain age still remember its events at first hand in Germany, and that includes those who worked at the extermination camps at Auschwitz and of course the survivors of the Holocaust. 
Of the thousands of Germans who worked at the death camps, only some of the senior figures were ever prosecuted. But now there are several trials being held in Germany, of lower ranking officials such as guards accused of being accessories to mass murder. They and their surviving victims are in their 90s, and as Jenny Hill’s been finding, it’s reminding Germany of its dark past. All the while anti-migrant sentiment is growing:

"Angela Orosz is small, energetic and she smiles a lot. I find myself laughing along with her as she tells me that her family never threw away potato peelings, preferring to eat them instead. “Potato peelings!” she exclaimed “Can you imagine?” 

Angela was born in Auschwitz. her story is an unimaginable story of human cruelty and human resilience. Her mother was pregnant when she was transported to the death camp. Somehow she survived despite the experiment she was subjected to. Somehow she sustained the pregnancy, eating potato peelings from the camp kitchen, and somehow Angela was born, concealed, and lived the first few months of her life in the camp before its liberation.  Decades later this immaculately dressed dark haired woman sits in front of me. we’re not smiling any more. “Potato peelings”, she repeats, carefully. “They saved my life.” 

Angela recently gave evidence at the trials of two SS guards at Auschwitz. A recent court ruling has made it possible for prosecutors to pursue anyone who worked in a death camp, regardless of their role. One man who’s been convicted of aiding and abetting mass murder, several others have been charged, but they’re all now in their nineties, it’s a race against time to bring them to safe justice. 

The trials fascinate and horrify Germany. They’re a searingly painful reminder of this country’s past. In the municipal blandness of the courtroom survivors recount surprisingly vivid detail. A young woman with bright red hair, shot by a uniformed Nazi; a father’s hand closing the gate on the family home before he was marched roughly away; a sewing machine, carefully, hopefully, carried into the chaos of the train to Auschwitz. It’s all recounted with quiet insistence as weak sunshine pales the wooden floor and traffic faintly murmurs past outside. 

Recently I watched as one of those survivors spoke directly to the former guard in the dock. Leon Schwarzbaum’s eyes are strikingly bright. he has a beautiful smile, but it’s often washed away by an expression of profound sadness. His whole family was killed in Auschwitz. Leon’s eyes were fixed on Reinhold Hanning who was accused of murdering tens of thousands of Jewish prisoners. Crammed together on flimsy plastic chairs, the watching journalists were absolutely still, and I realised I was absolutely holding my breath. “Mr Hanning” he began. “We are about the same age. We will soon face our final judge. I want you to tell the truth about what you did.” 

This, I thought really was Germany, confronting its past, face to face. 
I chatted recently with a lawyer who represents some of the survivors. “These trials” he told me, “really matter” His face creased, emphatic. “It’s about justice, yes, but it’s also about making sure this country doesn’t forget. It’s already forgetting.” 

I wonder whether he’s right, because it seems to me that as Germany confronts the horror of its past again, it’s also facing a stark present reality. 

The refugee crisis has revealed a painful glimpse of what the country’s president Joachim Gauck refers to as ‘dark Germany’. It’s there in the faces of screaming anti migrant protesters illuminated harshly in the headlights of a bus carrying refugees to what should have been a safe house. Or the mob, violently silhouetted by flames who clapped and cheered as a refugee home burned to the ground in front of them. And then there are the swastikas crudely splashed by night discovered by day on the walls of buildings, which house asylum seekers. There have been more than a thousand attacks like these on refugee homes in the last year. Most Germans are horrified. Even so, supports has grown for the grassroots political party in Germany which campaigns against migrants. Its leader recently proposed border guards should make use of their firearms. Germany’s constitutional court is currently deciding whether to ban another political party. The far-right NPD. Many here blame them in part for the current anti-migrant sentiment and violence, but in fact proceedings began two years ago when Germany’s 16 states petitioned the court to outlaw the party, which they claim is racist, antisemitic and has similarities to Hitler’s Nazis. 

I think back to Angela and her potato peelings. She’d also told me how she’s made her nine-year old daughter navigate the city’s subway system alone so that she could survive by herself if the Holocaust happened again. For all her determination and bravery, the circumstances of Angela’s birth have infused her life with a profound insecurity. It’s a frailty that touches Germany, even now.

That is a transcription of Jenny Hill’s FOOC (preceded by Kate Adie’s intro) I’ve done that so that you can judge for yourself. Jenny Hill (Welcome to Germany) regards all refugees fleeing from poverty or war, or seeking ‘a better life’  as unquestionably entitled to unlimited hospitality from western European countries, no matter who, why or where. 

But is the  plight of would-be migrants fleeing from poverty and war really comparable to Germany’s industrialised extermination of the Jews in WW 2? 

Does Germany’s guilt oblige European countries to absorb, permanently or temporarily, millions of destitute and desperate Muslims, when there are vast prosperous Arab countries that could accommodate them without those troublesome ideological differences? 

Did you wonder why Jenny Hill sought to sandwich the refugee crisis in between two slices of Holocaust? Well, she’s by no means the only one who does that, but it seems profoundly crass. She sees superficial similarities, so conflates the two. She alludes to ‘lessons’ that she thinks the Holocaust should have taught us. 

Not ‘Don’t tolerate antisemitism’.  The ‘lesson’ she takes from the Holocaust appears to be:  ‘opposing mass Islamic immigration is racist’ and those who do so (the far-right) are no different to the Nazis.

Is  she really equating Muslim refugees with victims of the Holocaust? Is she saying that opposing the influx of Muslim, (very likely antisemitic) refugees is racist? Have the recent  incidences of sexual harassment and violence in German cities, the rapes in Sweden and so on escaped her? 

I’d like to know what that lawyer meant by “Germany is already forgetting.” I do wonder if he meant that in the way Jenny Hill was emoting. Or the opposite. Forgetting about the consequences of antisemitism perhaps?  Never mind. 

I found Jenny Hill’s use of that ‘potato peelings’ tale cheap, inappropriate and clumsy.  

Refugee appeal

Can anyone explain why the BBC is carpet-bombing its early morning radio 4 news bulletins with what seems to be a nine-month old hyperbolic story emoting Israel’s malevolence, involving the ubiquitous “The BBC has learned”?

It goes something like this: It is alleged that 40,000 African (Eritrean and Sudanese) refugees in Israel are being given the choice of jail for life or being deported to (other) African countries in secretive deals, considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this.”

(Not verbatim)

This announcement headed news bulletins at 5:30 am and subsequent bulletins - until 8 am, when it seems to have disappeared or have been relegated to some other position in the hierarchy.

I can think of several explanations but I haven’t time now. 

Can anyone help? 

Update:

Ah.  Has the BBC “parachuted” young Kathy into Israel to dig dirt on the way it treats African refugees? 

See this article and virtual trailer for a TV report to be broadcast today at 17:30 GMT on BBC World News. H/T Daphne Anson

I’m guessing that some commissioning / copy editor has chosen to promote this resurrected story  under the “BBC has learned” banner because it ticks so many boxes. It got shunted up this morning’s news-bulletin hierarchy because it chimes with the BBC’s pro-immigrant agenda AND the anti-Israel agenda. Two birds with one stone - what’s not to like?

Of course using the disparaging phrases “secretive”and “Illegal under international law” in one short report somewhat gives the game away. Impartiality? As far as Israel is concerned, forget it.

The parallels between this and the current European refugee crisis would seem obvious to the children running the BBC; but the similarities are superficial. Dig deeper and you’ll find there is very little comparison.

However, in the current “changing” climate I think the BBC might find some people think Israel’s approach is rather wise and very generous. 

Update 2:

The story has been picked up by the usual suspects and passed off as News. Ben White has Tweeted and Facebooked it (H/T Daphne Anson) 

"Gathered evidence" 

and the BBC has labelled it "No Room at the Inn". Interesting association going on in in someone's tiny brain.

The International Business Times has regurgitated it, quoting “Lawyer Anat Ben-Dor” without mentioning that Anat Ben-Dor is a professional advocate for refugee rights.

Talk about churnalism getting halfway round the world before the truth has time to get its boots on.

This is your BBC. I don’t think they’ve even bothered to report this, which is Genuine News.

Update 3:
Eddie Mair has grabbed it now.  (H/T 'happy goldfish")

“BBC Africa has gathered evidence that Israel is sending unwanted African migrants to third countries under secretive deals which may be in breach of international law”

We got it wrong?

Our coverage of the Arab Spring Refugee Crisis was over excited admits BBC

Not really. I’m getting ahead of myself; jumping the gun. That headline in the Daily Mail was, of course, about the BBC’s bullying, opinionated, sanctimonious hysterical reporting of the Arab Spring.

“The BBC’s coverage of the Arab Spring has been heavily criticised – by the corporation’s bosses.
Head of news Helen Boaden admitted that her journalists got carried away with events and produced ‘over-excited’ reports.
She told a BBC Trust report that in Libya, where reporters were ‘embedded’ with rebels, they may have failed to explore both sides of the story properly.”

Failed to explore both sides of the story properly? What are both sides of the story? The side we heard was: ”Hoorah! The Arabs are embracing western-style democracy!” 

The other side was, what? “We’re slightly worried that Muslims can’t embrace western-style, or any other kind of democracy”?

 Not really. They didn’t explore that side then, and they aren’t exploring it now.

“Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen was among those criticised in the study into coverage of the uprisings, which found that ‘excitement’ did sometimes ‘infect’ the reporting, which some viewers described as ‘too emotive’ and ‘veering into opinion’.”

Veering? Veering is putting it mildly, and one might ask what has infected the media’s coverage of the latest  refugee crisis?

The Princess Dianafication of the migration surge is perhaps understandable, being that technology and ‘people’s journalism’ beams sensational human interest stories round the world before anyone has time to think the implications through.  By which time the focus is on the next drama. If H.R.H. can be pressurised to bow to public outrage, how is David Cameron expected to resist caving in under the onslaught of the BBC’s grief?

This caving in malarkey is contagious. The BBC is now officially making policies. Who needs Jeremy Corbyn to ruin the country when you’ve got the BBC to do it for him?

The problems created by blanket coverage of one emotive image and the subsequent moralising are being explored in a parallel world. The world outwith the BBC and the rest of the MSM.

Pity it’s behind the wretched paywall, but Dominic Lawson nails it in the Times.  Here’s the free of charge, unblocked  bit of Dominic Lawson’s piece as a taster: 

The more we ‘feel’ for the refugees, the worse their plight will be

WHEN Winston Churchill spoke about the crimes of the Nazis, did he begin by saying how much he personally had been affected by the horror? When William Gladstone produced his thunderous pamphlet denouncing the Turkish massacre of Bulgarian Christians and calling the British government to action in 1876, was there a single sentence in his many thousands of words that referred to his own emotions on the matter? No, not even a word.Both these men understood it wasn’t about them. If only our current political and spiritual leaders had the same understanding. Following the publication of pictures of a Turkish police officer carrying the corpse of a Syrian Kurdish boy drowned in his family’s failed attempt to reach Greece, few can resist telling us how it has affected them, personally.”

It’s worth getting a copy of the Sunday Times this week, or subscribing to it online.   Lawson continues by describing how everyone has come forward to express their sorrow, as though they’re competing for the ‘most compassionate person of the year’ award. The heads of all the main religions are at it. The A of C, the Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis and the Pope. Short-termists to a man.

Belatedly, David Cameron seems to have capitulated too. Announcing that we must take in our fair share “so we can hold our heads up” is undoubtedly an incentive for more and more Syrians and other politically or economically disadvantaged and endangered families to entertain the idea of making their perilous journeys, with all the attendant problems for them and everyone else. I suppose it’s the PM's  penance for using ‘that word’.

“Germany has a declining population and considerable unused housing capacity. The UK is in the opposite situation.”
.....and what happens when the quotas are used up? What about the next much bigger wave?”

The man in the video, a Canadian version of Pat Condell on speed, is worth listening to. He might not be everyone's cup of tea, but he is at least exploring the other side of the story, you know, the one the BBC failed to explore.  He was wrong about one thing though. The migrant who said he was after Gabriel Gatehouse’s job! That was the funniest thing I’ve heard for ages.

The other thing I need to mention is the Kindertransport issue. When the British took in those Jewish children - after Kristallnacht - and by the way there were other examples of less than compassionate treatment of Jews by Britain - the Jews posed no conceivable threat to Britain.  Apart from people who actually believed the forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, no-one thought the Jews were posing a threat to the British way of life. They made no demands.  The refugees were children. The Jews who were given sanctuary here were eternally grateful;  loyal to Queen and Country in fact.

Let’s just remind ourselves that since WWll a lot has happened. Al Qaeda. ISIL. 9/11. 7/7. Mass Muslim immigration. Asian grooming. Alien cultural customs. Islamist preachers. 

There is no comparison between the children whose soon-to-be-murdered parents sent them away to save their lives in absolute desperation and the Muslim families who demand refuge in Eurpoe without any apparent obligation to adapt to western values.

The people who have no problem with Jeremy Corbyn’s antisemitism-by-association are the same people who have no problem with Islam’s inherent antisemitism. That’s why we need to discuss this openly. Just so we know where we stand. 

There are better solutions out there, than ‘taking them all in”.  One suggestion is to be found in an article by Douglas Murray.

"To date, the question of "what to do" remains politically toxic for any mainstream Western European politician. During the summer, British Prime Minister David Cameron passingly referred to the "swarm" of migrants at Calais. His political opponents immediately jumped on this and denounced his "offensive" language. What chance is there, however, of proposing the kind of bold thinking we will need to consider in Europe if we keep reducing our response to this crisis to a language game?
The first challenge might be to try to encourage migrants to stay nearer the countries they are fleeing. Professor Paul Collier recently suggested setting-up EU-sponsored work-havens in Jordan to ensure Syrian refugees (who comprise 40% of recent EU arrivals) have an incentive to stay in the region. This not only allows them a better chance of integration, but also makes it easier to return home if and when the situation improves. Similar projects might be considered in other areas. 

There is also an urgent need to improve the process of sorting out genuine refugees from economic migrants. The current process is not fit for purpose -- something made worse by the fact that once people are inside Europe, it is exceedingly difficult to send them away, whoever they are. It would make far more sense for EU countries to keep migrants out of Europe while sorting out who they are (most arrivals come without papers) and then assessing the legitimacy of their claim. The EU might consider paying North African countries to provide such holding centres. Tunisia is an obvious possibility, as is Morocco. Perhaps the French government could negotiate with the Algerians. Unless anyone has a desire to go back into Libya, these are the partners with whom we might work. 

Once legitimate refugee arrivals are in Europe, it will also be crucial to create a more nuanced tier-system of residencies rather than a one-size fits all system. So apart from permanent right to remain there, should be a use of temporary visas, strictly held to where they are issued and the dates they expire. 

These few suggestions may at some point need to be adopted. In private, many lawmakers realize this. But as Europe's leaders keep waiting for such ideas to become politically acceptable, they push the problem around the continent. It is time instead for them to lead. If they fail, then the fences will go up across Europe and at least one part of the European dream, if not more, may die with it.