Making it look easy
David Aaronovitch: Dateline Spandau, October 1946. Herr Hitler climbs into the dock…
1946. The trial of Adolf Hitler begins in a courtroom inside the grounds of Spandau Prison. These fragments show how the event was covered by sections of the British media and opinion-formers, teletransported from the year 2005.
…
“Brushing off the judge’s attempts to interrupt him, Hitler declared: ‘Neither do I recognise the body that has designated and authorised you, nor the aggression, because all that has been built on a false basis’.”
Can you see what he’s done there? He’s swappped the name “Saddam” with the name “Hitler” and “Iraq” for “Germany”. It’s very clever and very difficult to do well. I’ve heard this kind of thing is called “satire” and only writers who are paid lots and lots of money can do it. Or writers with a deadline looming who just cut and paste some quotes into Microsoft Word and then hit Ctrl-H.
Any sour grapes at what amounts to the equivalent of the O-Level English Language coursework assignment I wrote 20 years ago, aged 14, (”My interview with Hitler”) is purely intentional.
I’m not even sure what he’s trying to say. Is he calling for the death penalty for Saddam? Is he dismissing those killed and injured by coalition bombing? Is he saying Saddam didn’t believe in fair trials so why should he get one himself, a “let’s sink to his level” kind of thing? Should we just forget about the referendum vote-rigging allegations? Is he trying to resurrect the “appeasers” label that even Tony Blair backed away from as soon as he could? Aaronovitch has certainly come out fighting after admitting on Newsnight last week that he now agreed with the Liberal Democrats on what had happened in Iraq since the invasion.
Did he write it before breakfast and so his low blood sugar levels made him a bit ratty? Is his house, to steal from The Simpsons, powered by his own sense of self satisfaction?
(Aaronovitch has an IMDB entry, for reasons known only to the berserkers running the site. He’s not what you’d call versatile.)
Posted on October 26th, 2005 at 3:40 pm
| See also • Blair and the death penalty: Leaving us dangling • Your life in their hands • Humanist Touch |
Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe By Email • Print This Post • • • |
|
Filed under Uncategorized |
Hitler sells tickets.
Clearly a little wounded pride in the inter-Times column league tables have caused our portly friend to sink to new depths of shameless attention seeking.
LOL
Aaronovitch is trying to compare apples with oranges and making a pickle of it…
Mixed metaphor intended
I’m surprised anyone’s surprised. Aaronovitch has long shown himself to be devoid of imagination. “Bollocks, there’s a deadline approaching and I don’t know what my position on the war is any more. I know, I’ll bash Saddam. Everyone agrees about him. Now, but how to do it? Oh, dear… who else was an evil tyrant..?”
Chairing a couple of editions of The News Quiz when Simon Hoggart’s on holiday does not a genius satirist make.
I wonder which Kurd we’re meant to ask? Guess that’ll be one of the undifferentiated mass of Kurds who all possess the same opinion BECAUSE they’re Kurds.
Bloody racist.
Is he calling for the death penalty for Saddam? Is he dismissing those killed and injured by coalition bombing? Is he saying Saddam didn’t believe in fair trials so why should he get one himself, a “let’s sink to his level” kind of thing? Should we just forget about the referendum vote-rigging allegations? Is he trying to resurrect the “appeasers” label that even Tony Blair backed away from as soon as he could?
Am I missing something? He’s not doing any of that. He’s not “bashing Saddam” either - he’s trying to show up the phony righteousness of The Guardian, the BBC and those whose response to Saddam’s trial is to worry about whether it will be fair, before going on to ask why Bushitler and Bliar aren’t in the dock.
It might not be very clever - perhaps only worthy of a precocious 14 year old, but it seems to have gone over some of your heads.
One thing that’s not particularly clever about it is that in dashing off the article, he’s ignoring an idea that he would, I suspect, be prepared to agree with in other contexts - that history is written by the victors.
Look, look, mummy! I can do it too!
February, 1953. The trial of “Uncle” Joe Stalin” begins in a courtroom inside the grounds of Lubyanka Prison. These fragments show how the event was covered by sections of the British media and opinion-formers, teletransported from the year 2005.
…
“Brushing off the judge’s attempts to interrupt him, “Uncle” Joe declared: ‘Neither do I recognise the body that has designated and authorised you, nor the aggression, because all that has been built on a false basis’.”
DK
This post has been removed by the author.
Paddy,
Even if he is presenting a phoney self-righteousness he does so through the oldest and lamest trick in the book, by saying “ooh, ooh, you’re all willing to try and be fair and open-minded now that its not Hitler… but what if it was Hitler! Now you’re all Jew-hating racist devil worshipers for trying be fair about objective evil - If his name was Hitler, you’d all be in the wrong.”
It’s manipulating the worst form of lazy propagandising or argument making.
For more details on this see here
Let me try:
Britain’s prime-minister has defended his widely criticised call for The Third Reich to be “wiped off the map”.
Attending an anti-Third-Reich rally in London, Winston Chruchill said his remarks were “just” - and the criticism did not “have any validity.”
Last Wednesday’s comment provoked world outrage. Germany has called for Britain’s expulsion from the League of Nations.
Is that right?
“…it seems to have gone over some of your heads.”
Exactly, Paddy. Exactly. Hence me saying, “I’m not even sure what he’s trying to say,” followed by a list of questions.
I’ve clearly been wrongfooted by the subtlety of the piece, an element not previously evident in Aaronovitch’s writing.
hah! oh dear. Well, I read what you wrote, then read it again, and finally decided to take it at face value. It looks like I’ve been painfully caught out by a double irony bluff. At least, I think.