logo
We've been living under Hitler's spell – time to wake up

We've been living under Hitler's spell – time to wake up

Telegraph8 hours ago

The age of Hitler was not the Thirties and Forties: it has been our own lifetimes. It began in the Forties, was in full swing by the Sixties and is only now, it seems, coming to an end.
In the post-war era, Adolf Hitler has been our most potent, unifying figure. He remains our touchstone and our backstop. In a world where we seem increasingly unable to agree on anything, we can still almost entirely agree on condemning him. Anyone who defends Hitler thereby reveals themselves to be a monster. Whenever we want to condemn someone, we almost instinctively compare them to him. His indisputable evil makes him a unique fixed reference-point in our moral landscape.
For example, as soon as Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, memes of Vladimir Putin as Hitler began to appear – even as Putin himself stridently (and absurdly) claimed that his war aim was to 'denazify' Ukraine. Hillary Clinton is one of many people to have called Donald Trump a new Hitler, and compared Trump's 2024 rally at Madison Square Garden, in New York, to the notorious pro-Nazi rally that took place there in 1939. Boris Johnson compared the EU to Hitler; conversely, during the height of Brexit rancour, he himself was regularly depicted with a toothbrush moustache. Even now, it seems, we still define our values with reference to the Nazis. We cannot shake our fascination.
I first remember hearing Hitler's name in the late Seventies. I think I was about six years old. I asked my mother something like: who is the worst person ever? Well, who else could she possibly have chosen? Who else would you choose? My next flash of memory – though it might, in reality, have been months later – is of asking her: has anyone ever written a book about Hitler? I remember feeling at the time that my second question was slightly shameful. My instinct was that it was wrong to write a book about a bad man; it was probably wrong even to want to know more about him. But my mother surprised me by pointing to our bookshelves, and a fat hardback with that dreaded name on the spine in barefaced capitals: my father's copy of Alan Bullock's 1952 biography Hitler: A Study in Tyranny. 'Oh, yes,' she said, 'there are lots.'
There are indeed, and more every year: not just because Hitler was an enormously consequential figure, but because I'm not the only person to have found his evil fascinating. We cannot stop retelling and reinventing his story, and the endlessly rich story of the war against him. A lifetime later, the films, the books, the ever more tenuous documentaries keep coming; to judge by the schedule of the History Channel, and the lists of many publishers, the Second World War is almost the only event in human history. And historians are forced to share Hitler with storytellers and myth-makers – anyone who wants to stiffen whatever they're drinking with a shot of cheap moral spirits. Sauron, the Daleks, Darth Vader, Lord Voldemort: they're all, unmistakably and unashamedly, Nazi tribute acts.
The age of Hitler is the age in which the Western victors of the Second World War have set the terms of global conversation. Many of us have lived the majority of our lives in an era of broad and stable consensus about our most basic shared values. Human lives are fundamentally of equal worth; all human beings have fundamental and inalienable rights; our lives, bodies and consciences belong to us and to no-one else. These truths seem self-evident to the point of banality. Nonetheless, most people in most periods of human history have not believed any such things.
And consider what happens when anyone refuses to conform to those supposedly universal anti-Nazi values. For example, in Zimbabwe in the late Nineties, Chenjerai Hunzvi, a particularly brutal enforcer acting on behalf of Robert Mugabe, adopted and gloried in the nickname 'Hitler'. It signalled his ruthlessness to the regime's opponents, to terrify them and to defy any criticism they might level at him. On that level, it worked. For the rest of the world, though, it only cemented the view that Zimbabwe's rulers had become mere predators, and contributed to Mugabe's ostracism on the international stage.
Deliberately aligning yourself with Hitler is rare. More commonly, people or movements discredit themselves with unintended or ill-concealed echoes of Nazism. The most obvious examples of this are found in the persistent tendency of many anti-Israeli and anti-Zionist movements around the world to stray, or lapse, into open anti-Semitism. For most of my lifetime, people in Western societies who broke that taboo have automatically ostracised themselves. It's a mark of the end of the age of Hitler that that taboo is clearly decaying.
Belligerence, too, can activate our anti-Nazi antibodies. Vladimir Putin may have been surprised that his invasion of Ukraine in 2022 met with such a startlingly different Western response from the one received by his war in Chechnya, or his annexation of Crimea. But those earlier acts hadn't involved a full-scale, unconcealed armed invasion of a neighbouring sovereign state. When Putin tried such an act, it triggered Europe's collective memories of 1938-40.
I'm not the first person to notice that the modern world is preoccupied by Nazism, nor that the Nazis have an outsized role in our ethics. But the people who make this point often come from one end of the political spectrum. Take the French writer Renaud Camus, notorious as the originator of the far-Right conspiracy theory the 'Great Replacement': he has lamented what he calls 'the second career of Adolf Hitler', meaning the Führer's career as a moral symbol. Camus and other activists resent how the spectre of Nazism is invoked when they propose mass expulsion of immigrants, purges of the judiciary or restrictions on Muslims' religious freedoms. It's time, these people believe, that we stop being frightened of bogeymen with swastikas.
This is not my view. I don't want us to unlearn the lessons of Nazism, lessons that were learned at such a terrible cost. To recognise Hitler as representing a truly exceptional evil is the beginning of wisdom. But this recognition isn't enough. Simply knowing that Hitler was a monster is not an adequate guide to the world we live in. In Britain our instinct has long been to compare every crisis to the Second World War: we even, ludicrously, tried it with Covid-19. There are some evils which the age of Hitler has simply not prepared us to face, and some misleading lessons it has taught us. Shouting 'Nazi!' at each other is a hopeless way to deal with our economic, environmental and demographic crises. And a knee-jerk rejection of 'appeasement', on its own, is a poor guide to international relations in a nuclear age.
Our values are more fragile than we think. Our sense of what's right and wrong, our deep convictions about justice and human rights, feel like timeless, self-evident truths, and we can't help looking down on ancestors who didn't have the wit to see them. Nor can we help believing that, now we've grasped those truths, we'll never let go of them. Surely people will always believe in democracy and human rights; surely the arc of the moral universe does bend towards justice? But this is demonstrably, factually incorrect. Our values, my values, your values, are the outcome of a particular historical process, a process in which the Second World War was decisive.
And now those values are again on the move. On the Right, across Europe and beyond, the taboo against parties that have a whiff of fascism has virtually gone. Trump's acolytes play with 'Hitler salutes' and the like because they enjoy making their opponents splutter with outrage. Meanwhile, on the Left, the new identity politics of race and gender have challenged ideas that used to be truisms, such as simple egalitarianism, the aspiration to be colour-blind or the conviction that anti-Semitism is an exceptional evil to be avoided at all costs. Indeed both sides, to no-one's surprise, have started spitting venom about Jews again.
We can strive to keep the post-1945 consensus going, but the war is falling off the edge of living memory. Like it or not, the age of Hitler, the age when appalled fascination with the Nazis dominated our moral imagination, is coming to an end. The question is: what will come next?
The Age of Hitler and How We Will Survive It by Alec Ryrie (Reaktion, £15.95) will be published on July 1. Alec Ryrie will be speaking at Oxford Literary Festival, in partnership with The Telegraph, on July 30. Tickets: oxfordliteraryfestival.org

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The UK faces a deadly threat. It needs a new home guard
The UK faces a deadly threat. It needs a new home guard

The Independent

time15 minutes ago

  • The Independent

The UK faces a deadly threat. It needs a new home guard

The government has set out what the UK needs to protect itself from direct attacks in an increasingly hostile and dangerous world. In short, the assessment is we need to be ready to go to war – and fast. State powers – Russia today, maybe China tomorrow – have the capability to cause major damage to the UK, its economy and way of life, and we currently have no viable plans or forces to protect the country. The Strategic Defence Review (SDR) recognised the threats, but did not address crucial facts, like that if faced with drone attacks of the type that Ukraine suffers almost nightly, the UK has absolutely no means of stopping them. The National Security Strategy that followed the review last week also talked about the need to bolster what it calls home defence. 'The UK is directly threatened by hostile activities including assassination, intimidation, espionage, sabotage, cyber attacks and other forms of democratic interference,' it noted. 'Meanwhile, critical national infrastructure – including undersea cables, energy pipelines, transportation and logistics hubs – will continue to be a target.' But neither of the reviews addressed, directly, the fact that the army cannot be deploying divisions into Europe while also defending the UK homeland – the two missions are contradictory. And neither acknowledged that the country is naked against any missile attack, so needs to actually buy something quickly. The police in the UK are not large enough or trained to undertake home defence outside of a very small range of missions. Protecting critical national infrastructure requires troops on the ground, patrolling, to provide physical protection as well as deterrence. In the Cold War, there were more than 35,000 Territorial Army troops tasked with home defence, backed up by regular army units, as well as Royal Navy and RAF units. In 1982, to increase numbers in the face of a growing Soviet threat, the Home Service Force was established, recruiting former Service personnel 'too old' to be in the TA, but still with decades of experience. I know of one HSF company in East Anglia that had a corporal who had served as a captain in the Korean War, where he had won the Military Cross – this was not uncommon. Priceless experience and knowledge, despite possibly creaky joints. Overall, in the 1980s, more than 60,000 Service personnel were tasked with defending the UK, and the US Air Force added thousands more to this mix. To put this into some perspective, the total strength, today, of the UK police forces is 170,000. So, military home defence forces would need to be at least a third of the size of the police to begin to be effective. And one has to recall that compared to the days of the Cold War, the number of vital infrastructure sites that need to be defended has grown – the internet and 5G didn't exist in the 1980s. Although the National Security Strategy suggests that the Army Reserve (the old TA) could be the centre of home defence, it is worth noting that in the late-1980s, the TA was 73,000 – today it is just over 20,000, a shadow of its former self. Elsewhere in Europe, home defence is better provisioned. In France and Italy, the Gendarmerie is over 100,000-strong, and the Carabinieri is around 110,000. Both have a range of automatic weapons, as well as some light armoured vehicles and many helicopters. Home defence in the Nordic and Baltic States is not just an adjunct to the 'real' military – it is the core of their defence policies. Finland has tested plans to mobilise up to 1 million troops, most for home defence, in time of war, and the aim is that this would be achieved in a week. The risks to the UK homeland and its infrastructure – but there is no real appetite to take the measures required to get close to protecting these Sweden doubled its home defence/resilience budget this year to £6bn by 2028 (aspects of military home defence are in the core defence budget, which has been rising as well) – the equivalent spend in the UK would be £15bn this financial year, and £30bn in 2028. What has hampered adult discussion of UK home defence is that as soon as anyone raises the idea, the first response is 'Dads' Army', with accompanying sniggering. But the Home Service Force was actually a success in the 1980s, getting thousands to come back into uniform, bringing their skills to the mix, in a very short number of months. The HSF didn't have to be as fit as Regulars and didn't have to have the full range of skills – this should be a model for the future, much as it is in the Nordic/Baltic States. The risks to the UK homeland and its infrastructure, bridges and internet, are accepted as real – but there is no real appetite to take the measures required to get close to protecting these. An anti-missile system to defend just part of the UK would be £10-15bn up-front. To get an Israeli-style anti-missile system would cost over £30bn. A Home Defence Force of, say, 30,000, would cost close to £3bn in equipment, pay, infrastructure, and training every year – a fraction of what the Nordics spend on this. The heavyweight boxer, Mike Tyson, famously said: 'Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth'. The 'punch in the mouth' for the UK, in the case of an attack on the homeland, would be the blacking out of lights, bringing down the internet, and food not getting to the supermarkets. It could also be a ballistic missile attack, causing levels of casualties not seen since the Second World War. Unthinkable? Look to Kyiv, Kherson – this is what 'normal life' is like there. Home Defence is not Dad's Army, it is about enhancing the protection of the UK's infrastructure and the lives of the inhabitants. But it comes with a cost, and a need for a portion of the UK's population to think very differently. Tough choices needed? Yes. Leadership required? Yes. Money essential? Yes. Getting these three through in the current climate will be very hard – but failure to do so leaves us all vulnerable.

India wants ‘big beautiful' trade deal with US after Trump tariff threats
India wants ‘big beautiful' trade deal with US after Trump tariff threats

The Independent

time16 minutes ago

  • The Independent

India wants ‘big beautiful' trade deal with US after Trump tariff threats

Indian Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman revealed India 's strong desire for a 'big, beautiful' trade deal with the US, even as negotiations face challenges. A critical 9 July deadline approaches, after which the US could impose additional tariffs of up to 26 per cent on Indian goods. India has established clear red lines in the Bilateral Trade Agreement talks, primarily concerning the protection of its agriculture and dairy sectors. Trump has accused India of being a 'tariff king' and seeks greater market access for its agricultural exports, while India defends its tariffs as necessary and WTO -compliant. Negotiators have extended their discussions in Washington, indicating efforts to bridge differences and secure an agreement before the deadline.

Kill Trump if he threatens the Ayatollah, says new fatwa
Kill Trump if he threatens the Ayatollah, says new fatwa

Telegraph

time17 minutes ago

  • Telegraph

Kill Trump if he threatens the Ayatollah, says new fatwa

Donald Trump and anyone else who threatens to kill Iran's supreme leader are 'waging war against God' and should be punished by death, according to a new religious fatwa. Grand Ayatollah Naser Makarem Shirazi said 'any person or regime that threatens the leadership and religious authority' is considered a 'mohareb' – one who wages war against God – under Islamic law. The cleric, speaking in Iran, declared that any co-operation with such individuals or regimes by Muslims or Islamic governments was religiously forbidden and the crime punishable by death. The ruling was published following a formal inquiry on how Muslims should respond to threats against Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other Shia religious authorities. On June 17, the US president said he knew where Ayatollah Khamenei was but wouldn't target him – 'at least not for now'. Muslims making representations to the cleric asked what the ruling was on threatening religious authority and Islamic leadership, and what Muslims' duties would be if 'this act is carried out by the US government or anyone else'. 'In recent days, we have witnessed that the US president and leaders of the Zionist regime have repeatedly threatened to assassinate the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution and some scholars and religious authorities,' they said. Mr Makarem Shirazi is one of Iran's most senior religious authorities and is a source of theological guidance for millions of Shia Muslims globally. He called on Muslims worldwide to 'make these enemies regret their words and mistakes.' 'If they suffer hardship or loss, they will have the reward of a mujahid in the path of Allah, inshallah,' Makarem Shirazi wrote, promising divine reward for those who act against perceived enemies of Islamic leadership. His rulings carry significant weight within Iran's theocratic system and among Shia communities internationally. Analysts believe the fatwa could intensify a crackdown on domestic dissidents, as many Iranians are critical of the supreme leader. The broad language of the ruling could give the judiciary power to execute critics of Khamenei by classifying their opposition as 'waging war against God.' At least 700 people have been arrested over the past few days on charges of spying for Israel. Under traditional Islamic jurisprudence, the charge of 'mohareb' historically applied to armed rebellion against Islamic authority and carries the death penalty. The ruling effectively brands anyone threatening Iran's leadership as subject to execution under religious law and calls for Muslims globally to kill the person behind threats. Iranian clerics have previously issued similar edicts against perceived enemies of the Islamic Republic, including the 1989 fatwa by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini calling for the death of Salman Rushdie, the British author, over The Satanic Verses, his 1988 novel. Mr Rushdie was blinded in his right eye during a knife attack in 2022. Hadi Matar, 27, who authorities believe was responding to the fatwa, was jailed for 25 years. The new fatwa was declared amid escalating tensions between Iran and both the United States and Israel following a 12-day war that ended with a fragile ceasefire. Mr Trump said he is not speaking to Iran and has offered them 'nothing', following reports that the US is mulling helping the country access as much as $30 billion (£22 billion) to build a civilian nuclear energy programme. He lashed out at Chris Coons, a Democratic senator, who repeated claims the president is eyeing up a deal with Iran that could involve sanctions relief, similar to the one brokered by Barack Obama in 2015. 'Tell phony Democrat Senator Chris Coons that I am not offering Iran ANYTHING, unlike Obama, who paid them $Billions under the stupid road to a Nuclear Weapon JCPOA (which would now be expired!), nor am I even talking to them since we totally OBLITERATED their Nuclear Facilities,' Mr Trump said in an overnight Truth Social post. On Monday, Iran accused the president of playing 'games' with his shifting stance on whether to lift sanctions that the country claimed was not aimed at finding a resolution. 'These [statements by Trump] should be viewed more in the context of psychological and media games than as a serious expression in favour of dialogue or problem-solving,' Esmaeil Baghaei, Iran's foreign ministry spokesman, said. It comes as a leaked recording emerged of Iranian officials remarking that US strikes on the country's nuclear facilities were less devastating than they had expected. The audio, published by The Washington Post, paints a different picture about the impact of the US bombing raid to that described by Mr Trump, who said the operation 'completely and totally obliterated' Iran's nuclear programme. Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, dismissed the recording as 'nonsense'. 'It's shameful that The Washington Post is helping people commit felonies by publishing out-of-context leaks,' she told the newspaper. 'The notion that unnamed Iranian officials know what happened under hundreds of feet of rubble is nonsense. Their nuclear weapons programme is over.' Iran has said that diplomatic talks with Washington cannot resume unless the US rules out further military strikes. 'We have not agreed to any date, we have not agreed to the modality,' Majid Takht-Ravanchi, Iran's deputy foreign minister, told The BBC. 'Right now we are seeking an answer to this question. Are we going to see a repetition of an act of aggression while we are engaging in dialogue?'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store