Fatherland

I recently read Fatherland by Robert Harris, originally published in 1992. It was a great book, an alternate history in which the Germans win WW2. But it is what I might call an indirect alternate history because there is no “prologue” or anything like that to set up this alternate world. The alternate history unravels brilliantly for us and (in a different way) for the book’s hero as the story progresses. The hero is a Berlin detective who is investigating a murder. Berlin in the book is the Berlin of Albert Speer, it is 1962, and Adolf Hitler is about to celebrate his 75th birthday.

I doubt Fatherland is considered “literary fiction.” But I have also read Philip Roth’s The Plot Against America, which is considered “literary fiction.” The Plot Against America is an alternate history with similar themes. I think Fatherland is ten times better. I had to force myself to finish Roth’s book. Fatherland is easier to read (i.e., better written), more fun to read, and sends a more powerful message. To my mind, just another example that contemporary “literary fiction” rarely lives up to its name.

What first struck me about Fatherland is how the Nazi Germany envisioned by Harris is eerily similar to post-9/11 America. For instance, terrorism is the dominant threat. And there is a color-coded system for terror alerts. Then there is this — a quote from the book:

Down in the cellar the Gestapo were licensed to practice was the Ministry of Justice called ‘heightened interrogation’. The rules had been drawn up by civilised men in warm offices and they stipulated the presence of a doctor.

That blew me away. I wanted to know whether the Gestapo really used that phrase. My impression of Fatherland is that the story is built on a foundation of extensive research. I have done extensive research on Nazi Germany for my book and saw many nuggets of authenticity in Fatherland. So I expected that this mention of “heightened interrogation” was based in fact. And based on my internet research, it seems the phrase “heightened interrogation” was indeed used by the Nazis. For instance, in 1939, Himmler authorized the use of “heightened interrogation” techniques on a man who had set off a bomb in a beer hall shortly after Hitler delivered a speech there. [Resistance and Conformity in the Third Reich, by Martyn Housden, 1997]

I thought the phrase used by Bush and the Republicans was usually “enhanced interrogation” but it seems the phrase “heightened interrogation” was also used. I wonder if some Republicans made a conscious effort to use the word “enhanced” rather than “heightened” so they did not sound exactly like the Nazis. The government-sanctioned use of torture during the Bush Administration was a disgraceful episode of our nation’s history. (Not to mention the fact that it does not work and is not a technique advocated by experienced interrogators.) The fact that the Nazis and the Bush Adminstration used the same euphemism is even more damning.

Terrorism is a very real threat but in responding to that threat we should not compromise our principles. And we should not turn the Gestapo into role models.

Update: It looks like whether you say “enhanced” or “heightened” just depends on how you translate the German word. Which makes one wonder whether the Bush Administration at some point actually looked to the Gestapo for hints.