Talk:Fatherland (novel)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Novels
Literature Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
This article has an incomplete infobox template! - see Novels InfoboxCode or Short Story InfoboxCode for a pattern
Assessment comments

As I haven't read the original version of "Fatherland", but only the German version, I'm not sure, wether the protagonist's name actually is "Xavier March", as in the translated version he is called "Xaver März", this being an accurate translation. I can't see the point in giving a German officer an English name and then reversing it in the translated version. Sorry, if this doesn't contribute much to the article itself. Germanguy 22:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

As per the consenus on the VfD page, I shall commence the re-write of this article, segment by segment. Any deleted text shall be moved here. Thank you. I am also running for administrator, so please go on RfA and vote for me!!Rainbowwarrior1977 05:52, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I do not feel that this article requires headers for "factual inaccuracy" or "cleanup". Remember, it is a fictional book. I have kept the header on for "Votes for Deletion", as a genuine debate is in progres, but I have removed the two other headers. Rusty2005 15:34, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Plot is pretty stupid

"Germany makes a second run at the USSR and this time they win" What kind of explenation is that? Completely idiotic. Something more FANTASTIC wold have to occur for Germany to have any chance to defeat the USSR.

-G

The cutting of Bolshevik oil supplies was the "fantastic" event.

I guess the author could have find many realistic reasons that allowed germany to easily(!) win the war which arent as "fantastic" or "idiotic" as cutting the supplies but for the author, it seems not to be important enough to find a better reason, its just a more or less unnecessary part to generate the background and environment cause for this book its not important how germany won the war against the soviets, it is important that they won the war against the soviets. Their victory against the british fleet seems far more unrealistic to me but to call the plot "stupid" aint do justice to an encyclopedia with an article about an alternative history cause no one knows, how history could have looked like. You could only argue that its perhaps most unlikely.

[edit] Vote for Deletion

This article survived a Vote for Deletion. The discussion can be found here. -Splash 00:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Society" section

The statement that the society portrayed in Fatherland is held by critics and historians to be a generally accurate representation of the world that the Nazis would have created following a German victory needs a citation (actually, since it refers to multiple critics and multiple historians, it needs several citations).

Also, I think that some of the assertions in this section (and the preceding "The Greater German Reich" section, which spends almost half its length actually discussing the rest of the world outside the Reich) might be the product of reading a little more into the book than actually appears in the text. Where does the book say that the British Empire has actually expanded since the war? Or that Germany relies on the British Empire to police the rest of the world so that it only has to worry about Eastern Europe? The assertion that Western Europe has been demilitarised and is now largely ignored is something I'm worried about--Oxford University, for instance, has been turned into an SS Academy (as the article itself notes), which seems to me like an indicator of a quite active German presence in Western Europe. Nor do I recall being told at any point during the novel that the military forces of the Western European states are "only just sufficient to police their empires". Binabik80 02:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

ANd as least one little detail doesn't make sense. Dahlem (an area in Berlin) is called an area in which mostly students live. this is somehow true today in the real world, but only because the U.S. founded an university there in 1947, because the other Berlin university lay in the Eastern part. There wouldt be no reason for that in the Fatherland timeline. (Comment added anonymously by 84.191.179.183)

The article currently doesn't make any mention of Dahlem, so I assume you're criticising the book itself for making Dahlem a student-populated area. If that's the case, you'd need to find a work of criticism on the novel that takes issue with this development in the novel, then cite it in the article. Simply adding this piece of original criticism to the artcle without providing a reference would violate Wikipedia's policy of no original research. Binabik80 02:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I felt compelled to change two details in this otherwise quite well-written article.
1. The "Kriminalpolizei" is in the Fatherland-timeline a branch of the SS. But in OTL, it existed before and after the 3rd Reich as that part of the police which deals with severe crime.
2. "Pimpf" has only been an (semi-official) expression for the members of the "Jungvolk", which is the branch of the HJ for the 10-14 years olds. With only a few words, I have clarified the situation. At least, I hope so.

(Hoernla)

[edit] Joe Kennedy

Is the Joseph Kennedy who is president in this alternate 1964 supposed to be Joseph P. Kennedy or his son, Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr. (who was killed in WWII, but maybe not in this timeline). Kennedy senior would have been 76 in 1964. That's as old as Reagan was at the end of his second term, but I would think it unlikely in general to find sitting presidents who are that old. --Saforrest 23:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not absolutely positive, but I'm pretty sure it was intended to be Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr., who was fairly unenthusiastic about going to war with Germany in the first place and so makes a relatively plausible candidate for a president who might want to thaw post-war relations in this alt-history. He's a bit old by the standards of US presidents, but about the same age as his German counterpart in the story. --Calair 01:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Checked the book and yes, it is JPK Sr. The book specifically mentions that he's about 75. --Calair 03:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I've read it twice; I must've missed that. I'd say Joe Jr. is the more credible, since, if the U.S. quit the ETO, he wouldn't have been KIA in that stupid BQ-7 in '44. And wouldn't he've been about 70 in '64? Trekphiler 04:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] V3?

I put a comment in saying that the use of the term V3 was a mistake as the V3 was a gun not a missile. This was reverted without discussion. My reasoning was that the point of departure from reality of the novel is 1942. In the Germany of the novel, in 1942, the V3 was a gun not a missile. So, in the 1963 world of the book, there are 2 things that the German military have named a V3, a gun and a missile. Although I suppose this is possible, it is not likely. In the world of the book, the missile would have been called the V4, or maybe even the V5 or V6, but not the V3. Therefore, I feel it is correct to describe it as a mistake by the author. The fact that the fictional missile had a planned real world counterpart (the A9/10) is also valid info and was removed by the revert. Shimbo 20:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi I reverted your edit sorry, I should have checked with you first. You seem to know a lot more about the issue than me, so feel free to put it back in! Maybe you could reference it in the bit at the bottom of "Society", which discusses technology. Sorry about that revert! Rusty2005 22:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Shimbo, I understand your point as a technical fact; However, I believe that Harris used the term "V3" to imply to the reader that something bigger and badder than the V2 had come along; Any reader who was familiar with the V1 and V2 would automatically infer this meaning, and by doing so, Harris saved himself perhaps a paragraph or two of explanation. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 21:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
There are certainly many more inacuracies - Nazis did not win the war for instance ;), the European parlament could not have come to existance etc. etc.. Hey! It's a paralell universe, I therefore, don't think this V3 thing needs a mention. Wikipedyan 18:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course, there is the case of the M3. That being the name of a WWII US sub-machine gun, also that of a WWII US half-track vehicle and the name of a WWII US combat knife.

194.46.179.6 00:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edited ending of synopsis

Wow, this is a bad synopsis. It needs a serious overhaul to fix all of it's problems. In the meantime, I think it is important that we at least change the ending, which is about as wrong as it can be.

That being said, I've changed it from this:

As Maguire crosses the border into Switzerland, the Gestapo catches up with March, who walks towards the woods at the unmarked site of Auschwitz's dismantled concentration camp, gun in hand, intending either to go down fighting, or commit suicide.

To this:

The Gestapo catches up with March at the unmarked site of Auschwitz's completely dismantled concentration camp. As March desperately clings on to the hope that Maguire has crossed the border into Switzerland (whether she does or not is never made clear in the novel), he searches for some sign that the concentration camp was real. As the Gestapo agents converge upon him, his fingers find a solitary brick...

--Stu-Rat 19:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

"The Barrier lifts...the car moves forward...across the bridge the white cross of Switzerland. The morning light glints on the Rhine." seems to make it clear that she made it. Also "he saw others half hidden in the pale grass - ten, twenty, a hundred..." contracicts your solitary brick statement. Both quotes on the last page of the book. Please explain your reasoning. Shimbo 21:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Granted on the solitary brick. My mistake. Apologies. I've changed the plot synopsis ending. This first edit was still more accurate than the gun-blazing showdown we had before, however.

In addition, Charlie's journey is entirely within March's imagination. We never learn if she makes it to Switzerland or not, let alone safety (and there are strong implications throughout the novel that the USA is not a safe place to be either).

--Stu-Rat 14:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I see what you are saying, and I agree the previous ending was overly upbeat but a feel your edit is now a bit too downbeat. He says "he knows, knows she's made it", of course he can't actually know but to me that is a bit different to desperately clinging to the idea she's made it. I guess it's a matter of opinion but as such probably shouldn't be here. Maybe if we say 'believing that Maguire has escaped' that would be better? Shimbo 14:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. I think the entire novel is downbeat and I feel that was the intention of the author. Don't forget that even if Charlie got to Switzerland, that country (despite it's neutrality) is not a save place to be.

March is desperate. He knows he has failed in practically everything in his life (by both contrasting our standards and Nazi standards), not least of all being a decent father. He wants two things: one, to believe that Charlie escapes and he's changed the world; and failing that, two, that he can find some physical evidence of the Wannasee plot. He succeeds in the latter. Whether he succeeds in the former is unknown but unlikely at best.

Thus the ending is downbeat. The lead character dies, having failed at practically everything, and uncertain of whether he has changed the world or not but knowing that he has perpetuated the current world constant (i.e. Nazi Europe) through his brainwashed son.

--Stu-Rat 16:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

That's not really the point. Whether the novel is upbeat/downbeat, whether March is a success or a failure is a POV and hence shouldn't be in a wikipedia article unless we can quote an authority saying so. If we put 'believing that Maguire has escaped' that would not be a POV, it would be a fact. Shimbo 17:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair point.

Although then the question arises why the huge subsection on the novel's optimism?

And why the factual errors in the synopsis?

My last word on the matter.

--Stu-Rat 18:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, because someone made a mistake, which we have now corrected. I'll make that change. Shimbo 22:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Later on there seems to be a fairly pointless speculation about whether march is clairvoyant. Surely that should be cut? 81.13.218.88 13:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] map!

it would be nice to have a map.

  • I'd guess that the map printed in the book is copyrighted work. Rusty2005 15:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello all, in order to avoid Copyright problems I edited a blank Wikipedia Europe map and I inserted it in the article. It is quite close to the original, and somewhere a little more accurate: In the book the border outside Germany are (intentionally ?) left quite indeterminate, even if they contains some clear mistake:

- Italy in the book's map has lost istrian peninsula, this is true in real world because of its defeat, but in Fatherland's scenario this is a nonsense;

- Germany annexed part of slovenia in 1941, in the book's map this is not part of the Reich as it should be;

- Borders of Ungary are quite strange, but I kept them as in the book (for instance Slovakia's puppet state disappeared - why?)

- In the original map there is no border between Holland and belgium..


Bye, D.Nahaissi


It looks from the map in the book that part of Slovenia and Tyrolean Italy have been annexed into the Reich via Ostmark. Compare the map on the Wikipedia Slovenia page. In the map in my copy of the book there is an obvious demarcation between Holland and Belgium.

Also, does the book mention Turkey being in the EU? I see Asia Minor is included in Europe in the colour map.

194.46.179.6 01:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Buhler

Is there a spoiler reason to omit the name of the main victim, Josef Buhler? --81.105.251.160 11:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he wasn't easy to identify in the book. Skywayman 13:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parallels to Nineteen Eighty-Four

I have not read Fatherland, but I am well familiar with 1984. I found myself disagreeing with some of the assessment of 1984 - of course I am mindful that this section contains someone's opinions and I respect those as such. My point is, in some cases, I was feeling "logically stretched" to come to the same conclusions as the author regarding the cited aspects of 1984. -- Tzittnan 18:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transportation

The novel references a new airport Flughafen Herman Göring to handle international jet traffic. No mention is made of Lufthansa owning 747's. The narrative states Pan Am and Lufthansa operate at the airport with Boeing and Junkers jet aircraft. Tempelhof is still open for domestic flights. In the movie it is still Berlin's main international airport. --SkyWayMan 13:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Berlin Map

It would be nice to add the Berlin map in the article with the Europe map.ESommers 19:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rename?

Wny the completely unnecessary rename - you even don't seem to have been clear what to use having chopped and changed. There is only a need to have the (novel) dab to seperate this article from one on the the concept "Fatherland"

In addition why blank the article - there has been no discussion of the need for this - what are you doing here. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 12:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I changed it back to the most recent version un-blanked version. It seemed like such a major change should be reversed until the editor who made such a big change comes here and discusses why such a change is necessary. ---> Benseac 12:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
also the rename needs looking at too - the editor seems not to understand "dab" principles and not using more words, clauses than absolutely necessary. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 12:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Not to mentin the fact that it is not a "history" novel, it's "alternate or alternative" history. And "history novel" is not normally a term in common use. Oh dear this wikipedia just takes soooo much work to keep tidy! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 13:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I am ah sorry, I wanted to write some new stuff but never got about it. RobtheBob2 17:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
You can't keep it blank for 2-3 days. If you have a reason for doing it, please start a discussion about it so other editors know why you've done it. ---> Benseac 11:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fantasy

This book is a perfect example of how not to write alternate history. The Germans lock the Soviets into guerrilla war? How is it the Red Army fails to do what it did historically, copy the blitzkrieg & beat the Germans into the ground? The Germans discover Britain is reading Enigma? How? They never did historically. And this means Germany wins the Battle of the Atlantic? Not if it takes til mid-'44, which Harris implies; by then, the U-boat had been (more or less) completely defeated. Even in mid-'43, it was too late for Dönitz. Failure of NEPTUNE leads the U.S. to quit the Allies? Fat chance. The U.S. needs atomic bombs against Japan? Fat chance. Japan was mostly defeated by January 1945; if the U.S. added more weight to the attack (as Harris postulates), it wouldn't take until September 1945, let alone into 1946, let alone atomic bombs. Would be nice if Harris had bothered to do actual research before he wrote this joke. Trekphiler 04:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what you are saying, but it is Original Research unless you can find a reputable source that you can quote saying so. If you are interested in discussing Alternative History I suggest you try the Alternate History Discussion Board at http://alternatehistory.com/discussion/ where I'm sure people will be glad to discuss this kind of thing with you. --Shimbo 16:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
On the basis that the section about 'errors in the book' is original research I am going to remove it, if anyone has a reputable source making these claims then please cite the source and I will put the section back. Otherwise this kind of speculation belongs on the Alternate History Discussion Board not wikipedia. --Shimbo 18:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Differences between film and novel

"However, the appearance in the movie of Reinhard Heydrich as Reichsführer-SS implies that the attempt on his life that killed him in 1942 (in real History) has failed, thereby setting another point of departure."

He vitiates the book, how is this a point of departure by the film?

194.46.179.6 00:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The film only has one explicit point of departure: the failure of Operation Overlord. The book has several points of departure: Heydrich's survival; greater German success against the USSR in the 1942 campaign; German development of nuclear technology; awareness of British code-breaking.Jmorrison230582 10:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:RobertHarris Fatherland.jpg

Image:RobertHarris Fatherland.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)