Talk:Fatherland (novel)

not fan cruft

i removed the 'fan cruft' designation. why? i have never read the book, probably wont, and could not get into the movie.

on the other hand, i have read some stuff about 'lebensraum' and what it meant. this book is apparently a good idea of what it might have meant. all the little details about the various countries are important, because they are all/were independent countries or cultures, all attacked by the nazis. it shows how vast the war was, and opens up the 'eastern front' to the minds of many americans like myself, who were not taught much about this in our school days.

as for the detailed description of characters, well, its bit much, but its not any worse than any of the other fictional articles on wikipedia...(star wars, anime, etc) and i could easily just skip that section when reading this article.

xaviers name

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)

The English name is indeed Xavier March, nicknamed Zavi. The author was acually quite sloppy and ignorant in inventing German names and nicknames which do not exist and do not make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.227.148.65 (talk) 11:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

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.

Vote for Deletion

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

"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)

I changed "Religion is still officially discouraged by the state, and the Hitler Youth is compulsory for all children" to "Religion is now officially discouraged by the state, and the Hitler Youth is compulsory for all children", as religion was never discouraged in the real Nazi Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathmare (talk • contribs) 19:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It kind-of was, as any timewitness account will tell you. --2001:A60:1573:7001:35A5:2993:665B:DE65 (talk) 15:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

The European Union of the book is not the same one that came into being in the real history timeline. How hard is to imagine a Fatherland EU made up of defeated (Britain & low countries), Quisling/Vichy states, allied (Italy), sympathetic states (Franquist Spain, Estado Novo Portugal) and an economically dependant Sweden and Ireland? How hard is it to imagine a Fatherland EU in the mould of a real world Soviet-dominated Warsaw pact?
The timeline of Fatherland didn't just diverge in 1942, and after dropping in to win the war ('44 - '46) and in passing through two decades to briefly mention the presumed assassinations of several Wannsee protagonists arrive in an historical vacuum called 1964. The novel actually credits its readers with understanding that whatever the circumstance, history will eventually happen, and under differing circumstances similar outcomes may be expected.
A V--3 rocket over New York is entirely within our experience of V-1 & V-2 weapons and is a crucial part of the novel as it was the device (along with Little Boy and Fat Man) that forced the war with the US into stalemate, and given the original V-3 cannon design as a fixed weapon aimed at London would have been redundant before it got beyond testing (the project only began in '43), then it isn't that difficult to assume an intercontinental rocket V-weapon being designated as V-3 (instead of the suggested V-4). If nothing else, it removes the necessity to explain why there was no V-3 ... a failed project wasn't an option. And finally, to claim "Nazis did not win the war" as an inaccuracy in an alternative history novel suggests someone's missing the point and cannot separate fiction from reality. Fanx (talk) 12:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

map!

The first map appears to show Alsace-Lorraine as part of the Greater German Reich, which seems logical, the world map does not. It's hard to image Germany not annexing larger parts of Belgium, Holland and Western France.

M.McAdam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.169.104.45 (talk) 10:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

Why is Cuba coloured as an US possession? The article doesn't make any mention of that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.244.23.2 (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Well, 5 years later and there was a big "Historical inaccuracies" section here again, completely unsourced. So I deleted that for the same reason as above. People just want to insert their own nitpicks. Barsoomian (talk) 05:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Though it is not pointless to complain about errors or weak justifications, still it should be remembered that it is, well, alternate history. The author obviously has to change some facts from real history. (Hence, complaining e. g. that the Germans found out about Enigma in the alternate history although they did not really is pointless. And if I remember correctly, Allied successes actually did make the Germans consider the possibility, but they thought a spy more likely.--2001:A60:1573:7001:35A5:2993:665B:DE65 (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

Italy

Is it specified in the book if Italy retains Albania as an annexed territory? In the article is said that Albania is an indipendent state. --151.51.17.227 (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• I notice you never got a reply to the above....Answer: No, it is not specified. In fact, Albania is never mentioned in the book, and I don't think Italy is either....This entire Wiki article on Fatherland is a train wreck and needs to be completely re-done. Engr105th (talk) 08:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

British Empire

"The British Empire appears to be a strong entity and retains its territories in Africa and Asia, although Canada, Australia and New Zealand have split from the Empire and are closely allied to the United States. Winston Churchill and Elizabeth Windsor, who claims the British Crown from Edward VIII, reside in Canada, speaking out against the Greater German Reich, German-controlled Europe, and the puppet British regime. However, Great Britain is afforded a great deal of respect from the German Reich as its Empire and historical institutions were greatly admired by Adolf Hitler and German society in general even in the years before World War II."

Apart from the bit about Canada I don't recall any of this from the book. Nor do I recall any mention of German presence in Antartica. Can someone show the references from the book to back up these claims? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.226.1.229 (talk) 15:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I never read anything in the article about Nazi presence in Antartica. It may have ben removed long since. But I do notice that the color-coded 'world map' in the article still has a red colored slice of Antartica (same as the Nazi controlled lands in Europe). The map needs to be removed. I'll do it if I can figure out how...Engr105th (talk) 04:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I notice Canada, Australia, NZ, etc are all dark blue, while US (incl the Phillipines) are light blue, and New Guinea is divided in half exactly like it ended up after the war. None of that is spelled out in the book. Need to remove this 'map'. Engr105th (talk) 05:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I deleted this map. Inconsistent with the book, and misleading...Engr105th (talk) 03:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Why Harris wrote the book.

Robert Harris speaking on BBC radio 2 on (I believe) steve Wright in the afternoon mentioned that he wrote the book because he was reseaching something on the Wannasee Conference and wanted to get the infomation, and how it made him feel into the world and this was the only way he could think to do it. That is obviously paraphrasing what he said but I was wondering if anyone had links to interviews where he's discussed this and if so could it be worked in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morcus (talk • contribs) 03:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Why are the film and novel combined?

It seems to me there is reason enough, based on precedent, to give the film —at the very least— a stub with actor information, cast list, credits, shooting locations, etc. It's been done for a great many other less notable films. Why in this particular case are they lumped together? The text in the film's section alone could be enough to create a decent article.

Case in point: Between Two Ferns with Zach Galifianakis has almost NO information besides links to some funny videos and a list of guests for web-distributed comedy. I, for one, find that useful and worthy (Comedy is awesome). But the argument could be made that that is invalid because they are sponsored skits etc. etc. This film was a full-scale production. What gives?

If it's a matter of someone taking initiative, that's fine. I'll do it. I just wanted to see if there was opposition to it. I've had self-made and useful maps deleted before all because people (cf. editors) got over-worried about legal rights. I'd hate to make the article just for a bot or something to decide it's useless when it really isn't. Cjcaesar (talk) 09:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Charlotte Maguire section (under fictional characters)

I removed the reference to The New York Times under Maguire's description (fictional characters). She works for "World European Features" according to my Random House paperback copy of the book (page 89). It is later described as an obscure news rag...Engr105th (talk) 10:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

"Stalin's Holocaust" ?

Under the Greater German Reich and International Politics section of the Wiki article, the 4th paragraph from the bottom says:

"A point left unclear is whether the Holocaust was confined to Nazi-occupied Europe or was extended to the rest of the world. In the novel, the Nazis' Holocaust has never been revealed, and instead the Holodomor — the massive planned famines of the 1930s, in the Ukraine and elsewhere in the USSR — is known throughout the world as "Stalin's Holocaust"..."
Where is "Stalin's Holocaust" (the Holodomor) mentioned in the book? Btw, there are a lot of speculative (and POV) details in the 'Greater German Reich' and the 'Nazi Society' sections. I've already changed a description of China as a "weak and independent state" - Artur Nebe suggests China is a bad place to defect to, but other than that we know nothing of it...Engr105th (talk) 16:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Removed the above quoted paragraph. If the Holodomor is mentioned at all, it is a passing detail. And obviously, the Nazi holocaust did not extend beyond Nazi-controlled borders! Engr105th (talk) 12:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm...Stalinist atrocities are indeed mentioned in the chapter where March and Maguire overnight in Switzerland - but not as "Holodomor" or as "Stalin's Holocaust"...I therefore think the paragraph needs to remain deleted, based on its wording - "...known thoughout the world as...", etc. That is never indicated in the book...Engr105th (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Also removed this: "Various references in the book suggest that Germany is paranoid of a nuclear war." What references? Fallout shelters are understandable (consider the real Cold War) but nothing I can find in the book indicates Germany is particularly 'paranoid' of a nuke war; in fact the book indicates Germany is technologically at a parity or ahead of the rest of the world...Engr105th (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

"Background" section ('alternate WW2 History')

In the above section, it says "Shortly afterward [meaning the Heydrich assasination attempt] "Germany embarks on a series of decisive victories, with the second major offensive into the Caucasus successfully cutting off the flow of oil to the Red Army (presumably by Hitler not splitting Army Group South as was specified in Führer Directive No. 45) and the discovery by German intelligence of the British ability to decrypt Enigma messages. A temporary withdrawal of Atlantic submarines and manipulation of intelligence lures the British fleet to destruction, with a resumed U-Boat campaign starving Britain into accepting a humiliating armistice in 1944. King George VI makes Canada his predominant country of residence and Winston Churchill follows him there in exile". etc, etc.
A few points if I may: A lot of info in this Wiki article is drifting over into the Wiki contributors' assumptions, rather than the history as stated by the novel...In the book, wasn't the defeat of the Allies at D-Day (Normandy) the specific turning point of the war?? I mean, America withdraws from western Europe and shifts focus to the Pacific; the Brits are left to fend for themselves (ending in military defeat or a disadvantageous negotiated peace; it's never quite stated) and the Nazis, now freed up on one front, turn their attention East and drive the Soviets back and into an eventual guerrilla war somewhere near the Urals...My point is, remarks about Army Group South and Fuhrer Directive 45, Caucasus oil fields, etc etc - are these even in the book? The U-boat re-deployment is briefly mentioned, but not as the war's turning point, or even as central to the plot - it just connects to Xavier March.
Regardless of this one section, I don't think the Wiki article represents what Harris was writing about: a handful of characters in a one-week period in Nazi Germany in 1964, and the central story of their interactions within the confines of that society, as they discover "the truth" - the Holocaust and who authorized it...Obviously the book is 'alternative history', but all this stuff about the rest of the world, the war of 1939-1945, etc etc is largely - and cleverly - left to the reader's imagination with the aid of some broad maps and spoken hints...The article should be re-focused onto the plot of the book...Engr105th (talk) 03:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Reduced that "Alternate WW2 History" para down to an overview. Engr105th (talk) 01:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Historical Inaccuracies?

Admittedly, I'm not overly familiar with how wiki works and what merits inclusion, but isn't having a section pointing out historical inaccuracies in an ALTERATE HISTORY story just a little... well, stupid? The fact that it's an alternative history sort of makes one assume that it won't be factual or historically accurate. Not meaning to offend anyone, this just makes very little sense to me, and I can't think of a better word for it.--173.180.157.63 (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

To clarify what I mean a little furthur (sorry for the double edit), I will use an example from the article. It states that the SS are represented as a "peacetime police" in the film. I fail to see how this is historically inaccurate, as the SS could very well have been used in this capacity in the alternate history, at least in the movie version. --173.180.157.63 (talk) 16:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous poster: you raise a great point there...My thought is that the point of divergence (versus real history) in the novel is the D-Day invasion. In other words, anything prior to that ought to reflect real history, and anything after that can be alternative. So perhaps Historical Inaccuracies needs to be limited to pre-divergence, if there are any. (By the way, if the book fails to adhere to pre-divergence true history, then perhaps it cease to be 'alternative history', and becomes a straight novel?? I don't really know).

Anyway, Harris wrote this work with a lot of leeway left to the readers' imaginations. Thats the mystery of the book... The problem is, over time these Wiki articles accumulate a lot of dimly-remembered (i.e. inaccurate) details and personal interpretations that are NOT in the books. In this case there is also the problem of confusion between the book and the movie...The article really needs to be re-written, with a view to sticking to the plot. Engr105th (talk) 10:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed on that! I unfortunately haven't read it, and my dim recolections of the film are pretty.. dim, or would put some work into it myself. The passage in the article just looked odd to me, though I'm definately not qualified to make an adjustment to it, haha. I personally see how this type of literature could go either way, in regards to straight novel vs. alternative history - it's a pretty fuzzy line if the point of divergence isn't completely established by the author himself (which it might be, like I said, haven't read it!). But as you say, that's part of the mystery in many of these types of stories. --173.180.157.63 (talk) 05:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Aside from the silliness of this in a fictional history, all the "historical inaccuracies" were unsourced. So I deleted them. Unless you can quote and cite a reviewer who made a criticism, it has no place here, it's original research if you make the conclusion yourself. Barsoomian (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference between alternate history, badly-reasoned alternate history, and historical errors in alternate history. These exist, though: it is a historical error if Harris makes March call the Oder the natural border of Germany or have all detectives have the rank of SS major (not first lieutenant or captain, which correspond to the paygrades of actual German detectives). It is not a historical error if he makes all of them be members of the SS, because that was the clear trend in the 1930s even, and it is entirely plausible to stipulate that exceptions would be removed.--2001:A60:1573:7001:35A5:2993:665B:DE65 (talk) 15:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Nazi Society section

In the last paragraph of the Society section it reads "...prolific romantic novelist Barbara Cartland seems popular amongst women in this alternate history, writing works such as "The Kaiser's Ball" a title which seems conceived to cater to this large German female market." Is this in the book? Or the movie? I do not recall that Cartland is mentioned as 'popular' or catering to a 'large German female market' in either, if shes mentioned at all. Can anyone point out the chapter? If not I'll remove this soon...by the way, this entire section needs cleanup - too much opinion being read into the book. Engr105th (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Remvd the above noted info...If anyone reverts, pls state here the chapter where Cartland, The Kaiser's Ball, etc appears. Thanx...Engr105th (talk) 23:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Alternate history films

Regarding this revert, Fatherland (TV movie) is (and has been categorized as) an alternate history film. Fatherland (novel) is not a film. From Wikipedia:Redirect#Categorizing_redirect_pages: "Sometimes a redirect is placed in an article category because the form of the redirected title is more appropriate to the context of that category.". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The film is included as a prominent part of this article. According to the link you cite, "Most redirect pages are not placed in any categories." and I don't see this falls into any exception. It makes the categorisation invisible and inaccessible from this page which can only be mystifying to most editors. Quite likely other editors will just add the category back anyway, not seeing it here. It seems unlikely at this stage that a separate article for the film will ever be made, so there is no need to send people to a redirect from the category page. Barsoomian (talk) 03:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Removed subsection: Differences (between novel and film)

I've removed the following subsection from the film subsection, as it is completely uncited and is likely to have sprung from the sharp eye and mind of a wiki editor or two. We cannot be cited, so unless we have citations from reviewers comparing the novel to the movie, or pointing out how the film and book are different, we don't get to point that out. We operate on citable evidence only.
The subsection below cannot return to the article without substantial citation of the type described above.

Differences

*The film changes the historical time line divergence in the novel to the Germans successfully defeating the Allies during the D-Day invasion in June 1944. George VI, Princess Elizabeth and Winston Churchill flee into exile in Canada (Churchill dies in May 1953), while Dwight D. Eisenhower resigns in disgrace. With defeating Nazism in Europe now seemingly hopeless, America turns its back on the war in Europe and focuses on Japan, thus allowing Germany to regroup. It also states that in 1964, the 85-year-old Joseph Stalin is still alive and leading a rump Soviet state similar to the version in the novel. Also as in the novel, the Soviets are locked in an endless guerrilla war against Germany. Unlike in the novel, no European Union is formed as Western and Southern Europe are annexed into the Reich, now known as "Germania". Unlike in the novel the German border with the Soviet Union is shown to be the same as it was in 1941 before Operation Barbarossa (apart from the Baltic States, which are part of the Reich). This coincides with the film's story of the war ending in mid-1944, by which time German forces had been mostly pushed out of Soviet territory.

• The murder of Luther (Luther's given name is changed in the film from "Martin" to his middle name of "Franz") takes place on the steps of the Great Hall in the book; in the film it is changed to a shoot-out in a subway station.
• March and Maguire do not have a sexual relationship in the film. In the book there is a Gestapo record on March that shows his distance to the regime very clearly and becomes dangerous to him; Maguire is decidedly against President Joseph Kennedy, whom she considers to be anti-Semitic. These views are changed in the film to reflect more of the Cold War between Germany and America. Maguire is pro-American and rather hopeful for Kennedy's visit, while March expresses the opposite view.
• The most important alteration may be the way in which the Holocaust is revealed to the main characters and to the American public. In the novel, it is March who has an old and genuine interest in the fate of the Jews and who finds out the truth through Luther's documents hidden in a Berlin airport. In the film, Maguire gets the documents from Luther's mistress, who does not know about his death and believes that she will later go with him to America. The mistress is radically anti-Semitic and joyfully reveals the murder of all the Jews in the Germania Bloc (six million as opposed to the book's 11 million total) to a shocked Maguire. When Maguire tells this to March in a park, the patriotic March initially does not want to believe the story. However, the documents, including photographs of murdered people, convince him.
• While the novel arguably allows for Maguire's escape to Switzerland with the incriminating documents (March has a vision of her escaping but it is not described), in the film she passes them to a colleague. In the film, President Kennedy is actually visiting Germany (in the book the visit is scheduled only for September). Hitler waits for Kennedy in front of a huge audience, but Maguire's friend breaks through the cordon and presents the papers to the US ambassador and Kennedy just as their motorcade stops for the president to meet Hitler. Kennedy, appearing shocked by the photographs, abruptly leaves the scene. A loudspeaker tells the crowd that Hitler's birthday celebration is cancelled because of a bomb threat and Kennedy is returning to America immediately with "the good wishes of the German people."
• In the novel March is denounced by his son to the Gestapo, and presumably dies later in his diversionary search for the concentration camp remains. The film shows March killed by the Gestapo in Berlin while trying to take his son with him to America. The film diverges from the novel as well for Maguire as she is last seen waiting for March so they can escape back to America together. At the end, a voiceover from the now-grown Pili tells that Maguire was captured by the Gestapo, and the revelations of the Holocaust and the lack of a strategic alliance with the USA causes the Nazi regime to collapse.
• Wilhelm Stuckart, another murder victim, was renamed to Walter Stuckart.
• The section of the novel where March and Maguire travel to Switzerland to trace a bank account opened by Luther is absent from the film version.
• SS-Cadet Jost is murdered in the film to ensure his silence, whereas in the book it is said that he was transferred to a combat unit on the front lines with the Waffen-SS. Given the context in which Jost's "transfer" is described, however, Globus eliminated Jost to derail the investigation. In the film March told Jost that he knew his mother, which is absent in the book.
• Charlie Maguire is just arriving in Germany in the film, but in the book she had been there for over six months.

- Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

What is the reason for the asterisks after the names of the real historical figures?

What is the reason for the asterisks after the names of the real historical figures? Do they serve any purpose, and can they be removed? Gruhl (talk) 02:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Background section: OR

In addition to being unreferenced since 2012, this section appears to contain nothing but original research. I suggest that this section be removed as not complying with WP:OR policy. Would there be any objections? K.e.coffman (talk) 21:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it is original research, it's simply unreferenced. I referred to this immediately after reading the book and I found it very helpful in drawing various threads together. I'll see what I can do. Thincat (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

John Kennedy: OR

I removed the reference to John Kennedy which said:

The book makes no mention of the President's son John Kennedy, who is evidently completely overshadowed by his father

because it is OR and somewhat ill-informed.

If the US had not been involved in WWII (or had left early) then it would not have been John Kennedy but Joe Jr that would have been put forward. He was the eldest son and had been groomed for political office, however he died, in 1944, fighting in WWII.

FerdinandFrog (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Grammatical?

Hi, is the sentence "The people the book who are named as attendees of the Wannsee Conference all did so in real life" grammatical? I find it hard to parse ... T 85.166.161.28 (talk) 00:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

No it isn't. I have changed "The people the book who" to "The in people the book who", which fixes it. FerdinandFrog (talk) 12:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thx. Not a native speaker, but it seems to me that the main problem is the difference between "being" (an attendee) and "doing" ("did attend the conference") remains (sic :) ). The sentence still has the "all attendees did be there" kind of grammar. I'm sorry if it's just me, and also sorry for not being able to give a proper error analysis, but I hope someone takes a third look. T 85.166.161.28 (talk) 04:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, having spotted one error that made the sentence wrong I stopped checking. You are right, the being / doing discrepancy is wrong but is not obvious because of the intervening text. When I read it I took in what was meant rather than what is actually there.

I have now changed this and I hope it is right now! FerdinandFrog (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)