MovieChat Forums > Fatherland (1994) Discussion > Some flaws in Mr. Harris alternate histo...

Some flaws in Mr. Harris alternate history scenario

posted 15 years ago by jaimehk
8 replies | jump to latest

Since everything has been said about that mediocre movie and we're talking more about Mr. Harris' book, as a WWII buff I have some doubts about that alternate outcome. Anyway one must recognize that Harris was more worried about building a sound detective plot that making alternate history:

1.- THE END OF WAR: In the book scenario, Germany defeats his enemies sequentially and one at a time, with no influence of each defeat in the other allies' fighting will:
a)Victory over the USSR in 1942: the Caucasus offensive turns out to be a total success (maybe 'cause hitler stuck to the original Blau Plan securing Stalingrad first before marching to the south, instead of deviating the pz divisions that were advancing to the city to help in the Don crossing to the south, as actually happened) and the Red Army is deprive of his fuel supplies.
b) Britain is defeated in 1943: somehow the Germans learn about Ultra decoding their Enigma machines, gives their U-Booten new encripting equipment and win the Atlantic Battle.
c) Finally armistice with the US is 1946. Apparently the Pacific Campaign went on exactly the same way that in actual history, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are nuked. Then the Germans send a "V-3" rocket(why V-3? if the british were defeated in 1943, then there was no bomber offensive and then nothing to revenge about so there was no reason to call the F-103 Flying Bomb and the A4 ground-to-ground missil as V-1 and V-2 respectively) to explode over NY and that's enough to get the americans seated at the peace table.

Sound and feasible or too far-fetched? in my opinion:
a) Seems quite reasonable, even though at least one other offensive (aimed at Moscow) would've been needed to bring the might of the Red Army to its knees. Besides the big question is: What would have done the Germans after their panzer divisions reach the Caucausus Range? According to the loosely planned "Orient Plan" the next move would have been pushing to the Middle East and the Persian Gulf in order of depriving the British Empire of their main oil source, while at the same time Rommel advancing through the Suez Canal to join the main attack. One might imagine Turkey readily joining the Axis ranks and the offensive been a total success. I've got no doubt that such offensive would had been a complete success, but then b) would have been unnecesary. And the "Russian Problem" would had remained unsolved, until a new offensive thrust at Moscow would had been launched in spring/summer 1943. The other question is: What would the allies had done in the face of a Soviet defeat? Maybe carrying away a desperate Sledgehammer landing in Bretagne, most probably than not doomed to failure. In any case is hard to imagine the Western Allies standing still, waiting for their turn.

b) Let's assume the british keep fighting, even deprived of his only continental ally (something they never did before). Would had Ultra breaking been enough to win the battle over Atlantic Supply lines? Victory over the U-Böoten was not only matter of Ultra, but also of ever growing numbers of boats and planes used to protect the convoys and searching and destroying the underwater menace. I think Doenitz in order to win his battle, would had need another technological gadget, like some sort of radar warning system able of detecting signals from 10-cm trasnmitters. Of even better a jamming device.

c) Why do the Americans continue in the fight? Without bases in Britain or N. Africa there's no way of inflicting some damage in the Reich, worse if the enemy controls the Altantic. And would have the Germans betrayed their japanese allies letting the Americans to finish them at will? And if the Americans were so stubborn (with isolasionists, so vocal before the war completely muted) to continue the war, would a rocket exploding harmlessly over NYC sufficed to make America change is mind.

2.- THE ENDLESS WAR: War with the soviets doesn't end in the Cacasus or with Moscu and Leningrad falling in German hands and panzers eastward flashing through the Urals. Sweeping movements that conquered huge expansions of land in months are replaced but a gruelling, neverending war in the Ural eastern border of the Reich, some sort of mixture of border skirmishes over a extended static frontline and guerrilla war in the German rear. Would the defeated Soviets had the will or means for sustaining that sort of attrition war with no decisive actions and no end in sight, waiting only for an eventual collapse of the Reich? (not any signs of it in fictitious 1964)And, Wouldn't had the Germans tried some sort of final offensive deepening their eastward advance?.In 20 years they'd had more than enough time for building supplies, establishing supply lines and amassing enough troops for such and endeavour instead of boggling 'emselves in a new version of WWI trench fighting.
3.- THE COLD WAR: Why there's a cold War anyway? There was no fundamental ideological divide between the US and the Nazis. 'Cause the germans were racists? Gimme a break, we're talking about 40's, 50's and early 60's segregating US. There's no Nazi ideological goal of destroying capitalism. Would the US People had tolerated the endlessly drain of resources for supporting the Communist in sustaining a war with no purpose nor apparent ending? And don't forget that keeping a Cold War with the Reich would had meant breaking economics ties with US main trading partner: Western Europe (as a whole), too strong an economic sacrifice for not clearly defined ideological principles
4.- A REICH-LED EU: Harris simply transposes 1990's European Union into his alternate scenario with exactly the same members. Why not including Eastern European Countries, strong German allies like Hungary, Romania and Croatia? even the Serbians (one may assumed they were given back independence by then, even with a much reduced territory). Besides, there's no comparation between the actual Warsaw Pact, where the economic and industrial might of the USSR was far ahead of the rest, with a German-Led Europe that includes countries with a strong economic and industrial base and scientific advances like the UK and France. Those countries (and Italy) would have been treated more like allies than vassails. They also had colonies (btw no mention of the hypotetical Nazi-Germany colonial empire in Africa is ever made) and strong fleets.
5.- GERMANY WINNING IN ALL SPORTS. Too cartoonish for me. If the germans had a little decency they wouldn't had kept fixing sporting competitions result every time. German supremacy wouldn't had been at risk if Italy defeated'em in football or Hungary in Waterpolo from time to time. As an actual reference, there were some friendly football matches between the two Steel Pact partners during WWII, with the italians wining more time than the Germans.
6.- GUERRILLA WAR AND THE REICH AS TERRORIST HAVEN: Harris depict the triumphant reich as been troubled by terrorist attacks and guerrilla activity everywhere, even in Berlin itself. But in WWII partisan and resistance movements were effective only when they could get somo support from the outside or the opposing forces were too weak. But how could the Soviets support guerrillas deep into the Reich if they were defeated and deprived of means 'emselves. And if there weren't the soviets, were did that wide array of resistance movements: russians, poles, ucranians, serbians even romanians would had get their weapons, explosives and supplies?
7.-FOREIGN WORKERS EVERYWHERE YOU SEE: Harris anticipates for the 60's and scenario that started to become more familiar in West Europe main cities since the 70's and 80's: the proliferation of foreign workers, mainly doing menial task like sweeping the streets, collecting garbages or as maids.Certainly the reich brought hundreds of thousands of conscripted workers to cover for german workers sent to the front, but a extremely nationalistic Reich wouldn't had let them stay. Don't forget that present-day nationalist and extreme-right movements dismiss the "unwanted jobs" claim for bringing foreing inmigrants poiting in turn to the high unemployement rates in many european countries. Why would the Third Reich had acted in the opposite direction?

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tmf_scipio 15 years ago

what about the other 5,700,000 jews, gypsies and "undesirables" that were murdered?

Are they all part of the Zionist Holocaust lie, and do you believe such individuals? If you do, I only hope you don't have children who will grow up under your tutelage.

"Whenever Mrs. Kissell breaks wind, we beat the dog."

[–] SpitfireIXB 15 years ago

@ tmf scipio

Never mind the previous uninformed poster. He's an ignorant racist and ultra right wing fascist whose opinions are meaningless drivel. He's so stupid he actually believes the anti-semitic, anti-christian garbage put out by like minded, goose-stepping right-wing idiots and radical muslims. So any discussion with this fascist would be futile because of his lack of knowledge and integrity.

Apart from denial of the holocaust and that Hitler and the German Nazis actually murdered six million Jews, he is also unaware of the other four-five million non-Jewish Germans and other Western Europeans who were murdered by the Nazis, i.e., all opponents to his dictatorship, political, and otherwise - like the Catholics and other religious dissidents; the gypsies; the Slavs; etc., as well as all "non-productive" people like the mentally ill, the mentally challenged, the old, and the sick. It is shameful that this idiotic fascist alleges that Hitler and his German Nazis did not murder anyone, and to quote this fascist: "At most, 300,000 Communist sympathizers and agents WHO HAPPENED TO ALSO BE JEWISH died from disease in the internment camps, and possibly from starvation due to the Allies devastating attacks against rail lines and supply trains inside the Reich." This is the most self-serving and the most ridiculous and misinformed statement I have ever read about the Second World War or about any event in history. His view completely ignores the existing records kept by the German Nazis themselves with minute details of how they carried out this genocide. Also, between 1939 and 1945, not one "German" living OUTSIDE these "internment" camps died of starvation because of food shortages caused by allied bombing of trains, etc. So, why did these prisoners die of starvation? Not one German or other Axis agent or prisoner of war held in any allied internment camp starved to death during their incarceration between 1939 and 1945, although it is well known and documented that the food supplies in Great Britain from 1939 to 1945 were far scarcer than they were in Germany during the same period. The simple truth is that prisoners held by the Nazis in the German "internment camps" were starved to death because it was a policy of the German Nazis.

In his memoirs, President Eisenhower said he ordered the death camps to be filmed, photographed and documented as extensively as possible because in the future some idiot with an agenda could come along and deny that these crimes against humanity ever happened, that no atrocities were ever committed by the Nazis, that the Nazis were just good but misunderstood people. He was sooo right (BTW, President Eisenhower was a presbyterian of German, English and Swiss ancestry). As supreme commander, General Eisenhower also ordered the German civilians residing near these camps be forced to enter the camps and witness the atrocities committed by their countrymen in the name of the German Fatherland.

As for Nazis being good, in addition to the murder of over a million Soviet prisoners of war, Hitler's Nazis also murdered well over ten million Soviet civilians (mainly Ukranian and Russian), while another dictator (the one with the bigger mustache) murdered over twenty million of his own citizens during the purges that began in the Soviet Union long before Germany's invasion, in fact, by 1939, most of the Red Army officer corps had already been "liquidated" on Stalin's orders, leaving the massive Red Army virtually leaderless.

As for this sh**forbrainspeckerhead having children, I doubt it. With his warped mind and lack of integrity, I'd bet he is alone whenever he is having sex.

BTW, I am not Jewish - I raised Roman Catholic but now I'm an agnostic.

The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge. - Stephen Hawking

This message has not yet been deleted by an IMDb “administrator.”

[–] Locomotiva1 15 years ago

Yes, the "how nazi germany winned the war" part was a bit thin, here and there.
Not entirely unbelivable, just too simple.
You may also add that Harris give just few pages here and there with "hints" of that glorious days, not a complete history.

An american may say, in real life: "oh, yes, the war: Pearl Harbour, Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Cassino, D-day, the Bulge and Berlin"

So
1a) Victory over soviets it's belivable: you may thing of the mopping up of what's left of Soviet army around Moscow when the soviet forces routed to the urals. Not a big battle, just a maze of two-line announcments from Goebbles "winning german forces pursued soviets in nevevheardbefore-stock"

1b) Britain strangled by U-Boots: note that Harris writed also "Enigma", a spy story that works on the plot "Ultra saved Britain and the War stopping U-Boots".
So, or Harris made good research for "enigma" and got that really the submarine warfare was crucial in 1943, or he used his own book as reference for the single line to explain how Britain fells.
You may also think that not only the british island were strangled, but also forces in Mediterranean and Caucaso got, bit by bit, the Middle East.
It wasn't mentioned just because it's just a secondary front, maybe handled also by the Turkish ally or something. Nothing interesting.

1c) armistice with the US. V-3 is supposedly the V-2 modified to be lauched by ships or submarines.
Why still call them Vergeltungswaffe, "revenge weapon" or "retaliation weapon"? Because they still had to "revenge" what came from the urals, for example - and also because, where you have few lines to spare "they made a nuclear V2" make more sense than "they had a bigger Fi-103 or A4" for the casual reader.

2.- THE ENDLESS WAR: this is a bit less belivable, yes.
It's not belivable in that scale. I could buy that there is a sort of border warfare and a state of near-war on the Urals - something like the line between north and south Korea, maybe a little more active.
Not trains full of deads coming in at nights. Too expensive for the soviets.
Help to subversions and terrorists, yes: trench warfare, hum...

I may understand that Germany had not the force or the willing to mount another final offensive, and use their energy to create the empire they had instead of expanding it.
They lost the zeal to pay the high price to destroy the commies: too expensive, too difficult, not a priority when they had so much space to colonize.

3.- THE COLD WAR: the nazi beat us! They pointed their V-3 over New York! How could we talk to them?
It's a taboo for any politicians to be "too soft" with those bad guys, for the public opinion.

Still, twenty years later, they have a sort of "only Nixon could go to China" - Kennedy sold himself as the one that could "win" the peace.
Peace and trades that would be useful, but they had to change the mood of public opinion still unhappy with the bad guys with their rockets (all all that grim urban legends about the east, refugees, people disappeared).
The story about the Holocaust would stop that: the work on public opinion about "nazi are not so bad guys".

4.- A REICH-LED EU: yes, it's sketchy. Something like a Warsaw Pact would be more belivable, with the Big Brother Germany and their satellite with more or less power. Germans industries that assimilate all other industries are strange.

5.- GERMANY WINNING IN ALL SPORTS. Cartoonish for me, too.

6.- GUERRILLA WAR AND THE REICH AS TERRORIST HAVEN: it's sketchy that they had so many bombs.
Soviets (and americans) may help with agit-prop and progaganda, and I may think of passive resistance, riots, murderers, generally unsafe - but bombs exploding everywhere and everytime, huh?

7.-FOREIGN WORKERS EVERYWHERE YOU SEE: yes, it's strange - Nazionalism, racism and a continue terrorist threat, and so many under-men around? Even in the SS- Headquarters?
Ok, germany winned the war and they are a bit too rich and soft - and that's a point in the book to explain why they need kennedy's help. Still...

[–] artisticengineer 15 years ago

IT IS ONLY A MOVIE! I appreciate the time and effort you used to write up these suppositions but I doubt if even one alternate ending (to the series of problems enduring by the Third Reich) was even possible. Also, though I realize you are speaking only hypothetically I would still advise that one comment is very "off" and that concerns the "no fundamental ideological divide between the US and the Nazis". There, in actuality, was a VERY deep fundamental ideological divide between the US and the National Socialist regime, and that divide was- the US did NOT believe in mass murder. Still doesn't. Comparing segregation to the Nazi death camps is very wrong-there is no comparison. Segregation was a "good neighbor" policy; one can quibble about if it was "right" or not. I personally believe it was not and am glad it is over (and I am old enough to personally remember the "whites only" signs in the South). But, in no way, can one compare it to the liquidation policy of the criminal regime in Germany in 1934-45!! The ideological differences between the US and Germany in that era were huge; don't think they were not. Now, in WWI-different matter, but we are not discussing WWI.

As to the outcome of the European war; most posters still do not realize that the ultimate decisive reason that the war was won by the Allies was due to their superior air power. The Axis governments were simply unable to stop the bombing of strategic targets; even targets deep within the German homeland. Tactical targets were even more at risk from Allied airpower and, quite frankly, that was the decisive measure that won most of the battles in Western Europe. There is absolutely no way the Axis powers could have stopped the air superiority of the Allies. Same with the Naval superiority of the United Kingdom (and later the United States). There is no way the Axis powers could have invaded England by sea; the British Navy was simply too strong.

Hitler was doomed when he started the killings in 1934; the question was simply how long he could last. The ultimate defeat of the European Axis powers were, in fact, caused by the death camps. This is due to the fact that the death camps made a "conditional surrender" by the Axis powers impossible- even had they been able to negotiate such a surrender it would not have held up as the Allies would have found out very soon afterwards about the death camps (due to aerial reconnaissance, inspection teams, etc), and that would have caused the Allies to utterly crush these criminal regimes; as, in fact, they actually did.

[–] david-5387 15 years ago

"C"
I dont mean to be direspectful to Amercians here but I think at the time a rocket over New York would have made them think twice especially as they would have seen newsreels for years of the destruction of European Cities, plus America never wanted to involve itself with a war in Europe.

"A REICH-LED EU:"

From the beginning Hitler viewed Germany as the leaders of Europe - Hungry, Romania were still viewed as worthless even though allies.....when the right side was winning of course.

"GERMANY WINNING IN ALL SPORTS"

All countrys were part of Germania therefore any exceptional sportsman would have represented Germany.

"FOREIGN WORKERS EVERYWHERE YOU SEE"

Actually the future of Germany would have included these people. The Poles were to be educated to basic school level with many being sent to Germany as house servants etc. At the time the jobs at the bottom of the chain were to low for the superior German.

"GUERRILLA WAR AND THE REICH AS TERRORIST HAVEN:"

There would probably be no serious terrorist activity but to keep a people alert, to justify people keeping tabs on their neighbours you need an excuse and this is the perfect excuse. Aliens who would seek to reign terror on the streets of a peaceful nation.
Its perfectly logical when you think about it.

[–] thatguy_78757 14 years ago

this is a great movie, but with its flaws

yes, I agree Dresden wouldnt have happened if the war ended when this film says it did

as for WHY the German folks dont know about the Holocaust-
theyre in denial in the same way children are in denial about the non existence of Santa Claus, its more pleasant to believe what they are told to believe

and the same way Americans are in denial about what Reagen Bush did in Central America, the fact that Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9-11 or that we have forgotten about all of the collateral damage to Iraqi and Afghani civilians

another movie mistake

the Gestapo chield tells Rutgre Hauers character "this is the age of 'Detente' "
while its an amusing irony to call the relations between teh new Nazi Germany and the US "The cold war" WHY would a 1964 German use a Russian word from the 1980s like that?

( Or is "Detente" a French word? it sounds French)

[–] Undutchable1939 13 years ago

It would have been much simpler and realistic to tell the story of how the Germans won the battle of Britain, probably the biggest turning point in the war.
And they came close.
So lets see, Germany defeats Britain in 1940, a small occupying force combats some partisans in remote areas, collaborators (such as a few well known upper class families, royals and countless civil servants) help run the occupied country.
Germany can now concentrate all their power on Russia, making it likely they would reach Moscow before winter this time.
America would probably stay out of the European war, they won't be able to do much without Britain anyway.
The war between America and Japan may still happen.
Likely that America makes peace with Germany.
Without a major war in mainland Europe the Nazi's can now concentrate on their Nazi utopia and the horror of "ethnic cleansing".
With lots of land in the east they might even decide to actually send "undesirables" to the east in stead of killing them.
Although the Nazi's might also prefer to slaughter them anyway, but the decision to officially kill them all wasn't made till 42 so it would all be post war politics.