 |
| Werner Heisenberg |
As set out in my review Volpi’s narrator, Gustav Links, is
saved from certain execution by the death of Judge Roland Fleisler through a
bomb while the People’s Court was in session on February 3, 1945 . In real life Fleisler was killed in a
slightly less dramatic fashion by dying after adjourning court though there are
conflicting stories on whether it was from a falling beam or from a bomb
fragment outside the building. What was true is that one of conspirators in the
July assassination attempt of Hitler, Fabian von Schlabrendorff, was on trial that day and survived the war
because of Fleisler’s death.
 |
| Jorge Volpi |
Volpi acknowledges the American Alsos missions which sought
out information on German scientific research during the war. He adds the twist
of a scientific adviser to Hitler who operates under the pseudonym of Klingsor.
There was no secret adviser. For much of the war Hitler relied on the
recommendations of such men as Albert Speer whom he had made Minister of
Armaments. There was far too much competition for power between competing
leading Nazis for there to have been any secret adviser.
Volpi has Heisenberg justify working on the bomb for Germany
In the book Volpi then has Heisenberg dramatically reverse
the accusation against him by saying it was the Allied physicists who actually
developed the bomb and brought about the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people
in Hiroshima Nagasaki
Volpi posits there was a battle to make the bomb. There was
no battle. The U.S.
In the book Heisenberg is made into a bad guy to provide a
worthy adversary for Bacon. In history he was the man who denied the Nazis the
chance at the bomb.
I acknowledge the facts of history are not clear. There are conflicts
over Heisenberg’s role. In Albert Speer –
His Battle with the Truth by Gitta Sereny there is a Heisenberg more eager to
develop the bomb than is portrayed than in Heisenberg’s
War. Examining the respective accounts I found Heisenberg’s War more convincing.
At the end of the war Volpi adapts the secretly taped
conversations of the 10 interned German physicists to have them assert their
failure to progress on the development of the bomb was because they were denied
funds by the mysterious Klingsor. In real life they never asked for the funding
that would have let them try to develop the bomb.
In real life there would never have been a need after WW II
to search for a Klingsor for, even if such an anonymous figure existed, the
Allies and Soviets had swiftly searched out all the leading scientists of
Germany and took them into protective (from each other) custody. The top 10 physicists
were actually in American hands before the war ended.
I admire how Volpi used history as the foundation of his
book and was intrigued by how he adjusted history to tell his story.
Bill, I read your three fascinating posts, this one included and the previous two, "In Search of Klingsor by Jorge Volpi" and "Heisenberg’s War by Thomas Powers," and realised just how little I knew of Nazi Germany's atomic bomb research as opposed to America's successful effort in that direction. Likewise, I knew nothing about Werner Heisenberg, except that he was a noted German physicist, while I was more familiar with J. Robert Oppenheimer and the Manhattan project.
ReplyDeleteTwo points in this post, namely Heisenberg being the man "who denied the Nazis the chance at the bomb," and who "did not want to put the bomb in Hitler’s hands," suggests that he, like many physicists of his time, was opposed to the atomic bomb and might have been a secret pacifist. I don't know how far this is true. If he was, indeed, against the bomb then one wonders why Hitler or the pro-bomb hawks in his regime did not see through him, in spite of being tied up with more serious matters on the war front. Heisenberg appears to have escaped Nazi persecution on this score. Of course, this point flies in the face of the possible fact that the Nazis were never serious about the bomb.
I have read about Oppenheimer being a pacifist which, I believe, came about only after he saw the mind-numbing destruction of the Japanese cities. Later, he became a keen follower of the Vedas, the sacred Hindu scriptures of ancient times.
Your posts have got me interested in WWII literature, both fiction and non-fiction, all over again and I'd certainly like to read "In Search of Klingsor" by Jorge Volpi. Many thanks, Bill, for stirring my interest in this area.
Bill - Thanks for this very thoughtful post about the differences between what really happened and what's fiction. It's so interesting to learn the real story, even if it doesn't make for fiction that's quite as riveting. And in my opinion, it takes a lot of thorough research to make a work of historical fiction ring true. One has to know what the facts were and create the overall atmosphere before one can 'tweak' what happened and adjust it to make for a good story. I've really enjoyedy our posts on this.
ReplyDeleteThis sounds like a fascinating novel. Thanks for looking at the history as well as the fiction. A lot of people feel Thomas Powers is rather too inclined to excuse Heiseberg, who is such a fascinating figure. I think his motives were mixed and we'll never know exactly how committed he was to the project (and I suspect he wasn't even sure).
ReplyDeleteFrayn's play Copenhagen is all about that in-between nature of knowledge. We can't really know what Heisenberg intended (though Frayn also comes in for a bit of bashing for being too sympathetic to Heisenberg) - and that uncertainty is something Frayn links to fiction, to history, to the space between people trying to understand each other, and of course to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. It's the stuff of drama!
The most convincing arguments about Heisenberg's opposition to bomb
ReplyDeleteare given in a talk given by Jochen Heisenberg (his son) at MIT
on the occasion of Frayn's play. Here is the link:
http://werner-heisenberg.physics.unh.edu/mit-jochen.htm
Prashant: Thanks for your thoughtful comment.
ReplyDeleteI think Heisenberg was less pacifist than a scientist who realized the enormous destructive capacity of atomic bombs.
The leading German physicists skilfully deflected Nazi interest in the bomb. They never said it was not possible. They highlighted the expense and technical difficulties and time required. In the midst of WW II the focus was on weapons that could be ready for use in the existing war.
I hope you get a chance to look at both books.
Margot: Thanks for your comment. I agree authors writing historic fiction must undertake major research.
ReplyDeleteI believe Volpi achieved a key element for changing history in that his alterations were all credible.
Barbara: Thank you for an interesting comment.
ReplyDeleteI thought Powers found Heisenberg so cautious about revealing himself during and after the war that researchers and readers are somewhat left to divine his position.
I heard mention of Frayn's play and would like to see it. I think a play could be better suited as a structure to exploring ideas and principles than a mystery book.
karabekius: Thanks for the comment and the link to the son's defence.
ReplyDeleteReading his comments very closely parallels the statements in Powers' book.
It is always difficult to rely on observations after the war. Gitta Sereny in her biography of Albert Speer points to changes he made in his memoirs after being released from prison with earlier notes written just after the war. She made the point he shifted some of his comments possibly to accord more with public perception of issues.
The son's quotes from his father's wartime writings were more convincing.