William Waldegrave

The tricky world of faction

Already a subscriber? Log in

This article is for subscribers only

Subscribe today to get 3 months' delivery of the magazine, as well as online and app access, for only £3.

  • Weekly delivery of the magazine
  • Unlimited access to our website and app
  • Enjoy Spectator newsletters and podcasts
  • Explore our online archive, going back to 1828

The novel’s proposition is that after this ‘repudiation’ Berlin (or Mendel) systematically undermined von Trott (or von Gottberg) in the latter’s efforts to prevent war between Britain and Germany, and that Berlin thus has some moral responsibility for von Trott’s horrible and heroic death. Again, it is demonstrably not true that Berlin acted like this. But in any case there were quite other and more formidable reasons, far beyond Berlin’s sphere of influence, for suspicion of those who sought an alliance in the West in exchange for the removal of Hitler and endorsement of German expansion in the east as a bulwark against Russia. At one level the Venlo incident of 1939, when a disastrous SIS operation delivered most of Britain’s network in occupied Europe to Gestapo agents who were pretending to be dissident German army officers hawking just such a scheme, could hardly fail to increase scepticism about later approaches.

Far more important was that the failure of appeasement appeared to have shown once and for all that negotiation with Germany was hopeless: the whole German military machine had utterly to be destroyed, once and for all. Had not the German army in 1918 been allowed to march home claiming, quite wrongly, never to have been defeated? Did generosity then not give birth to the myth of the stab in the back and the enemy within which led directly to Nazism and the Final Solution? Had we not heard before these cries for quarter from Germany when its aggression began to turn to defeat? It was not because one Oxford don doubted the practicality of his friend von Trott’s peace schemes that Allied strategy, rightly or wrongly, was sceptical about negotiating with German military aristocrats, heroic though some of them unquestionably turned out to be. Justifiably or not, that did not at the time seem a plausible route to the permanent destruction of German militarism.

So if we take this book to be a shot at the truth in the form of a novel, it is a poor shot. It is a poor portrait too of Berlin, sometimes touching the ludicrous, as with the sexual adventures invented for him in pre-war Jerusalem.

But should we be judging Cartwright, who is a very good novelist, not like this at all but against the criteria we use when we read pure fiction sparked by real events, fiction which creates a world to be judged on its own terms, a world like that of Stendhal or Scott?

The distinction matters, I think. It is difficult now to rescue Mozart from the grotesque cartoon of Shaffer’s Amadeus; or Vermeer from Chevalier’s Girl with a Pearl Earring, let alone Kutuzov from War and Peace. Brilliantly, the authors told lies. In literary terms, who cares? The artistic end justifies the means. We only care if they claim to be telling the truth. So we need to know which game Cartwright is playing. Is he trying to tell the truth or explore ideas of his own invention? There are plenty of ideas. Is a great but personally timid moral philosopher a better or worse man than a heroic but muddled man of action? Does the seductive ‘secret and sacred’ Germany of forest, ancient blood and purity of life which his resisting aristocrats want to save from Hitler and from the Russians have the same roots in the end as the Nazi pathology which they see, too late, will destroy it? How does the memory of past atrocities condition us to atrocities around us now? (The climax of the book is the rediscovery, long after the war, of the obscene film Hitler caused to be made of the killing of von Trott. That rings a contemporary bell or two.) These are not trivial themes.

If Cartwright wants to be judged on how he handles what he has invented, then he has my vote. He is a powerful and vivid writer. He can make you laugh and cry and think. He tells his story with compelling skill. But it is just not the story of Isaiah Berlin and Adam von Trott.

Comments

Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months

Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.

Already a subscriber? Log in