 |
|
|
|
||
|
<% dim printurl
printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%>
|
|
July
19, 2002, 9:00 a.m. Q&A by Kathryn Jean Lopez |
|
illiam
F. Buckley, founder and editor-at-large of National Review is author,
most recently, of Nuremberg:
The Reckoning.
Kathryn Jean Lopez: How did you come to decide to write Nuremberg?
William F. Buckley
Jr.: There
is infinite drama there, and I saw that no one had treated the story as
fiction, meaning of course with access to the prerogatives of fiction.
What did Goering say, in close quarters? My protagonist is a 36-year-old
former camp commander whose last job was to provide for the security of
the Fuehrer in his bunker. They want to hang him now.
Lopez: With some of the characters in Nuremberg,
their culpability is clear. In your analysis, was Axel Reinhard (and his
real-life counterparts) morally responsible for the work he did on order,
ultimately, of Hitler?
WFB: I don't opine aggressively on the matter.
If told to start in building a crematorium for human beings, or climb
the scaffold and put your head in that noose, what would you do? Good
question.
Lopez: You make clear that the Nuremberg
trials had serious problems: incomplete work from Allied lawyers; having
Stalin-appointed judges alongside the others. Could the trials have worked
better or are international projects like that — I'm thinking of
the new International
Criminal Court, especially — inevitably doomed?
WFB: The Nuremberg trials had problems by
the reckoning of us Warren-Court types, but they were certainly guilty
of doing what they were charged to have done. The prosecution attempted
a dizzying act, namely to declare presumptively guilty anybody who was
integral to the Nazi enterprise. If that move had succeeded, it would
only have been required to establish that Heinrich Schroeder, Major, SS,
was that, a major in the SS, then sentence him. That failed, and the commission
that promulgated the Nuremberg trials had pronounced that no tu quoque
arguments would be heard (So you killed the Indians, we killed the Jews,
so what?). And nothing would be admitted pointing to the involvement in
crime of the Soviet judge. The proposed I.C.C. seeks to circumvent these
problems, which were pretty much unique to the Nuremberg scene. Remember,
this is a gripping novel (!), not a law treatise.
Lopez: You mix in some historical characters
with your fictional ones. Among the "real" ones, you draw attention
to Justice Jackson's examination of Hermann Goering — and his fumbling
of it. What went wrong there? Was Jackson unfit for the job?
WFB: No no, Jackson was a terrific lawyer, had been Attorney General, was a fine forensic technician and stylist. But the whole world was watching him and he made a couple of loose rhetorical slips and Goering moved in heavily.
Lopez:
Having studied Germany closely, are you any closer to understanding what
went wrong? A civilian country with a highly educated population —
how could it have happened in such a place? Was Germany somehow predisposed
or could the right combination of economic ruin, ineffective government,
and one tyrannical genius make the likes of the Third Reich possible anywhere?
WFB: Germany was drugged by the aftermath
of the war and the humiliations of Versailles, inflation, and unemployment;
the Nazis got power by deft opportunism quickly followed by brutal treatment
of dissenters, all of this under the spell of Hitler whose hypnotic powers
overcame strong, strong men and women.
Lopez:
I thought of Kurt Amadeus when word came down on Monday that John Walker
Lindh would plead guilty to aiding the Taliban. Are there lessons in the
Nuremberg trials for how to handle war criminals — both the Osamas
and the John Walker Lindhs — in our current war?
WFB: Only in the sense that there are lessons
to be got from everything. Nuremberg was unique, which is why I wrote
about it.
Lopez: Was there anything you were especially
surprised to learn in the course of putting together Nuremberg?
WFB: I had no clear idea what it was actually
like, in the Palace of Justice, for defendants, prosecutors, press. It
was awesome, tedious, sweaty, dramatic. Yup, it was also eschatological.
Lopez: You're written over 40 books. Do you
have a favorite among them? Do you have a favorite line you've written
or phrase you've coined?
WFB: No. But Nuremberg is I think the most engrossing
of the lot. I think... I hope you think.
Lopez: There's been chatter recently about the future of book writing, with the dawn of the Internet and, of course, the overwhelming popularity of storytelling through movies and television. Do you see book writing on its way out?
WFB:
No. Because there are people who want to write fiction or non-fiction,
assignments that can't be satisfied by other forms. The fear of book writers
is the diminishing time there is left over in life for the written word.
Shakespeare and I have that problem.
Lopez: You seem to be an incredibly disciplined
writer — a book a winter, besides your twice-a-week syndicated column,
and all your other work. Has that always been your book-writing drill
or has it become quicker — easier? — with experience?
WFB: I've written to deadlines since age
21, when I worked for my college daily. I write more slowly now than 30
years ago; at least, I rewrite more. Either that's because my eye was
quicker back then, or because I am more fastidious now. Have a look and
let me have your judgment in the matter.
Lopez:
Nuremberg is your third historical novel. What do you find most
attractive about the genre?
WFB: Practically all my novels have had history
interwoven in them. It is attractive to me to take a historical story
and give it the kind of feel a novelist can provide. It is supremely important
to play by the rules, i.e., not to jiggle history simply to make it compliant
with your narrative fancies. In my novel on Castro and the assassination
of JFK, I do change the historical story, but I would never tamper with
the personality of historical principals, e.g., Goering, Hitler, Jackson,
et al.
Lopez: What's your next book?
WFB: That's a secret. But you'll hear about it first.