Talk:The Plot Against America

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SebastianG1002.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Anonymous analysis
The article seems to take it as a given that Lindbergh was "anti-semitic." This is certainly not born out by Lindberg in his private life or from family and other sources in his immediate circle.

In his controversial Des Moines speech, and apparently no actual transcript is available, Lindberg criticised three groups he believed were leading America the push to bring America into the war. These were the Roosevelt administration, the British and the jews. There is no reason to believe he thought all jewish Americans were pro-war and his belief that jewish Americans were more pro-war than their non-jewish countryman may even have been true, although I have seen no opinion poll data to prove an argument one way or the other.

A large number of jewish americans at the time probably had good reasons to seek American intervention, Lindberg sought to win them over to the anti-intervention camp. He believed that war would enflame ethnic and political tensions at home and that this could not be in the interest of minorities.

Roth and other pro-interventionists, then and now, preferred to twist Lindberg's argument into a threat. This ignores thw well documented fact that many isolationists and pacifists were, ...perhaps misled by the experience of WW1, anticipating that World War Two, would bring depression, and perhaps even revolution and civil strife in it's wake. Looking at what happened globally after WW1 this was a not unreasonable expectation.

The article fails to pin Roth for ignoring the reality of a massive pro-war campaign by the both the Roosevelt administration and the British Operations (including BSC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Security_Coordination ) to bring the US into the war. These operatives were certainly keen to exploit any opportunities that came their way (including Lindbergh's gaffe?) and were not above dirty tricks (discussed at http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=25&articleID=285 ). Without context it gives less than half the story. In Roth's fantasy world there are no pro-war forces, only bigoted anti-war politicians.

At the same time, other comments from the time from FDR that could just as easily be interpreted as anti-semitic are forgotten.

For example, here is FDR quoted in JOSEPH E. PERSICO's "ROOSEVELT'S SECRET WAR. FDR AND WORLD WAR II ESPIONAGE." Random House NY 2002 Quote from Page 219-220 "After the North African landings, succeeded, the President went to Casablanca and, in a meeting with the French resident general at Rabat, delivered an astonishing opinion. "The number of Jews engaged in the practice of the professions- law, medicine etc.- should be limited to the percentage that the Jewish population in North Africa bears to the whole of the North African population, " he urged. "This plan would further eliminate the specific and understandable complaints which the Germans bore towards the Jews in Germany, namely, that while they represented a small part of the population, over fifty percent of the lawyers, doctors, school teachers, college professors, etc, in Germany were Jews." He had echoed the rationale that the Nazis had carried to barbaric limits." (Italics added) Persico's cited source for this is: p.308 Francis L. Loewenheim, Harold D. Langley, and Manfred Jonas, eds., ROOSEVELT AND CHURCHILL: THEIR SECRET WARTIME CORRESPONDENCE New York: Saturday Review Press / Dutton 1975

In fact Lindbergh's Des Moines speech sounds tame in comparison. (see http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/lindbergh/filmmore/reference/interview/anne06.html and http://www.charleslindbergh.com/pdf/092441_lindy.pdf ) Of course this does not "prove" FDR was anti-semitic or the opposite. His opinions didn't seem to stop him appointing Felix Frankfurter to the SCOTUS, who was the third jewish Supreme Court justice (Wilson appointed Louis Brandeis and Hoover appointed Benjamin Cardozo before him - source: http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-jewish-american-political-figures). Similarly Lindberg's opinions didn't stop him from having a close personal and business relationships with jewish friends like aviation pioneer Harry Guggenheim. He found Henry Ford's anti-semitic views distasteful.

The whole game of retroactively applying the standards and tabous of modern politically correctness to historical figures is playing a stacked deck to begin with. In FDR and Lindberg's day language the modern era's sensitivity to ethnic group labels was unknown. Lindberg's desire to keep America out of war was wholly honourable, even if in historical retrospect we may consider it ill advised.

The above quote is useful in defending Lindberg from modern deck stackers. Can you imagine what Roth would say if Lindbergh had said this? He has no qualms in charging Lindberg and Borah of promoting pogroms without the slightest evidence, ..and engages in some anti-Catholic bigotry of his own. Does Roth want to run some pogroms of his own? His political fantasy is just a travesty of history.

THe above section should be deleted. It does not appear to serve a Wikipedia purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.206.234 (talk) 23:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Alternative History as a Mode of Science Fiction
I just had somebody revert my addition of the "science fiction" category to this book. I realize that there is considerable prejudice against calling a novel by a mainstream writer "science fiction"; but that doesn't change the fact that alternate history is an old and honored branch of that genre, even if sometimes prettified by calling it "counterfactuals" or other labels. I don't want to get into a revert war; but I'd like to see the revert reverted--Orange Mike 18:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * To quote the Science fiction article: "Science fiction is a genre of fiction in which at least part of the narrative depends on the impact of science, either real or imagined, to generate settings or events which have not yet occurred in reality" (emphasis added). Roth's novel has no speculative science in it, not even any non-speculative science. I don't know how it can qualify as science fiction without the science part. Much alternate history qualifies as science fiction, but there is much that doesn't. --dm (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That article is part of an 80-year-old argument about what is and isn't science fiction. This novel received the Sidewise Award, which is given out at the World Science Fiction Convention every year, and juried by a panel of science fiction fans and writers interested in the alternate history subgenre of science fiction. I'm sorry if we offend you by getting scifi cooties on this book. -- Orange Mike 04:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I like science fiction but I also like Wikipedia to be accurate. Have you read The Plot Against America? It bears no resemblance to science fiction in any way. It is completely lacking in science, a necessary element of science fiction. While there's no formal definition of the genre, if this novel qualifies then it's hard to imagine what doesn't. I contend that alternate history is a separate genre from SF. Who gives out an award is irrelevant. The Nobel prizes are awarded by Swedes. That doesn't make Orhan Pamuk Swedish. Can you supply a source that calls The Plot Against America "science fiction" explicitly? --dm (talk) 06:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If you're seriously interested, I could list URLs for dozens of sites discussing alternate history as a major subgenre of science fiction. I will quote one such, because it addresses the attitude that I'm seeing:

[http://www.beatrice.com/archives/000822.html "I've known since the buzz began that a lot of critics would be going out of their way to explain how Philip Roth's alternate history novel isn't science fiction--Berman does it by positioning Roth in a 'tradition' of Jack London, Nathanael West, and Sinclair Lewis--and Roth himself professes, " I had no literary models for reimagining the historical past," which actually isn't that surprising as I don't imagine Roth's read much science fiction in his adult life. Michael Gorra in the Times Literary Supplement goes a step further: "The Plot Against America offers a plausible description of a world that never was. It may not be one of Roth’s four or five best books. But nobody else would even have tried it..." Really? How about The Man in the High Castle? How about...oh, never mind. Anyway, I'm thrilled that Handler came as close to calling the novel "science fiction" as he could without actually using the forbidden words."] And at AlternateHistory.Com one can read: "...Alternate History novels, which are generally categorized as a type of science fiction." Science fiction has outgrown the Hugo Gernsback days where gadgets and inventions drove the plotlines; it's about alternate realities and imaginative novels discussing what happens if you change the givens of the universe, whether by inventing a faster-than-light drive or imagining a proto-fascist America. -- Orange Mike 15:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll concede that many, perhaps most, people with an opinion on the subject consider alternative history a subgenre of science fiction, but one should acknowledge that many others think it's a separate genre entirely. Understood broadly enough, all fiction changes "the givens of the universe." That's what makes it fiction. An interesting facet of The Plot Against America is that it describes an America not that different from the real one. It's an anti-Semitic America, but, I would argue, not "proto-fascist." I think it's telling that the writer you quote admits later in the essay that he hasn't read the book. --dm (talk) 10:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's an old discussion. However, I added a See Also section so that readers of the article may realize that Roth didn't write in a void, and that the idea of a Fascist America or Nazi-dominated America was not that new--one should mention one of Philip K. Dick's masterpieces, The Man in the High Castle, which is as sfnal or non-sfnal (it depends on one's point of view) as Roth's Plot, and has always been sold and bought as science-fiction. I'd say it's a matter of the glass being half-full or half-empty. --93.40.125.162 (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you read the book? The America depicted isn't Nazi or even fascist really. Don't be fooled by the swastika on the cover put there to sell books. The "see also" section you added is misleading and so I'll be removing it. —D. Monack talk 00:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have read The Plot and have also read Lewis' It Can't Happen Here and Dick's The Man in the High Castle, and can tell you that with all the differences in style and plot the three novelists are playing the same game, that is, imagining the US under a Fascist regime. In the novel Roth clearly says that Lindbergh admired Nazi Germany, and suggests that when he is elected he is actually acting as a Nazi agent, a puppet used to keep the US out of W.W.II. Have you read the novel? I am re-inserting the See Also section, because this novel cannot be kept isolated in a void--especially by people who are clearly not knowledgeable with all the three books involved, and who seem to be annoyed by certain political terms.--93.40.141.250 (talk) 10:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd agree with Monack in calling the U.S.A. of The Plot proto-fascist, perhaps; but not fascist in a full sense; just an authoritarian amplification and unleashing of the uglier underside of early 20th century U.S. culture. As such, it belongs not with novels of Nazi/fascist conquest such as Man in the High Castle; but rather with novels of surrender, appeasement and political degeneration such as It Can't Happen Here. It's still SF; but like It Can't Happen Here, is written by a novelist not known for SF, and is not marketed as SF. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  13:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I repeat this question which may also sound a bit rude, but--have you read the novel? Not only it repeatedly links Lindbergh to the Nazi regime (Fascist Italy is out of the picture), but it clearly depicts Lindbergh's policies of racial discrimination against Jews--such as the relocation of Jewish families--plus pogroms aganist American Jews. Proto-fascist? Sure, there are no concentration camps as in Lewis or the Gestapo hunting for Jews as in Dick, but the Lindbergh administration is clearly presented as a quasi-Nazi regime, which resembles the Quisling government in Nazi-occupied European countries during W.W.II. Moreover, it is not sold as SF because publishers (and Roth) know all too well that SF is not a fashionable term in the book market today; but such alternate past/present narratives abound in the production of sf writers (not only Philip K. Dick, but also Keith Roberts, Ward Moore and many others). Anyway, we should try to assess the genre or subgenre of a novel regardless of what the blurbs say!

I strongly support, btw, the insertion of the See Also section in the article.--James.kerans (talk) 10:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, the book links Lindbergh to the Nazis. That doesn't make him a Nazi. He's isolationist and anti-Semitic, but that's not the same thing as fascist. The U.S. depicted is no more Nazi than Switzerland was during the war.


 * I disagree with the idea that Lindbergh's administration is depicted as "quasi-Nazi" (whatever that means) or a Quisling government. Quisling was a puppet of the Nazis used to put a Norwegian face on German occupation. The USA in The Plot is not occupied by Germany and not even officially allied with Germany in WWII. Lindbergh is legitimately elected president and doesn't even threaten to end democratic elections which, I think, would be a minimum criterion for calling the government fascist.


 * As for calling the book SF, reasonable people can disagree about the novel's genre. If you can find a reliable source such as a newspaper book review that calls the novel "science fiction", then by all means add that to the article. —D. Monack talk 22:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I read an article on an Italian book magazine (I am Italian) which discussed the novel at length (not a simple review). It was published after they translated the novel into Italian. It did not obviously say that Roth is a sf novelist, but that Roth had written a sf novel, and connected it to Sinclair Lewis and Dick. I dimply remember it also mentioned another US novel about a Fascist government in the USA. I might add it to the secondary bibliography on the novel. As for Lindbergh being linked to the Nazi: it's quite clear, and Roth suggests that, that a US President who is sympathetic to Nazi Germany will keep the US out of the War, hence weakening the British Empire The novel depicts persecution of Jews: isn't that one of the main tenets of Nazism? Lindbergh was legitimately elected, you say: ok, also Hitler was legitimately elected, so what? Nothing in the novel, btw, tells readers that he does not threaten to end democratic election, while his government is not intervening in W.W.II and persecuting Jews. Those two policies are more relevant than the formality of not formally ending elections. The impression I got is that Lindbergh (in the novel) is simply taking time, waiting for the outcome of the war in Europe, ready to pull out the swastika flags once Britain is done for. This is an impression, I'll admit it, but other elements I have listed make the Lindbergh administration in the novel a case of closet Nazi government. --93.40.126.106 (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No connection with Nazism, huh? What's that black swastika on the cover of the novel, then? Doesn't that make the connection evident, Monack? Or do you think that the commies put it on the cover, with Roth unaware of it? C'mon, that Lindbergh as he's depicted in the novel is a puppet of the Nazi is quite clear. Why does he disappear when the situation gets out of control? Re-read the novel, or read it. As for it beaing sf, take a look at this review: http://www.sfsite.com/12a/pa213.htm --James.kerans (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Never blame an author for what his/her publisher puts on the cover of a book; not even the Stephen Kings of the world get full control over that decision. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  18:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Blaming? Who's blaming who or what here, man? Reread my previous message. I don't know about King, but I don't think the publisher of Philip Roth may put something as controversial as a swastika on the cover of one of his novels (don't forget the Jewish descent of Roth) if Roth does not agree. If he accepted that symbol there, it means it had something important to do with the plot: it tells us something (as if it was necessary) about the real nature of the Plot Against America, that is, the links to Nazi Germany of the fictional Lindbergh administration. I am not blaming Roth, I am desperately trying to show you what's in the novel--so big I am amazed that somebody doesn't want to see it. The story is quite simple: the plot is a conspiracy organized by a right-wing American organization which is in cahoot with Nazi Germany. They win the elections thanks to Lindbergh's popularity and manage to keep the mighty US out of W.W.II, which means that Nazi Germany has a chance. The Lindbergh administration carries out several policies to discriminate Jews, until you have the Winchell Riots and the threatened pogrom in Newark. There's more than that in the novel, but the basic counterfactual political background is that. And, once again, who's blaming who or what?--James.kerans (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think the publisher of Philip Roth may put something as controversial as a swastika on the cover of one of his novels (don't forget the Jewish descent of Roth) if Roth does not agree. If he accepted that symbol there, it means it had something important to do with the plot"???? What? You really don't know much about the publishing industry, do you? Publishers' reps are firmly convinced that swastikas on covers sell books; and Roth is highly unlikely to have been given any chance to veto such a marketing decision. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  00:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I know the publishing industry from within, having been a literary translator and having friends who work for important publishing houses. And I can tell you that what publishers can do with dead writers, or writers who are not famous and don't sell much, is absolutely NOT what they have to do when dealing with bestselling authors. If you put on the cover of a novel written by a Big Name like Roth something he doesn't want there, it may happen that next time his agent sells his next novel to another publisher, and if something like that happens there will be bloodshed in the house which lost the Big Name... we're not talking about a beginner, we're talking about a writer that any publisher would like to publish. Probably they showed the cover to Roth (or his agent) for approval. --James.kerans (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Before that book did so well, it is my understanding that Roth was regarded as, if not quite box office poison, somewhat past his sell-by date; thus, my assumption that he had little bargaining leverage when dealing with the marketing mavens. Perhaps you are right, though; I withdraw my over-swift accusation with an apology for excessive zeal engendered by knowing a lot of authors who get thus abused on a depressingly regular basis. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  01:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I never said there was "no connection" with Nazism. I explicitly say, "Yes, the book links Lindbergh to the Nazis." I also point out that Lindbergh as depicted in the story is not a Nazi, that the U.S. isn't occupied by Germany, and that the cover of the book is irrelevant to what the novel is about. This is all true. Authors often have no control over the jacket design of their books and often don't care. And maybe Roth and the publisher both agreed to the swastika knowing it provides a sure-fire boost in sales.


 * The image depicted here is of a stamp with a swastika cancellation on it which appears in the dream of one of the Jewish characters in the novel. Part of the point of the book is that the exact nature of the Lindbergh administration is never made clear and the reader is left to question whether the main characters are legitimately fearful of their government or just paranoid. Saying the novel is about Nazis taking over the U.S. would be to strip out all nuance and ambiguity from the book.


 * As for the pogroms and persecution of Jews as evidence that the government is fascist, fascism and anti-Semitism are not the same thing. Most fascist governments were anti-Semitic, but so are many non-fascist governments. Fascist Spain gave refuge to Jews from other parts of Europe. Pogroms predate fascism by many centuries. People today tend to casually refer to any right-wing government they don't like as "fascist", but this term has a specific meaning. A central tenet of fascism is the single-party state. Lindbergh in the book may be a closet fascist with secret designs to usurp the Constitution, but this is never made explicit. —D. Monack talk 20:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I see your point, but the whole issue should be in my opinion discussed in the article, as it is not a small thing, it is very important to understand the novel. Moreover the plot section is so small and superficial that those who read that part cannot get a fair description of what happens or does not happen in the novel. Maybe you or James Kerans might enlarge it as you seem to know quite well the book. --93.40.117.254 (talk) 09:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Reverting edits of anonymous editor 24.48.182.26
I removed a criticism section that was simply a list of historical events not in the novel at least one of which occurs before the events of the novel. This is clearly POV. Any criticism needs to be sourced and attributed to a serious publication. --dm (talk) 12:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Plot Summary
This article would benefit from a plot summary. If anyone has read the book can you please write one? Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 13:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 08:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Plot Against America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121016224330/http://locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Cmem2005.html to http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Cmem2005.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Edits
I plan on adding some new content to the article and making other edits in the coming week. I plan on making a new Analysis section to help the article better fulfill Wikipedia's guidelines on the sections of a book article. The section will cover some of the analysis of the novel's themes that I have found in my research. I also plan on restructuring the Lead so that it references this new section and all of the other sections of the article. I hope to shorten the list of historical figures down to the figures most important to the story and turn that section into a Characters section that briefly describes the fictional main characters as well. Lastly, I plan on making some minor revisions to the Plot section to improve its clarity and presentation. An annotated bibliography of the sources I gathered for these changes is available here. SebastianG1002 (talk) 08:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)