The Portage to San Cristóbal of A.H.

by George Steiner

Imagine, thirty years after the end of World War II, Israeli Nazi-hunters, some of whom lost relatives in the gas chambers of Nazi Germany, find a silent old man deep in the Amazon jungle. He is Adolph Hitler. The narrative that follows is a profound and disturbing exploration of the nature of guilt, vengeance, language, and the power of evil—each undiminished over time. George Steiner's stunning novel, now with a new afterword, will continue to provoke our thinking about Nazi Germany's unforgettable past.

"Two readings have convinced me that this is a fiction of extraordinary power and thoughtfulness. . . . [A] remarkable novel."—Bernard Bergonzi, Times Literary Supplement

"In this tour de force Mr. Steiner makes his reader re-examine, to whatever conclusions each may choose, a history from which we would prefer to avert our eyes."—Edmund Fuller, Wall Street Journal

" Portage largely avoids both the satisfactions of the traditional novel and the horrifying details of Holocaust literature. Instead, Steiner has taken as his model the political imaginings of an Orwell or Koestler. . . . He has produced a philosophic fantasy of remarkable intensity."—Otto Friedrich, Time

Genres: Fiction, Historical Fiction, Novels, Literature, 20th Century, School, American

176 pages, Paperback

First published May 25, 1981

About the author

George Steiner was a French and American literary critic, essayist, philosopher, novelist, and educator whose work explored the relationship between language, literature, and society, with a particular focus on the moral and cultural consequences of the Holocaust. Multilingual from an early age, Steiner grew up speaking German, English, and French, and studied the classics under his father, while overcoming a physical handicap with his mother’s encouragement. His family relocated to the United States during World War II, an experience that shaped his lifelong reflections on survival, morality, and human cruelty. He studied literature, mathematics, and physics at the University of Chicago, earned an MA at Harvard, and was a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford. Steiner held academic posts across Europe and the United States, including Professor of English and Comparative Literature at the University of Geneva, Fellow at Churchill College, Cambridge, the first Lord Weidenfeld Professor of Comparative European Literature at Oxford, and Norton Professor of Poetry at Harvard, teaching in multiple languages. A prolific writer, he produced influential works in criticism, translation studies, and fiction, including Tolstoy or Dostoevsky, The Death of Tragedy, After Babel, and The Portage to San Cristobal of A.H., blending historical insight with philosophical reflection. His essays and books explored the power and ambivalence of human language, the ethical responsibilities of literature, and the persistence of anti-Semitism, while his fiction offered imaginative examinations of moral and historical dilemmas. Steiner was celebrated for his intellectual breadth and lecturing style, described as prophetic, charismatic, and sometimes doom-laden, and he contributed extensively to journals such as The Times Literary Supplement, The Guardian, and The New Yorker. He was married to Zara Steiner, with whom he had two children, David and Deborah, both of whom pursued academic and public service careers. Steiner’s work remains widely respected for its integration of rigorous scholarship, ethical inquiry, and literary sensitivity, marking him as one of the foremost thinkers in twentieth-century literature and comparative studies.

Reviews

[Paul Bryant · Rating 2 out of 5]

This slim and very very controversial novel written by a philosopher and not a novelist imagines that Hitler survived the bunker, was smuggled to South America, and then captured by a crack Israeli commando team, and hauled through the jungle to face trial in Israel. The novel is mostly the ancient Hitler ranting at his Jewish captors. As has been said elsewhere, the whole book is a platform for Hitler's amazing speech of self-justification at the end of the book. When it was first published - anonymously - people could not believe what they were reading. I summarise the speech as follows :

Hitler explains that

a) the Jews invented the idea of the absolute God (Old Testament) and infected humanity with a belief which wrecked all chance of ordinary human happiness;

b) then they invented impossible ethical standards (New Testament) which increased the misery;

c) then they invented communism which is the demand for a perfect society now, and has thus caused total chaos throughout the 20th century;

d)regarding the Third Reich - really if you look at the thing objectively my crimes (this is Hitler speaking) pale beside everyone else's which seem now to be swept under the carpet of history - Stalin's crimes, the 20 million dead in the Belgian Congo, Vietnam, the list goes on; I was one amongst many;

e)anyway (and here's the bit which pissed everyone off and which led to Steiner publishing the book anonymously) the Jews ought to be grateful to me because without me there'd be no Israel.

The last point is like Steiner throwing in a very cruel joke. Does anyone have a black enough sense of humour to appreciate it?

[Ensiform · Rating 4 out of 5]

Adolf Hitler is found, very old but alive, by an Israeli search party in the hellish swamps of Brazil. As various world governments plot and agents and mercenaries speed to the site, the five Israelis hold a crude trial for their prisoner.

A startlingly original novel, written in a confidently worldly style. As a story, it’s compelling enough, but the message behind the story is unexpectedly powerful. There are some fantastic passages, such as the Israeli mastermind’s litany of dead Jews to keep his party from humanizing Hitler; or the ruminations of the sous-secrétaire d’état on why the French really fought the war; even the cogent descriptions of the deadly swamp. But the crowning passage of the novel is the end, Hitler’s impassioned, anti-Semitic, but perversely logical, defense speech. He was no satanic mastermind, he claims, but an average man of his time who dared express what millions have before, notably the Jews: national supremacy, and destruction of those that oppose his people. He even claims that he might be the Messiah that gave the Jews a national homeland and a sense of righteous militarism. Disturbing, powerful, astonishing stuff.

[Mark Desrosiers · Rating 3 out of 5]

Except for a couple strange, beautiful scenes (the nonagenarian Fuhrer pointing at a fleeing snake, or begging to listen to a radio), this novel about Hitler's capture and makeshift trial really boils down to the old beast's speech at the end. Which succeeded in pissing everyone off, though it is certainly a feat of the imagination, an accurate picture of the nature of "evil". I don't want to spoil it, but suffice to say that he skewers the "God of contracts and petty bargains, or indentures and bribes," then compares himself favorably to Stalin. If you don't want to slog through the "plot", skip to this speech: last six pages.

[J.M. Hushour · Rating 4 out of 5]

A band of Israelis ferret out and capture Adolf Hitler deep in the jungles of South America. As the secret collapses, the hunters struggle against the elements to get Hitler out before the rest of the world shows up. In a disturbing and harrowing moment of inspiration, they decide to put him on trial themselves.
This is a complex and eminently, maybe even profoundly, troubling novel, partly because of the horror it exacts out of its circumstances, partly because of the seeming futility of justice in a world where murder and atrocity have become so commonplace that we have become inured to them.
Steiner's novel has not been without controversy, though, as he made clear, it was not his intention. Hitler's defense of himself is hellish and disturbing, but plays into Steiner's interest of the power of the word and of propaganda.
As one of the hunters, Gideon, points out, who suddenly begins to question their purpose, if accounts are drawn and history draws a line, then the world will forget what has happened, the example will be lost. The crimes of Hitler will be exonerated through finality. Best to let him die, in the flood-choked wilds where he belongs.
When the other hunters realize that their secret might very well be out, they decide to try Hitler there in the wilds, for they can see that the closer he draws to civilization, the stronger he becomes, for he knows that voices like his are attractive, that the banality of bestial ferality, rational and simplistic, is easy for the world to hear, no matter who your vehemence is directed towards. There will always be, Hitler seems to argue, those that hate others enough to listen to people like me. You can still shear the wolf in sheep's clothing and wear a sweater made out of him.
When Gideon argues against taking Hitler out, he is very much aware of this and Hitler's final defense of his actions falls on no ears save the ones who found him. But he confesses that the Jews, as God-makers, are the creators of conscience, and this our Hitlers or contemporary versions, can't abide.
Complex and strange, offensive only if you put any stock in Hitler as truth-teller.

[John · Rating 2 out of 5]

Probably another example of the adage that critics (in this case a cultural critic and a very erudite person) do not make the best authors. The book had an interesting premise (Hitler is found alive and well in the jungle by a rogue group of Israeli agents) but I felt the author jumped around too much with other characters (mostly stereotypical government actors worldwide). Two things stood out, mostly because they disturbed me. First, a long and very detailed descriptions of outrages against Jews during the Holocaust, which was stomach-turning. Second, Hitler's "defense" at the end of the book which was chilling (and given the current state of the world dangerous). One Goodreads reviewer stated that the ending is "black humor." I trust (and hope) that he is right.

[Bram · Rating 4 out of 5]

Deeply disturbing, with strong shades of Heart of Darkness, this was not at all what I was expecting. Some solid existential philosophising from the squad sent to extract Hitler from the jungle, as well as a lot of interesting things to say about the politics of justice. I'm not quite sure what to make of the final chapter (Hitler's speech in self-defence) - it is shocking and provocative, but that may well have been Steiner's point. A difficult book, but one that I'm unlikely to forget.

[John Gardner · Rating 4 out of 5]

What would you say if given the chance to confront one of the most hated men of the last century? What if your loved ones had suffered and died by his hand?

Welcome to one of the most disturbing and controversial books ever written. The basic premise is simple: It’s 1977. Jewish Nazi-hunters have discovered that Adolf Hitler did NOT die in his Führerbunker, and have tracked him down in a remote hideout in the Amazon. Their goal is to take the 90-year-old man safely and secretly through the jungle to San Cristóbal, so that he could be taken back to Jerusalem to stand trial.

However, this is no mere “what if” piece of historical fiction. Rather, it is a philosophical look into the nature of evil and the power of language. Throughout the relatively short novel, dozens of characters are introduced, but very few (if any) are developed to an extent where readers really get to “know” them. Instead, Steiner gives glimpses into the minds and bureaucracies of people and nations impacted by Hitler’s reign of terror.

When the story was first published in 1979, it sparked a firestorm of controversy. Most of the controversy revolves around the final chapter, in which Hitler finally speaks in his own defense. Readers have rightfully been repulsed and horrified at the brute force of Hitler’s logic and rhetoric as he not only justifies himself, but claims that the Jews ought to be grateful to him; after all, he says, would there have ever been a Zionist state without the Holocaust?

Many critics have believed that Steiner — a Jew — was himself justifying Hitler’s actions, by virtue of giving A.H. the “last word”. The book ends without any rebuttal to the four points given in his self-defense. The actual final word is spoken by an Indian guide named Teku, who simply says, “Proved.” Many have questioned whether he meant by this that Hitler had proved his own case, or whether he was incriminated by his own testimony, but I think the actual answer to this question is very subtly hidden in the name Steiner gave this native guide: “Teku” is a Hebrew word meaning “the question remains undecided”. I believe that readers are meant to come to their own conclusions.

I did not get the sense at all that Steiner was in any way sympathetic to Hitler. Most of the first sixteen chapters are devoted to the horrors of the Third Reich, particularly a long monologue by a Jew named Lieber which acts as a counter-balance to Hitler’s monologue at the end of the book. Instead, the message that I felt Steiner intended to communicate with me, the reader, was the idea that evil can be very seductive; Hitler’s speech is a very unpleasant (but important) reminder of the power of words to persuade otherwise sensible people to believe all manner of atrocious things. We must remember that Hitler was a master communicator, who convinced millions of people to follow him and accede to the implementation of his “Final Solution”. Should we be shocked at the idea that a justification of Hitler’s crimes could actually be made to sound reasonable? If we think something like that could never happen, we invite history to repeat itself.

There are also some other very important philosophical questions raised in this novel. What does revenge actually accomplish? Can any measure of vengeance bring closure for the families of victims? Can someone become too old to stand trial? If one man, no matter how evil, has been made to be a symbol of the evil actions perpetrated by thousands of individuals, is it possible to give him a fair trial? Who gets jurisdiction to try him? The continued relevance of these questions is evident in the recent and ongoing proceedings involving 91-year-old John Demjanjuk, the last Nazi war-crimes defendent, who a month ago was found guilty by a German court of 28,060 counts of accessory to murder.

This is certainly not a pleasant nor easy novel to read, but it is an important one. We need to be stretched, and reminded of our own propensity for evil if we are to stand any chance of resisting or opposing it. This book is a challenge worth facing.

[RANGER · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Portage to San Cristobal of A.H. is one of the most thought-provoking and demanding books I have ever read. Set in 1977, it's ostensibly the tale of Israeli NAZI hunters deep in the Amazon jungle who have caught the biggest fish of them all, Adolf Hitler. As they struggle to carry their quarry back to civilization, their success is discovered by Britain's MI6 monitoring their radio net. Other intelligence services have also listened in. As the word gets out, the outside world, particularly those nations most affected by Germany's WWII excesses, scrambles to figure out what it will all mean. Along the way we learn a little of the numerous legends of Hitler's demise and his mythical escape to South America. We also learn how different individuals processed their WWII experience. Each chapter contains a monologue of the hopes and aspirations of the Israeli agents and of various people abroad (East/West Germany, Soviet Russia, the US, France and the UK) for this capture to provide some kind of divine justice and closure for their personal suffering related to the Holocaust. The final monologue, Hitler's, is the most chilling, and, for the Jewish reader, the most existentially dangerous. The final verdict on Hitler is uttered by none of those who think they know him best but by Teku, the Amazon savage sent to intercept the team. Teku doesn't understand a word of Hitler's rationalizations and rantings. But he is moved by Hitler's intensity and innate spiritual power to declare der fuehrer's horrific testimony "Proven!"
The unprepared reader will likely miss the book's point. And one's preparation must be on several different levels. An understanding of both the horror of the Holocaust and the suffering of European Jews under the NAZI regime is essential, as is some grasp of the world's connivance in looking the other way. Yet one should also be aware of the paradox of NAZI Germany where "innocent" citizens drank from the devil's cup and became too morally inebriated to comprehend the full scope of their collective sin.
And this is a literary novel, a fever dream of unfinished sentences, stream of consciousness, nightmarish flashbacks and over-cooked imagination. The style and plot resemble the more farcical aspects of John Le Carre and Graham Greene. But the message is more Camus or Yasmina Khadra had they been Jewish and not Algerian.
George Steiner is a Jewish literary and social critic who has written a genuine masterpiece. It was immensely controversial when first published in 1979 (and later produced as a play in London). Most people were upset that A.H. was able to "get in the last word." Others thought the entire exercise anti-Semitic. It wasn't. And it isn't. Mine is a 1999 edition with a wonderful Afterward by Steiner. He proves to the reader that history, as of 1999, had vindicated many of the ideas in his book. As it had. He also clarifies that it is Lieber, the obsessed mastermind behind the NAZI hunters, whose tormented Holocaust survivor's monologue was meant to be the book's centerpiece. A.H., as usual, simply stole the show.
So read this book for all its worth, and ponder its intricacies. Its heady stuff indeed. It is also highly recommended.

[Rares Cristea · Rating 4 out of 5]

Cartea aceasta este inzestrata cu cateva episoade exceptionale, dar este invelita de un context mediocru.

Anul este 1977 si tocmai l-au gasit pe Hitler ascuns undeva intr-o mlastina din Brazilia. Ai crede ca majoritatea cartii s-ar petrece intr-o sala de judecata, de aici denumirea de "Proces". Insa o traducere mai corecta a cuvantului original "Portage" este "transport", pentru ca aceasta nuvela este defapt despre readucerea lui Hitler din pustiu, la lumina.

Cartea trateaza mai multe teme. In primul rand, este cel al temei relatiei dintre evrei si Hitler, dat fiind ca mercenarii ce il gasesc pe Fuhrer sunt de aceasta etnie. Drumul inapoi spre libertate prin desisul amazonian este letal, si este analizata relatia calatorilor cu teorarea naturii. Calatoria nu a avut un impact puternic, emotional sau filosofic. Punctele cheie ale cartii sunt capitolul 6 si ultimul capitol, ambele doua monologuri, pline de substanta.

Chiar daca este o carte de mica intindere, consider ca exista personaje si capitole ce ar fi putut lipsi. Este o carte care merita citita fie si numai pentru conspiratia "Hitler e viu" si cele doua capitole remarcabile.

O recomand fanilor WWII, si istorie alternativa.

[Lysergius · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very strange little book. The action seems to be compressed into the last two pages. After reading them the world is somehow not the same.

[Horia Bura · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting premise, not so much afterwards. It has two pivotal moments: a long monologue about the victims of the Holocaust and Hitler's pro domo tirade, both chapters being conceived by the same versatile Jewish author, Steiner.

[Local Historian · Rating 2 out of 5]

Sort of sold this to myself under false impressions. Read some newspaper article years back that made passing reference to it and it gave me the impression that the last ten pages—Hitler’s apology for antisemitism and the Nazi project—was what the whole thing was. Like a fictionalized extended monologue or something.

It wasn’t though. It was this whole jungle adventure thing. Lots of annoying little tics and flourishes. Pointless plot frame that never really pays off. Chapters that are these too-finely rendered portraits of characters who appear out nowhere and then disappear. Read like the work of a mandarin at liberty to indulge himself.

But those last ten pages are pretty good—I hesitate to say “worth the price of entry” because I suspect the positions rehearsed in them amount to an encapsulation of a body of thought that’s exposited elsewhere in greater detail. But the basic analysis advanced—that the final solution was Europe’s attempt to take revenge on the Jews for saddling it with obedience to an implacable moral ideal; and that the Gentiles long for the freedom to kill, usurp, and subjugate once again, unburdened by any need for false piety or elaborate ethical gymnastics—is a compelling one, a germ of truth that wants elaboration.

[Chuck · Rating 1 out of 5]

A huge let down. This book meanders around between different characters who seem to have nothing to do with anything as they ruminate on in the implications of actually capturing a very old Hitler. Lots of interesting questions are thought and some occasional powerful memories but it's all so fragmentary and uneven. The bizarre use of the dashmark instead of quotation marks for speech does not help things. There was even an extremely long chapter of a guy thinking about the power of music that was some lengthy diatribe imported from an essay or prose poem on the subject arbitrarily dumped in like filler.

Finally at the end, the book gives us the only thing we want as a reader: a word with Hitler himself. Which is a bit unfair because we would hold the same interest of most any famous historical figure good or bad. The fact that it's Adolf Hitler, a figure of unquestionable evil, is the real "scandelous" part. And even this is a let down. Essentially what this book's Hitler says is: 'I did it all to mock the Jewish faith, my party and my state were a sick parody of hatred for your religion and we used your old testament style barbarism to do it.' It was like trying to make the man a literary foil for the religion. I found that religious self-absorption of the book kind of gross. As if Judaism itself uniquely spawned Hitler as part of some supernatural cosmological phenomenon. The truth is far more terrifying and disgusting though: racism and human prejudice are a means to an end for evil people and that can be fueled by indifference or opportunism perhaps even more that outright hatred. The afterward by the author seems to confirm this. But nothing ever said by a real life or literary Hitler could really read as a satisfying statement on World War 2 or the holocaust. This book was doomed from its start to even try.

[Nandakishore Mridula]

It seems that this book created a much bigger furore than Timur Vermes's Look Who's Back when it was published. Here again, we have the story of a Hitler who escaped the bunker, who is captured by Israeli Nazi Hunters, and who is allowed to talk in his defence at the end. An unrepentant Hitler is allowed to justify his actions, it seems.

I do not know why no one mentioned this novel while the debate over Vermes's book was going on. Anyway, it's a must-read for me.

[Mike · Rating 5 out of 5]

A novel of conjecture that deals with a frustration I believe many people have...what was in Hitler's mind. The ending of World War II left us with much frustration and questions about our humanity.

Mr. Steiner's theory as to Hitler's motivations seems plausible, though controversial...

The character of Lieber is very powerful...his obsession with Hitler is chilling and serves as an example of human obsessions in general...

While there seems to be closure at the end of the novel, I felt none in as much as I found myself asking the same question: What was in Hitler's mind?

[D · Rating 5 out of 5]

Superbly written work that I imagine has a polarizing effect on all who take the time to read it. Chapter six alone throws more heart wrenching, emotional prose at you than most works give you cover to cover.
A.H.'s scathing defense of his actions and motivations in the final chapter can be described as a psychotic rant, food for thought or a final twist of the knife administered to the victims of the Holocaust.

The true power and message of this work is purely defined by the personal beliefs and opinions of each individual who reads it. Quite a literary feat in itself in my opinion.

D

[DoctorM · Rating 5 out of 5]

Simple enough premise: the 90-something Adolf Hitler is captured in the Amazon jungles by Israeli commandos. There on the way back, the aged Hitler offers up his own apologia pro vita sua. Powerful, disturbing, infuriating. Read it.

[Ebenmaessiger · Rating 3 out of 5]

Steiner’s given himself an impossible task. Hitler found alive in South America.

It’s simple enough, in all but the telling.

The problem is the narrativization, for when you make a story a story, you burden it with all the necessary demands of storytelling. And here those crowd around what I think Steiner wants to write at its core, which is 1) A philosophical Ideenroman, in which we consider how pain is best directed, and if it makes it any less justifiable if the locus of that anguish falls on a false target and 2) a cathartic cry of anguished commemoria. And, indeed, both elements are here in plaintive, visceral ways rarely matched in other holocaust literature (witness, for example, the collective ‘meh’ with which I greeted both Appelfeld’s BADENHEIM and Albahari’s GOETZ AND MEYER).

The justly famous chapter 6 — in which Steiner juxtaposes a four page unbroken sentence of real and imagined nazi atrocity and humiliation with the corresponding demand that Hitler’s keepers attend to him humanely, consider his ailments compassionately, and do whatever it takes to keep him alive, for the express purpose of making sure that all of that aforementioned pain might be acknowledged — most successfully accomplishes both of these goals. As such, it might have, if given the proper quick context, stood alone.

Still, we have the rest. And the mechanics of novel making require answers. Thus the necessary historical backfilling for the uninformed on the sidelines, such as 1) what are the details of his death 2) how do we know those details 3) are these reliable details and 4) how did the narrative become the official narrative, and did anyone question that version of events from the beginning. And, probably the least relevant question in the logicworld of the book as a whole, but the most important when considering it’s reverberation through society in general: how to get across that this book deals with the Hitler surviving hypothetical purely as a means to those aforementioned ends, rather than as license to question these narratives altogether?

And this is all to say nothing of the initially latent and then boom explicit apologia at the end, which, whether question-begging, mania-betraying, or quasi-matching Steiner’s stances, more than anything betray the fictional amateur at the helm.

[Simon · Rating 3 out of 5]

There are passages of great beauty side by side with clunky chapters that stall the book in its tracks again and again. Steiner captures the sound of an avuncular but wily Secretary of State conducting a press conference, as well as the portage itself, but to and from the hut in which Hitler hides at the start of the book. The Israeli special ops squad who retrieve the octogenarian former Fuehrer are barely able to be distinguished from among each other, and their conversations defy belief. It is frustrating to read a book that presents itself as a 1) thriller 2) metaphysical examination of what it means to be a Jewish 3) consideration of the Holocaust --- there are several stunning pages wherein Steiner summons the random ghosts of the murdered that took my breath away 4) a cynical examination of post-war Allies prepared to use Hitler for their own purposes and above all, 5) the book being handed over to Hitler at the end for a completely unconvincing scene that has him ranting through a monologue about how he, Hitler, borrowed the entire Nazi approach to life from the Jews themselves. Moreover, since the Holocaust made Israel possible, his captors should be thanking him. The tirade is very well-written, so much so that you may find yourself following Hitler's specious logic through the end before the cold light of reason makes you turn away. Which may be Steiner's clever way of pointing up the danger in allowing Hitler to speak. Hard to tell. He does drag out the old equivalency argument as far as Hitler and Stalin were concerned, and even Mao Zedong by the end. Stalin and Zedong were mass murderers on a scale that makes Hitler look like a piker. And? So?

I wanted this book to be more interesting than it was. Three stars for the premise, and some dazzling patches of prose that illuminate the Holocaust and occasionally Judaism. But this was some trick, and Steiner doesn't pull it off. Nevertheless, worth the read.

[Joe · Rating 3 out of 5]

I may ultimately change my mind about this one, but for the more moment I'm calling myself disappointed.

There were some extremely powerful passages, led by Lieber's recitation of horrors, Gideon's speech on the impossibility of true justice or retribution, and perhaps most notably (and most disturbingly) Steiner's imagined Hitlerian speech in self-defense, which made it well worth the read, and it's definitely Interesting. But Steiner invents a fascinating hypothetical, then declines to use it to tell a story and instead to pose a number of philosophical, moral, legal, political and practical questions that it would raise... which he doesn't get particularly deep into exploring.

Perhaps merely looking at all the angles one could examine the problems raised by the hypothetical capture of Hitler from was satisfactory for the time of publication - the year Mengele drowned and two years after the first accusations were leveled at John Demjanjuk, a time when it seemed more plausible his audience or the society he was writing for would have to work out the answers. At this point in history, it's more than a little unsatisfying, especially because I would have been fascinated to read the conclusions of someone who was clearly extremely thoughtful, willing to embrace complexity and nuance and as concerned with such serious matters as Steiner. (Although it occurred to me in reading this is part of his point: that ultimately truly justice or fulfilling vengeance would be impossible and whatever resulted from this moment would be relentlessly twisted by national interests, international politics, personal desire to avoid responsibility or the broader questions a trial of Adolf Hitler might raise.

It ultimately felt incomplete to me... like the beginning of an epic rather than a complete novella in its own right.

[Jonathan Norton · Rating 3 out of 5]

After the long trek through the jungle, searching, searching, finally.... "Ken Livingstone, I presume?" At least that would seem to be the climax, in a highly contentious monologue which, amongst other things, could be taken as the canonical version of "You know who else believed in Zionism?...".

Before we get to that, there is also the rather dubious way in which the only non-white character (Teku the native "Indian") is set up as a noble savage who is innocent of the wider world of reasons and causes. But I suppose Hugh Trevor-Roper doesn't get off lightly either, made up as "Sir Evelyn Ryder", a test run for his humiliation in the TV version of Robert Harris's "Selling Hitler", portrayed by Alan Bennett. There's a whole panorama of national stereotypes here: the post-War German veteran, who discreetly thinks too much fuss is made about the Nazi business; the French official, busy shaping a European Union he knows is 90% what the fascists wanted, and that they had plenty of willing accomplices at the time; the Soviet officials still cringing with memories of Stalin's reign. Some ropey thriller dialogue passes by, not improved by the author admitting and highlighting its third-rate nature (a trick Laurent Binet reprised to equally dud effect). Around the time this book was published Joe Strummer had sung "If Adolf Hitler flew in today, they'd send a limousine anyway", and that seems to be the most sensible comment. If only George was following the punk scene he could have started and ended with it.

[Kaj Roihio]

Toisen maailmansodan jälkeen natsirikollisia metsästettiin kuumeisesti ja kovin moni löytyikin. Etelä-Amerikka oli ollut piileskelevien roistojen suosiossa ja amerikanjuutalainen kirjailija George Steiner sai siitä innoitusta perin juurin merkilliseen kirjaansa, jossa itse Adolf Hitler löydetään elävänä Amazonin viidakosta ja mitä sitten tapahtuu. Yhdysvallat, Israel ja Neuvostoliitto tietysti kinastelevat kenelle Hitler kuuluu ja mitä hänen kanssaan ylipäätään pitäisi tehdä. Edes maailmanhistorian karmeinta ihmistä, ja ihminen hän valitettavasti oli, ei voi teloittaa kuin kerran. Mitä ikinä Hitlerin kanssa sitten päätetäänkään, muuttaako se mitään? Unohtuvatko kärsimykset, nousevatko kuolleet haudoistaan? Eikö holokaust ja sotarikokset ole jo 70-luvun lopulla esihistoriaa? Hitlerin paluu on hajanainen ja puuroutunut kirja, parhaimmillaan hyvin kirjoitettu ja älykäs, mutta sitten taas liike pysähtyy, jotenkin Steiner ei ole päästänyt sitä irralleen, absurdi huumori jähmettyy suojuoksuksi ja siten koko kirja jotenkin keskeneräiseksi, puolivalmiiksi, vajaamittaiseksi. Osuvimmillaan Steiner on kuvatessaan totuuden haavoittuvuutta, miten valehtelemalla voidaan sotkea oikean ja väärän erot kaoottisuuteen asti ja miten pahinkin ihmishirviö voi aina vakuuttavasti syyttää rikoksistaan muita. Nykyään eletään whataboutismin kulta-aikaa ja pelkästään siksi Hitlerin paluu on lukemisen arvoinen, kivuliaan ajankohtainen. Ihmiskunta vaikuttaa synnyttävän säännöllisin väliajoin verenhimoisia kansanvillitsijöitä.

[Ana-Maria Bujor · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a strange one. The premise is interesting, but there are many ways it can go wrong. Hitler is found alive in a remote forest by a group of men mostly affected by the Holocaust. While they struggle to get out of the forest, people around the world feel the impact of the event. There are some very good scenes, but the book is way to short to deliver all the emotional impact it wants to. Also, most of the side characters are very bland, boring or unpleasant. Several chapters are thus quite useless, such as the diary of the Frenchman. I wish I knew more about the Russian man instead of hearing about another character's bathroom activities.
And the elephant in the room, the speech at the end. It's supposed to make people angry and it can lead to quite some interesting discussions. I don't think anyone expected Hitler to deliver a speech that does not make people angry.
Overall, good premise and a speech that can start some interesting debates. And some parts that could be easily cut.

[Pascale · Rating 3 out of 5]

A very well realized novella based on the premise that Hitler escaped from Berlin and found refuge in South America, like many other Nazis. Picked up at last by a dedicated group of Israelis who answer to an unseen Holocaust survivor, Lieber, he is brought to justice by his captors before he can be snatched from them by the various governments that have a stake in him. The sentence and its execution are not revealed. It feels bizarre that once upon a time this clever book should have caused an outrage because of Hitler's speech in his own defense. It seems to me that there is a cautionary tale in Hitler's defiant stance. Far from begging for forgiveness, he only exculpates himself by stating that Stalin killed more people than he did (which happens to be true). The book might have been even more memorable if Steiner had spent more time delineating the personalities of the 5 man hunters, but I admire him for packing so much in this short, thought-provoking book.

[V.]

Steiner is an incredibly gifted writer, and there are many passages in this book of extraordinary beauty and power. That said, it's not hard to see why this book made a lot of people very mad. On the gripping hand, the most notorious passages are heavily ironized - not only are they put in the mouth of Adolf Hitler, which is usually a tip-off that certain views are not meant to be taken entirely at face-value as belonging to the author, but there's all this prefatory stuff where characters are warned to stop their ears against his Satanic rhetorical power, etc.

In fact, I think this novel would have probably been more powerful if the whole set of issues hadn't been so extensively explored in Steiner's other, non-fictional writings, to the point that there's not so much ambiguity about what he really thinks.

Whatever. Brilliant as a work of art. As to the "take", to the extent that there is one... well, I'm just not gonna go there.

[Tom · Rating 3 out of 5]

A challenging and rather academic read that focuses on the staple of many conspiracy theories about what if Hitler had survived the bunker. This was a bit of a labour for me, as it does connect various stories from across a wide spectrum of characters with the interconnecting theme of Hitler's survival and how the world would cope with such an event.

As others have said it is the last chapter that proves the most controversial part of the book and does leave you with a rather bleak, empty feeling. Worth reading to find out what the controversy is about but I would not call it a brilliant piece of literature although it could be that some philosophical aspects of the novel are going over my head.

[Scott · Rating 2 out of 5]

I understand what Steiner is attempting to point the reader toward here. I would have rated this book a 1 for the first 16 chapters. They were dull, muddled and without point. Worse yet, they were irrelevant.

The final, 17th chapter, is all that should have been written and all that is worth discussing. For its provocation, I raised my rating one level. While I fear Steiner is gave others a justifying weapon, he is also correct as to countless other inhumanities and hypocrisies. Nonetheless, while his is an interesting path, up to a point, in this final chapter, I felt it more excuse making for an evil madman within the context of pointing fingers at other horrible villains or "false" angels.

[Ben Moskowitz · Rating 3 out of 5]

Perhaps the most unique book I've read. The writing style is absolutely bizarre, changing timelines, characters, going into poetic prose, ending sentences before they're finished... This made it take a good 10 pages to even start to understand what's happening in the chapter.

For all those oddities, however, this book posed many provocative, thought provoking questions, which stimulated quality conversation.

Obviously, these contradictions make this very hard to rate. While a quality philosophical work with a unique premise, the confusing nature of it makes it hard to recommend. As such, I give it 3 stars with a tentative recommendation for those inclined towards more poetic prose and a desire to ponder some excellent philosophical questions.

[Carlos · Rating 1 out of 5]

I bumped into this book on Wikipedia’s homepage and was intrigued by the idea of Israeli trackers finding Hitler in the Amazon jungle. While the novel started out reasonable enough, the writing quickly became too unfocused for my taste. The thoughts, memories and actual dialog of the handful of characters became jumbled and grew frustrating. While there were moments of lucidity that asked interesting questions such as the aim and fruitfulness of vengeance, I progressively lost interest in the book.

[Charles Puskas · Rating 4 out of 5]

Imagine if Hitler had lived in exile, somewhere in South America & was captured years later by Israelis to be transported back to Israel for trial. What would that experience have been like? What kind of personality would this aging Hitler have been? How would his captors have handled the situation? What precautions were taken? What challenges would have been faced. Intriguing tale written by a brilliant literary critic!