38 Londres Street by Philippe Sands review – Pinochet and the Nazis
Augusto Pinochet expected London to be a hospitable city when he arrived there in October 1998. The 82-year-old former Chilean dictator had backed Margaret Thatcher in the Falklands war and, while the Conservatives were no longer in power, a former prime minister counted as a friend in high places.British police were not interested in kidnap, murder and torture in South America under a junta that had seized power in a coup in 1973. Besides, a former head of state had diplomatic immunity. Or so Pinochet thought, until officers from Scotland Yard, acting on an extradition request from a Spanish judge, turned up at the private clinic where he had undergone a minor back operation.
The ensuing legal battle to determine which crimes might be pinned on the old man, under what statute and in which jurisdiction, is one thread of 38 Londres Street by lawyer and author Philippe Sands. It is woven around a second story: Walther Rauff was an SS officer who had overseen the development of gas lorries in Nazi-occupied eastern Europe – vehicles customised to murder their mostly Jewish passengers with diverted exhaust fumes. Rauff evaded prosecution at Nuremberg and eventually settled in Patagonia. He was arrested in 1962 and almost extradited to West Germany, but spared by a Chilean supreme court ruling that a 15-year statute of limitations on his crimes had expired.
Two unrepentant murderers; two extradition bids; a Chilean connection – the thematic likenesses alone would justify bringing these stories together. But Sands's achievement is to excavate a deeper intimacy between the cases of Rauff and Pinochet.
The book's title refers to an address in Santiago, a former headquarters of the Socialist party. After Pinochet's coup, the building was repurposed as a secret detention and torture centre run by the Dirección de Inteligencia Nacional (Dina). This agency orchestrated repression on an industrial scale, including at a purpose-built concentration camp on an island in the Tierra del Fuego archipelago.
To commit mass murder with a minimum of witnesses was a logistically complex task requiring the discreet transportation of living prisoners and disposal of corpses. Experience in that field is not the kind of thing people boast about. But such knowledge, and the ideological inclination to use it, might be found in the ranks of a particular type of mid-20th century German émigré to South America.
In the late 1950s, before Rauff settled in Chile, he lived in Ecuador. Pinochet was at a military academy in Quito. The two men became friends. After the 1973 coup, Rauff boasted in correspondence of high-level contacts in the new military regime. There were persistent rumours that he was working for the Dina, but nothing was proved before his death in 1984.
Pinochet died in 2006, in Chile. His lawyers had failed to assert his immunity but, thanks to some political machination between the UK and Chilean governments, the apparently decrepit dictator avoided extradition to Spain on grounds of medical incapacity. (His health bounced back as soon as he landed on home soil.)
Sands follows each twist in the double narrative with an impressive combination of moral clarity and judicious detachment. As in his previous books dealing with related themes – the Nuremberg trials in East West Street; a Nazi fugitive in The Ratline – there is personal investment in the story. The author counts members of his own extended family among the victims of the Third Reich and the Pinochet regime.
But it is Sands's expertise in international law, coupled with a natural storyteller's intuition for structure, that gives his latest book its understated power. A less skilful narrator might have lost the reader in a thicket of legal arguments, or glossed over nuance in pursuit of polemical urgency. That isn't Sands's style. His stories have all the more impact for their subtlety. It would be reassuring to think that monstrous criminals can always be known by their conspicuous monstrosity. That isn't what history shows. It is by doggedly sticking to the trail of evidence that Sands arrives at the unnerving truth of 38 Londres Street, and what that address tells us about atrocity, impunity and justice eroded by the tide of time.
38 Londres Street: On Impunity, Pinochet in England and a Nazi in Patagonia by Philippe Sands is published by W&N (£25). To support the Guardian and Observer order your copy at guardianbookshop.com. Delivery charges may apply
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
3 hours ago
- Spectator
Letters: How ‘Nick' could save the Tories
Dying wish Sir: As a 99-year-old with, presently, no intention of requesting assistance to die, I am struck by the articles of Dan Hitchens and Tom Tugendhat ('Bitter end' and 'Killing me softly', 7 June), which base their strong opposition on the opinions of everyone other than the person supposed to be requesting such assistance. He or she, poor soul, is expected to just lie there and listen to whether they are to be allowed to have any opinion at all on the matter. It's my life they are writing about. At present I have the ability to end it whenever I might wish. What Messers Hitchens and Tugendhat are arguing is that, if I change my mind, no one is to be allowed to help me at a moment of my choosing. That's wrong. Alan Hall Westerham, Kent Life lessons Sir: In response to Tom Tugendhat, having seen a friend suffering with severe agitation because of uncontrolled pain, my concern is that there is a strong disincentive for medical practitioners to provide adequate pain control, as adequate doses can exceed the upper limit of the 'normal' recommended range, leaving the doctor liable to litigation. My proposal is to introduce a form of advance instruction from patients: Pain-relief Over Prolongation Of Life (POPOL). Similar to the Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) for life-threatening medical emergency advance instructions at the front of the medical record, this would make it clear that the patient and relatives stipulate giving enough analgesia to control pain, despite the likelihood of it shortening life. It would have similar status to the DNR. This could be relatively easily adopted and would provide a much less controversial way than 'assisted dying' of achieving what many people want – a pain-free death. Having advanced cancer myself, I can strongly empathise with a wish for this path to be followed, which indeed it often was when I first qualified 45 years ago. Dr Ros Furlong MBBS FRCPsych scientific adviser to SANE London N6 Saving Nick Sir: Your recent leading article rightly identifies Nick, the archetypal 30-year-old, as at the thin end of the wedge (31 May). Traditionally the Conservatives stood for him, empowering Nick to acquire capital, a home and a family. Shifting to side with those who already have something, and against those striving to acquire it, is what made the party lose its compass. I founded the group Next Gen Tories (NGT) to put Nick back on the radar. Tackling Nick's challenges is the key to reversing both the UK's economic decline and the party's. We must return to the popular capitalist vision which has been a hallmark of every other postwar Conservative government. If Nick wants to save himself and arrest the country's decline, he should join the Conservatives to force this change of pace. James Cowling London SE10 Brought to book Sir: Having taught A-level English literature for nearly 30 years, I can't agree with Philip Womack's assertion ('Literal disaster', 31 May) that some students' difficulty in interpreting older texts is a sign that 'the foundations of western culture are teetering into collapse'. Part of the joy of teaching literature is to guide students sensitively through the social and historical contexts of a text and build a bank of cultural capital for their future reading. I still blush when I recall my inability to 'elicit a scintilla of sense' from 'The Convergence of the Twain', Hardy's poem about the sinking of the Titanic. 'How could it be an august night,' I asked my teacher, 'when the ship sank in April?' Andy Simpson Sandbach, Cheshire Sir: Christian Wolmar's advice on Chinese banquets (Notes on, 31 May) is sound but incomplete. While it is important to pace yourself and to avoid the host, who is duty bound to press every dish upon you, there are other factors to remember. A refusal always offends, as does slow, reluctant consumption. My friend, a notoriously picky eater, recognised he must take part in the banquet for the good of his business, and managed to conceal a shudder as he accepted the proffered entire chicken foot. He coped by eating it quickly. His speed was taken as enthusiasm and his delighted host immediately offered him another. Joanne Aston Norby, Thirsk Period pains Sir: Madeline Grant is quite right to decry the distortion of history in recent shows ('The sad decline of period dramas', 7 June). The worst offender in this respect, of course, is one William Shakespeare (1564–1616). How much does his Richard III owe to the historical king? Not a lot, but he owes a mountain to Holinshed or, worse, to Thomas More. So much for character but, as for gender, don't get me started. His Joan of Arc was played by a boy, as was his Ophelia. For convenience naturally, and misrepresentation if you will. In the eyes of our national Bard, so it would appear, history is not in the past. It is in the present, and so are we. Robert Fraser Emeritus Professor, English and Creative Writing, Open University Tapioca heaven Sir: Olivia Potts rightly celebrates tapioca (The Vintage Chef, 31 May) but fails to mention the sublime payasam served in Tamil Nadu. This milky sweet cardamom-scented tapioca pudding has only one drawback: it is very difficult to eat with your fingers. But delicious nevertheless. Caroline Walker Beaminster, Dorset Write to us letters@
Spectator
4 hours ago
- Spectator
Britain needs reform
This week's spending review confirms that where there should be conviction, there is only confusion; where there should be vision, only a vacuum. The country is on the road to higher taxes, poorer services and a decaying public realm, with the bandits of the bond market lying in wait to extract their growing take from our declining share of global wealth. When every warning light is flashing red, the government is driving further and faster towards danger The Chancellor approached this spending review with her credibility already undermined. Promises not to raise taxes on working people translated into a tax on work itself which has driven up unemployment. A pledge to put growth first has been accompanied by changes to employment law that make the labour market more rigid and the cost of hiring workers commensurately greater. A party which excoriated the Conservatives for letting prices rise has pumped billions into public-sector wage hikes and seen inflation increase again. An apparent determination to take difficult decisions to control spending by removing pensioners' winter fuel payments has crumbled in the face of backbench pressure. The farcical retreat has only emboldened those in Labour who want to drive us deeper into debt. The NHS and the Ministry of Defence are the most hopeless spending addicts but they are not the only departments to have wrung more from the Treasury than the nation can afford – or the Chancellor indicated she wanted. Ed Miliband has shown that, whatever other criticisms may be directed at him, he is brilliant at getting high on the taxpayers' supply – with generous subsidies for domestic decarbonisation and billions for the most expensive energy the markets can provide. The Department for Education has secured millions more to get the state to pay for families' food. Angela Rayner has extra billions, not to build new houses but to buy existing homes for the state. The Department for Transport also has a line of credit to pay for schemes no private sector investor would go near. And any lingering expectations that welfare reform would yield significant savings seems fanciful given the Prime Minister's desire to end the two-child cap on benefit payments. It is not as though this programme can be justified on the basis of an economy that's roaring back. Tax changes this government has introduced have led to a flight of the wealthy and a consequent depression in revenue. Alongside rises in inflation and unemployment, the cost of government borrowing is escalating to a level which causes international markets to demand a heftier risk premium. At a time when every warning light is flashing red, the government is determined to drive further and faster towards danger. Perhaps the greatest sin of this spending review is one of omission. There is no indication that all this additional expenditure will be accompanied by meaningful public-sector reform. The civil service headcount is growing. In education, the greater autonomy and accountability which drove up school standards is being abandoned. Our shoddily inefficient criminal justice system remains a mess of unaccountable fiefdoms: lamentably inadequate chief constables hide their failures behind the alibi of 'operational independence', the Crown Prosecution Service is a creaking liability and courts are hidebound by a judiciary that resists effective management of their operations. The additional money for defence is going to a department whose procurement policies are hardly a model of prudence. And despite the best efforts of Wes Streeting, one cabinet minister who is at least intent on reform, the extra cash for the NHS risks being swallowed whole by staff unions rather than being used to create incentives for change. The failure to fundamentally reform the functioning of government is all too visible in every operation of the state. Britain desperately needs reform. But our government offers only the inadequate management of accelerating decline. Licences to kill While the state proves incapable of reform, our parliament is attempting to prove it is world-leading in terminating innocent lives. Legislation to make it easier to kill the ill and elderly (the private member's bill to encourage suicide) appears still to enjoy majority support. And next week Labour MPs seek to amend the Crime and Policing Bill to decriminalise abortion. The state should undoubtedly treat any decision to terminate a pregnancy with sensitivity. But this amendment is an invitation to abusive partners to coerce vulnerable women into late-stage abortions and removes one of the last protections unborn children still have. Do we really want this decade to be one in which the only thing we do more efficiently than ever is kill innocent souls?
Spectator
4 hours ago
- Spectator
The BBC's Israel problem
Intrepidly, the BBC dared recently to visit Dover, Delaware – source, it implied, of starvation in Gaza. I listened carefully as its State Department correspondent, Tom Bateman, hunted down the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation in the state which, he explained, is 'a corporate haven for those who like privacy'. Brave Tom did not find much, but that only proved to him that 'The main ingredients of this aid are its politics'. The foundation's chairman says he is a Christian Zionist which, for the BBC, is almost as bad as saying you are a neo-Nazi. The portentousness aside, it is reasonable to ask tricky questions of the American/Israeli organisation which claims it can solve aid in Gaza. The BBC's problem is that it would never, ever apply its investigative zeal to the cartel currently responsible for the aid that seems not to get through. When has it ever doorstepped the UNWRA operatives who moonlight for Hamas? When has it ever challenged the political 'ingredients' of UN agencies as they heap abuse on Israel and stay respectfully silent about Hamas? When has it complained that Hamas does not answer its calls? Perhaps Hamas does answer, welcoming the BBC's trusting approach. The Office of Rail and Road has noticed that our railway system comes down too hard on the innocent. Yes. The weekend before last, about to return from Newcastle, I found I had lost my ticket. I went to the ticket office, bearing my complete receipt, which even included my seat reservation. The man was pleasant, but said there was no way I could have a free new ticket or even an eventual refund. So I had to pay £133 (nearly £50 more than I had already paid) to travel. Approaching the train, I noticed that the barrier was open. Boarding, I found the computer seat reservations had all gone down. Alighting at King's Cross, I realised that no guard had checked my ticket on the journey and that the barriers were open and unmanned. So if I had 'cheated', I would have been unmolested but because I had owned up, I was out of pocket. Obviously this all started with my carelessness, but why can rail companies treat one as guilty until proven innocent though English law says the opposite? I spoke twice in Oxford last week to highly intelligent, mainly undergraduate audiences. The atmosphere reminded me of 1980s secret meetings of dissidents behind the Iron Curtain arranged by British intellectuals, such as Roger Scruton, who were smuggled in. One encountered young people who feared discovery but showed a touching belief in the life of the mind as they thirsted for freedom in the desert of enforced conformity. For the sake of their careers, I shall not reveal who my audiences were. From one attendee, I learnt that in Mods, the first half of the Oxford four-year Classics degree, one no longer studies Virgil or Homer. Instead, the only compulsory texts are Terence and Plautus. This is like reading theology without studying the Old or New Testaments (which, come to think of it, is probably now commonplace). Are there any subjects, outside the liberal arts, in which each generation is encouraged to know less than the previous one? Are there physics degrees which drop quantum theory, or maths ones without calculus? We have contrived a culture in which universities grow, yet knowledge shrinks. As a graduate of Cambridge, I am depressed by my university's decision to open up the Chancellorship to all of us. We always felt smug about Oxford's beauty contest between superannuated politicians. Ours was uncontested. Now we have to endure a dingier version of the Oxford rhodomontade. The Chancellor of Cambridge should not strike attitudes or take sides, as a vote compels. He or she should be unspeakably grand/rich/disinterested. For many years, the late Duke of Edinburgh held the post, faction-free, because he was married to the then Queen, had a mind of his own and had never been to a university. After Prince Philip, our Chancellor was Lord Sainsbury of Turville, a blamelessly benevolent prince of commerce. Now there are ten candidates, all with 'statements' staking their claims. Gina Miller, the eurofanatic, wishes to 'affirm Cambridge's commitment to modernity and equality'. Sandi Toksvig, the television personality, says she speaks up for 'equity, inclusion, rewilding, sustainability and tackling online bias'. We don't want someone who speaks up. Why can't we have the present Duke of Edinburgh, alumnus of Jesus College, who gives diligent public service and will therefore remain silent? There are a great many stories about ransomware and the damage it causes. Presumably these attacks happen mainly because the businesses attacked pay the ransom. One never reads about this, or how criminals get away with the money. If a business pays, is it acting legally? If a public limited company pays a ransom, could shareholders sue? If, on the contrary, it is argued that paying the ransom is good for shareholders, could they sue a company that refused to pay? Friends tell me – and I believe them – that Chloe Dalton's new book Raising Hare is excellent. It does not automatically follow that she is right to call for a new law to impose a close season on hare-culling. The patchy shortage of hares (in some places, the fields are teeming with them) is not attributable to shooting but to habitat loss, vermin and European Brown Hare Syndrome. Besides, as is so often the case when people itch to legislate, there is a relevant law already. Under the Hares Preservation Act 1892, it is an offence to sell, or expose for sale, any hare or leveret between the months of March and July inclusive. Hares may only be sold if shot between 1 August and the last day of February. There is therefore no commercial incentive to orphan a hare in the breeding season.
