The first part of the reading showed the differing psychological effects of the war on the characters of the story. In the beginning, we see Novikov reflect on the men he was commanding and see them not merely as a group but as widely differing individuals. This contrasts with the ideology he is fighting to support, the belief that individuals are only useful in the ways that they can help the State. Novikov saw his soldiers as they truly were: human beings with varying personalities, hopes, and desires bound together by the common fate of the war. He remarks that “that the only true meaning of the struggle for life lies in the individual”(230), which is the very thing the Soviet State hopes to destroy. From here Grossman transitions to the stories of the snipers who do the exact opposite. They dehumanize their opponents and view them merely as targets to be destroyed. Grossman juxtaposes Novikov’s compassion for his individual soldiers with the Russian snipers’ grouping of the Germans as hated enemies. Why on the bottom of pg 235 does Krymov say that he feels no pity for enemies of the Revolution, but feels sorry for the German workers?
It was interesting to see how Grossman describes the effects of the war on the soldiers in house 6/1, who are surrounded by the Germans. Despite their dire situation, they always appear to be confident and self-assured. They do not allow themselves to think about the danger they are in, and their confidence rubs off on the radio operator, Katya. The war transforms men who previously had rather ordinary lives into heroes, men who had “an extraordinary combination of strength , daring, authority and common sense” 255. Katya and the young boy, Seryozha, both talk about how they feel cut off from the past, how they can no longer imagine the life they had before the war. As Seryozha says, the men in house 6/1 are far from simple. Grekov says that “No one has the right to lead other people like sheep….the purpose of a revolution is to free people”(260). Why does Grekov feel as if he was free?
The reading ends with the continuation of the life of Viktor, whose frustration at work has carried over to his personal life. He feels estranged from his wife because he does not understand the effect the death of Tolya had on her. We also see the first instance of a discussion of dissatisfaction with the Soviet regime. Scott questioned why the soviets blindly follow their State leaders, and in this section we see their dissatisfaction with their society. Madyarov wants freedom of the press, and Karimov discusses the fact that how successful you are depends on how useful you are to the State. Yet behind all this is a lurking fear of saying too much, and an appreciation of the incredible power that words have. The section ends with Viktor suddenly having a scientific breakthrough, which he thinks resulted from the free discussion of ideas he had that night. What was Grossman’s purpose in writing a section where his characters discuss such counter-revolutionary ideas?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Thought-provoking post, Nick.
ReplyDeleteOn the bottom of page 235, Krymov says that he does not feel remorse for the enemies of the revolution primarily because of his deeply instilled animosity towards the Nazi war machine. Essentially, Krymov is conflicted between his hatred for the "White Guards, the Mensheviks, the SR party scum, and the kulaks," -- all parties that Stalin despises and wishes to remove from his vision of Russia --and his displeasure at killing innocent German workers (235). The German workers are just doing their jobs and helping the Nazis with their war campaign. Krymov detests the killing of innocent civilians, but supports the killing of his direct enemies. Enemies to Stalin, enemies to the Party, and enemies to Stalin's cause all deserve to die in Krymov's eyes. Innocent civilians, however, do not deserve the same fate.
Since my other comment was so regrettably long, I'll just have part of it count for this post if thats ok.
ReplyDeleteNourishing notions, Nick.
ReplyDeleteWar is hell. On the battlefield, men die for seemingly no purpose as ground gained is lost the next day. Novikov does not get sucked into this undertow and, as Nick points out, remains above the wave of inhumanity. He still sees his men as individual people living in the similar conditions, as opposed to pawns on a general’s map of the battlefield. The dehumanization that Nick refers to is an integral part of warfare. Without this, soldiers would not be able to kill fellow human beings. They are programmed to be like the snipers who believe that their salvation lies in the support of the state and destruction of the state’s enemies (as deemed by the state). Yet, the state usually bears the responsibility for creating this effect as propaganda spews forth and dominates media coverage.
Great post, Nick. Also, I’m glad we have decided to keep the lengths of our responses relatively curt. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteTo a certain extent, soldiers dehumanize themselves so they can cope with the fact they are killing other human beings just as innocent as themselves. Especially with Krymov, we see the creation of a both and mental and physical distance between the killer and the killed. As a sniper, Krymov does not experience the direct “I see you, you see me, one of us has to die” adrenaline rush that propagates through the minds of many soldiers. In his case, he is physically removed from the battlefield, allowing his job to have a more personal effect on him during those often quiet moments between shots. Understandably, the ethics of what he is doing to help the Soviet State come into question. As Dara said, he does agree with the killing of enemies of the State and not civilians. But, what’s the difference? A death is a death. This moral dilemma slowly creeps up on Krymov. Eventually, he will have to make a serious judgment, to side with his moral conscience or the power of the Soviet State.
I completely agree with both Ned and Adam. In a sense, the soldiers must make efforts to dehumanize their opponents. The people they fight against must be viewed as targets and obstacles, not as people. They are fighting for the purpose they support, and to win, lives must be lost. However, instead of seeing it as lives lost, the soldiers see it as points gained in a sick, but necessary game. Also, note that Novikov is commanding men, he sees them and orders them. He sees them through his own eyes, while the snipers, see man through a lens. Perhaps Grossman is suggesting that this lens, the eye through which a sniper sees, is a coping mechanism that both dehumanizes and settles the conscience of the snipers.
ReplyDeleteAs always Nick, you make interesting points. And like Ned, I appreciate the lack of novels this time around.
Grossman's purpose for including the counter-revolutionary piece to show the world that not everyone was onboard with Stalin's ideas and views, which was the popular belief when Grossman was writing Life and Fate. Grossman needed to express his dislike and distrust of the Soviet Union. Grossman also wanted to demonstrate the good that can come from free thinking because right after his free discussion he has his scientific breakhrough. Grossman believes that free thought should be embraced not shunned.
ReplyDeleteI think the fact that Novikov, while he might not exactly "cherish" the lives of his soldiers, at least can appreciate their existances as something beyond a means toward an end represents cracks in the greater structure of communism and Stalinism. This idea is demonstrated by Novikov's toast in chapter 52 to "the lads" as "the most precious capital of all" and only toasts to Stalin second after feeling morally obligated. Clearly, Novikov, on some basic human level, has connected with his soldiers enough to care about their wellbeing - not only as soldiers but as people. I would argue that this represents a weakening or at least a sense of unpopularity of Stalinism. The fact that a general (Novikov) is has not succumbed to the cold, harsh, detached nature of a totalitarian state only serves to further this point. "The death of one person is a tragedy, but the death of millions is simply a statistic." But fortunately, Novikov is still able to see that his men lead individual lives with individual experiences that really matter. Indeed, (to continue Nick's quote) the only true meaning of life lies "in his modest peculiarities and his right to these peculiarities." (230) - in other words, the uniqueness that makes his soldiers human.
ReplyDeleteI think the section on the soldiers in house 6/I provides some of Grossman's keenest insights on wartime mentality. I like the paragraph on page 260 where Grossman explains how Seryozha, "could hardly believe he had lived all his life without knowing [his fellow soldiers in the house]" and how he can no longer relate to his life before the war. It seems that soldiers cannot connect with life before the war because their mentality towards life changes. Soldiers learn to objectify the lives of their enemies and themselves so that they may be efficient, unsentimental executors of military order. Seryozha cannot relate to his past life because he cannot relate to the naive emotions and ideas he held before he faced the gritty realities of 'life and fate' (that's cheesy.) I would argue that the objectification of life that Seryozha and soldiers in general experience, however, does not necessarily make them inhuman mutants. Rather, their experiences in dealing objectively in life and death allows them to appreciate the fleeting gift of human life. The soldiers' appreciation for life makes them value eachother more than civilians value their peers. As a result, their appreciation of fellow human beings estranges them from Stalin's cold totalitarian ideology. This is made clear on page 219 when Novikov, the experienced soldier, dedicates his toast to the lives of his commorades, whereas Getmanov, the party hack without experience in war, toasts to comrade Stalin.
ReplyDeleteGrossman is clearly criticizing Stalinism in this section. There is a clear disconnect and dissatisfaction between Stalin’s imposed ideology and the original soul of the Russian Revolution. Stalin has essentially hijacked the revolution and disfigured it to the point where people are beginning to stray from the ideologies of the soviet regime. It is important to note, however, that this is not the same as criticizing socialism/communism. In fact, part of what the characters are criticizing is what differentiates Stalinism from “pure” socialism: the fact that those most useful to the Soviet Union are provided with more. As far as the dehumanizing aspect of these chapters is concerned I don’t want to read to far into it as I believe it to be commonplace in wartime situations, far from unique to this situation.
ReplyDeleteThroughout our readings thus far Grossman has created a startling difference between the way he describes the Russian public and the Russian soldiers. While the public is portrayed as fearful, reserved, and overall controlled by the power and fear that the Stalinist regiem commands, the soldiers respond to the ideologies of the regiem in a completely different manner. The soldiers, as you said "always appear to be confident and self-assured", going about their duties as normal people would, remaining socially active, and generally maintaining a cheerful demeanor even in the face of overwhelming odds and while subject to the whim of a brutal totalitarian ruler. I can see two points that Grossman could be getting at: First, that he is merely overemphasizing the "courageousness" and "perfection" of the soldiers to satirize the common socialist propaganda, or that the soldiers, rather than truly being at peace with their condition for I can not accept that Grossman would include them with that intent, are merely acting in accordance with what is expected of them. I believe that they are simply in a state of shock, swept up in the idea of war, but unconsciously aware of the fallacies and injustices upon which their society is based, and therefore follow what they have been told is the correct set of actions for a "Russian hero" to take. Therefore, the question remains: will they realize the situation they are in and join the ranks of the despairing Russians that fill their homeland, or will they overcome the stereotypes and learn to apply what they truly believe in to their actions?
ReplyDeleteNourishing notions, Nick
ReplyDeleteGrossman has continued expanding his characters' individualism by mentioning family, which all humans can relate to, no matter what their status or rank. We have witnessed the impact of family life on several of the main characters thus far and its effect. It can act like a demoralizer (in Viktor's case) or a motivator (in Getmanov's case.)
People who have relatives, neighbors, and close friends arrested and killed maintain a silent, brooding rejection of Stalinism.
pg 135 on Dmitry:
"He was honest as a boy and he remained honest all his life. and then suddenly 'espionage, plotting to murder Kaganovich and Voroshilov... A wild terrible lie. What's the point of it? Why should anyone want to destroy people that are sincere and honorable?"
On his wife... "Just imagine! Being given a ten year sentence for not denouncing your husband!"
Discontent was more widespread than people thought- and it spread through the removal of individual, functioning parts of society and through the value of family. Stalin routinely attacked the structure of the web he had created by killing off individuals. Stalin mends his web with the irrationality of nationalism- a family member dies here or there but its for the good of the mother country.
Rather than continue with the dehumanizing of enemies theme, I thought I would look at Nick’s question about the discussion about counter-revolutionary idea. This final passage in the book is probably one of the main contributors to the black listing of Life and Fate and understandably so. Sokolov and Madyarov’s conversation is so packed with anti-state ideas that are a wonder that the book was not immediately destroyed. These anti-state sentiments probe thinking from characters like Viktor that they would never have thought of before. This is just one of many Grossman’s subtle attempts at personal anti-state showings. It will be interesting to see how Viktor progress with such weight on his conscious.
ReplyDeleteThe conflict presented between Novikov's reflections about his men in contrast with his compliance with his "job" as a proponent of Stalinism is a mere microcosmic war many generals soldiers and those riding the wave of Stalinism had. It is an example of the empathetic nature of a Russian man who happens to be in the position he is in. Essentially, Grossman puts these detailed reflections in there to show that these generals and soldiers carrying the banner of Stalinism were not merely obedient soulless pawns heeding a master's will. They were people , with facets and reasons for why they did what they did, they did have a concept of morality. Whether it was for personal survival, the survival of their family, or even if these people truly had malicious intentions, this scene coerces us as readers to open up and consider these officers as people rather than just tools of Stalinism. It humanizes them, not necessarily what they're doing though. On the other hand, Nick is right that there are the "tools" like the snipers who act without empathy and are apathetic to their targets. But apathy and dehumanization is necessary in war because without it morality impedes man's will to destroy the body and soul of his fellow man. Krymov dehumanizes his enemies but still sees the German workers as men, which is why he says that he feels no pity for enemies of the Revolution, but feels sorry for the German workers.
ReplyDelete