The other day in class we talked about how Grossman wrote Life and Fate while living as a product of Russian totalitarianism and how many of those used to promote, sustain, and implement Stalinism were actual acting out of a blind sense of devotion. Why was that? Was it because of fear or some type of obligation to commit to some false sense of hope Stalinism brought to Russia in its desperate time of need? I encourage you to look through the reading and find quotes, whether it be dialogue from the characters or Grossman's speech of mind through his prose, to find instances where this blind sense of devotion comes up. Sure there were the generals and people who were totally onboard with Stalinism who were in charge of different gulag sites and such. Surprisingly, the proprietors of the system were less involved in maintaining the system than those actually subject to it were(pg. 22) By creating classes within the gulags, giving prisoners privileged enslavement by allowing the power to govern and spy on other fellow gulag-mates. Clever, clever. However on pg. 23 ("The Kapos…own names on these lists."), Grossman shows how there were those in charge that were not exactly excited about doing their "jobs" either and didn’t necessarily agree with what they were doing anyway. So why did they comply?
How are Viktor Shtrum and other characters introduced in the story so far trapped into facilitating their on subjection to Stalinism or the things of society in general? Though none of them support the situation at hand, how to they tricked into helping maintain this brutal system?
Also in the beginning of the book, Grossman illustrates how diverse the gulags are in terms of history, guilt of crimes or lack thereof, originality, prior occupation, and classes, but still shows that they all had one thing in common that in essence made them equal to one another in a sense. "The very differences in the lives of these prisoners gave rise to a certain similarity…all these prisoners, without exception, had enjoyed a wonderful past" and despite "unable to understand one another in the confusion of tongues, were bound by a shared fate." How does this concept of equality because of the shared fates change throughout the course of the book? Specifically how does Viktor's mothers account of being made aware of her Jewishness speak to the truth about the plight of Jews in Russia (gulag) vs. Germany (concentration camp)?
Throughout life and fate we see how many live a life of survival because of their inborn fate of tragedy and despair. From the points of view of two of the characters, describe how the fact of being Jewish plays of this life of survival and fate of tragedy and despair?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Thanks for the insightful post, Scott. On page 31, Grossman discusses Mostovskoy’s misgivings about his staunch support to Stalin. Grossman writes: “…Stalin’s autocratic rule, the bloody trials of the Opposition, the lack of respect shown towards the Old Bolsheviks. The execution of Bukharin, whom had had known and loved, had upset him deeply. He had known, however, that if he opposed the Party in any one of these matters, he would turn out, against his will, to have opposed the very cause to which he had devoted his life: the cause of Lenin. At times he had been tormented by doubt.” This quote vividly illustrates the repressed frustration within the hearts of the Old Bolsheviks. Stalin showed an utter disregard for the Old Bolsheviks and stripped them of their power in the Great Purges of the 1930s. Old Bolsheviks like Mostovskoy grew discontent with Stalin’s attitude towards their group, but did not openly say anything. Mostovskoy alludes to the fact that questioning Stalin’s autocratic rule would jeopardize his life’s work for “the cause of Lenin.” Although Mostovskoy does not blindly follow Stalin, he does not openly oppose him in fear of going against all the work he has done in the name of Lenin. This was a conflicting idea in the hearts of many of the Old Bolsheviks at the time—by opposing the Party you would be essentially nullifying all the work you had done under Lenin. Furthermore, the strong influence of Stalin surfaces through the words of the captured Russian officers in the concentration camp. When Osipov declares: “It’s not for us to give lessons to Stalin,” he admonishes General Gudz and blindly defends Stalin in his decision to not push farther and let Hitler reach the Volga (34). Indeed, Stalin has enrooted himself so deeply into the Russian psyche that people do not even dare question his military actions even in daily conversation with their friends. By inspecting the words of the Russian officers, one can easily see the intimidating aura of Stalinism.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the Kapos in the German concentration camp, they most likely carried out the tasks of the Nazi commanders because of their fear of what would happen to them if they did not listen to their orders from the Nazi commanders. Many Kapos were severely punished or even killed if they did not carry out their duties at the camps. A twinge of ironic remorse is found in Grossman’s depiction of the Kapos as “they gave a sigh of regret...for the people they sent to the gas ovens,” while they did not “include their own names on these lists” (23). Although the Kapos did not condemn themselves to fiery deaths in the black gas ovens, they condemned all of their fellow prisoners. Coerced by the brutal nature of the Schutzstaffel, the Kapos were sadly just as imprisoned as the prisoners themselves. Some of the Kapos were even Jewish, which is surprising, given the stark anti-Semitism found in the concentration camps.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete(It wouldn't let me post in one post, sorry.)
ReplyDeleteViktor Shtrum is caught in the vortex of Stalinism because of his deft abilities in the realm of physics. On page 95 we delve into Viktor’s inner conscience: “There were moments when science seemed like a delusion that prevented one from seeing the madness and cruelty of life. It might be that science was not a chance companion, but an ally of this terrible century. How lonely he felt. There was no one he could share his thoughts with…There were two outstanding scientists who worked in his laboratory….but they’d think he was a psycho path if he started talking like this.” Viktor questions the utilitarian nature of the science that he is practicing in his laboratory. He ruminates on the notion that Stalin’s conception of science is actually hurting Russia, rather than helping it progress in the 20th century. Although he ponders all of these thoughts, he cannot openly express them because of the overwhelming influence of Stalin. Viktor also struggles with his Jewish background. Because his mother was a Jew, Viktor realizes that his own faith is susceptible to the discrimination found in Stalin’s Russia. Consequently, Grossman portrays Viktor as having no room to breathe: “And once more he felt a cold blade against his throat” (95). This blade represents not only the ambivalence Viktor feels towards his profession, but also the suffocation associated with his Jewish faith.
It will be interesting to see how Viktor progresses through this frenzied maelstrom of science, religion, and loyalty as the novel continues.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGreat post, Scott. Your questions are quite intriguing.
ReplyDeleteThis idea of blind devotion, of wholly submitting oneself to the will of the State without question or hesitation, is essential to understanding the thoughts, actions, and feelings of almost every character in this novel. It is obvious that many Russians, though specifically those who are directly involved with the workings of the Party, have almost religiously devoted themselves to Stalin and his agenda. For example, Getmanov,before settling down to dinner with his wife and close friends (commissars, propaganda ministers, State security officers, etc.) suggests a toast "to our father", and wishes that "he remain in good health" (101). Furthermore, Nikolay Terentyevich chimes in almost immediately with " May our father live a long time. Where would we be without him?". These people, as well as many others, see no other solution to the Russian ideological dilemma other than Stalinism. Sure, they may have had different opinions before he came into power, i.e. beliefs in Menshivism or Old Bolshevism, as Dara referenced in his post. Once a totalitarian state is established, however, it is of the utmost importance to adapt to the will of the regime in power in order to survive. These men have become absolute devotees. They believe that, in the words of Sokolov, "centralism is a social motor of truly immense power, capable of achieving miracles. It already has achieved miracles. And it will achieve more!" (278) This ignorant dedication is not, however, accepted by all. Many are able to step back and realize the hypocrisy and actuality of the situation. They are able to see through the enticing veil of nationalism and the subsequent sacrifice of free will for the betterment of the State. As Madyarov points out during his passionate debate with Sokolov, " Stalin does not build what people need. He builds what the State needs...the needs of the State are one pole; people's needs are the other pole. These two poles are irreconcilable." (279) They are concerned with the suppression of individualism, and have read the writings of Chekov and Dostoeyvesky, all the while seeing the potential in their philosophies as contributions to the narodnost, or unique Russian spirit/identity.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe fundamental problem, however, is that many of these humanistic thinkers, these men and women who clearly recognize the faults of Stalinism and yearn for something more free and democratic, keep their mouths shut and their pens hidden away due to innate survivalist tendencies. The consequences are too great. The fear of persecution is utterly overwhelming. Men like Viktor are falling. They see their lives coming apart, they question the true meaning of their work, they feel the iron grip of Stalinism closing around their throats. And there is absolutely nothing they can do about it.
ReplyDeleteConcerning religious background, it is clear that Victor's family's struggle with their Jewish identity plays a key role in this emotional and introspective novel. Grossman's passages about the brenners (Naum Rosenberg the accountant) and the strange obedience of the victims in the execution queues show how truly desperate and hopeless the Jews, gypsies, and minorities of Europe have become. They have become almost zombie-like, unable to communicate or face the world due to the devastating trauma they have experienced.
On a final note, I want to talk a bit about the prominence of raw emotion in Grossman's prose. There is both a heavy sadness and a boundless optimism in his writing, as though the lives of the characters have revolve completely around these two extremes. This novel is truly unique in its ability to bring history to life with hope, fear, love, depression, numbness, suffocation, disgust, torment, destruction, and tragedy. It shows what lies beneath the war, how and what man feels and consequently how his actions are a direct product of these feelings amid catastrophic conflict.
I look forward to whatever Grossman has in store for us in the future.
i forgot it was only 19-115. sorry all.
ReplyDeleteScott, a most superb and excellent demonstration of meticulous reading accompanied by a stimulating interpretation.
ReplyDeleteThe first section of this novel only outlines and hints at the problems that are soon to arise. Most specifically referring to Viktor, the issue of his religion is not yet blossomed into a personal problem for him yet. His mother has clearly experienced horrors at the hands of the Germans whose anti-Semitic doctrine was central to their ideological victory. The effects of this religious crusade are evident in chapter 18 as Anna Semyonovna (Viktor’s mother) recounts the anti-Semitic wave that washed over her fiends and neighbors. However, it is unclear what the general populace’s motives are. Some among them might simply be opportunists while others just want to follow the flow, keep a low profile, and not fall under the crushing boots of the Germans. Of course, there are also those who truly believe in their new doctrine and have been biding their time until their views were more generally accepted. Either way, Anna Semyonovna clearly describes a change in people’s actions that is directly associated with the German’s invasion. Therefore, going forward, it will be interesting to see how Grossman demonstrates this change affecting Russia.
It is clear that Grossman is attempting to draw parallels between these two dictatorial regimes and as such, Viktor will undoubtedly encounter his own share of discrimination. Yet, the greater question to answer is not whether Stalin’s Russia and Hitler’s Germany were the same (though as Americans we are inclined to group together all ‘evil’ nations that have tried to take over the world with their single, ultimate ideology under a banner of spreading truth and justice to all lesser and weaker nations). Rather, we should distil this question down to an individual level to see if all people are the same and can be grouped under a common heading. As Scott asked of the innocent (?) men who sent their comrades to death, “why do they comply,” “how [d]o they [get] tricked into helping maintain this brutal system?” Is Evan’s “blind devotion” of many Russians a characteristic of human nature; is everyone susceptible to ‘almost religiously devoting themselves to’ an ideology or belief (or wrestling)?
I look forward whatever this frenzied maelstrom of science, religion, and loyalty has in store as the novel continues and we try to answer the questions of life and fate.
Comrade Scott, an excellent post.
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting the great lengths that Grossman took to delve into the mind of a true follower of Stalinism and what it means to be an ideal member of the party. Getmanov aspires to be someone who is solely an instrument of the Party, someone who can deny every human instinct he owns and channel the Spirit of the party without interference. He would not longer have personal opinions, there would be no such thing as an individual, and he "loved something only because, and only in so far as, it expressed the spirit of the Party" (102). Getmanov talks about coming to the point where submitting to the will of the Party was no longer a sacrifice, but occurred naturally. This fanaticism is one of the most dire consequences of the pursuit of the ideal, and the desire to want to lose yourself completely in an ideal seems to me to be absurd. Comrade Belzeberg wonders whether or not this devotion is part of human nature, and Grossman argues that it is directly in conflict of human nature. "Man and Fascism (and by extension totalitarianism) cannot co-exist" (94). To deny your feelings in preference to a political party is to deny human nature, and Grossman argues that the success of Fascism would result in the destruction of Man. THe blind devotion to a totalitarian state is a contradiction of how humans operate. Grossman takes the fight against Fascism from a political struggle to a more abstract struggle to preserve human nature as we know it. Yet if this blind devotion is against human nature, that still does not resolve the issue of why so many people are susceptible to it.
Scott, I agree that the first hundred pages of the book display the Russian officals and civilians' blind devotion to Stalin's regime. In particular, Mostovsky's ideological discussions with the other prisoners in the German concentration camp, and Getmanov's discussion with his colleagues in Ufa expose this blind devotion. These two scenes show that blind devotion is a result of self preservation.
ReplyDeleteAfter Mostovsky's belief in Stalinism is questioned by Ikonnikov, Mostovsky ponders his devotion. Mostovsky thinks about the mistreatment of the Old Bolsheviks during Stalin's takeover (specifically the execution of his friend and colleague Bukharin) and wonders why he has accepted and followed Stalinism. He decides, "that if he opposed the Party in any one of these matters, he woudld turn out, against his will, to have opposed the very cause to which he had devoted his life: the cause of Lenin" (31). Mostovsky decieves himself into following Stalin by choosing to believe that Stalinism is an extension of Leninism, although it is apparently different. It seems he decieves himself simply for self-preservation because he realizes that Old Bolsheviks who do not accept Stalin, such as Bukharin, are killed.
Getmanov's blind devotion is displayed as he ponders his experience as a party official after his colleagues make a toast to Stalin. Germanov considers his power as a party official: "His word could decide the fate of a head of a university department, an engineer, a bank manager, [etc.]" (102). He then considers the difficulty of being a party official: "The supreme meaning of this labour lay in the fact that it was done at the demand of the Party and for the sake of the Party. The supreme reward for this labour was to be granted the confidence of the Party" (102). Getmanov believes the "confidence of the Party" justifies his blindly devoted, labourious, and straining life as a party official. Getmanov decieves himself to believe his devotion provides him the support of the party, though he knows that in reality provides him a means of self preservation; after all, Getmanov knows his word as mid-level party hack can decide the fate of any civillian. It is evident that Getmanov's devotion to everything Stalinist is a result of self preservation, not a love for the party.
In chapters 50 and 51, Grossman further examines the idea of blind devotion as a result of self preservation when he analyzes the support of Hitler's "Final Solution" in European populations under Fascistm.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTo quote the 21st century thinker Adam Belzberg, "Scott, a most superb and excellent demonstration of meticulous reading accompanied by a stimulating interpretation."
ReplyDeleteIn the beginning of this book the thing that most interests me is how Grossman frames the far reaching affects of Stalinism. It appears to me that there are two main ways through which Stalin has impressed his will upon the people. The fear brought fourth by Stalinism clearly has profound and far-reaching effects. As can be seen in Viktor's professional life, there is an underlying fear that can be seen throughout society. This fear causes science to be constrained to what is accepted and favorable to the Party. It would seem Viktor realizes this as he believes science to, at times, be little more than a "delusion." Just as an incomplete truth fails to be a truth, incomplete, incomprehensive science fails to be science. In addition to the fear utilized by Stalin to maintain order, his connection to Leninism and the proceeding Marxism are quite interesting. While Marxism and, possibly, Leninism were based on a peaceful utopic ideal, Stalinism clearly was not. While this is true, Stalin was able to connect his agenda to the preceding ideologies in such a way as to merge them together. As a result, if one attacked Stalinism they were attacking the Marxism and Leninism that had been so championed by the Russian people. Through the implementation of terror and the merging of Stalinism with Leninism and Marxism, Stalin was able to create a society in which there were no free thinkers, no rebels, and, consequently, no threats.
Blind following was definitely a major force that enveloped the entire country during Stalin’s reign. People fell prey to propaganda and images employed by Stalin and the strict Leninists. What are interesting though are the polar opposites that inhabited Russia. There were those who lived in complete fear. There were those who lived in complete love. Both parties agreed to Stalin’s will. Grossman illustrates both these parties and introduces to us to characters like Viktor, who fears denouncement by his peers, and like Getmanov, who staunchly stand up for Stalin’s policies. Both fear and love pervade the novel. But everyone seems forced to Stalin’s policies.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDuring any time of war, criticism of your nation's government is not welcome, no matter what that government is. This is true of Stalinist Russia, and also of our own United States within living memory of a middle schooler. After the terrorist attacks of September 2001, the United States quickly rallied around President Bush. Before the attacks, his popularity was low, especially after the havoc of the election. But afterwards, a mere criticism of Bush's handling of, say, drilling for oil in Alaska was viewed as supporting America's enemies. During wartime, criticism of the nation's figurehead, whether that head is a tyrant or a democratically elected official, is not tolerated.
ReplyDeleteI'm not equating the post-9/11 Bush years with Stalinism. In America, criticism of the government was legally tolerated, and many fewer people were sent to unconstitutional and undemocratic secret prisons without any trial. I'm saying that criticism of the government during a time of perceived war is NOT tolerated by normal citizens. It is 'supporting the terrorists'. And it doesn't take 'brainwashing' to achieve this, nya.
I want to talk primarily about the sense of hopelessness that has pervaded the novel thus far. In the letter that Anna Semyonova sends to Victor in chapter 18, she says “I’ve realized now that hope almost never goes together with reason. It’s something quite irrational and instinctive.” This statement seems to imply that rationality cannot coexist with hope, and so one must be thrown away so that the other may continue on. In Stalinist Russia, obviously it is “rationality” (read – communism) that has triumphed over hope. Communism, which is supposed to be the pinnacle of rationality and liberalism as we have studied, ends up oppressing the majority of society. Similarly, we have also seen what happens to governments and societies that strictly follow rationality and nothing else – a la French Revolution. Clearly, there is a need for both rational (constitutional) and irrational (emotional) forces in forming a successful society (echoes of Vico and Berlin). But Anna, as well as many others living in Soviet Russia have been forced to give up hope as a means of survival – a basic human instinct. It is this oppression, this limitation of even internal feelings, emotions and ideas imposed by government that gives a totalitarian state its power. This is what totalitarianism truly is – a state in which the people are too afraid to even think about an alternative form of government – a hopeless state.
ReplyDeleteThough Grossman does not explicitly tell of any character’s upbringing, Stalinism (or as Stalin put, his Marxist-Leninist policies) became entrenched in every facet of Russian life, so it was almost impossible not to abide by it. Part of its success came from Stalin’s extraordinary ability to keep the Russian mind weak and myopic. The few people with minds capable of thinking outside what they knew, like Ikonnikov, were easily identified and usually sent to the gulags. Even Viktor, as loyal as he tries to be, is incapable of completely accepting all the party’s actions, as shown by his disgust towards the Pravda’s “reporting” later in the book. Characters like Viktor, bred with communism, are some of Grossman’s proof against Stalinism as a viable system: even though he grew up knowing nothing else, the system’s flaws are too great to go unnoticed.
ReplyDeleteComrades, you have started a great discussion here, and I recognize the time and effort you all have put into creating this stimulating dialogue. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteIn the beginning of the novel, Viktor is first presented with the issue of being Jewish, a problem soon to take hold of his life entirely. As a scientist, he is a prized individual in Russian society. He receives accommodations that someone of his class would normally not, he is recognized for the work and effort as a member of the Academy of Sciences, and most importantly, the government waives the fact, temporarily, that that he’s Jewish. Unfortunately for Shtrum, the war forces him to come to terms with his Jewish heritage.
Grossman does a fairly explicit job of developing, what you call Scott, “blind devotion” to the Stalinist cause in several main characters. A prime example, Getmanov devotes his life to the intangible Spirit of the Russian Soviets, giving both his heart and soul for what he sees as the greater cause. So far, Grossman has led us to believe that this world of Life and Fate is one of extremes. There are men like Getmanov (who we may discover has conflicting needs with the Soviets) and men like Shtrum. There are those who are “die-heart” servants to the state and those, like their Jewish subjects, who are forced to question their government because, in most simple terms, their lives are at risk.
This leads me to my final point. As I stated before, this mindless devotion to the state is not ubiquitous. Many are able to see through the mystifying veil of nationalism and discover the real motives behind the Soviet government. The fear of death and prosecution, however, out-weighs the morality of their cause, and thus, are forced to remain silent in fear of their lives. When one begins to value moral goodness of rebellion over the cost of one’s life, a point of revolt will trigger conflict within the state. I think this will ultimately happen with Viktor, for his stakes are too high. Of course, war instills a great fear into the people. It is only natural for man to fear for his life. It’s instinct. It also is just as natural for men like Shtrum to begin questioning their society. Something will surely disrupt this precarious balance later in the novel. For Shtrum, his identity as a Jewish man will clash with the principles of the Soviet State.
I can’t wait!
On page 81 Anna Semyonova writes about how everyone who had been her friend before the German's invaded were now against her. People that didn't share the beliefs of the Germans were siding with them because they wanted to save themselves or gain personally.
ReplyDeleteThe same was true in Russia. People like Getmanov would blindly follow the party and do whatever it took to rise up in the party. People did whatever it took to survive even if it meant turning on their closest friend. The degree of people's treachery depended on how much they wanted to survive in Stalinist Russia. Everything that people did was based on survival and that's why they showed this "blind devotion", because they wanted to survive.
Sensuous statements Scott!
ReplyDeleteMy prior experiences with authors that set out to write a book and prove a point (A Doll's House, The Awakening, Practically any teenage rights book) compelled me to exercise extreme caution when opening this book. Although it is, more or less, a critique of the Stalinist regime, it is much, much more. It is written well and Grossman has a unique talent in portraying his character's emotions and attitudes, as well as the overall nature of humanity. Like Evan and many others said, first and foremost living under the Stalinist regime was a struggle to save oneself- even if it meant feigning an allegiance. Sometimes characters desire to speak whats really on their mind but its not what being a good communist entitles.
Heubs probably won't think I've read it so I'll include the BEST example:
Page 56:
"Another moment and it seemed they might begin the conversation that really mattered- the meaning of Stalingrad. But Yeremenko just said, ' you probably want me to ask the usual question an officer puts to his superior - about reinforcements and supplies of ammunition.' The one conversation that could have had meaning failed to take place."
wow i started this post 2 hours ago.
The other thing that was interesting was the way in which men were judged.
Page 43: "When you were talking about someone, you always mentioned the quality of his bunker. 'Batyuks done some fine work on Mamyev Kurgan with his mortars. He's got a fine bunker by the way. Yes, hes certainly got a head on his shoulders.'"
It goes on to talk about how men were judged empty-headed if their bunkers weren't in top shape.
It seems that many men were also betrayers or loyal citizens. In this sense, as Scott (and Grossman) said, serial killers were tossed in Gulags with men who merely denounced the Stalinist regime.
Lastly, I wanted to comment on Grossman's idea of time, which is completely irrelevant to what I was saying.
Page 51: "Time is a transport medium. People and cities arise out of it, move through it, and disappear back into it... Time flows into a man or State, makes its home there, then flows away; the man and the state remain, but their time has passed... Such is time: everything passes, it alone remains; everything remains, it alone passes. And how swiftly and noiselessly it passes. Only yesterday you were sure of yourself, strong and cheerful, a son of time. But now another time has come- and you don't even know it."
As Dara Bakar says "This quote vividly illustrates the repressed frustration within the hearts of the Old Bolsheviks."
One minute they were sure of themselves, but time passed silently and now they found themselves in a completely different era.
Scott, I agree with you that many of the Russians under the totalitarian Stalinist regiem followed him and his policies with "blind devotion". However, I believe that this devotion may not have originally been blind, and is, in reality, the product of the environment that Stalin created through the use of fear. The constant fear of being deemed (at this point I looked back through the previous comments and realized that this argument had already been made. Therefore, I will finish this sentence and then adress your last question.) un-Russian. So, "How does this concept of equality because of the shared fates change throughout the course of the book?". You cite the example of Viktor's mother coming to terms with her Judaism only after she is sent to the prison camp. I believe, that Stalin's attempt to equalize all Russians was, in a sense, successful because in his society there is so much attention payed to whether or not one is going to accidentally reveal some quality or belief that will render them un-Russian and a threat to the regiem, that the individuals retreat into themselves, masking all individuality behind a "perfect Russian" facade, as can be seen in the scene that we talked about in class with Viktor and the Russian paper Pravda. Consequently, it is only when one has reached the point where hiding yourself does no good, as Viktor's mother has in the prison camp, that one can once again come to terms with one's individuality and celebrate the things that make one a person, undeserving of the brutal and indiscriminating treatment one receive from the harsh totalitarian government.
ReplyDelete