In this section of the book (chapters 10 through 15) Grossman seems to be illustrating one main point: “The state is not an effect but a cause.” The reading starts out with an overly optimistic statement about the war as Lieutenant Peter Bach says, “It’s more than likely that this is the most important concentration of forces we’ve assembled since the beginning of the war. Believe me!” The reason this quote is so important is because it shows the power the state has over its people as Bach says this even though it goes directly against what he truly believes. In fact, x-rays serve to show “all the poisonous dissidence that had collected inside his rib-cage over the years.” Though there is dissidence and disagreement at the core of Bach’s character, he remains fighting for the idealized cause of the state. Though everything appears okay on the outside, it is rotting away on the inside. This overly optimistic view of the war that is portrayed by people can be seen yet again as an assistant told Bach that he would be back on the battle field shortly. Clearly there is a disconnect between the actual war and the portrayed war as the assistant severely misjudges Bach’s feeling towards battle.
Grossman continues to criticize the German government as Bach notes that “here he was, a front-line officer and they still didn’t consider him a true German!” The old German intelligentsia will never be fully accepted regardless of what they do. This leads one to believe that it really became an atmosphere based not on ideology, as Bach had completely dedicated himself to that ideology, but rather, one of blind revolt and contempt for all who were not peasants or the heads of the party.
Grossman writes that though Marx and his fellow thinkers may have had the firmest grip on human history to that point, they “had not so much as glimpsed the powerful forces that hold a nation together in spite of class differences; his social physics, based on contempt for the universal law of national attraction, was simply absurd.” If either of the two regimes were based on Marxist principals, it was in name alone.
As a result of the true power wielded by the administration that functioned under the assumed identity of Marxism, the Germans gained almost complete control of their people as the same man, Paulus, that says, “There’s something quite senseless and unnecessary about the whole struggle for this city,” will continue to fight saying, “it’s not for us to impose our will on a great strategist.” This is truly a sickening occurrence as one man as successfully blinded and taken control over millions of people.
Then Darensky and Bova enter into a conversation in which they ultimately conclude that though, “you say the Germans are responsible, maybe we did our bit too.” This becomes more important in a conversation between Mikhail Mostovoskoy and Liss as its true meaning becomes clear: Germany and Russia are not so different. In an attempt to discuss the issue with Mostovoskoy, Liss says, “When we look one another in the face, we’re neither of us just looking at a face we hate, no, we’re gazing into a mirror. That’s the tragedy of our age.” Grossman is clearly conveying a sense that the war between Russia and Germany is, in essence, a war between two of the same ideologies. Liss furthers this idea saying, “There is no divide. It’s just been dreamed up. In essence we are the same, both one-party States. Our capitalists are not the masters. The State gives them their plan. The State takes their profit and all they produe. As their salary they keep six per cent of the profit. Your State also outlines a plan and takes what is produced for itself. And the people you call masters, the workers, also receive a salary from your one-party state.”
Grossman then ends the reading with a digression into the true virtue of both good and evil, suggesting that, perhaps, at time, they can be one and the same. He ultimately decides, however, that the ultimate good is random human kindness. It is this kindness that proves powerful, but when one attempts to direct this power, proves powerless. “Human history is… a battle fought by a great evil struggling to crush a small kernel of human kindness.” Though Mostovoskoy and Liss both harshly rejects this, it is interesting to note that they had “aroused the same contempt in his night-time interrogator as they did in himself.” Perhaps this points to some truth that Mostovoskoy and Liss realize deep down but are scared to admit.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Great post, Killian.
ReplyDeleteI especially liked your analysis of the decaying inner soul of men like Lieutenant Bach, and how this idea of living for the State has effectively initiated this utter decomposition of the will and soul. It is one of many factors that unite the German and Russian people under the banner of totalitarianism. East or West, Reichstag or Kremlin, gulag or concentration camp, Wehrmacht or Red Army, this emptiness, this poison (as Grossman describes it) remains beneath the outer shell of unwavering devotion and ideological purity. Trapped and surprised within each man, woman, child, and soldier, continues to eat away at individual identity and personal freedom, all the while nurturing inquisitiveness, skepticism, and inner dissidence.
I was impressed by Grossman's insight into the pitfalls of Marxism. As Killian writes, Grossman believed that Marx may have had the "firmest grasp on human history," but he also realised that Marx's ideas do not in any way incorporate "the powerful forces that hold a nation together in spite of class differences." Grossman realized that Marxism was ultra-rational and thus impractical. Grossman's insight is particularly impressive considering he detected these fundamental pitfalls within only a few decades of Communism in Russia.
ReplyDeleteKillingly keen knowledge, Killian
ReplyDeleteYou comment on Bach’s decay and fall from ideological faith and Evan picks up on this beautifully. Evan plays up the role that a totalitarian system can play in zapping people of their freedom and identity. Yet, this same process, though to a different degree, occurs in the western world as well. As I am sure Evan would admit, the government is slowly taking away more and more of people’s individual liberties in an attempt to protect the ‘greater good.’ Similarly, the war in the Middle East has many people echoing Paulus who said that “There’s something quite senseless and unnecessary about the whole struggle for this city.” The entire structures of these totalitarian regimes are in fact becoming more in line with modern day governments. We are developing a cult of personality with our presidents. They are becoming superstars and advancing their own agendas, as opposed to representatives of the population. Perhaps people have simply lost interest in politics because the hope for change is slowly drying but for whatever reason, people are becoming slaves to these parties. Just like the members of movements like the Tea Party, citizens are getting swept up in the fervor of radicalism and are losing the values that they sought out. Such a state is like the ideologically blind followers of totalitarianism. Beware of where this western world could be going.
Great job, Killian.
ReplyDeleteI was particularly taken by the way you end your post, the blending between good and evil. This, I believe, is one of the key tenets of the book, the acceptance that people have the capacity to be both good and evil, and at the same time. Deeming something as good or evil is a relative moral judgment, a judgment made by our own personal and societal biases of today. As you quoted, “When we look one another in the face, we’re neither of us just looking at a face we hate, no, we’re gazing into a mirror. That’s the tragedy of our age.” When we look into the faces of those immoral characters in the book, we see subjects corrupted by Stalinism, but if we take a closer look, they are just products of their era, in the end.
Thank you Belzberg for bringing the humor back! I'm lawling as I read. All right, time to put my thinking cap on, and Lord knows it's an old model.
ReplyDeleteKillian, as always, you write with insight and wit, except not wit this time.
I really don't have any original thought here. Evan and Belzberg really hit the nail on the head. This Totalitarian regime is responsible for completely denying one's individual identity. And, while that may not be the written goal of a Communist system, it is obviously the intended result. "Communism is a social structure in which classes are abolished and property is commonly controlled, as well as a political philosophy and social movement that advocates and aims to create such a society" (Wikipedia). The point of Communism is to strip people of things that they own (property) and innate characteristics (class). Grossman depicts this theme perfectly in the tragic character of Bach.
If I were at liberty to expand your quoted phraseology Killian, it would go something like this: “The state is not an effect but the cause to all the poisonous dissidence that had collected inside his rib-cage over the years.” Not only the ribcage of Bach, but over this period of totalitarianism. Infected and jaded by the idea that totalitarianism was the cure all to government problems of the past and a good alternative to the Western governments people were so averse to, Grossman shows that even those proponents of the institution were dying from the inside out just as much as the victims were. The toxicity of totalitarianism affected both those who fell and those raised because of it even though it was more evident in those who fell. Grossman uses Bach to show the sense of denial proponents of totalitarianism were subject to after they realized the moral gaffes of human corruption they had taken part in.
ReplyDeleteThe reason the German intelligentsia can never be fully accepted into Nazism is severalfold (new word coined!). Nazism was an irrational totalitarian regime while the intelligentsia were rational individualists. The only way Nazism would accept them is by twisting their philosophies to support their own theories. And yes, the attack on Stalingrad was also irrational – not only because war is, by definition, irrationality at its finest but because Hitler’s greatest military blunder was the grossly premature invasion of Russia. It just shows what a sad, strange little idiot he was.
ReplyDeletePS. Belzberg, ‘knowledge’ does not work with ‘killingly keen’ well – it rhymes only on paper. Or an electronic screen. Which is what it’s on. (… … …)
Just like The Lives of Others shows us that totalitarianismis meant to do one thing, control its citizens. Just like Bach in the book, Wiesler was always going against what he inately believed was right because the system was controlling him. But unlike Wiesler bach is under the full control of the system because even though he believes that the governing body is wrong he still doesn't badmouth it. Bach never lets his true beliefs come out like Wiesler does because he is afraid of what the system will do to him if he turns on it.
ReplyDeleteIn chapter 15, Ikonnikov comments on the nature of "goodness" in the world of man and how it has progressed throughout history, and how men have fought over varying definitions of goodness - particularly between religions. He states that the amount of blood spilled in the name of preserving good has effectively lead to evil, and interesting, and irrefutable point. Certainly the death of any peoples, or any race or religion from a neutral point of view, is never "good." It indeed is ironic that out of the concept of good and in protecting it, evil spawns. He goes on to state that people tend to dress up their own perceptions of their particular good as the universal good. But as we have learned, no absolutely perfect singular form of goverance exists and the attempt to pursue one leads to only more bloodshed and death - and certainly this is the case with totalitarianism.
ReplyDeleteKool Komments, Killian!
ReplyDeleteIt is definitely true that the two states collided and the troops were all victims of nationalism, but I definitely would not compare the mindset of Russia to that of Germany. The force behind Hitler's rise to power was pure hatred. The Russian communist party, on the other hand, was created out of the most extreme form of rational thought proscribed by the Enlightenment era. I think I am stealing that idea from someone... from a soldiers perspective, true, they are both human beings, but thats every single war. The similarities the soldiers have with each other are common with every soldier in history. At any rate, I don't think its the same ideologies.
Insightful post, Killian.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed your interpretation of Liss’ comments that Russia and Germany share the same ideologies. Although I believe Lockwood has a point in that Russia’s Marxist-Leninist Communism is not exactly the same as Germany’s National Socialism, I think what Killian is trying to lead us to in his post is that the war between Russia and Germany spiraled out of a frivolity of differences. Both Russia and Germany were one Party States that dominated the rationality of their subjects. The notion of a single totalitarian government led by one man ruling millions of people is not only terrifying, but also unifying. The Russians were fighting for Stalin, while the Germans were mindlessly obeying Hitler’s orders. Both the Russians and the Germans, however, were fighting for one very powerful man. As Lockwood said “The similarities the soldiers have with each other are common with every soldier in history,” thus the Russians and the Germans shared the same human condition of hunger, terror, and insecurity. The tragedy of World War II was that men were fighting their “brothers” from another country. I believe this is what Grossman is alluding to—that the millions of deaths in WWII were cruelly unnecessary.
Totalitarian regimes are all about a group of core believers with blind devotion, and a generally brainwashed rest of the community. This is accomplished through the propaganda they set up, where they make it appear that all is well. The war is going well, because it has to be going well. Although the methods and the structure of the societies are the same-one party state, use of terror, brainwashed society- the causes of the state are fundamentally different, and that is important to remember. They are both fighting for different ideologies, even if their methods are the same.
ReplyDeleteGrossman's belief that ultimate good rests with random human kindness seems to suggest that he does not have much faith in human nature. Our salvation can only be found through randomness and spontaneity, humans are not capable of long-scale, planned out, wholey beneficial acts of kindness. In the planned out, structured society evil will conquer.
Killian, I would like to comment on the first point that you made about the decay of Bach's interior while he maintained a positive exterior and the way that you connected this to Marxism. I think this issue is at the heart of most of the totalitarian regiems in history, and especially the ones that we have discussed, the Soviets and the GDR. What is interesting is the way that Grossman, as you point out, compares the plight of a failing government to that of a human being. This comparison poses many questions about the nature of the leadership of these regiems, because as we think about whether Bach is professing the greatness of the GDR on purpose to evade capture or wether he has been so twisted by the fear and propaganda that has been thrust on him that he can no longer make decisions for himself we must compare this to the mindset of the country as a whole and in particular that of the rulers. The question arises that when the country is failing, do the leaders acknowledge that fact and decide to perpetuate their rule as long as they can or, as it seems in the case of Hitler, simply refuse to believe that their country is falling appart so that when they reach the point where they can no longer hold on they experience complete, sudden destruction.
ReplyDeleteThe most important thing about the discussions involving Germans and Soviets is the way that Grossman uses them to point out that both countries really were mirror images of each other, which Killian shows well here. While you can claim differences between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, they are all pretty shallow. The reality is that both nations had become totalitarian States. Germany used the guise of nationalism and anti-Semitism under Hitler, and Russia used the guise of Marxism and class warfare under Lenin. It doesn’t really matter. Both are totalitarian States ruling through terror and tyranny.
ReplyDelete