In this section of the novel (Part III: Chapters 25-40) the tides of war have turned at Stalingrad and the Russian army is now driving the Germans back. However, the Russians are not glorialized over the Germans – Russia is described by Grossman as “terrible and somber” and “steel-clad” (712). There is little pity towards defeated German prisoners, and nationalism seems to have surged among the Russians. Nationalism is a profoundly un-Marxist idea, and yet very few question its importance. “Russian” is often used as a compliment (as “true American” is sometimes used today). “You can’t overestimate the importance of nationality,” Getmanov says (716), and he goes on to describe the inferiority of the Kalmyks to the Russians. Darensky agrees despite having never felt any antipathy towards the Kalmyks.
The only one seemingly immune to this surge of nationalism is Viktor, who once said “There was no German physics, American physics or Soviet physics.” (754) Viktor refuses to attend a meeting to discuss his failures as a Soviet and his daughter observes sarcastically that he hasn’t “gone off to repent”, to which Yevgenia says to her, “Well, there isn’t a single drop of Slav blood in you. You’re a true Hebrew maiden.” (704) In doing so, Yevgenia mocks the notion of a ‘true Russia’ as opposed to the rest of Russia, with its Jews and its Kalmyks and its Tartars, all inferior to the true Russia. I still find it absurd that Viktor is labeled as a Jew when he doesn’t believe in God (697). But in his refusal to accept nationalism, Viktor is being a true Socialist more than the Stalinists. Viktor says on page 699 that “The greatest tragedy of our age is that we don’t listen to our consciences. We don’t say what we think. We feel one thing and do another… Socialism, first of all, is the right to a conscience. To deprive a man of his conscience is a terrible crime.” It is clear that Viktor believes himself to be a true Socialist more than those who support the current regime. However, Viktor is far from invulnerable: when he hears the results of the meeting “It was as though the State, in its fury, was able to take away not only his freedom and peace of mind, but even his intelligence, his talent and his belief in himself. It had transformed him into a grey, stupid, miserable bourgeois.” (757)
Interestingly enough, Grossman shifts focus to the Germans for several chapters. Grossman sees Nazism as profoundly inhuman, however, in defeat, the German people are beginning to recover their humanity. He describes this time as “the first hours, after ten years of complete inhumanity, of a slow return to human life” for millions of Germans. (732) Only of a few, such as Lenard, is it suggested that “There was too much of him… that was dedicated only to the State; now it was too late for that to be made human.” (741) In portraying the Germans as sympathetic characters, Grossman is taking another shot at nationalism – Germans are no worse than Russians, even if Nazism is far worse than Communism.
On a final note, I will admit that I read the scene where the German soldiers receive little fake Christmas trees and sing O Tannenbaum through tears. World War Two is still close enough to home to have the same Christmas carols, so it still hurts.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Great post, Andy.
ReplyDeleteI really liked how you touched on the rather unquestioned and unaddressed notion of nationalism, and how both Communist and Fascist regimes fall under a similar banner of inhumanity and individual destruction. It is interesting to explore this idea of Viktor's rejection of nationalism, and I am in intrigued concordance with you in terms of how it has made him a better socialist. He realizes that the individual thought process, the personalized formation of opinions, ideas, and thoughts, is essential to human existence. Nationalism, as he sees it, leads to the regrettable deprivation of this necessity, the utter destruction of free conscience and thought. The quality of life that inherently spawns out of a nationalist, totalitarian system is not one that illustrates the ideals of Socialism, but rather one that deprives each and every individual of his or her rite to think and speak freely.
This is a great post, Andy.
ReplyDeleteI think your point here harkens back to Evan's. What does it mean to be free? Here, it seems that stability, the right to bread and land don't fit into that equation. For you, and for me, you seem to put individual consciousness on the highest pedestal. You do a great job of analyzing Grossman's criticisms on Nationalism. I think it's fair to say that Grossman blames many of the problems of the 20th century on Nationalism. In the society in Life and Fate, one doesn't ever see the collective benefits of socialist rule, but the ever-present depravity of individualism.
Great post andrew.
ReplyDeleteafter reading the comments that are up so far i noticed something that i thought we should think about a little more. In analyzing the post evan says that victor is a better socialist than most as "He realizes that the individual thought process, the personalized formation of opinions, ideas, and thoughts, is essential to human existence." To me, this is the antithesis of socialism. Socialism is about changing man from a being of individual consciousness to one of collective, communal cociousness. Likewise, when evan says nationalism is "the utter destruction of free conscience and thought." Does this not mean that nationalism is not only not an enamy of socialism but that it actually goes hand in hand with the ideology? just a couple of thoughts
Amazingly accentuated and articulate arguments about authoritarianism and, albeit almost absent, an analyzation about America, Andy
ReplyDeleteNationalism represented a large portion of Leninism and Stalin continued to use it as a tool to increase his power. Even though Stalin was born in Georgia, he became the preeminent Russian during his reign. At the same time, the patriotism to the great Red is beautifully paralleled in modern patriotism towards the red, white, and blue. Also paralleled is the threat that such nationalism can hold.
With the pompous and arrogant attitude of numerous Americans (many in the South, though all correct in their belief that America is #1), the level of growing indifference threatens to destroy our wonderful society. Once the West was no longer seen as a menace to Russia, leaving it without a danger threat from an enemy, it collapsed. Similarly, once America is left without an outside threat, progress (sorry Berlin) will end and our lives will share the same fate. Luckily for us, we keep finding conflicts to involve ourselves in.
Yet, in the end, America is the land of opportunities. After all, here we can always find a raging party. In Russia, the raging Party always finds you.
P.S. Not really a not great triple negative, Killian
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBelzberg...
ReplyDeleteI honour you.
Have an Alliteration Award.
BELZ: DO NOT HATE ON THE SOUTH!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteAMERICA IS NUMBER ONE!!
now, andy, you have constructed a thoughtful post that poses excellent, yet difficult questions. Clearly, I am certainly not the one to answer them, but I am glad to comment.
I agree with the previous speakers on nationalism: Grossman, in my opinion, is completely right to blame most of the problems in the twentieth century on nationalism. Many of the posts have talked about the destruction of individualism. Nationalism is an integral part of this process. For, nationalism advocates that all people in a nation coalesce into one body that blindly supports the nation and its leaders. This is Grossman's point.
I really like the quote that Andrew pointed out on page 754 about how there are no different kinds of physics. It just goes to show that there are no legitimate social differences between peoples as they are artificially constructed by humans. This reminds me of a book I read in Memoirs entitled "The Color of Water" that has to do with race and society. One theme of the book was to prove that all people are the "color of water" in the end - that is not white, black, yellow, whatever. All of this is indeed as Andrew said, in line with a true socialist agenda of equality, or at least the idea that no one person is better than anyone else. But as we have learned, this idealistic sort of system does not work in the hands of corrupt Party leaders such as those in Viktor's Institue.
ReplyDeleteFantastic post, Andy.
ReplyDeleteBelzberg- “Yet, in the end, America is the land of opportunities. After all, here we can always find a raging party. In Russia, the raging Party always finds you,” I’m really going to miss you and your quick wit next year.
Grossman’s depiction of Nazism as “profoundly inhuman” leads the reader to believe that the Battle of Stalingrad actually had an ameliorating effect on the Germans. After losing their first significant land battle, the Germans were slapped by the hand of cold, harsh reality. They were not as invincible as they perceived themselves to be. Thus, their frenzied warring comes to a halt as Grossman states: “The December days grew still shorter, the icy seventeen-hour nights still longer…And then there was the pitiless cold – a cold that was unbearable even for those who were used to it, even for the Russians in their felt boots and sheepskins. Over their heads hung a terrible frozen abyss. Frosted tin stars stood out against a frostbound sky” (731). All of this gelid language mirrors the winding down of the Battle of Stalingrad and the German’s eventual defeat. Additionally, I especially liked your reference to Nationalism as Grossman does portray that that the Germans are no worse than their Russian “brothers.” Like Killian’s post discussed, the frivolity of the war was that the one Party Germans were fighting the one Party Russians—all of them were men, all of them felt pain, and all of them endured the trials and tribulations of the War.
I agree with Grossman that the greatest tragedy of that age was the loss of a conscience. How many atrocities could be avoided if the men who were senselessly slaughtering innocent people had just listened to their conscience and not blindly obeyed orders. The vast majority of people probably did not believe that killing civilians was good, but they used the excuse of simply following orders. They claim to be scared, and who wouldnt be, but they had to purposefully go against their conscience. And who is responsible for this? is it the state that deprived them of their conscience, or did the people allow it to be stolen away, or willfully ignored. How can you hold a few responsible without holding everyone responsible?
ReplyDeleteI think this section helps to clarify why we refer to the Russian government of this era as Stalinist instead of Socialist. Russians really did not follow the ideas of Socialism. Instead they followed the constantly changing decrees of Stalin himself, who created his political system on the fly. Viktor is confused because he is unaware that the ideas of Socialism do not matter in Russia; only the ideas of Stalin are valued.
ReplyDeleteAndy, your post brought up the issue of nationalism in a very interesting way. Although Belzberg seems to have something against nationalism I believe that your post points out its necessity. For how, without nationalism, can a country truly function? In Russia's case it was through the use of fear to control the citizens and mold them in to the cold hard unit of which Grossman speaks, but how far can this type of force really get? at what point does it begin to "decay on the inside" as was mentioned in and earlier post. Because, and this is where I think america and Russia differ, russia is not run by nationalism, or at least the type that we speak of when we watch football games, eat McDonalds, and claim that the US is #1. Rather, russia was run by a forced nationalism, an country based on the idea that if you didn't show support you wold be killed. It is for this reason that I believe Russia fell, because its citizens did not truly support it, and while the United States will undoubtedly change and maybe even disappear completely, it will not be for this reason.
ReplyDeleteI don't think nationalism differs from country to country. Russian nationalism is the same as US nationalism. How many of our troops would go through horrors in Iraq "to protect freedom?" It exists everywhere and there is no difference- Grossman is portraying well educated men in Life and Fate, not the common man who does the Russian equivalent of watching football and eating McDonalds.
ReplyDeleteThat said,its interesting how nationalism can either be a good or a bad thing depending on our perspective. Here, as the Russians "blindly accept orders" it is a bad thing, but when we fight for freedom and accept orders its a good thing. Its also a good thing when the Germans need to rebuild their country after the war as a unifying force. I don't think nationalism was the culprit behind Russia's collapse, probably the opposite.
I actually had the same kind of really strong emotional reaction to the Christmas tree scene with the Germans, too. I was surprised by how emotional that was, but I think any time you see people who had been thought of as inhuman barbarians and then watch them become just normal people again, especially when they have been beaten, it can be very emotional. The thing that stuck with me in this part was where the Soviets lean on nationalism when it helps them but also attack it when they decide it is “anti-Marxist.” I just think the Soviets twist whatever ideas they need when they think it will help them and then change to something else later. Actually, this is probably why they create so much terror. Nobody really knows from dayto day what it is they are supposed to believe to be safe.
ReplyDelete“In defeat, the Germans began to recover their humanity.” This slow recovery of life you mentioned Andrew, is the sliver of hope peoples of this time held onto during their intense victimization. It was the only thing they could hold onto, hope that sometime thereafter the deed was done, they would move past lives of destruction, lives built on the survival of the fittest to ones where they live with each other as opposed to against each other. The nationalism that built of the case against enemies of the state would be the same nationalism need to rebuild the spirit of the German and Russian societies, bringing them together instead of ripping them apart.
ReplyDelete