Reading Grossman's “Stalingrad” and ”Life and Fate”(adamtooze.substack.com)
adamtooze.substack.com
Reading Grossman's “Stalingrad” and ”Life and Fate”
https://adamtooze.substack.com/p/chartbook-21
58 comments
> "The war could only be fought through freedom, through the willingness of millions of ordinary men and women to abandon life. Ordinary heroism drove the Red Army, as it drove the Wehrmacht"
Nice article. I'm always impressed with accounts of what were in the minds of Soviet soldiers. I'd also recommend Nobel's Laureate Svetlana Alexievich book "The unwomanly face of war", a book of interviews with women that fought the war.
Nice article. I'm always impressed with accounts of what were in the minds of Soviet soldiers. I'd also recommend Nobel's Laureate Svetlana Alexievich book "The unwomanly face of war", a book of interviews with women that fought the war.
Yeah, the Alexievich book really stays with you. The teenage girl going to the front line and packing a suitcase full of chocolate. And the squad in the swamp, with a woman and her baby, and what she had to do when it started crying at a bad moment. Oosh.
Life and Fate is a truly incredible book - readable, thought provoking and deeply moving. Wildly underappreciated.
There's also an excellent translation with light commentary of Grossman's journalistic notes and articles from the war, "A Writer At War". Something that separates him from even certain more modern commentators is an intense concern for the experience of the ordinary soldiers, not just the cut and thrust of grand strategy and leadership.
There's also an excellent translation with light commentary of Grossman's journalistic notes and articles from the war, "A Writer At War". Something that separates him from even certain more modern commentators is an intense concern for the experience of the ordinary soldiers, not just the cut and thrust of grand strategy and leadership.
"A Writer at War" - the translation of his diary from 41-45 - is truly the most moving, most horrifying book I have ever read. After reading the account of the uprising at Treblinka, I was changed forever. I think it goes to show what an incredible man Grossman was, as just weeks after liberating the death camps, he resolutely chronicles the mass rape and murder of German civilians by his own forces.
He wrote an article during the war "the hell of Treblinka", (here in Russian http://lib.ru/PROZA/GROSSMAN/trebl.txt) This article was even used as evidence of the prosecution during the Nuremberg trials (says wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Grossman)
Agreed, great book. If you haven't read Anthony Beevor's Stalingrad as a 'non-fiction'
take I can also highly recommend. I presume he must have been heavily influenced by Grossman.
He was! He worked on "A Writer at War", and if you check the quotes and references in Stalingrad a huge number are from Grossman or Ehrenburg
There is another famous book by also an embedded war journalist.
Volokolamsk_Highway by Alexander Bek.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volokolamsk_Highway
It's much shorter book and an easier read but still an important account of a specific part of war that Grossman also briefly touched. That is a retreating army and what happens to soldiers and the leadership. The leadership skills are an important learning part. How to inspire and lead a completely demoralized, tired and hungry group of people.
It's much shorter book and an easier read but still an important account of a specific part of war that Grossman also briefly touched. That is a retreating army and what happens to soldiers and the leadership. The leadership skills are an important learning part. How to inspire and lead a completely demoralized, tired and hungry group of people.
It's an extraordinary historical event; a while ago I read Beevor's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalingrad_(Beevor_book) and it left a profound impression on me of the sheer meatgrinder of humanity, both German and Russian, that the battle was. Like the siege of Leningrad, a huge number of people were starved to death.
+1 for Stalingrad by Beevor
A soul shaking book. It changed my outlook on bureaucracy/society/humanity.
A soul shaking book. It changed my outlook on bureaucracy/society/humanity.
What I don't like so much about Beevor's Stalingrad is the narrative he weaves. He gets into the minds of his subjects and "tells" the reader what they were thinking, which is effectively impossible.
This is a narrative flourish meant to grab the reader's attention, but it's also an inadmissible interference by the author, and one where he inserts his own bias. I find Beevor's style very hard to take, since I don't enjoy being told what to think.
Contrast this with someone more dispassionate, such as David Glantz. He will tell you about the Eastern Front with more dry facts and less "going inside the minds" of generals or ordinary soldiers (UNLESS there is a reference that supports this). The resulting account is both more factual, with less author's ideology seeping through, but also drier and harder to read. Boring at times, even.
So Beevor is "more fun" to read than Glantz, but also way less impartial and more concerned about telling the reader what to think, and I really dislike that.
This is a narrative flourish meant to grab the reader's attention, but it's also an inadmissible interference by the author, and one where he inserts his own bias. I find Beevor's style very hard to take, since I don't enjoy being told what to think.
Contrast this with someone more dispassionate, such as David Glantz. He will tell you about the Eastern Front with more dry facts and less "going inside the minds" of generals or ordinary soldiers (UNLESS there is a reference that supports this). The resulting account is both more factual, with less author's ideology seeping through, but also drier and harder to read. Boring at times, even.
So Beevor is "more fun" to read than Glantz, but also way less impartial and more concerned about telling the reader what to think, and I really dislike that.
Artistic license, and so forth
Do u have an opinion on Peter Zeihan? Horribly entertaining, but is it speculative analysis or pure fiction?
Do u have an opinion on Peter Zeihan? Horribly entertaining, but is it speculative analysis or pure fiction?
I haven't read Zeihan.
> Artistic license, and so forth
I know, but because this is a history book (even if it's more "pop" history) the shape of the authorial voice matters more than in a fictional novel. Beevor's voice is often misleadingly disguised as impartial information, enough that I'm sure lots of his readers actually think everything he describes happened exactly like he said, inner thoughts included.
Now, if "Stalingrad" was a historical novel like "I, Claudius", where you understand the author is making many things up for the sake of entertainment, that'd be fine -- but I don't think that's what Beevor intends.
> Artistic license, and so forth
I know, but because this is a history book (even if it's more "pop" history) the shape of the authorial voice matters more than in a fictional novel. Beevor's voice is often misleadingly disguised as impartial information, enough that I'm sure lots of his readers actually think everything he describes happened exactly like he said, inner thoughts included.
Now, if "Stalingrad" was a historical novel like "I, Claudius", where you understand the author is making many things up for the sake of entertainment, that'd be fine -- but I don't think that's what Beevor intends.
I read that book in bed with a pretty bad flu.
It certainly added an extra dimension to be shivering from fever while reading about those poor cold souls.
It certainly added an extra dimension to be shivering from fever while reading about those poor cold souls.
Stalingrad was such hell on earth.
Mentioning it to my grandfather would break him and he would just walk away.
He stabbed dead Germans and fellow Russians with his bayonet to make sure they were dead. It's messed up.
Mentioning it to my grandfather would break him and he would just walk away.
He stabbed dead Germans and fellow Russians with his bayonet to make sure they were dead. It's messed up.
Post-war USSR must have had an enormous mental health problem (along with those who were physically handicapped).
In many ways, Russia is still recovering from the PTSD of the Revolution, Stalin, and the War.
Just to give one example: the male/female ratio post-war was 3:4, and has never exceeded 9:10 ever since. It had a profound effect on gender dynamics, which persists to this day.
That's one of the reasons mail-order brides often hail from ex-USSR countries: it's to escape not only the economic conditions, but the social ones too.
Just to give one example: the male/female ratio post-war was 3:4, and has never exceeded 9:10 ever since. It had a profound effect on gender dynamics, which persists to this day.
That's one of the reasons mail-order brides often hail from ex-USSR countries: it's to escape not only the economic conditions, but the social ones too.
Germany, France and Britain in WW1, and Germany in particular in WW2, suffered catastrophic losses of young men.
The combined civilian and military deaths in Germany, France, and Britain in both wars (~6 million in the first war, ~9 million in the second, we can even throw in ~2.5 million people who starved to death thanks to British colonial policy in India) pale in comparison to the casualties suffered by the Soviet Union (24 million dead out of 200 million people), and more depressingly, Poland (5.6 million dead out of 35 million people).
The Soviet Union, of course, inherited Imperial Russia's participation in WWI (~3 million dead), as well as the Russian Civil War that immediately followed (Another ~8 million dead).
If you're ever wondering why Russia is so paranoid about maintaining buffer states, and foreign encirclement, look no further than those numbers.
The Soviet Union, of course, inherited Imperial Russia's participation in WWI (~3 million dead), as well as the Russian Civil War that immediately followed (Another ~8 million dead).
If you're ever wondering why Russia is so paranoid about maintaining buffer states, and foreign encirclement, look no further than those numbers.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but you give an "out of 200 million" for the Soviet Union, but not for the case of Germany, Britain, and France. The denominator is a crucial figure.
Another difference is the death rate in terms of the proportion of men 18-60. Losing that population is more catastrophic than if the deaths are more evenly distributed.
For example, in France after WW1 it became normal for women to marry old men and crippled men. Men who survived WW1 and later WW2 in Germany had their pick of wives, and women tended to not marry at all (WW1) and married foreigners (WW2).
I.e. both rate of deaths and the demographics of the deaths matter a great deal.
Another difference is the death rate in terms of the proportion of men 18-60. Losing that population is more catastrophic than if the deaths are more evenly distributed.
For example, in France after WW1 it became normal for women to marry old men and crippled men. Men who survived WW1 and later WW2 in Germany had their pick of wives, and women tended to not marry at all (WW1) and married foreigners (WW2).
I.e. both rate of deaths and the demographics of the deaths matter a great deal.
The British Empire ruled over more than half a billion souls in 1939. 100 million lived in France and its colonies (Which were heavily drawn on for manpower.) 86 million in Germany.
It's true that the demographic impact of the death toll was more skewed, depending on whether or not the war was happening right on your doorstep, and on whether or not the Nazis were actively trying to liquidate people of your ethnicity.
It's true that the demographic impact of the death toll was more skewed, depending on whether or not the war was happening right on your doorstep, and on whether or not the Nazis were actively trying to liquidate people of your ethnicity.
That doesn't mean the British could send a boat halfway around the world and bring back a half billion soldiers to throw into the front, or anything remotely resembling that. So what I'm asking for is stats on British/French/German casualties among their native men. Without such stats, comparisons are not really possible.
As well as Grossman, can I recommend Adam Tooze. He's a historian who studied economics. He wrote the best account of the 2008 financial crisis and its aftermath. He's a gdmn leftie but exceedingly thoughtful and well-informed. Chartbook is worth a subscription.
Fascinating essay about a landmark pair of books. Thanks for posting. I'll argue another option on one key quote, though.
> What Stalingrad demonstrated was precisely that the unfreedom of the Soviet Union, as terrible as it was, was different from that of Nazi Germany or for that matter of the West precisely because it was more historically generative, more potent. >
Not quite. What Stalingrad demonstrated is that people faced with annihilation on their own soil will fight harder than a supposed conquering army more than 1,000 miles beyond its legitimate national boundaries.
This lesson keeps being retaught -- somewhere in the world -- every decade or so. Perhaps even more often.
> What Stalingrad demonstrated was precisely that the unfreedom of the Soviet Union, as terrible as it was, was different from that of Nazi Germany or for that matter of the West precisely because it was more historically generative, more potent. >
Not quite. What Stalingrad demonstrated is that people faced with annihilation on their own soil will fight harder than a supposed conquering army more than 1,000 miles beyond its legitimate national boundaries.
This lesson keeps being retaught -- somewhere in the world -- every decade or so. Perhaps even more often.
Excellent point. And also that shorter supply lines > longer supply lines and that more troops > fewer troops. Etc.
Great read and I had never heard of these books. Though I found that to be the weakest part of the essay as Adam Tooze certainly has the background to provider the reader clearer, and less ideological, reasons for what played out
Great read and I had never heard of these books. Though I found that to be the weakest part of the essay as Adam Tooze certainly has the background to provider the reader clearer, and less ideological, reasons for what played out
I’m currently half way through life and fate (just finished the famous chapter where Liss has a conversation with Mostovskoi on the similarities between the USSR and Nazi germany). It’s truly an incredible book. In the first chapters, he details the inner working of nazi camps, I did not know about Kapos[1], absolutely horrifying. Long read, but definitely check it out if a War and Peace about WWII is something that sounds interesting to you!!
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kapo
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kapo
Kapos were not always prisoners, sometimes the term was applied to POW camp guards. There were also "men of confidence", who were always POWs. Their role was to basically act as ambassador for the guards to the prisoners. There were cases where the MoC had to pick between outing folks attempting to escape, or allow their entire unit to be killed in retaliation.
This podcast episode is an interesting story about an escape in WWII from an illegal labor camp (Geneva Convention prohibits slave labor for PoWs) by several American POWs. Covers a lot about the way the camps worked too: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cDovL3d3MnBvZGNhc3QubGl...
This podcast episode is an interesting story about an escape in WWII from an illegal labor camp (Geneva Convention prohibits slave labor for PoWs) by several American POWs. Covers a lot about the way the camps worked too: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cDovL3d3MnBvZGNhc3QubGl...
There were generally three "tiers" at the camps. The SS were at the top, in command. At most camps there were very few of them, a couple of dozen. Below them were the Trawnikis/Hiwis, the soviet "helpers" who largely consisted of POW's who "volunteered" for guard duty. In German they held the title of Wachmann, watchman. They made up the majority of the guards. Then there were the prisoner workers and leaders, the kapos and sonderkommandos. They did most of the actual work of the camps.
The Trawnikis are revolting, I just cannot wrap my head around their existence. Yes, they were anticommunist so that was one reason to help the Nazis, but beyond that, they weren't ideological, they just were brutal and genocidal -- above and beyond mere survival, they committed the worst atrocities without any ideological allegiance to Hitler, I guess they just enjoyed their work and were willing to do anything -- murder, torture and rape -- in exchange for warm clothes, gear and food, and the feeling of importance you must get when you can freely terrorize other people.
I'm not naive, I understand a man can break and tell on his friends under duress. But to commit actual rape and murder without a second thought, that makes you the worst of the worst, a stain on the planet.
I'm not naive, I understand a man can break and tell on his friends under duress. But to commit actual rape and murder without a second thought, that makes you the worst of the worst, a stain on the planet.
My understanding is that a lot of the Trawnikis were simply trying to stay alive, at least the ones who started as POW's at the time they volunteered for the training. The vast majority of Soviet POW's in Wehrmacht hands were starved to death which is something that doesn't get talked about enough in my opinion - it absolutely shreds any "clean Wehrmacht" revisionist nonsense.
I tend to view collaborators as requiring less explanation in general, did some jump on the opportunity to unleash their inner sadist? Undoubtedly, but I think most were simply trying to survive the task of navigating the conflict between two brutal regimes and I believe their motivations and reasoning were individual and covered a whole spectrum of rationale. The people I think require the most explanation are the highly educated, well off volunteers of organizations like the SS and NKVD. People who had a choice and chose the secret police.
AFAIK, highly educated, well off people who are a bit lost in the world provide the bulk of cult/extremist members in this era.
I assume you've read it. But for other readers of this thread, Eric Hoffer's book The True Believer:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer
Is a great exploration of educated people becoming extremists. It's an easy read and the literal origin of the phrase 'True Believer' in modern English
Is a great exploration of educated people becoming extremists. It's an easy read and the literal origin of the phrase 'True Believer' in modern English
> My understanding is that a lot of the Trawnikis were simply trying to stay alive
My understanding was different. These were willing participants, going above and beyond the mere instinct to survive. See my other replies. At the behest of their Nazi masters, the Trawniki enacted key parts of the Holocaust and of Generalplan Ost -- the plan to exterminate most of the Slavic population of Eastern Europe.
I urge everyone commenting here to read what the Trawniki actually did. These weren't mere collaborators!
My understanding was different. These were willing participants, going above and beyond the mere instinct to survive. See my other replies. At the behest of their Nazi masters, the Trawniki enacted key parts of the Holocaust and of Generalplan Ost -- the plan to exterminate most of the Slavic population of Eastern Europe.
I urge everyone commenting here to read what the Trawniki actually did. These weren't mere collaborators!
> The people I think require the most explanation are the highly educated, well off volunteers of organizations like the SS and NKVD. People who had a choice and chose the secret police.
They believed they are doing the right thing or simply the job. They were convinced they are the good ones. Tho, these two are massively different organizations. SS were not secret police, they were basically army doing a lot of actual combat.
Gestapo would be closer equivalent of NKVD.
They believed they are doing the right thing or simply the job. They were convinced they are the good ones. Tho, these two are massively different organizations. SS were not secret police, they were basically army doing a lot of actual combat.
Gestapo would be closer equivalent of NKVD.
> they were basically army doing a lot of actual combat
This was mainly the Waffen-SS which was only built up during the war, the SS as a whole was responsible for the worst atrocities in the occupied areas and within Germany (for instance running the extermination camps).
(also, Himmler was both head of the SS and Gestapo by 1934, I guess there wasn't much of a distinction between the two organizations)
This was mainly the Waffen-SS which was only built up during the war, the SS as a whole was responsible for the worst atrocities in the occupied areas and within Germany (for instance running the extermination camps).
(also, Himmler was both head of the SS and Gestapo by 1934, I guess there wasn't much of a distinction between the two organizations)
SS was responsible for camps and extermination, but they were also elite combat body. They were given responsibility for camps because they were supposed to be better soldiers then army itself. SS were also willing to take more risk and more losses then army would normally do. Mostly because they were eager to prove themselves uber soldiers they believed themselves to be.
The army itself had ethnic cleansing as one of the goals too. I mention this mostly because after war there was tendency to blame everything on SSand create myth of "clean" Wehrmacht. Because that felt better to Germans.
Gestapo was literally professional police. They were people who did criminal inveatigations prior and repurposed many of the same tactic. That is massive difference.
The army itself had ethnic cleansing as one of the goals too. I mention this mostly because after war there was tendency to blame everything on SSand create myth of "clean" Wehrmacht. Because that felt better to Germans.
Gestapo was literally professional police. They were people who did criminal inveatigations prior and repurposed many of the same tactic. That is massive difference.
Gestapo did run camps (and had the power to put people in camps without courts being involved), oversaw forced labor, hunted resistance in occupied territories and tortured and murdered prisoners, sometimes in cooperation or under shared orders with the SS, sometimes as parallel structures with different primary victim groups. "Professional police" alright...
None of it makes it not professional police tho. Police does not mean "hollywood movie good guys". It just mean police and in authoritarion setups it means more violence then in liberal setups. Police tortures people all around the world, both now and in the past.
You never seen them at battlefield. It was organized, effective, produced bureaucracy. They were police force.
They did not run camps, tho they could send people there.
You never seen them at battlefield. It was organized, effective, produced bureaucracy. They were police force.
They did not run camps, tho they could send people there.
> They did not run camps
They did, keyword "AEL". Plenty Gestapo were SS-members too. Yes, there were some differences, but in many areas they did plenty of the same things, and were different parts of overall the same system.
They did, keyword "AEL". Plenty Gestapo were SS-members too. Yes, there were some differences, but in many areas they did plenty of the same things, and were different parts of overall the same system.
Well the "clean Wehrmacht" was a convenient post-war myth in Western Germany when the Bundeswehr was created, but I think in the last 20..30 years that myth has been thoroughly debunked.
If you're interested in more strategic myth making by former Wehrmacht/Nazi officials, check out the debunking of Albert Speer's "Good Nazi" persona. Very interesting how long he got away with essentially lying through his teeth about being involved in Jewish deportations.
Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Speer#The_Speer_myth
Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Speer#The_Speer_myth
If you remove the Waffen SS I think the comparison holds, both Allgemeine SS and NKVD were overarching internal security / police type organizations. Like a lot of Nazi organizations the SS had somewhat nebulous duty boundaries that overlapped some other groups and evolved over time.
There were also NKVD combat units, most famously one which did a lot of heavy fighting in Stalingrad. (Actual desperate fighting against Germans, not the scene from the awful "Enemy at the Gates" where they fire on retreating Soviet troops -- that's mostly made up for the movie).
People in brutal conditions become brutal. That part is fairly universal. And it is pretty easy to make them even more brutal by right training. All you have to do is to reward aggression and to redirect their resentment toward weaker victim. Moreover, people who had pre-existing tendency to be brutal are overrepresented in units like that.
Second, antisemitism itself is not nazi invention. It was pre-existing in Eastern Europe, Ukraine and so on.
Third, "might is right" was strong aspect of nazi ideology where stronger have no responsibility toward weaker. So was "empathy is feminine weakness" and "manly men suppress these emotions and are brutal". Once you indoctrinated people into this, it does not matter whether they are Germans or Ukranians, they are more likely to be ok with committing atrocities.
> in exchange for warm clothes, gear and food, and the feeling of importance you must get when you can freely terrorize other people
It also needs to be acknowledged that lack of warm clothes means death and so does lack of food. We are not talking here about slight discomfort due to somewhat malnutrition. We are talking about no food full stop. Neither of those will make you nicer well empathetic person. Instead, they will make you focus on survival and loose whatever empathy you was previously capable of.
Second, antisemitism itself is not nazi invention. It was pre-existing in Eastern Europe, Ukraine and so on.
Third, "might is right" was strong aspect of nazi ideology where stronger have no responsibility toward weaker. So was "empathy is feminine weakness" and "manly men suppress these emotions and are brutal". Once you indoctrinated people into this, it does not matter whether they are Germans or Ukranians, they are more likely to be ok with committing atrocities.
> in exchange for warm clothes, gear and food, and the feeling of importance you must get when you can freely terrorize other people
It also needs to be acknowledged that lack of warm clothes means death and so does lack of food. We are not talking here about slight discomfort due to somewhat malnutrition. We are talking about no food full stop. Neither of those will make you nicer well empathetic person. Instead, they will make you focus on survival and loose whatever empathy you was previously capable of.
I get what you're saying but the Trawniki were not collaborators doing what they could to survive. They were sadistic bastards, fully into what they were doing while at the same time "ideology-less" (beyond a basic anticommunist background).
Put it this way: say an alien race enslaves humanity, you're first a starved POW, later given some privileges for good conduct, and later put in charge of some tasks on behalf of the aliens, which you must do in order to keep your privileges.
In this thought experiment, do you see betraying your fellow humans? I want to think I wouldn't, but maybe I would. Telling on people, maybe even shooting some? Sure, it's possible. But you must remember the Trawnikis enacted much of the Holocaust. They raped and murdered women and children, and did so of their own free will. Do you see yourself raping a mother and murdering her children for the sake of keeping your privileges with the alien overlords?
I don't. The Trawniki embraced this with willingness. They are the worst of the worst, unforgivable human scum.
> People in brutal conditions become brutal.
I reject this. People with the potential for brutality fully unleash this under brutal conditions. But there are decent people too, people you can break with brutality but which will never descend into it, they won't pillage, torture and rape no matter what you do to them -- and examples of this abound!
Put it this way: say an alien race enslaves humanity, you're first a starved POW, later given some privileges for good conduct, and later put in charge of some tasks on behalf of the aliens, which you must do in order to keep your privileges.
In this thought experiment, do you see betraying your fellow humans? I want to think I wouldn't, but maybe I would. Telling on people, maybe even shooting some? Sure, it's possible. But you must remember the Trawnikis enacted much of the Holocaust. They raped and murdered women and children, and did so of their own free will. Do you see yourself raping a mother and murdering her children for the sake of keeping your privileges with the alien overlords?
I don't. The Trawniki embraced this with willingness. They are the worst of the worst, unforgivable human scum.
> People in brutal conditions become brutal.
I reject this. People with the potential for brutality fully unleash this under brutal conditions. But there are decent people too, people you can break with brutality but which will never descend into it, they won't pillage, torture and rape no matter what you do to them -- and examples of this abound!
If you haven't read Ordinary Men (https://www.amazon.com/Ordinary-Men-Reserve-Battalion-Soluti...) by Christopher Browning I think you would like it, the book is about who follows appalling orders, why they do, and what does (and doesn't) happen to them if they don't.
I think that most of us like to think we would be the moral exception, it offers some mental comfort, but it's far more likely that we won't.
I think that most of us like to think we would be the moral exception, it offers some mental comfort, but it's far more likely that we won't.
I'm familiar with Ordinary Men and also with Hitler's Willing Executioners and I think they prove my point.
> what does (and doesn't) happen to them if they don't
This is key. What happens if they didn't follow orders? It turns out that... pretty much nothing. You could get away with not following orders. So those who did anyway, murdered, tortured and raped, are monsters in my eyes. Their lives weren't even in immediate danger!
> I think that most of us like to think we would be the moral exception, it offers some mental comfort, but it's far more likely that we won't.
If you think you would break down and commit rape, torture and murder, then I'm sorry for you. I'm nothing like you then, and most decent people aren't either.
I'm not naive: I know there's a lot of behavior people will engage in under extreme conditions -- I can admit cannibalism, robbery, violence and lots of things unacceptable in normal society -- but there IS a line, and torture and rape are way beyond that line. I'm willing to admit under exceptional duress I'd betray my country and my friends. I can see myself being forced to shoot another human being "or else". What I cannot absolutely accept from you or anybody else is to claim "well, if I'm threatened with torture or death then I can break and be willing to rape women and crush their babies". I'm sorry but I cannot, and if you think you would, I hope I never meet you in person: you terrify me.
If it comes to a point where someone tells me "unless you rape this child, I'll do the same to your children" then I might as well accept we're all doomed and it's beyond anything I can do. I won't commit rape, period.
Note we're discussing the Trawniki men in this context. Read about what they did before claiming everyone in their position would do the same. These were really scum, the worst of the worst.
> what does (and doesn't) happen to them if they don't
This is key. What happens if they didn't follow orders? It turns out that... pretty much nothing. You could get away with not following orders. So those who did anyway, murdered, tortured and raped, are monsters in my eyes. Their lives weren't even in immediate danger!
> I think that most of us like to think we would be the moral exception, it offers some mental comfort, but it's far more likely that we won't.
If you think you would break down and commit rape, torture and murder, then I'm sorry for you. I'm nothing like you then, and most decent people aren't either.
I'm not naive: I know there's a lot of behavior people will engage in under extreme conditions -- I can admit cannibalism, robbery, violence and lots of things unacceptable in normal society -- but there IS a line, and torture and rape are way beyond that line. I'm willing to admit under exceptional duress I'd betray my country and my friends. I can see myself being forced to shoot another human being "or else". What I cannot absolutely accept from you or anybody else is to claim "well, if I'm threatened with torture or death then I can break and be willing to rape women and crush their babies". I'm sorry but I cannot, and if you think you would, I hope I never meet you in person: you terrify me.
If it comes to a point where someone tells me "unless you rape this child, I'll do the same to your children" then I might as well accept we're all doomed and it's beyond anything I can do. I won't commit rape, period.
Note we're discussing the Trawniki men in this context. Read about what they did before claiming everyone in their position would do the same. These were really scum, the worst of the worst.
>If you think you would break down and commit rape, torture and murder, then I'm sorry for you. I'm nothing like you then, and most decent people aren't either.
I'm not talking about that level, I'm talking about:
>I can see myself being forced to shoot another human being "or else"
I was speaking in the context of the reservists described in Ordinary Men in this comment, not the Trawnikis, though I still don't agree with your blanket characterization of them. Please provide the references you speak of about them being the worst of the worst. Their wikipedia article claims with references that approximately 1000 out of 5000 ran off during operations, that hardly seems like the actions of a bunch of willing sadists frothing at the mouth to kill.
I'm not talking about that level, I'm talking about:
>I can see myself being forced to shoot another human being "or else"
I was speaking in the context of the reservists described in Ordinary Men in this comment, not the Trawnikis, though I still don't agree with your blanket characterization of them. Please provide the references you speak of about them being the worst of the worst. Their wikipedia article claims with references that approximately 1000 out of 5000 ran off during operations, that hardly seems like the actions of a bunch of willing sadists frothing at the mouth to kill.
The newer introduction from Richard J. Evans ia interesting tho. These were not entirely ordinary men as in representing ordinary Germans.
They were righ-wing supporters and their political convictions made them ok with those orders. They perceived Reich as free long after everyone else was persecuted, after synagoges were burned etc.
They were righ-wing supporters and their political convictions made them ok with those orders. They perceived Reich as free long after everyone else was persecuted, after synagoges were burned etc.
This is an important distinction!
Since not all of us are right-wing supporters, antisemites, or believe in the racial superiority and the innate right to rule of this or that race, this means it's not true that all of us would happily engage in rape and ethnic cleansing just because we're told by some authority figure that it's right to do so.
Since not all of us are right-wing supporters, antisemites, or believe in the racial superiority and the innate right to rule of this or that race, this means it's not true that all of us would happily engage in rape and ethnic cleansing just because we're told by some authority figure that it's right to do so.
As for first paragraph, the two are in no way in opposition. One can be both at the same time. And joining these units in the first place was one of survival tactic. Then you become part.
Also, literally all armies raped, some more then others. Rape is horrible, but it went on in wars a lot. Germans raped, some units really very much a lot. Russian soldiers raped. Both on the way to Germany and then a lot inside Germany. American soldiers raped (less then Germans and Russians). You are bringing it up and it is horrible, but it was not unique to these units at all.
Second, I have no idea how I would acted. I think I would die, because I am sickly in general. Which absolve me of moral choices I guess.No one of us knows how he would really act in such situation. Ressentment and hunger and genrally violence make people ok with things they are not normally.
Go even read that comic about Elan school someone posted on HN. Exact same dynamic in nutshel.
Third, the more I read about history, prisons, wars, genocides and cults and such, the more I became convinced of this. When you create brutal environment, people in it will become brutal gradually. Some more then others and yet others will be victims. But that is what happens every single time.
Also, literally all armies raped, some more then others. Rape is horrible, but it went on in wars a lot. Germans raped, some units really very much a lot. Russian soldiers raped. Both on the way to Germany and then a lot inside Germany. American soldiers raped (less then Germans and Russians). You are bringing it up and it is horrible, but it was not unique to these units at all.
Second, I have no idea how I would acted. I think I would die, because I am sickly in general. Which absolve me of moral choices I guess.No one of us knows how he would really act in such situation. Ressentment and hunger and genrally violence make people ok with things they are not normally.
Go even read that comic about Elan school someone posted on HN. Exact same dynamic in nutshel.
Third, the more I read about history, prisons, wars, genocides and cults and such, the more I became convinced of this. When you create brutal environment, people in it will become brutal gradually. Some more then others and yet others will be victims. But that is what happens every single time.
I'm sorry, I reject the idea that there's a set of brutal conditions that would have led me to rape, and murder even children in cold blood like the Trawniki did.
The scale and horror that Nazism and their willing lackeys inflicted upon the (modern) world is terrifying. No, under no set of conditions I would have behaved like the Trawniki. You say that every army raped, and this is true, but
> You are bringing it up and it is horrible, but it was not unique to these units at all.
I'm sorry, but again read what the Trawniki did and tell me it's of the same order of magnitude than what other armies "regularly" did. You can't, because it's not. Nazism enabled them, and these men, out of their own free will, went above and beyond the "call of duty", embraced it and rejoiced in this monstrous behavior. In many cases they weren't frontline units -- so their savagery upon civilians cannot be excused by saying "they were numbed and desperate by combat, and their prisoners suffered because of it" -- they conducted reprisals on civilians and served as guards in extermination camps, and were a key part of the Holocaust. They were reasonably well fed and clothed, and they chose to murder women and children. What's their excuse then?
I've read a lot about history, and know of men and women that perished because they refused to behave like savages, to know this is not the only possible course of action.
The Trawniki were really scum and there's no excuse for what they did.
The scale and horror that Nazism and their willing lackeys inflicted upon the (modern) world is terrifying. No, under no set of conditions I would have behaved like the Trawniki. You say that every army raped, and this is true, but
> You are bringing it up and it is horrible, but it was not unique to these units at all.
I'm sorry, but again read what the Trawniki did and tell me it's of the same order of magnitude than what other armies "regularly" did. You can't, because it's not. Nazism enabled them, and these men, out of their own free will, went above and beyond the "call of duty", embraced it and rejoiced in this monstrous behavior. In many cases they weren't frontline units -- so their savagery upon civilians cannot be excused by saying "they were numbed and desperate by combat, and their prisoners suffered because of it" -- they conducted reprisals on civilians and served as guards in extermination camps, and were a key part of the Holocaust. They were reasonably well fed and clothed, and they chose to murder women and children. What's their excuse then?
I've read a lot about history, and know of men and women that perished because they refused to behave like savages, to know this is not the only possible course of action.
The Trawniki were really scum and there's no excuse for what they did.
When you askes "why" I thought it is about analyzing why. Now it seems to me that there is zero interest in "why".
> I'm sorry, but again read what the Trawniki did and tell me it's of the same order of magnitude than what other armies "regularly" did
Germans had units composed of criminals run by rapist. Like, literally guy convinced of that. It was largely uncontrolable body, not that anyone tried to controlled the rape away.
The history of armies and wars are people exactly like that. There were multiple genocides in history and it involves killing children each time. ISIS included. Rape included.
> I'm sorry, but again read what the Trawniki did and tell me it's of the same order of magnitude than what other armies "regularly" did
Germans had units composed of criminals run by rapist. Like, literally guy convinced of that. It was largely uncontrolable body, not that anyone tried to controlled the rape away.
The history of armies and wars are people exactly like that. There were multiple genocides in history and it involves killing children each time. ISIS included. Rape included.
I never asked "why", so you must be confusing me with someone else from this thread. That said, "why" is an interesting question that can be explored, but "why" is not the same as "everyone would do this".
> The history of armies and wars are people exactly like that. There were multiple genocides in history and it involves killing children each time. ISIS included. Rape included.
In recent history very little resembles WWII in scale, savagery and murder. Things in Africa in more recent history, I guess, and the Armenian genocide that even Hitler paid attention to. But WWII's scale of bloodshed and ethnic cleansing is unmatched, as is the systematic, planned nature of said cleansing.
> There were multiple genocides in history and it involves killing children each time.
I'm not even sure what you're arguing here. Maybe that because killing of children happened before and after, that the Trawniki weren't monsters to be singled out and repudiate every time they are mentioned? I disagree. They were monsters, the worst of the worst. Notice I didn't claim the Trawniki invented ethnic cleansing or rape though. If you mention some other army that killed children, maybe hacked them to pieces using machetes during one of Africa's stomach churning conflicts, I'm ready to call them monsters too. Are you?
> The history of armies and wars are people exactly like that. There were multiple genocides in history and it involves killing children each time. ISIS included. Rape included.
In recent history very little resembles WWII in scale, savagery and murder. Things in Africa in more recent history, I guess, and the Armenian genocide that even Hitler paid attention to. But WWII's scale of bloodshed and ethnic cleansing is unmatched, as is the systematic, planned nature of said cleansing.
> There were multiple genocides in history and it involves killing children each time.
I'm not even sure what you're arguing here. Maybe that because killing of children happened before and after, that the Trawniki weren't monsters to be singled out and repudiate every time they are mentioned? I disagree. They were monsters, the worst of the worst. Notice I didn't claim the Trawniki invented ethnic cleansing or rape though. If you mention some other army that killed children, maybe hacked them to pieces using machetes during one of Africa's stomach churning conflicts, I'm ready to call them monsters too. Are you?
Victor Frankl discusses the psychological makeup of kapos in "Man's Search for Meaning"
Kapo by Gillo Pontecorvo is a must see
City of Thieves by David Benioff (of Game of Thrones fame) is a fictional story of the siege of Leningrad and might also be enjoyable for those interested in Grossman's books. At around 250 pages, it's a very quick read.
My grandfather was a teen during the war, spending most of it under the occupation as a cow herder in Grodno, a small-ish city that is now on the westmost edge of Belarus. For him, war rolled over really quick one way over that town and then rolled over the other way, and in the middle was lots of hunger and keeping your head down.
I took my girlfriend to visit with them back in early oughts and we were walking around through the Grodno old town and she was asking about a certain part of town that seemed to her to be in a really poor upkeep and he answered - well this is where the ghetto was situated, near synagogue, and nobody really wanted to do much with that part of town after all the jews were "liquidated" in 43. I am sad to say that even though I spent every summer in that town, I never really noticed until then. She told me it was really the first time the war became truly real to her.
For me it was when I was little, I remember working in the garage with my family and this one older guy, we were painting something, and it was hot, so he took off his shirt. Underneath, he was completely covered by this elaborate criss-cross pattern of scars all over his body. I asked him what it was and he said he was in infantry retreating in summer of 1941 and their battalion was taking shelter in a burned out village where only the central stoves of the houses were left (wood outside, brick inside) and people were hiding behind the stoves and the tanks opened up with heavy machine guns, exploding the bricks and cutting people up with the sharp clay pieces. He said he was one of just few survivors because he hid inside one of the stoves, everyone else got cut to pieces on the outside.