WWII, from the inside

Of course this will seem out of left field, and so it is. Does it belong in this Group? I dunno.

Nevertheless, it is quite interesting, moving and worth thinking about. To me anyway.

I have the beautiful 1942 Simon and Schuster edition of Tolstoy's War and
Peace (dustjacket missing). There is a very long foreward by Clifton
Fadiman. It is chilling, downright terrifying, to contemplate what reading
this book meant in 1942. Like Napoleon before him, Hitler was investing
Russia. The Nazis had been pushed back, but were still strong. The outcome
was very much in doubt. Despite the time required to type it, I wish to
share with you a long paragraph:

"At this writing, the titanic battle of Russia, a part of the general
battle for the soul of man, is far from a decision. Hitler's retreat, while
obviously not strategic in the sense he had planned is, on the other hand,
far from being the rout that some wishful thinkers would make it out. But it
represents a physical and moral defeat, the proportions of which probably no
one knows except the German General Staff. Certainly the back of Fascism
does not appear to be broken, as Napoleon's back was broken after Moscow.
Napoleon's dream died with his dying legions in the snow. Hitler's dream --
the same vision, dreamed by a people instead of a single tyrant -- is by no
means dead. We do not know (unless faith is knowledge) whether Hitler will
retrace completely the mighty Napoleonic parabola or whether he will succeed
temporarily in his nightmare design of covering our planet with an Egyptian
night. If he should fail, a new Tolstoy may arise fifty years hence to
chronicle the vast drama of his rise and fall. If he should succeed, that
new Tolstoy will not arise. For there will be no novelists and no poets. The
humane and philosophic view of life from which supreme works of art spring
will have been blotted out."

So there it is. A thought for today, from yesterday.

Well, but for the fact that Stalin wasn't able to destroy the poets and novelists himself.

I find the piece more interesting for the fact that Stalin (of all people) would be portrayed as a savior for the arts.

You might enjoy Europe Central, if you've not read it. Based in WWII, deals directly with the relationship/purpose of the arts in the context of Germany and the USSR.

There were isolated instances of tremendous artistic achievement produced by both Germans and Russians. Triumph of the Will comes to mind. As does the work of Celine, although he was a French fascist, it came from the same place as Hitler's vision for the world. Same with Pound. In Russia we have Solzhenitsyn. I don't think the triumph of Fascism/Communism would have killed the arts, they would have gone in a different direction, been used differently. I would be inclined to say art would ultimately have fared better under the totalitarians than it has under capitalism. Some of the artwork from the WWII period on all sides of the conflict were stunning. We, on the other hand have been graced with Jackson Pollack, Andy Warhol, and Klaes Oldenburgh.

What led me to post it was from a different point of view. We all know that the Allied victory was not a foregone conclusion. But it helps to be reminded by reading a contemporaneous account of the fear, and the stakes.

Yes, but it's still rather interesting to see Hitler viewed as the supreme evil, whilst Stalin is portrayed as the protector of the people.

True as well.

6:I think in some respects that holds true even today. In the introduction to Gulag: A History Anne Applebaum points out that in the west with the exception of Solzhenitsyn's writings there is very little awareness of Stalin's crimes in the general culture. There is no Hollywood big budget equivalent to Schindler's List for the Gulag.

Erskine Caldwell, author of Tobacco Road and God's Little Acre traveled to the USSR early in the war and wrote All Night Long about the heroic Red Army and the Soviet partisans who were fighting the Germans. Stalin's excesses were unknown or at least unbelieved by many members of the left at the time. I believe that he eventually became disenchanted with the Soviet government as did, IIRC, Big Bill Haywood who fled there to avoid prosecution or persecution (depends on where you stand) by the US government.

Fadiman would have likely faced resistance if he had written anything negative about Stalin at the time as he was one of our most important allies in the war effort.

Popular opinion about the past is interesting. During a class on African American history my professor said that the Nazis never tried to work with African American groups because of their racism. I pointed her to Under Cover by John Roy Carlson who worked undercover for the FBI infiltrating Nazi backed organizations in the US. He specifically talks about the German efforts to subvert African Americans into supporting Germany in the war. The Nazis may have been racists but the were also opportunists.

I have the same book (I don't have a dust jacket either) But I rebound it with a leather spine. It truly is the best novel ever written. As to Stalin, I believe we were forced, reluctantly, to be his ally. The history of the war shows how we offered very little aid to his fight against Hitler. In fact several historians believe the "Cold War" started early on during WWII. As to Operation Barbarossa, Hitler's invasion of Russia came to the same end as Napoleon's. Starving, frozen soldiers. The defeat of Hitler can directly be traced to this failed invasion.