The Comparative Analysis of the Image of the "German-Nazi" in the German Literature about the Second World War

Pokhalenkov Oleg Evgen'evich Doctor of Philology Professor, Department of Literature, Kaluga State University named after K. E. Tsiolkovsky 248002, Russia, Kaluzhskaya oblast', g. Kaluga, ul. Nikolo-Kozinskaya, 56, kv. 8 olegpokhalenkov@rambler.ru Other publications by this author

In Western literary studies, the opinion has been fixed that the Second World War did not leave such a significant trace as, for example, the First World War, for which the name "The Great War" was fixed in the West. For example, in English literature, the First World War became a source of new prose and poetry for this literature. Here it is appropriate to recall the "trench" poetry and Z.Sassoon, R. Graves, W. Owen, etc. [see subs.: 6;7;8] Or the trilogy of the modern English writer P. Barker ("Regeneration", 1991), in which she again addresses the topic of the Great War, touching on the most topical topics for English society – social inequality, homosexuality, privileged private education, etc., i.e. those topics whose relevance is not questioned in England. The literary situation in German literature was completely different. Immediately after the defeat of Germany in the First World War, talented young writers entered the literary arena, whose works now belong to the classics of the literature of the "lost generation" – L. Renn, E.M. Remarque, etc. But even if the division of German society into those who supported Remarque's opinion about the betrayal of an entire generation that was sent to die on the front line and those who considered Remarque a traitor to German society and the soldiers' brotherhood, the situation after World War II in German literature reflected, in many ways, the intensity of political passions that existed in Germany itself.

For a long time, the theme of guilt/innocence for the Fascist legacy was prevalent in post-war German literature. Such authors as V. Borchert, G. Bell, E.M. Remarque, etc., who themselves experienced the horrors of Nazi totalitarianism, tried to overthrow the myth of the "pure Wehrmacht" and deprive the possibility of revanchist sentiments among neo-Nazis [see appendix: 2].

The problem of attitude to the memory of the past war and responsibility for numerous victims became especially acute after the approval of public opinion that not everyone who fought on the Eastern Front was guilty. The idea that men and women were simply victims of propaganda seemed very attractive and began to be supported among the general population. In particular, these sentiments were supported by the most radical-minded writers, for example, H.G. Konzalik, even developed in their works the idea of a "cultural" campaign to the East. Such propaganda bore fruit, since in the early 1950s many West Germans believed that the idea of National Socialism was not so bad. It was during this period that the novel by E.M. Remarque, analyzed by us, "A Time to Live and a Time to Die" (1954), and more than half a century later, the autobiographical novel by one of the most famous modern German–speaking authors, Uwe Timm, "By the Example of a Brother" (2003), was published.

Comparing the above–mentioned works about the Second World War, it is worth noting that the "Time to live and Time to Die" Remark is an artistic fiction, while "By the example of a brother" is the real story of the author's brother, who served in one of the SS units. If Remarque sets out to show the destructive effect of the ideology of Nazism on a person and his gradual moral decay, then Timm tries to understand and explain for himself the behavior of his brother and his potential participation in the mass murders carried out by his division. Timm himself speaks in the following way about the difference in the interpretation of the category of guilt in his homeland: "Perhaps one of the significant differences between East and West Germany, that is, between the later FRG and the GDR, is precisely that in the western part, the question of collective guilt was inexorably raised before the population. Which from the point of view of democratic procedure is only logical: Hitler was elected by the whole people. In the eastern part, on the contrary, in a mechanistically simplified perspective, everything was reduced to the difference between deceivers and deceived, in the sense that capitalists, exploiters, were deceivers, and workers were deceived. Guilt, thus, became a class phenomenon, having a justification in economic interests. Thanks to this, authoritarian thinking and loyal service to the state remained beyond criticism, moreover, they were perceived and inherited by the socialist society as a kind of Prussian prowess" ^[4].

Thus, the "Eastern Campaign" is still becoming a topic for German prose writers. An ambivalent view of the past war exists at the present time. In this case, the analysis of the central image of the works – the image of the "Nazi" will reveal the similarities and typological similarities of the two authors who addressed the topic of debunking the myth of the pure Wehrmacht and the innocence of ordinary Germans mechanically following orders.

The central image will be considered using the concept of a "literary hero" by L.Ya. Ginzburg. Ginzburg believed that "the image of a hero in a prose text has its own characteristics and it is possible to reconstruct it only if all elements at all levels of the text are taken into account. It is implemented in the text through the following elements – a system of motives, speech, methods of characterization (its elements are name (other ways of naming), evaluation, description); the specificity of these elements is due to the point of view (spatial, temporal, psychological) that determines the character of the hero. <...> character is a structure arising from people's observation of internal (self-observation) and external processes" ^[1].

According to O.M. Freudenberg, the relationship between the image of the hero and the system of motives is indicated by: "In essence, speaking about the character, we had to talk about the motives that were stabilized in him; the whole morphology of the character is the morphology of plot motives" ^{[5, pp. 221-222]}.

The plot of the novel "A Time to Live and a time to Die" unfolds in three artistic planes: the fighting on the Eastern Front (chronotope front, as well as topos and loci corresponding to the location of Graeber in this time and space) and peaceful life in the rear of Germany (Graeber's vacation).

The main attention in the presented work will be paid to the opposition of Graeber – who thought about his role as a German soldier – and Steinbrenner – a convinced Nazi. Being within the artistic space of the war, Graeber repeatedly faces the murders of innocent civilians, partisans and military opponents. But it is at the front that the hero begins to think about the nature of the ongoing war and wonder: is it always necessary to kill in war? And who is the real enemy? Awareness of their role in the ongoing war is based on the opposition within the system of characters: the division into "their own" and "strangers". Such a technique, chosen by Remark, leads to the demythologization and discrediting of the myth of ideological unity in the German army.

Karl-Heinz, the writer's brother and the central character of Timm's novel, dies in Ukraine. In the work itself, he is represented by two hypostases: in the image of a son and a brother, whose characteristics are presented in the speech and memories of loved ones, and in the image of a Wehrmacht soldier, an elite SS unit "Bull's Head". The second hypostasis is given by the author through the prism of his own perception of his brother's diary, which he kept during the service and which falls into the hands of the writer after the death of the hero.

It should be noted that the two presented hypostases of the image of Karl-Heinz practically do not correlate with each other. Speaking about his brother, Timm emphasizes his peaceful nature with the following epithets: "quiet", "dreaming", "brave", "fearful", "persistent", "honest", etc. The narrator emphasizes that his parents were proud of such a son: "Karl-Heinz, who was so attached to his father and in general was a real boy...  He, the father, was proud of this boy" ^[4]. Or: "Brother – it was a boy who did not lie, was always honest and steadfast, did not cry, was brave, but also obedient. An exemplary brother" ^[4].

The author emphasizes the fact that the family has parents (like many residents of Germany) all responsibility for the killing of civilians on the Eastern Front was placed on the politicians who unleashed this war. The image of Karl-Heinz correlated in their minds with the image of a lost or lost young man who simply succumbed to patriotic rhetoric and carried out the order. Timm even gives an example of such an impact on the younger generation, pointing to the source – the novel "In Steel Thunderstorms" by E. Junger: "The most striking thing when reading "In Steel Thunderstorms" by Ernst Junger and, perhaps, the most exciting is the sincerity in self–expression of consciousness, for which deadly courage, duty, self-sacrifice are still absolute values. Not only social guidelines, but precisely the values that – in a joint struggle – will one day, transcendently, overcome nihilism. But that this courage, this duty, this obedience turned out to be values at the same time, with the help of which, thanks to which the factories of death worked longer, even if the zealots of values did not know about it — although they could have known – that's what my father could never and did not want to understand. It was a question that the paternal generation did not even ask — as if there were no appropriate tools in their minds for its formulation — and to which, when the question sounded from the outside, there was no answer, only excuses" ^[4].

It should be noted that in the case of the motivation for getting to the front, the authors have discrepancies: if the Remark Greber was a volunteer who got to the Eastern Front and only there began to blow up about his actions, then Timm paints a completely different picture. The image of his brother correlates with a "lost" young man who believed in pseudo-patriotic slogans and got to the front by chance. But this motive is disputed by the author himself, telling that his brother dreamed of the front, of Africa, of serving in the troops of General Rommel: "My brother dreamed of lace-up boots, which were then worn by pilots, motorcyclists, stormtroopers. I was saving, saving my pocket money until I got enough for boots. In one of the photos he is in the uniform of the Hitler Youth and in these boots, high, almost to the knees. The lacing was held on hooks. He wanted to go to Africa. But they did not take Rommel by personal request" ^[4].

The image of the "Nazi" in Remarque's novel is realized in the scene of the murder (execution) of Russian partisans. The writer reveals the main conflict by contrasting Greber with Steinbrenner, i.e. the ideology of the author himself is opposed to the ideology of Nazism. Moreover, Graeber goes to the murder of his compatriot deliberately, emphasizing his choice, calling Steinbrenner a "murderer": "Graeber woke up, went to the barn, pulled the key out of his pocket and unlocked the door. "Go,– he said. The Russians looked at him in silence. They didn't believe him. He threw the rifle aside.–Go, go," he repeated impatiently and showed that he had nothing in his hands. The younger Russian took a few steps cautiously. Graeber turned away. He moved back to where Steinbrenner was lying. – The murderer! – he said, not knowing who he meant. He looked at Steinbrenner for a long time. And I didn't feel anything" ^{[3, p. 398]}.

In Timm's novel, we do not see such opposition, since Karl-Heinz's parents deliberately tried to emphasize the differences between the troops in which their son served and the elite SS units that committed "outrages" in the occupied territories: "This gang," so it became customary to say, "these criminals. But the boy was in the SS. These were ordinary combat military units. The criminals were others, those from the SD. The so-called special purpose parts. And first of all, those at the top are the management. They took advantage of the boy, abused his youthful idealism" ^[4].

Narrator (Karl-Heinz's brother), telling the story of his brother, despite the opinion of his parents, from time to time had to emphasize his indifferent and even detached observation of death, its statement. For example, in one of his diary entries, he records: "March 21

Donets

They took a bridgehead over the Donets. 75 m away from me Ivan smokes cigarettes, a great target, a profit for my MG" ^[4].

Thus, the question arises about the features of the Nazi image in two works that are separated by a half-century time boundary. Who was Remarque's real killer and was Timm's brother the killer?

It is worth noting that in order to understand Remark's understanding, it is necessary to refer to the scene with Russian prisoners of war. The remark shows the brutal treatment of the convinced Nazi Steinbrenner to prisoners, thus contrasting Graeber and Steinbrenner, and at the same time emphasizing that even the Nazi Steinbrenner needs a motive for murder. Having found themselves in the opposition "alien" to their own compatriots, Greber begins to associate himself with the victims – Russian prisoners. This transformation in the image of a Wehrmacht soldier Greber – Remark emphasizes in the scene of the execution of Russian partisans: "And suddenly thoughts came rushing at him, overtaking one another. It seemed as if a stone had fallen from the mountain. Something has been decided forever in his life" ^{[3, p. 28]}.

The Nazi Steinbrenner is personified in Remarque's work in the image of the devout Nazi Steinbrenner – the bearer of the ideology of "murder", which is opposed by the German – victims of the war who carried out the order because of fear for their lives.

The motive of guilt / innocence arises at the end of Timm's novel in the context of the revealed facts about torture and mass murder in concentration camps: "This is not an attempt to explain. And no scripture, no phrase will save, will not help – in the sense of deduction, ordering, understanding, no, there is only one thing here: self-defense in the face of what has been revealed to you. Among the photographs taken by Lee Miller in Dachau immediately after the liberation of the camp by the Americans, there is one depicting an SS man drowned by prisoners in a small river. Slightly blurred in the jets of clear water, you can distinguish a face and a spotted protective uniform, as if surfacing from unknown, menacing depths. “The Evil" is what Lee Miller called this photo. What if my brother had been transferred to a concentration camp as a guard?"^[4].

Thus, both authors approached the interpretation of the Nazi image in their own way. Remark clearly points to the culprits – idealistic enemies who supported the Wehrmacht, but begin to think (like Graeber) or believe in the rightness of the Nazis to the last (like Steinbrenner). In the novel, which was written half a century later, Timm paints the image of a lost young man, a Nazi not by conviction, but rather carried away by the symbolism, the rhetoric of the leaders. The writer emphasizes that the diary he quotes contains fixed facts rather than descriptions of murders.