The Inimitable Tiff

Is truth nothing more than a convention of power, or can truthful historical accounts resist the gravity of politics? Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union sought to master history itself. The Soviet Union was a Marxist state, whose leaders proclaimed themselves to be scientists of history. National Socialism was an apocalyptic vision of total transformation, to be realized by men who believed that will and race could slough off the burden of the past.

The twelve years of Nazi and the seventy-four years of Soviet power certainly weigh heavily on our ability to evaluate the world. Many people believe that the crimes of the Nazi regime were so great as to stand outside history. This is a troubling echo of Hitler’s own belief that will triumphs over facts. Others maintain that the crimes of Stalin, though horrible, were justified by the need to create or defend a modern state. This recalls Stalin’s view that history has only one course, which he understood, and which legitimates his policies in retrospect.

This is a highlighted segment of “Bloodlands”.  Hell of a book, though I’m a known softie* for questions about evil.  I never realized how the geography I learned or culturally absorbed around the Allies’ WWII events—think “Band of Brothers”’ domain—differs so much from the part behind the Iron Curtain’s fall—stories like the Belarusians in “Come and See”**—which seemed like it was a different war entirely.

* That’s a effed up phrase.

** Available on Netflix but start drinking the day before you watch it.  If you don’t believe me—even as a self-confessed calloused soul—then take Ebert’s advice.  It’s hard to watch but harder to have rummaging around in your subconscious, after the fact.  This goes for “Bloodlands”, too.