More thoughts on WWII

[herewiss13]

I really like WWII. My passions lie in the sciences, but a little history is nice, and the more I read about this global conflict, the more I find there is to know. Time, and the events themselves, have shaped this era into an epic, a narrative as full of twists, reverses and crescendos as any great novel. What's more, it's fractal. No matter on what scale you look at it, you can still find drama and plot.

And let me tell you, when you look the War with an eye to literary analysis, you find some screwy things.

Like perfect character foils!

The four great leaders of the War:

Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin, Hitler (Mussolini hardly counts, and it's difficult to pin a true "head" on Japan. The emperor was symbolic and various military figures came and went).

Roosevelt and Churchill were "good" (I'm striving for a better term, but let's go with this one for the moment).

Stalin and Hitler were "evil" (despite the fact that Stalin was on our side.)

Churchill and Stalin were pragmatic.

Roosevelt and Hitler were idealists.

Two dichotic traits, all four permutations expressed in the four great leaders of the era. And it's not even as if I had to fudge things at all!

I wish to God I could draw a little diagram like they do in psychology. People who've read "Red Mars" will know exactly what I'm talking about.

Comments

[ase.livejournal.com]

I wish to God I could draw a little diagram like they do in psychology. People who've read "Red Mars" will know exactly what I'm talking about.

Michel's alchemy diagrams? Yeah.

I've got to wonder how much of your "foils" theory is based in historical artifact. If the other side had won, would the semantic reactangle hold up?

[herewiss13.livejournal.com]

I'm still struggling to find a better dichotomy than "good and evil". Perhaps "positive and negative". Because, even if I cannot name it, there is a _distinct_ quality separating Stalin and Hitler from Churchill and Roosevelt. Humanity, perhaps.

In any case, while all four figures have in some way been "polished" into stereotypes, I've been reading enough primary sources, or accounts derived directly _from_ primary sources to be capable of drawing some basic broad conclusions about their seperate characters. While history is written by the winners, there is, I feel, enough unbiased data on their various actions (or at least enough multi-biased to cancel out) to make judgements.

Roosevelt was an idealist, believing in World Peace and other high-minded dreams. The Four Freedoms were not mere propaganda, nor was the United Nations which he practically forced on _all_ the other allies (even Churchill wasn't _too_ hot on the idea, letting tiny countries have equal say, etc.).

Hitler was an idealist, living amidst visions of the 1000 year reich, the superiority of the Aryan Race and the marvel of "Wonder Weapons" (they did develop the first jet aircraft...which was incredibly capable and abominably mis-used). He strove for a more glorious future in almost the same way Roosevelt did, albeit a much more twisted future.

Churchill was a pragmatist. He subscribed to the British maxim "England has no eternal allies or eternal enemies, she has only eternal interests." He went in League with Stalin only because he felt that Hitler was the greater of the two evils. He had no cameraderie with Russia, as Roosevelt did.

Stalin was a pragmatist. Russian paranoia came from being invaded time and again. Stalin's actions were all based on securing Russia's borders (by expanding them or through 'buffer zones' or any other means necessary). So when peace with the Nazis was possible (plus a nice chunk of Poland) he made peace. When attacked, he attacked, brutally and without regard for civilians. When non-communist Poles in Warsaw threatened his post-war control of the country, he incited them to rise up, then waited...10 miles down the road with his army, until the Nazis crushed the rebellion. He would not allow other allies to assist the Poles either. Utterly and totally pragmatic.

As for the other dichotomy, perhaps it's best described as Roosevelt and Churchill upholding the rights of people while Stalin and Hitler upheld the power of the State. It's not a historical artefact to call the former pair "the democracies" and the later "the despots."

If the other side had won, the various labels might have been subtly altered, but the basic rubric, I think, is quite sound.