“For many, what awaited was a mutilating wound or death. But that is not the whole tale of this war. The paradox is chilling, but nonetheless it remains true that foot soldiers on the Soviet side, if they survived, could genuinely talk of progress. Those who lived would meet foreigners…They would fight beside Soviet citizens who did not speak their Russian language…They would see and handle new machines, learn to shoot, learn to drive, learn to strip parts out of heavy guns and tanks. They would also become adepts in black market trade and personal survival. As conquerors in the bourgeois world they would use its fine china for their meat, drink its sweet Tokyo wine till they passed out, force their masculine bodies on its women. By the war’s end, they would have gained a sense of their own worth. But even as they entered villages…so like their own lost peacetime homes, they would have sensed the extent of their transformation, the distance each had traveled since their first call-up…”
- Catherine Merridale, Ivan’s War: Life and Death in the Red Army, 1939-1945
In tsarist times, the Imperial Russian Army was known as “the Steamroller,” a testament to its sheer, overwhelming size, and its perceived indomitability. The metaphor further implied that the Russians were a blunt instrument, a relentless, inertial force capable of overcoming any obstacle simply by throwing nameless, faceless bodies at it.
The depersonalization of the Russian soldier became even more literal in Joseph Stalin’s Soviet Union. There, individual soldiers were treated as the property of the state, their lives forfeited to the needs of their dictator. When Adolf Hitler’s Nazi German forces invaded, Stalin did not simply trade space for time, he sacrificed blood, and a lot of it. Millions of men were ordered into suicidal attacks, were thrust into battle without weapons, were forced to clear mines on their hands and knees, and were summarily executed for numerous perceived failures.
While the Red Army played a central role in the Allied victory in the Second World War, it is often viewed as a monolith that spent the first half of the conflict being ineptly slaughtered, and the second half wreaking a terrible vengeance on everyone in their path.
In Ivan’s War, Catherine Merridale attempts to treat the Red Army with something resembling empathy, and to carve from this vast and impersonal legion a few of the actual lives of which it was made.
***
Structurally speaking, Ivan’s War – the title reflects a nickname for Soviet soldiers, akin to Britain’s “Tommies” – unfolds chronologically, beginning in 1939 and ending in 1945. Given its subject matter, it’s not particularly surprising that Merridale starts with the outbreak of war, and ends with the silencing of the guns. Still, two things are worth pointing out about the presentation.
First, this isn’t Band of Comrades. That is to say, this is not a unit history, following a specific group of men in a particular company, regiment, division, or corps. Rather, Merridale gives us dozens of different men and women posted to different formations at different parts of a continent-sized battlefield. Due to the difficulty Merridale had in tracking down sources, the soldiers do not represent any kind of scientific cross-section. Meanwhile, some of the names appear once and disappear, while we check in with others several times.
Second, this is not a military history of the Red Army. To be sure, many battles are mentioned, some necessary strategic concepts are discussed, and Merridale will occasionally describe combat, such as at the famed, turning-point battle of Stalingrad, or the clash of tanks at Kursk. That said, this is not the book to turn to if you want to know how the war ebbed and flowed, or to learn tactical dispositions. Indeed, it is quite helpful to know the overarching outline of the Red Army’s actions before starting this.
***
This is war on an intimate level, told through low-level participants who often did not know where they fit within the grand scheme of things. In each chapter, Merridale tries to capture the experiences of ordinary soldiers at the different stages of the war’s progression. For instance, early chapters cover conscription, training, and deployment, while the later ones show us veterans who know how to loot a home and navigate the black market.
Interestingly, much of what Merridale narrates is non-battle oriented. Even for Soviet soldiers, it seems, much of the war was spent trying to stay dry, trying to keep warm, and trying to find enough to eat.
I appreciated this look at the aspects of war that went beyond flanking movements, shaping attacks, and the capture of vital towns, hills, or bridges. Merridale covers a great deal including clothing, equipment, supply shortages, rations, home-front relationships, faith, superstition, songs, sex, propaganda, post-traumatic stress, plunder, and memory.
Frankly, it was sometimes hard to keep everyone straight, because Merridale is more intent on forming a collage of many experiences than in describing discrete character arcs. Nevertheless, I found Ivan’s War incredibly absorbing, a fascinating mosaic of the horrific and the mundane.
***
In describing her efforts and methodology, Merridale notes that she began working on Ivan’s War in 2001, and eventually had it ready for publication in 2006. Her preparations included around 200 interviews with veterans, along with extensive archival work.
Unknowingly, Merridale managed to research and write this book in a very narrow window – now closed – between the fall of the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation’s decided turn away from rapprochement with the West. With all that has happened since this was published, including aggressive Russian moves against Georgia and Ukraine, it is unlikely that any western historian will have such access again for quite some time.
Even during the post-Cold War thaw, Merridale noticed a peculiar reticence among many of her subjects to say anything negative. As such, she had a hard time getting them to speak about some of the war’s most notorious incidents, including the staggering number of sexual assaults committed by the Red Army as it moved into Germany.
Refusing to admit to criminal activity is one thing, but many of these former Red Army soldiers appeared to withhold even anodyne criticisms. Some seemed to actually miss the old days of Stalinist rule. Others had been so thoroughly indoctrinated from birth that they accepted their lot without question. This can be frustrating, as Merridale is often unable to get as deep as she wants.
One of the tragedies of the Red Army is that it got little glory for its accomplishments. The laurels went mostly to Stalin, and he took center stage in the myth of the Great Patriotic War. Most soldiers received very little official thanks. Those who had been captured often found themselves transferred from a German camp to a Soviet one, prisoners for additional years. Soldiers who had seen the bounty of the “bourgeois” West were closely watched upon their return, lest they tell others that Soviet claims regarding comparative standards of living were woefully inaccurate.
***
Most histories give you the bottom line. That’s to be expected, because conclusions must be drawn from the full weight of the evidence.
Generally speaking, the Red Army presents a complicated moral case. We know that the Red Army invaded Finland in violation of international law; that it invaded Poland in concert with Hitler, and committed atrocities that at any other time would have shocked the world; that it ravaged the countryside that it conquered; and that its soldiers raped thousands of German women.
On the other side of the ledger, the Red Army suffered millions upon millions of casualties grinding the Wehrmacht into a bloody puddle. The Soviet Union did not win the war on its own, but it cannot be denied that it did most of the fighting, killing, and dying.
Merridale does not shy away from the bad or neglect the good, but her purpose is not to form sweeping judgments of the whole. She instead tries to break the Red Army down to its component parts; to capture some fraction of the humanity of those who comprised it; and to survey the variety of responses to one of the most intense experiences imaginable. More than anything, this is a study of distinct beings living within an authoritarian system, meaning it is about the limits of autonomy, the ephemerality of free will, the endurance of suffering, and the remarkable instinct to survive.