Discussion - Week Four - Europe Central - p. 328 - 410

[Jim]

This discussion covers The Last Field-Marshal, pg. 328 - 410

[Zadignose]

Poor suffering Field Marshal Friedrich Paulus, Sr. And poor Ernst!

Paulus's story is somewhat of a counterpoint to Vlasov, though as much as their stories diverge, they also converge.

Now I have sympathized with a monster of officiousness.

Meanwhile, one of the many leitmotiv's of this text is the embrace of delusion, even contradictory delusion, and rejection of fact. Just as Elena Kontantinovskaya is dark haired merely because the author insists upon it, regardless of the historical fact that she was blonde... or was she!?... Well, here our narrator tells us that the order to give food only to healthy soldiers during the battle of Stalingrad could not have come from Paulus, nor could it have occurred without his knowledge and authorization, thus it simply couldn't have existed at all. Taking another tack on contradiction, we get "I think [Ernst] might have borne [Paulus] back to Baden-Baden, to place him at Coca's side; on the other hand, I've also read that he was buried in Dresden. Doubtless both accounts are true..."

[LindaH]

Lieutenant-General Paulus, with his "enthusiasm for spectacle" and eagerness for praise and honors, is intent on rising in the ranks. Field-Marshall Paulus, on trial at Nuremberg, claims he was just "...doing my duty to the Fatherland." I find Lieutenant-General Vlasov, with his concern for his men and for staying alive, the more sympathetic character. Vlasov always expects to be shot, and is. Paulus allows himself to be rendered harmless and finally long life renders him dead.

[Zadignose]

I think one could say that Paulus and Vlasov each wanted for his men what he wanted for himself... yet perhaps he wanted it for himself even more. In fact they both wanted life and integrity, but when push came to shove, life was the more fundamental value to Vlasov, while integrity was more fundamental to Paulus. Yet they both failed of course, Vlasov's tenacious clinging to life still got him killed, and Paulus lost his integrity by ultimately falling into enemy hands... despite his best intentions he couldn't commit suicide, and he never had the character to die like a mythic Germanic hero like Hagen (Nibelungenlied) who willingly walked into certain death, who drank blood to sustain his strength longer so he could slay more, who didn't fear to face any torment or execution... because who can really live that way? Especially if one is afraid to get one's white gloves dirty.

I don't want to simplify too much. I sympathized with Paulus's repressed, inexpressible feelings for his family, and the incongruity of his desire to be honored for heroism with his actual external image of a prissy man who's closer in character to the "nodding ass" than he'd ever like to admit, and one who sometimes exhibits a bit of personal cowardice. The everlasting tension between the ideal and the real.

His conversion in the end was painful to see, largely because it was too easy, in its way. We've been shielded from seeing the hardships, the years in prison, the personal struggles, etcetera. But what we get is that, after the pretense to heroism is stripped away, his "integrity" is easily redefined as continuing to diligently, loyally serve a new master, only aiming to be the best possible tool, unconcerned with what he is being used for. Strangely enough, that is a kind of ideal form, with its own integrity, for a professional apolitical military officer. And of course the Fuhrer could never abide political generals.

[LindaH]

Agree with your comments about Paulus, with one exception. Perhaps his "integrity" is redefined for him by circumstances and others, but I balk at the idea that Paulus ever has integrity. Yes, he is true to his values (diligence, etc.), but he seems so compromised as an individual. Isn't Vollmann showing what happens to the individual in the totalitarian context?

[LindaH]

To continue...I sympathize with Paulus, especially during the battle scene when he knows what to do but is refused support, and also in his life in Dresden when he adheres to his "ideals" despite the fact that he is reviled by both sides. But I wanted him to make a stand, and he never does. Consequently, I'm of two minds about him. Is his loyalty to someone, say Hitler, defensible or not? Is he a moral man? I think of the photo in Ernst's house, and Ernst wondering if he should cut out just his father or leave him with the group. Is Paulus best viewed in or out of context?

I guess Paulus's tragic flaw as a character is his desire for praise and promotion. Perhaps Paulus's ultimate victory is that the Red Guillotine's assessment of him is that he "...was lacking in all personal ambition."

[mkfs]

What I find most amusing about Paulus is that he is, apparently, really not that great of a general. Like Vlasov, he clings to former victories when things go bad; unlike Vlasov, his adversaries did not seem worried that he might unexpectedly regain the upper hand.

[Zadignose]

It's not as tragic as being imprisoned, tortured, and executed, but my mini-tragedy of the week is the death of my Kindle, which appears to have been stricken by witchcraft. I'm also behind in the reading for week five... wah, wah, wah, wah, wahhhhhh (played on muted trombone).

I'll be compensating by reading, in paper form, A Tomb for Boris Davidovich, of which the first two stories were excellent (haven't read the others yet). I think there's certainly a kinship between that book and this.

Meanwhile, I'll find a way to read at least a bit of Europe Central using a desktop Kindle client or something. I may or may not be able to access my copious notes that I've so far produced... that may not be anyone's loss but mine.

Meanwhile, onwards.