FORCED Vs. INNATE CRUELTY

by Cemil Kerimoglu

As a follow-up to my latest essay about the differences in the nature of cruel behavior of Germans and Russians in the years leading up to and during World War II, and more precisely on the nature of Hitler's and Stalin's regimes, it occurred to me that this difference can be distilled into the following contrast: forced vs. innate cruelty. While the Nazis frequently articulated their brutal intentions, attempting to philosophically justify and rally support for their actions, Russians operated with a more inherent form of brutality, often committing their crimes in secrecy and without the need for public rationalization. This therefore impelled other Western nations to take more keen notice of Germany and become fixated on it, while being lenient on, or outright ignoring, the far ghastlier Evil emerging in the east. Because Germans, unlike Russians, were constantly out in the open, declaring to the world how cruel they are and/or plan to be.

In their open declarations of brutal objectives, the Germans, however, were not actually signaling to the world; they were rather persuading themselves to adopt a cruelty that was foreign to their nature. This phenomenon can be likened to a congenial person who, after being repeatedly bullied, resolves to toughen up. Such a transformation does not come naturally, and thus, he might speak frequently and openly about his newfound toughness, trying deep inside primarily to convince himself rather than others.

Conversely, an individual who is innately cruel or barbaric does not feel the need to boast about his cruel deeds. For him, brutality is second nature, an inherent aspect of his being. He acts barbarically without the accompanying declarations; his actions alone are his expressions of cruelty.

Therefore, the overt display of cruel intentions by the Germans could be seen less as an attempt to intimidate others and more as a struggle within themselves. They were, in essence, attempting to transform their fundamental nature from one of inherent civility and amiability - qualities forced aside by harsh humiliations following the defeat in World War I - to one of forced brutality. This public exhibition of cruelty was not so much a warning to others as it was an internal battle to adopt a harsher persona that was fundamentally at odds with their original character.

A comparative analysis of Adolf Hitler's and Joseph Stalin's early lives offers insight into the contrasting natures of German and Russian national characters, as well as their respective forms of cruelty. Accounts from those who knew Hitler describe him as naturally amicable, polite and shy in his youth, showing no inherent criminal tendencies. In stark contrast, Stalin was involved in criminal activities and led a gang during his youth, displaying strong antisocial and psychopathic tendencies.

This difference extends to the way each leader and their governments went about their violent intentions. Hitler, Goebbels, and other Nazi officials frequently used public speeches to openly declare their plans for Jews and other groups. Their rhetoric often included philosophical justifications for violence, underscoring its perceived necessity. This need to vocalize and rationalize their intentions suggests that such violence was not innate to them; they were not naturally violent but had to persuade both themselves and the German people, who were also not inherently barbaric, to embrace such behaviors.

On the other hand, the Soviet regime under Stalin committed acts of cruelty without the need for such public philosophical justifications. Russians often carried out their brutal acts clandestinely, without the overt chest-thumping that characterized Nazi declarations. This approach implies a more ingrained tendency towards violence in Russian people. The Soviet Union, by the time Hitler rose to power, had already been responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people during peacetime, including the killing of 8 million Ukrainians during the Holodomor.

While Nazi officials frequently and openly expressed animosity towards Jews, Soviet officials never made public declarations about the need to address "the Ukrainian question", for example. Nor did they feel any need to organize conferences to delineate their plans on carrying out the genocide of Ukrainian people, or other peoples under their captivity.

This difference highlights the divergent nature of cruelty in Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia (or its latest reincarnation - Putin's Russia). While for Germany it was unnatural and therefore its leaders needed to emphatically persuade the public, and also themselves, to become brutal, the manifold barbarities of the Soviet regime, on the other hand, represented the innate character of the Russian people.

Thus, one can reliably argue that whereas Germany didn't deserve the harsh treatment it received during WWII, with its beautiful cities - the architectural historical jewels razed to the ground, its women raped, civilians hungered and tortured even after the end of the war, Russia, on the other hand, has continuously been treated more leniently than it should have been throughout history. If anything, it was the Soviet Union that should have received the “German treatment” during the Second World War. The same applies to present-day Russia.

This stark difference suggests that even a defeat in the ongoing war in Ukraine, or any larger scale conflict followed by attempts at re-education, may not fundamentally alter Russian attitudes or behavior. Unlike the Germans, who repented their wartime atrocities - acts so contrary to their nature that they provoked shock and guilt - it is unlikely that Russians would experience a similar response. Even a victorious Germany would still have found its way to remorse after Hitler's death, driven by a national character alien to the depths of Nazi crimes.

In contrast, for Russia, mere defeat and the ensuing clarification to the populace of its recent crimes in Ukraine and those in other historical epochs might not suffice. The transformation will require a profound de-Russification of the entire Eurasian expanse, in the sense that a renunciation of Russian historical identity and the adoption of new local identities will be necessary. Although reshaping identities will not change inherent behavioral traits of the people, it could definitely shift their incentives and motivations.

While Germany's Nazi era is a tragic deviation from its historical norm, the entire span of Russian history is marred by continuous transgressions. The whole Russian history is, in fact, one big Crime. Being a proud German is therefore laudable and should be encouraged more, whereas being a proud Russian already amounts to a transgression. Whereas German identity is an inherent part of Western Civilization aligned with its interests, Russian identity, on the other hand, is inherently hostile to the West. It must therefore be eradicated in order for the West to be safe from threats, to prosper and reach new heights.

Also published at the From Baltic to Black Sea Substack