The Unwomanly Face of War an oral history of women in WWII

[cutiger83]

There was a recent post where Gil stated “you can’t really judge the effectiveness of allied actions without hearing from the other side”. This is a very true statement. However, you also can’t really judge the devastation of war without also hearing from the women who have served in all wars and for all countries.

 

I am currently reading,” The Unwomanly Face of War an Oral History of Women in World War II” by Svetlana Alexievich. This book was a winner of the Nobel Prize for literature. It was originally published in 1985 in Russia and has been translated to English. This is a fascinating book about the Russian women who served in WWII. I knew there were female snipers and female pilots but they did SO much more. For instance, they served as medics with tank units. They would ride on the outside of the tanks into battle. When a tank was on fire, they would run to the tank to pull out the injured. Of the 6 women in the unit, only the one telling her story in the book survived the war. Another woman earned several medals for carrying men twice her size by herself from the battlefield to the hospital.

 

The following is quoted from the forward section of the book. I found this to be a wonderful explanation of why women’s voices also need to be read and heard when it comes to history:

 

There have been a thousand wars – small and big, known and unknown. And still more has been written about them. But it was men writing about men – that much was clear at once. Everything we know about war we know with “a man’s voice”. We are all captives of “men’s” notions and “men’s” sense of war. Women are silent. No one but me ever questioned my grandmother. My mother. Even those who were at the front say nothing.

 

When women speak, they have nothing or almost nothing of what we are used to reading and hearing about: How certain people heroically killed other people and won. Or lost. What equipment there was and which generals. Women’s stories are different things. “Women’s” war has its own colors, its own smells, its own lighting, and its own range of feelings. There are no heroes and incredible feats, there are simply people who are busy doing inhumanly human things. And it is not only they (people) who suffer, but the earth, the birds, the trees. All the lives on earth with us. They suffer without words, which is still more frightening. A whole world is hidden from us. Their war remains unknown. I want to write the history of that war. A women’s history.

 

 

 

[Jean-Loup]

I read this book last year and found it fascinating. It well deserved its Nobel prize. I had to ration my reading so as not to finish it too fast.

It gives an illustration of the total war that occurred on the eastern front, where any losses, no matter how heavy, where considered acceptable. Where the Soviet regime did not respect the humanity of even its own soldiers.

It is only unfortunate that the author never noted such details as units, dates or locations. She had a litterary approch, not a historical approach, to her witnesses.

 

JL

[cutiger83]

 

It is only unfortunate that the author never noted such details as units, dates or locations. She had a literary approach, not a historical approach, to her witnesses.

 

JL

 

 

Thanks so much for chiming in. I am glad you also liked the book.

 

I believe this was done on purpose to show the women's point of view. If you reread the last paragraph in my post where I quoted from the author, she mentions that she wants to write from the women's point of view not from the typical military historical approach. She does mention some places such as Leningrad but she does not usually mention which specific battles. While some might want to know the specific battles, I find the author's approach shows more that from a human perspective all battles are basically just alike.