Since Steinbeck was purposefully writing a piece of propaganda, he knew that he couldn't directly state that the conquerors were Nazi's. If he had, the book would only serve as propaganda regarding WWII. Since the book implies the Nazi's, the WWII "generation" will appreciate it, but all the other generations have the ability to relate the book and its occupiers to whatever war is going on at the time that the reader reads the book.
I agree with Lauren. Steinbeck only implying that the conquerors were Nazis makes the book more relatable for the WWII generation, but it also gives other generations the opportunity to relate to the situation. Without this consistent idea of democracy and freedom under oppression and invasion without a specific label, the book gives off more ideas and concepts about democracy than if he had labeled the invaders as Nazi's. This is so because then people would have a harder time trying to make that connection.
Steinbeck wanted to give the book a more general outlook about war and about the concept of the conqueror and conquered. The idea was for propaganda to humanize the conqueror. This humanization of the conqueror gives hope to the conquered because the conquered knows that they are fighting a force that is just like them with the same emotional problems. Hope fuels the conquered through the bad times and wills them to never stop fighting back to regain their freedom. It is irrelative whether the conqueror is the Nazi’s or any other nation. Furthermore, the use of the term Nazi would devalue the book in other countries and other generations not dealing affected by the Nazi war machine.
I think he only implied that the conquerors were Nazi's to leave room in people’s imaginations and to make the message more piercing. If people have to figure out that they are Nazi's, it sticks better in their minds and the message comes even clearer than if Steinbeck were to straight up tell the readers that the conquerors were Nazis. It also allows the people to imagine them as any kind of conquerors, not just the Nazi’s that are stereotyped to be so horrible. It allows the readers to see the conquerors as humans, not just the horrible image America is depicting of the Nazis. Steinbeck not labeling the conquerors as Nazis allows for the conquerors to be even more humanized in the readers minds.
At the time the novel was released every reader knew exactly who they were talking about. It was basically implied at the time, so there was no need to specify, because that would limit the books purpose to just that time period. Without clearly stating that they were natzis alows different readers to connect with the book and link it to more recent situations in war. While Steinbeck wrote the book as WWII propaganda, he didnt want to limit it to just that.
I agree with what everyone else has said. I like Taylor's idea of "it sticks better in their minds and the message comes even clearer than if Steinbeck were to straignt up tell the readers that the conquerors were Nazis" is a point of view that I hadn't thought about for. I think this reasoning is very similar to mine from my previous post, but it has a little extra "zing" to it.
I agree with pretty much everything everyone has said, and I also think if Steinbeck said that the invaders were Nazis then only the Europeans would be able to relate to it. He was trying to write propaganda for Americans, and Americans knew nothing about being invaded by anyone, much less Nazis. The book was a giant "what-if" for Americans, so it didn't make sense to make them Nazis because that would be saying, "Look the Nazis will invade us." He needed it to be vague enough that Americans would appreciate it rather than fear it.
I generally agree with everyone about this. I think that he was expressing his views on the psychology of occupation, and WWII was the conflict that happened to be occuring at the time. He wanted all future nations under foreign occupations to understand the mental weakness of their conquerors.
The Nazis weren't the only people that had ever occupied or that would ever occupy another country. In not directly stating that the occupiers were the Nazis, Steinbeck allows the situation to be applied to more people and to more recent times. During the WWII everyone knew the Nazis were the occupants, making it unnecessary for Steinbeck to state that the occupiers were the Nazis.
I really like what John said. Steinbeck was analyzing the psychology, so of course he needed it to apply to any conquered people, not just the conquered nations of WWII. It would be too specific to be a general analysis of psychology when living in an occupied state if the soldiers had been the Nazis.
I also think the term Nazi was not used because the term Nazi was such a feared term and idea. The term Nazi was more feared by many than actually the Nazi’s themselves. While the term Nazi was omitted to generalize the text, it could was have also been omitted to not strike fear in the European people (the conquered ones). Therefore Steinbeck could have omitted the term Nazi to show the people who they were really fighting against. He wanted to show them that they were fighting people and not the “Nazi’s”. Again humanizing the Nazi’s brought hope and belief to the conquered European countries.
Since Steinbeck was purposefully writing a piece of propaganda, he knew that he couldn't directly state that the conquerors were Nazi's. If he had, the book would only serve as propaganda regarding WWII. Since the book implies the Nazi's, the WWII "generation" will appreciate it, but all the other generations have the ability to relate the book and its occupiers to whatever war is going on at the time that the reader reads the book.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Lauren. Steinbeck only implying that the conquerors were Nazis makes the book more relatable for the WWII generation, but it also gives other generations the opportunity to relate to the situation. Without this consistent idea of democracy and freedom under oppression and invasion without a specific label, the book gives off more ideas and concepts about democracy than if he had labeled the invaders as Nazi's. This is so because then people would have a harder time trying to make that connection.
ReplyDeleteSteinbeck wanted to give the book a more general outlook about war and about the concept of the conqueror and conquered. The idea was for propaganda to humanize the conqueror. This humanization of the conqueror gives hope to the conquered because the conquered knows that they are fighting a force that is just like them with the same emotional problems. Hope fuels the conquered through the bad times and wills them to never stop fighting back to regain their freedom. It is irrelative whether the conqueror is the Nazi’s or any other nation. Furthermore, the use of the term Nazi would devalue the book in other countries and other generations not dealing affected by the Nazi war machine.
ReplyDeleteI think he only implied that the conquerors were Nazi's to leave room in people’s imaginations and to make the message more piercing. If people have to figure out that they are Nazi's, it sticks better in their minds and the message comes even clearer than if Steinbeck were to straight up tell the readers that the conquerors were Nazis. It also allows the people to imagine them as any kind of conquerors, not just the Nazi’s that are stereotyped to be so horrible. It allows the readers to see the conquerors as humans, not just the horrible image America is depicting of the Nazis. Steinbeck not labeling the conquerors as Nazis allows for the conquerors to be even more humanized in the readers minds.
ReplyDeleteAt the time the novel was released every reader knew exactly who they were talking about. It was basically implied at the time, so there was no need to specify, because that would limit the books purpose to just that time period. Without clearly stating that they were natzis alows different readers to connect with the book and link it to more recent situations in war. While Steinbeck wrote the book as WWII propaganda, he didnt want to limit it to just that.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what everyone else has said. I like Taylor's idea of "it sticks better in their minds and the message comes even clearer than if Steinbeck were to straignt up tell the readers that the conquerors were Nazis" is a point of view that I hadn't thought about for. I think this reasoning is very similar to mine from my previous post, but it has a little extra "zing" to it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with pretty much everything everyone has said, and I also think if Steinbeck said that the invaders were Nazis then only the Europeans would be able to relate to it. He was trying to write propaganda for Americans, and Americans knew nothing about being invaded by anyone, much less Nazis. The book was a giant "what-if" for Americans, so it didn't make sense to make them Nazis because that would be saying, "Look the Nazis will invade us." He needed it to be vague enough that Americans would appreciate it rather than fear it.
ReplyDeleteI generally agree with everyone about this. I think that he was expressing his views on the psychology of occupation, and WWII was the conflict that happened to be occuring at the time. He wanted all future nations under foreign occupations to understand the mental weakness of their conquerors.
ReplyDeleteThe Nazis weren't the only people that had ever occupied or that would ever occupy another country. In not directly stating that the occupiers were the Nazis, Steinbeck allows the situation to be applied to more people and to more recent times. During the WWII everyone knew the Nazis were the occupants, making it unnecessary for Steinbeck to state that the occupiers were the Nazis.
ReplyDeleteI really like what John said. Steinbeck was analyzing the psychology, so of course he needed it to apply to any conquered people, not just the conquered nations of WWII. It would be too specific to be a general analysis of psychology when living in an occupied state if the soldiers had been the Nazis.
ReplyDeleteI also think the term Nazi was not used because the term Nazi was such a feared term and idea. The term Nazi was more feared by many than actually the Nazi’s themselves. While the term Nazi was omitted to generalize the text, it could was have also been omitted to not strike fear in the European people (the conquered ones). Therefore Steinbeck could have omitted the term Nazi to show the people who they were really fighting against. He wanted to show them that they were fighting people and not the “Nazi’s”. Again humanizing the Nazi’s brought hope and belief to the conquered European countries.
ReplyDelete