The Satanic Cosmic Force 129
thought that was known to the Soviet authorities and anticipated much of
the radical criticism of nuclear technology voiced by Western thinkers like
Günther Anders. It is with respect to three aspects that Grossman challenges
the official stance on nuclear arms technology and nuclear war. First: as the
discussion of his story Abel (August 6th) in the second part of this essay demonstrates, for Grossman, the rationale of the Cold War plays no role whatsoever.
Grossman’s approach to the threat of nuclear war defies one-sided accusations, as they were common on both sides of the Iron Curtain. His story
allows no distinction between US and Soviet nuclear policies. Similar to
Günther Anders, Grossman treats the bombing of Hiroshima as a universal
problem, the emblem of a culture of technification that fundamentally shatters basic concepts of morality. This is also true for his other writings on the
topic of nuclear war, the story The Sistine Madonna and the novel Life and Fate,
discussed in the third part of this essay. Nowhere does Grossman negotiate
the argument of the merely defensive nature of the Soviet nuclear program
nor the notion of the “peaceful atom” invoked in official Soviet literature
in opposition to American nuclear warmongering. Nor does he address the
problem of the effects of radiation that led official writers to a curious balancing act between concerned indignation and denial. Instead, Grossman discusses nuclear technology solely in terms of its genocidal or even omnicidal
potential in the age of totalitarian power.
Second: in emphasizing the omnicidal potential of nuclear technology,
Grossman disputes the optimism that official Soviet writers were expected to
profess with respect to nuclear science. The analysis of the essay The Sistine
Madonna and the novel Life and Fate in the third part of this essay shows that,
much like Günther Anders, Grossman discusses nuclear technology exclusively in light of an impending apocalypse that, though stemming from the
same mentality, could even overshadow the horrors of both the Stalinist murderous policy of repression as well as the genocidal policy of Nazi Germany.
Third: while in official literature of the 1940s and early 1950s, the threat of
nuclear war was presented as an immediate outgrowth of fascism, Grossman
took a more differentiated stance. In all of his writings on the topic, he, too,
discusses nuclear war in the context of the crimes committed by the Nazi
regime. As shown in the third part of this essay, for Grossman, it was the
industrialized mass murder of the Holocaust, which in the 1940s and early
1950s was largely taboo in official Soviet literature, that prompted him to
shun nuclear weapons technology, no matter its provenance, and he includes
Stalinism in the list of ideologies that with their disdain for the individual and
their inherent genocidal tendencies became harbingers of a future nuclear
omnicide.
One aspect that would merit further consideration is the assumption
implicit in Grossman’s writings that traditional modes of representation fall
short with respect to the threat of nuclear omnicide. In Abel (August 6th),
Grossman, like many other writers, describes the devastation of Hiroshima in
terms of the biblical creation narrative. 95 It turns out, however, that together
thought that was known to the Soviet authorities and anticipated much of
the radical criticism of nuclear technology voiced by Western thinkers like
Günther Anders. It is with respect to three aspects that Grossman challenges
the official stance on nuclear arms technology and nuclear war. First: as the
discussion of his story Abel (August 6th) in the second part of this essay demonstrates, for Grossman, the rationale of the Cold War plays no role whatsoever.
Grossman’s approach to the threat of nuclear war defies one-sided accusations, as they were common on both sides of the Iron Curtain. His story
allows no distinction between US and Soviet nuclear policies. Similar to
Günther Anders, Grossman treats the bombing of Hiroshima as a universal
problem, the emblem of a culture of technification that fundamentally shatters basic concepts of morality. This is also true for his other writings on the
topic of nuclear war, the story The Sistine Madonna and the novel Life and Fate,
discussed in the third part of this essay. Nowhere does Grossman negotiate
the argument of the merely defensive nature of the Soviet nuclear program
nor the notion of the “peaceful atom” invoked in official Soviet literature
in opposition to American nuclear warmongering. Nor does he address the
problem of the effects of radiation that led official writers to a curious balancing act between concerned indignation and denial. Instead, Grossman discusses nuclear technology solely in terms of its genocidal or even omnicidal
potential in the age of totalitarian power.
Second: in emphasizing the omnicidal potential of nuclear technology,
Grossman disputes the optimism that official Soviet writers were expected to
profess with respect to nuclear science. The analysis of the essay The Sistine
Madonna and the novel Life and Fate in the third part of this essay shows that,
much like Günther Anders, Grossman discusses nuclear technology exclusively in light of an impending apocalypse that, though stemming from the
same mentality, could even overshadow the horrors of both the Stalinist murderous policy of repression as well as the genocidal policy of Nazi Germany.
Third: while in official literature of the 1940s and early 1950s, the threat of
nuclear war was presented as an immediate outgrowth of fascism, Grossman
took a more differentiated stance. In all of his writings on the topic, he, too,
discusses nuclear war in the context of the crimes committed by the Nazi
regime. As shown in the third part of this essay, for Grossman, it was the
industrialized mass murder of the Holocaust, which in the 1940s and early
1950s was largely taboo in official Soviet literature, that prompted him to
shun nuclear weapons technology, no matter its provenance, and he includes
Stalinism in the list of ideologies that with their disdain for the individual and
their inherent genocidal tendencies became harbingers of a future nuclear
omnicide.
One aspect that would merit further consideration is the assumption
implicit in Grossman’s writings that traditional modes of representation fall
short with respect to the threat of nuclear omnicide. In Abel (August 6th),
Grossman, like many other writers, describes the devastation of Hiroshima in
terms of the biblical creation narrative. 95 It turns out, however, that together