Seite 229 [229]
Images of the Enemy from Both Sides of the Front: Ihe Case of Estonia (1942—1944)
The daily newspaper Postimees delivered (ideologically doctored) news, stories from
the front, memoires of soldiers who had escaped from the Soviet Army etc. It was
the biggest newspaper of that time (and still remains one of the biggest today). The
newspaper Rindeleht, however, was a less political mirror of military daily life, with
entertainment meant for the soldiers (crosswords, stories, caricatures etc.). Most of
the caricatures portray the everyday lives of soldiers in the German Armed Forces,
and their main preoccupation: girls.
Discussion: The Politics of Propaganda and Humour
Estonian Caricatures from the Soviet Side
First of all, let us take a look at the Estonian caricatures from the Soviet side,
mainly authored by soldiers serving in the Red Army and displayed as part of wall
newspapers. It is obvious that these wall newspapers were not widely publicised.
They were meant for use within one section or team in the 7* rifle division, which
consisted mainly of Estonians. Men in the 7" rifle division were quite infamous
for their “low political attachment”; however, the caricatures from the first group
of sources give a Soviet-minded picture of wartime. In addition to this, material
from the newspapers Tasuja and Punaväelane complements the more unofficial
wall newspapers. These two official publications were read by Red Army Estonians,
but occasionally (strictly as underground reading material, through special editions
published as leaflets) they did reach the rear.
The main trends of depicting the Other in the Estonian caricatures from the
Soviet side are (1) using opposition (visual juxtapositions of ‘us’ and ‘them’ that
offer support to the ideological opposition), (2) showing the enemy from the
enemy’s point of view, as if through a shift of perspective, and (3) negative portrayal
of some stereotypical features of the enemy (for example through the ironic notion
of Kulturtrager, ‘carrier of culture’). The first of these, stressing binary opposition
between two groups (between ‘us’ and ‘them’, coming and going, strong and weak,
sane and insane, good and bad) is one of the most powerful and often-used ways
of othering, of creating distance. Contrasts gain significance in times of conflict,
becoming more basic and more ontological (for example pointing out the difference
between humanistic ‘us’ and cannibalistic Others; see Laineste 2010). In addition
to this, depicting contrast offers a very useful visualisation of the strong impulse to
binary thinking in society. It is a simple and effective tool—after seeing the good
and the bad, ‘us’ and ‘them’, side by side in a single picture, the viewer will surely
understand the opposition and what it entails. Depicting the state of the enemy
‘then’ and ‘now (or ‘before’ and ‘after’; see Fig. 86) is a vivid way of showing the
downfall of the German armed forces when they left Russia having been decimated
by to the clever Soviet master plan.
Secondly, instead of pointing directly to the superiority of ‘us’ over the Other,
the onlooker may shift perspectives. Within this discourse of mock empathy, war is
227