"In the trenches of Stalingrad" - a story of 1946, for which the author was awarded the highest at that time state award — Stalin Prize. After Viktor Nekrasov was deprived of Soviet citizenship, the book was withdrawn from libraries. The article sets out summary"In the trenches of Stalingrad".
Battle of Stalingrad
What is Nekrasov's story about? The book "In the trenches of Stalingrad", a summary of which is presented below, reflects the events of important period in the war. Nekrasov's story tells about a battle that took place almost eighty years ago on the territory of the Rostov, Voronezh and Volgograd regions. Spent six months soviet soldiers in the trenches of Stalingrad. A summary of the decisive stage of the Second World War is given below.
The German offensive began in July 1942. The plans of the invader included a large bend of the Don, then the Volgodonsk isthmus and, finally, Stalingrad. If the goal had been achieved, a bridgehead would have been created for further offensive and capture of oil fields. The Germans had excellent aviation, they knew what the right military strategy was. However, they lost this battle. The Red Army succeeded in forcing the invaders to capitulate thanks to Operation Uranus. Or perhaps the miracle that one of the heroes of the story speaks of in In the Trenches of Stalingrad.
The Unmistakable Truth
What is the success of the story "In the trenches of Stalingrad"? A brief summary will not answer this question. Only reading the story in the original. The front-line soldiers claimed that Nekrasov's book shows the war as it is. Without embellishment and excessive pathos. Varlam Shalamov, who had never been to the front, called the story "a timid attempt to show something as it is." Andrey Platonov also highly appreciated this book. And finally, before summarizing the chapters of "In the trenches of Stalingrad", it is worth quoting the words of Daniil Granin: "Nekrasov's story is an impeccable truth."
Retreat
So, what did Nekrasov talk about in his work? Summary "In the trenches of Stalingrad" should begin with a description of the retreat of the Soviet troops, which took place in July 1942 near Oskol. The main character is Lieutenant Kerzhentsev. The Germans are approaching Voronezh. The regiment leaves the newly dug fortifications without a single shot being fired. The battalion, led by Kombat Shiryaev, remains without cover. To help him remains main character story. Two days later, they set off on the road, on the way they learn that the regiment is defeated.
Kerzhentsev is accompanied by an orderly Valega for several months. Other heroes of the story are Igor, Sedykh. The battalion goes in search of its own, but on the way it meets the Germans, many die. Kerzhentsev, Valega, Igor and Sedykh are sent to Stalingrad.
Peaceful city
The protagonist reminisces about pre-war life. He has been at the front for a long time, everything that was before, in his native Kyiv, it seems, never existed. What is told in the subsequent chapters of the work of V. Nekrasov? The content of "In the trenches of Stalingrad", at least in the first chapters, is reduced to reflections, memoirs of Lieutenant Kerzhentsev. He is so accustomed to front-line life that he is surprised by the city, which will soon turn into ruins. Here people still read newspapers, argue about literature, visit the library, just live...
Kerzhentsev and his comrades stop at the house of Maria Kuzminichna. The woman treats them to tea with cherry jam. Forgotten peaceful life relaxes. The heroes go for a swim in the Volga, then indulge in reading. On the evening of this day German troops launch an offensive against Stalingrad.
Kerzhentsev - sapper. Lieutenant and sent to the local tractor plant. Here he meets Georgy Akimovich, an electrical engineer, a man who is convinced that Soviet troops Only a miracle will help win this war. There is a painstaking, long preparation for the explosion. Ten days pass. The Germans are mercilessly bombing the city. There is still no order to explode, and Kerzhentsev is sent to the engineering department, located on the other side of the Volga.
Battalion Command
The lieutenant is sent to the 184th division. Soon the battalion commander dies, and Kerzhentsev has to take command of the battalion. The lieutenant has two companies at his disposal, which occupy positions at one of the local factories. Here the main character lingers for a long time. Every day begins with a cannonade. So September passes, and then October.
Attack
Soon comes a message that positions need to be changed. It was ordered to occupy the hill on which the enemy machine guns are located. Before the attack, time stretches unbearably slowly. Suddenly, employees of the political department appear, whom Kerzhentsev does not meet with joy at all. The lieutenant sets up inspectors from the command post, and when the attack begins, he unexpectedly takes part in it. The hill can be taken, and without great losses.
Does he divide his heroes into positive and negative Viktor Nekrasov? In the summary of "In the trenches of Stalingrad" it is worth paying attention to such a hero as Chief of Staff Abrosimov. The captain is sure of the need for a head-on attack. He does not listen to the arguments of either Kerzhentsev or the battalion commander Shiryaev. The protagonist of the story goes on the attack again. 26 people die in this battle. Abrosimov is tried for abuse of power and sent to a penal battalion.
Outlining the summary of Nekrasov's story "In the trenches of Stalingrad", it is worth saying that in this work the author did not create either negative or positive images. He does not force his opinion on the reader. The depiction of the attack, which took place on the orders of Abrosimov, is one of the many officer mistakes that are perhaps inevitable in a war.
Wound
The next day after the trial of Abramov, tanks arrive, which have been waiting for recent months. Soon Kerzhentsev has a birthday. A small celebration is being prepared, which, of course, will not take place, because the battle will suddenly begin. The lieutenant will be wounded, end up in the hospital, and after treatment he will return to Stalingrad, which he will call "home" in his thoughts.
Addendum to the summary
The work "In the trenches of Stalingrad" is conducted in the first person. There are no surprises in the story. plot twists. But the simplicity with which the narrator recounts the events makes a strong impression.
In the first chapters, where we are talking about the misadventures of the heroes even before their arrival in Stalingrad, the lieutenant mentally talks about the war. What is the worst thing on the front? Shells? bombs? The worst thing about war uncertainty, inactivity, the absence of an immediate goal - all that the existence of the retreating soldiers consisted of. It cannot be said that the heroes of Nekrasov are not afraid of bullets, but reading the story, one gets the impression that in Stalingrad they experienced less fear than near Voronezh when they retreated.
The author of this work touches on the topic of friendship in passing. Nevertheless, it is, perhaps, the main one. At the front, Kerzhentsev understands what true friendship is. It is unlikely that any of his Kyiv friends could pull him, wounded, from the battlefield. It is unlikely that Kerzhentsev would go on reconnaissance with anyone because of them. And the orderly Valega would have pulled it out. With him, the lieutenant would go on reconnaissance. The author compares war with litmus paper. Only at the front can you really get to know people.
Publication
A story in the trenches of Stalingrad Nekrasov Viktor Platonovich brought national fame. This piece was published in Znamya magazine. At first, official critics did not accept the story. Moreover, Nekrasov's book would never have been published if no one intervened...
Meeting with Stalin
In Stalin's time, many poets and prose writers suffered. Some were convicted and sent to camps. Others are deprived of the right to publish their works, which for a real writer is perhaps worse than imprisonment. But this does not mean that Stalin understood nothing in literature. He got rid of people who were inconvenient, who did not want to reflect the official ideology in their work.
The story of Viktor Nekrasov is the first work that tells about the war with the utmost truth. This is one of the first books created by front-line soldiers. The story was printed thanks to the personal intervention of Stalin.
Writer and statesman Fadeev struck In the Trenches of Stalingrad from the list of works that were to appear in the pages of Znamya magazine. Stalin introduced. The story has been published. And after some time, state security officers arrived for Nekrasov and took him to the "leader". In one of the essays, the writer later spoke about the meeting with Stalin. According to Nekrasov, he created an unexpected impression, he was a kind of "cozy old man", a pleasant conversationalist, in addition, he respected the work of Platonov, Bulgakov, Babel - writers who suffered from the Soviet regime.
A few words about the author
In 1959, Nekrasov opposed the construction of a stadium in Babi Yar, the site of mass executions carried out by the Nazis during the war. Since then, the writer's relationship with the authorities has deteriorated sharply. He took an active part in rallies, wrote controversial articles. Finally, Nekrasov was accused of "serving the West", and his books were forbidden to be published. In 1974 the writer emigrated to Switzerland. Last years spent in Paris.
The truth of war(based on the story by V. Nekrasov "In the trenches of Stalingrad")
The Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945 opened new page in history modern literature. Together with it, the theme of patriotism enters the works of writers, literature inspires to fight the enemy, the government often helps to keep the front, common people- survive.
Perhaps one of the most interesting and most significant works about the war is the story of V. Nekrasov "In the trenches of Stalingrad", which is diary entries young fighter. Descriptions of battles and military life alternate with the hero's reflections during the rest, before the battle, with memories of pre-war life. Looming before us hard way man in the war, the path from the yellow-mouthed graduate of the institute to an experienced battalion commander.
But more important, perhaps, is how, through the fate of individual people, the writer reveals to us the tragedy of the war, which brought grief to our entire vast country. V. Nekrasov for the first time spoke about this tragedy in truthful, frank words. Of course, this required courage, and Nekrasov was not afraid to say about terrible truth war, which he considers from different points of view.
The author writes about the inhumanity of wars as such. Like Leo Tolstoy, Nekrasov considers war to be an abnormal phenomenon, a state unnatural to man. Together with his hero, the author is shocked by what he saw: “I remember the killed soldier. He lay on his back with his arms outstretched, a cigarette butt stuck to his lip. And it was more terrible than anything I had seen, more terrible than destroyed cities, more terrible than torn off arms and legs. Outstretched arms and a cigarette butt on the lip. A minute ago there was still life, thoughts, desires. Now it's death."
The writer comprehends the war philosophically, he sees its inhumanity, he sees people who are gradually getting used to this inhumanity. From the point of view of V. Nekrasov, there is nothing more terrible and disastrous than such addiction. War becomes a way of life for people.
There is truth in the story about the heroism of those people who have always been considered only cogs in the huge body of the state machine. Nekrasov mercilessly judges those who calmly send people to their deaths, who shoot for a lost pickaxe or sapper shovel, who keep people in fear. It was a protest not only against the Stalinist methods of warfare, but also against the Stalinist commissars, who carefully observed the words and behavior of a person, and this person was going to his death: “Our regiment is not lucky. We have been fighting for some unfortunate month and a half, but now there are no people, no guns. Two or three machine guns per battalion ... Unfired, who first got to the front, we were transferred from place to place, put on the defensive, removed, moved, put on the defensive again ... We were lost, frightened, frightened others, could not get used to the bombing. . V. Nekrasov is against disorder in war: the mediocrity of leadership costs many human lives, people become "cannon fodder".
Revealing the true face of the war, V. Nekrasov does not pass by the people, their role in it, he notes the susceptibility of ordinary soldiers to someone else's misfortune, their openness, their thought about Russia: “The front is retreating. Women stand at the gate - silent, with heavy, rough arms extended along the body. They stand at each house, watching how we pass. Nobody is running after us. Everyone is standing and watching." Hopelessness in the souls of people, despair in the soul of the hero, whose long retreat makes him seriously think about the current situation. Perhaps one of the heroes of the story, an engineer, is right, who believed that one should not be deceived by arguments about patriotism: “Heroism is heroism, and tanks are tanks.”
Indeed, during the Great Patriotic War, Russian people showed miracles of heroism on the entire front, but with the skillful organization of military operations, with timely support, with care for human lives, many deaths could have been avoided.
Analyzing the truth of Nekrasov's war, we can confidently say that he was a patriot who wanted to be a "Russian writer" and "live in good conscience."
In 1946, the first part of the novel "Stalingrad" by Viktor Platonovich Nekrasov was published in the double issue 8-9 of the Znamya magazine. The author, little known so far, “an intelligent city dweller, who labored on the stage without much success and wrote stories that no one needed,” as he described himself. “A simple officer, a front-line soldier, never heard of what socialist realism... Be sure to read! - the well-known critic V. B. Alexandrov recommended the manuscript to Tvardovsky. “A book about the war, about Stalingrad, written not by a professional, but by an ordinary officer. Not a word about the party, three lines about Stalin ... "- Nekrasov recalled in the essay "Forty years later ... (Something instead of an afterword)".
The book really stood out against the background of the military prose of his contemporaries. Among the most famous and worthy are "The Immortal People" by V. Grossman (1942), "Days and Nights" by K. Simonov (1943-1944), "Star" by E. Kazakevich (1946), not to mention many other works written by less talented writers. The main plot and the main pathos of the books about the war in the first post-war years was the heroism of the party soldiers, devotion to the communist idea, the wisdom of the Supreme Commander and his strategic decisions, hysterical sentimentality or, on the contrary, romantic heroism (Soviet "lieutenant prose", which made the soldier's truth the ideological center of the works about the war, appeared a decade later - from the second half of the 1950s.)
Nekrasov's novel was truly outstanding for its time: this is a look at the war of a lieutenant who tells day by day about what he saw, heard, experienced before Battle of Stalingrad and during it. The protagonist Igor Kerzhentsev, in many ways the author's alter ego, retreats to the east, to the Don and Stalingrad, together with his colleagues. The soldiers do not know what is happening at the front, there are no newspapers, no maps larger than "two-verst". Communication with fellow soldiers was lost, many were killed, and oncoming recruits and locals know no more than them. The heroes (the characters are numerous and often change, which fully reflects the confusion and heavy losses that reigned during the retreat) arrive in Stalingrad on the eve of the German attack and participate in the entire lengthy defense and battle.
This is extremely concise, sincere, transparent autobiographical prose, more reminiscent of diary entries than a work of art (the impression is all the stronger because the narration is in the present tense). Due to a certain detachment of the author, the absence of "ideological load", the story is more like documentary literature.
However, Nekrasov claimed that he did not keep daily records during the war - he tried it, but soon got bored. And he wrote the whole story “on fresh footsteps and in one breath” in just six months during treatment in Poland, in 1944. The doctor allegedly advised to accustom a wounded hand with an injured nerve to small movements and write letters to “beloved girl”. There was no girl, and Nekrasov began to write about Stalingrad.
Nekrasov's book was distinguished by its main actors: This simple people with a different pre-war past, for whom the war, which radically changed their worldview, the hierarchy of values and relationships, bringing their true qualities and abilities to the surface, became a daily life. For them, a feat is not an abstract concept from someone else's dictionary, but daily hard to exhaustion work, and there is only one dream - to relax and sleep, and the details of a heroic deed are sometimes unsightly, but they go for it consciously - and to the end.
There is not a hint of falsehood in the descriptions: the author does not lean towards either sentimentality or spectacular horror and bloody details war, nor to heroic pathos with a ritual bow to the authorities. He chooses, if not emotionally reduced, then neutral vocabulary and speech turns.
So, for example, the German attack is described: “The shelling lasts about twenty minutes. It's very tiring. Then we pull the machine gun onto the platform and wait.
Chumak waves his hand. I see only his head and hand.
“Two leftists got hit,” he shouts.
We are left with three machine guns.
Repel another attack. I have a machine gun. It's German and I don't understand it well. I shout to Chumak.
He runs down the trench. Lame. The shard hit him on the soft side of his body. The peakless cap above the right ear was pierced.
“Killed those two,” he says, pulling out the bolt. - Only rags left.
<…>I don't remember how many times the Germans show up. One, two, ten, twelve. Buzzing in my head. Or maybe the planes overhead? Chumak is shouting something. I can't make out anything. Valega delivers ribbons one after another. How quickly they empty. Shell casings all around, nowhere to step.
The removal of external heroic pathos according to Nekrasov is mandatory: a book about the war (like a film) cannot go “all on high note. From the beginning to the end. She is like a sculpture of Mukhina, who suddenly came to life and went forward with a victorious pace. And we are following her. Two hours…” he wrote in a later essay.
The simple idea that war turns the world inside out leads to a kind of “professional deformation”. And again, a simple language is emphasized, without analytical or pathetic comments by the author, which in itself becomes a strong literary device: it is unpleasant to look at a wedge of cranes (for which there is “no war”), because they fly like Junkers; the protagonist, sitting with a girl on the banks of the Volga and looking at the opposite bank, habitually thinks out points for placing machine guns.
Nekrasov builds a panorama of events and psychological condition heroes through local and insignificant details, which in fact go far beyond the review of the "trench" (the most common reproach from critics is the narrowness of the writer's "trench truth"). The multi-day bombing of Stalingrad becomes a routine, and the eyes accustomed to it, having ceased to perceive it as a turning point in the Great Patriotic War, begin to notice the little things.
“The whole day the Messers ring in the air, scouring the shore in pairs. They shoot from cannons. Sometimes they drop four small neat bombs, two from under each wing, or long cigar-like boxes with rattles, anti-personnel grenades. The grenades crumble, and the case somersaults in the air for a long time, and then we wash the linen in it - two halves, just like a trough.
These plastically authentic details make the work cinematic to the limit. It is no coincidence that Sergei Eisenstein, who, according to acquaintances, considered him one of best books about the war, devoted a whole lecture to him. In it, in particular, the master noted: “There are details that are remembered for a lifetime ... Small, as if insignificant, they eat into, somehow soak into you, begin to germinate, grow into something big, significant, absorb the whole essence of what is happening."
The author's speech sometimes reminds literary device detached surprise, still loved by L. N. Tolstoy: to demonstrate a phenomenon, show it as if it were seen for the first time, as if before Nekrasov no one had written about war, death, courage and hard everyday life.
The novel is so obviously written outside the main literary "paradigm" of that time that it could not go unnoticed or be favorably accepted by "knowledgeable" critics, as well as politically and opportunistically more conscious writers.
There are almost no mentions of Stalin in Nekrasov's book - and this despite the fact that in the 10th issue of Znamya, where the second part of Stalingrad was published, a program article about Soviet poetry was posted: “... Its general theme is the theme of the leader . Anyone who passes by this topic will never realize the true nature of our art ... ”After arguments and persuasion, Nekrasov nevertheless inserted a line about Stalin, and later, after the 20th Congress, he refused to remove it: in the book it was too obvious that it was not the leader.
It is curious that the change in the political "microclimate" occurred at the stage of the journal publication of the novel. If the 8-9th issue of the Banner was all imbued with great hopes of the first post-war year, the expectation of "a new life, the kingdom of justice, freedom, which the people earned by hardships and sacrifices of the war years", then the next, 10th, began with the Decree of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) dated August 14, 1946 “On the magazines “Zvezda” and “Leningrad”” and a report consonant with it by Comrade Zhdanov. They defame Mikhail Zoshchenko (“he specialized for a long time in writing empty, meaningless and vulgar things, in preaching rotten lack of ideas, vulgarity and apoliticality”), Anna Akhmatova (representative of the “unprincipled reactionary literary swamp”), and later, in an editorial article, many other writers . In such an environment and context, the punishment for the political unconsciousness and lack of ideas of the work was not long in coming.
First of all, the novel was translated into a story, and the title was replaced with “In the trenches of Stalingrad”: “The great battle seen from some one hole, from one trench” cannot claim either the scale of the novel or the name of the city that has become a household name.
“The literary community was confused,” Nekrasov rightly noted. Critics scolded the novel-story for "remarqueism", narrowness of view, for the fact that "it describes events in a protocol, showing little interest in issues of worldview, politics, morality." However, the manuscript was still published in the authoritative "Znamya": the editor-in-chief V.V. Tvardovsky gave it to Vishnevsky.
However, reproaches against the author appeared in reviews until Nekrasov was awarded the Stalin Prize of the II degree on June 6, 1947. There were oddities in the awarding of the prize, explained, as often happens with a lack of reliable evidence, by a legend. Later, Nekrasov recalled: his name was crossed out general secretary and Chairman of the Board of the Union of Writers A. Fadeev from the list of nominees for the award on the night before publication. However, “the next morning, the stupefied author saw his own image in Pravda and Izvestia.” In the strictest confidence, Vishnevsky told the writer that only "himself", "no one else" could put his name on the list again.
One way or another, in addition to a cash bonus of 50 thousand rubles (which he gave to buy wheelchairs front-line soldiers), Nekrasov for some time received immunity from the attacks of criticism. "In the trenches of Stalingrad" before the ban on printing and removal from libraries was reprinted several times (with a total circulation of more than 4 million copies) and was translated into 36 languages.
The biography of the author himself is no less interesting: before the publication in the Banner of Nekrasov, a demobilized captain Soviet army, with medals (among them - "For Courage", "For the Defense of Stalingrad") and the Order of the Red Star who returned from the front to his native Kiev, almost no one knew.
He was born in 1911, his parents are “from the former”: his mother with noble roots is a doctor, his father is a bank employee. We got acquainted with Paris, where Zinaida Nikolaevna worked in a military hospital. An older brother was also born there. His father died early, his brother "survived his father for a short time - he died in Mirgorod in 1919 under the ramrods of the Reds," Nekrasov wrote down his family history.
In Paris, the family lived in the same house with the future People's Commissar Lunacharsky, and the first language of Viktor Nekrasov was French. The Nekrasovs returned in 1915, and after the revolution of 1917 they did not emigrate: they tried to get used to the new system. Victor was sent to study at a labor school, and then at a railway vocational school. After he graduated from the Kiev Construction Institute (Department of Architecture) and at the same time - theater studio at Kiev Theater Russian drama: "In turn, I wanted to be Corbusier, then Stanislavsky, at worst, Mikhail Chekhov." By the way, with live architectural legend he managed to communicate: Nekrasov considered unfair the decision of the jury, which rejected the project of the Palace of Soviets by Corbusier, and wrote him a letter in French full of sympathy and admiration - in response he received a postcard.
Numerous memoir sketches of the writer are similar to his prose in their documentary conciseness and clarity of style. Despite the habit of reading newspapers since childhood, in his youth he was “apolitical” and was neither a pioneer nor a Komsomol member. "During the years civil war“rooted” for Denikin, Kolchak, Wrangel. In 1924, as a thirteen-year-old boy, he froze his ears, trampling on Khreshchatyk under the mourning horns of factories - Lenin died. To the great bewilderment of his parents, he hung a huge portrait of the leader in the dining room ... ˂ ...> The thirty-seventh years miraculously did not hurt. - Viktor Platonovich recalled, - A riddle. ... The fearless aunt Sonya wrote letters to Krupskaya, Nogin, Bonch-Bruevich about unjust arrests. He worked in the theater - “trampling, leftist, semi-legal. Traveled all the holes in Kyiv, Zhytomyr, Vinnitsa regions”, “wrote something in the evenings. Sent to magazines. They returned. Fortunately ... ", - Nekrasov noted in a kind of autobiographical commentary on his famous story.
He was taken to the war from the Red Army Theater and where he worked at the time. At the front, he became a regimental engineer and deputy commander of a sapper battalion. He received two serious wounds in the war, after which he was demobilized, wrote his autobiographical novel-story (deceptively simple, "pre-revolutionary", that is, humane, not spoiled by Sovietisms and clichés language) and from 1945 to 1947 worked as a journalist in a Kiev newspaper " Soviet art". Then, for eight years, Nekrasov published only a few military stories and newspaper articles, in 1954 his story “In hometown"- a chronological and logical continuation of the debut, and in 1961 - the story "Kira Georgievna". Both were coldly received by critics.
During these years, Nekrasov was not so much a writer as a publicist and public figure: he speaks at a rally in Babi Yar and writes articles about the need for a monument on the site of a ravine, where in 1941 tens of thousands of Jews were shot by the Nazis. In 1966, he signed a letter from 25 cultural and scientific figures to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU, L. I. Brezhnev, against the rehabilitation of Stalin.
In 1957 and 1962 Nekrasov traveled around Europe, writing down his impressions of what he saw in his travel essays, for which he was immediately accused of "serving the West." The “immunity” acquired thanks to the Stalin Prize began to melt: criticism of N. S. Khrushchev in 1963 (Nekrasov “mired in his ideological errors and was reborn”) gave carte blanche to expel him from the party. During a search of his house in January 1974, all manuscripts and illegal literature were confiscated from him. At the same time, Nekrasov was also expelled from the Writers' Union, and even earlier, since 1972, they stopped publishing new and reprinting old books, while removing them from libraries. In 1974, the writer emigrated to France, worked in the Paris bureau of Radio Liberty. True, he spoke ironically about the service: “Getting up from the table in a cafe, he usually told his friends, looking at his watch: “I have to go to work, I’ll go, I’ll slander.”
The story "In the trenches of Stalingrad" is dedicated to the heroic defense of the city in 1942-1943.
This work was first published in 1946 in the Znamya magazine. But it was immediately banned, since the author showed in it the “real face” of the war with all the defeats and failures. But the most important thing was that in this work Viktor Nekrasov told at what cost the Russian people achieved the long-awaited Victory!
This story is very easy to read. It is usually written plain language. But this is characteristic of the author.
The story “In the trenches of Stalingrad” is the author’s front-line diary, in which from beginning to end he describes the difficult battles, the difficulties that the soldiers faced during the war.
There is one more feature of this work: if you carefully read it, you can see that it openly opposed the laws of the time when Stalin ruled the state. There are no generals in the story, no political workers, no “leading role of the party”, but only soldiers and their commanders, there is a Stalingrad trench, courage, heroism and patriotism of the Russian people.
The commander and his soldiers are the main characters, all without exception. All of them are different, but united by one goal - to protect the Motherland!
The soldiers who heroically defended Stalingrad did not fictional people, and the front-line comrades of the author himself. Therefore, the whole work is permeated with love for them.
Creating the image of Kerzhentsev and other heroes, Viktor Nekrasov is trying to tell us how the war changed the fates, the characters of people, that they will no longer be the way people were before the war.
Viktor Nekrasov sought to convey to readers that only thanks to the patriotism of the Russian people this war was won!
And even if the German troops were more prepared for military operations, even if they had everything necessary for this, but the Victory remained with us! “We will fight to the last soldier. Russians always fight like this”, until the final victory. This thought chain runs through the whole story and is the main idea of this work.
This story has become an invaluable gift that Viktor Platonovich Nekrasov left behind. The goal that he set for himself - to portray the war as it is - was completely fulfilled by him.
In our country, for a long time, they did not like those who told people the truth. Therefore, his fate was determined, and he had no choice but to go abroad, where he could write his works and give them to people.
The truth of war (according to V. Nekrasov's story "In the trenches of Stalingrad")
The Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945 opened a new page in the history of modern literature. Along with it, the theme of patriotism enters the works of writers, literature inspires to fight the enemy, the government often helps to keep the front, ordinary people to survive.
Perhaps one of the most interesting and most significant works about the war is the story of V. Nekrasov "In the trenches of Stalingrad", which is a diary entry of a young soldier. Descriptions of battles and military life alternate with the hero's reflections during the rest, before the battle, with memories of pre-war life. Before us looms the difficult path of a man in the war, the path from the yellow-mouthed graduate of the institute to an experienced battalion commander.
But more important, perhaps, is how, through the fate of individual people, the writer reveals to us the tragedy of the war, which brought grief to our entire vast country. V. Nekrasov for the first time spoke about this tragedy in truthful, frank words. Of course, this required courage, and Nekrasov was not afraid to speak about the terrible truth of the war, which he considers from different points of view.
The author writes about the inhumanity of wars as such. Like Leo Tolstoy, Nekrasov considers war to be an abnormal phenomenon, a state unnatural to man. Together with his hero, the author is shocked by what he saw: “I remember the killed soldier. He lay on his back with his arms outstretched, a cigarette butt stuck to his lip. And it was more terrible than anything I had seen, more terrible than destroyed cities, more terrible than torn off arms and legs. Outstretched arms and a cigarette butt on the lip. A minute ago there was still life, thoughts, desires. Now it's death."
The writer comprehends the war philosophically, he sees its inhumanity, he sees people who are gradually getting used to this inhumanity. From the point of view of V. Nekrasov, there is nothing more terrible and disastrous than such addiction. War becomes a way of life for people.
There is truth in the story about the heroism of those people who have always been considered only cogs in the huge body of the state machine. Nekrasov mercilessly judges those who calmly send people to their deaths, who shoot for a lost pickaxe or sapper shovel, who keep people in fear. It was a protest not only against the Stalinist methods of warfare, but also against the Stalinist commissars, who carefully observed the words and behavior of a person, and this person was going to his death: “Our regiment is not lucky. We have been fighting for some unfortunate month and a half, but now there are no people, no guns. Two or three machine guns per battalion... Those who had not been fired upon, who first came to the front, were transferred from place to place, put on the defensive, removed, moved, put on the defensive again... We were lost, frightened, frightened others, could not get used to the bombing." V. Nekrasov is against disorder in war: the mediocrity of leadership costs many human lives, people become "cannon fodder".
Revealing the true face of the war, V. Nekrasov does not pass by the people, their role in it, he notes the susceptibility of ordinary soldiers to someone else's misfortune, their openness, their thought about Russia: “The front is retreating. Women stand at the gate - silent, with heavy, rough arms extended along the body. They stand at each house, watching how we pass. Nobody is running after us. Everyone is standing and watching." Hopelessness in the souls of people, despair in the soul of the hero, whose long retreat makes him seriously think about the current situation. Perhaps one of the heroes of the story, an engineer, is right, who believed that one should not be deceived by arguments about patriotism: “Heroism is heroism, and tanks are tanks.”
Indeed, during the Great Patriotic War, Russian people showed miracles of heroism on the entire front, but with the skillful organization of military operations, with timely support, with care for human lives, many deaths could have been avoided.
Analyzing the truth of Nekrasov's war, we can confidently say that he was a patriot who wanted to be a "Russian writer" and "live in good conscience."
Reviews
now the Nazis are allowed to read
there is also Och. Truthful word packs
it doesn't say anywhere that Russians are good guys
but peeps ... and where is closer to the topic
after all, many of them spent ten years in prison ..
worked ... like wolves
sorry gave the book ... to someone ..
II. Conversation based on the story by V. Nekrasov "In the trenches of Stalingrad"
Viktor Nekrasov went to the front in the first days of the war, fought near Stalingrad, was wounded twice, experienced what he described “In the trenches of Stalingrad”. In his story there is neither a general nor a political worker - only soldiers and officers.
What do you know about the Battle of Stalingrad?
(The Battle of Stalingrad had two stages: defensive and offensive. The offensive operation began on November 19, 1942. Our troops defended Mamaev Kurgan - a hill in the central part of the city. The battles for Mamaev Kurgan were fought / 36 days, the top of the mound repeatedly passed from hand to hand. Soldiers The 284th Rifle Division fought off several attacks daily, showing heroism and stamina.In January 1943, the assault groups of the 284th Rifle Division drove the enemy from the top, and on January 26, troops of the 62nd and 21st armies joined on the northwestern slope "Fights in Stalingrad were fought literally for every street, every house. Stalingrad became a symbol of the courage and steadfastness of our soldiers, instilled faith in victory, gave a powerful impetus to the further development of the events of the war.)
Now on Mamayev Kurgan there is a grandiose monument-ensemble "To the Heroes of the Battle of Stalingrad".
How is the authenticity of what is depicted by the author achieved? What are the features of the author's storytelling?
(The narration is in the first person. Nekrasov's hero - Yuri Kerzhentsev - is one of the defenders of Stalingrad. The reliability of the story is achieved both by the fact that we see events through the eyes of the hero, and by the fact that the writer most often uses present tense verbs: the reader becomes, as it were, a participant in the action, gets involved in it, goes step by step next to the hero.The peculiarity of the author's narration is also in a special style - clear, concise, without frills and prettiness, in short sentences with an abundance of action verbs and a small number of pronouns.The author's steel is similar to diary entries.Image of events and heroes is parsimonious, concise.The everyday life of the war is described, its tedious tedium of pathos is absent, there is no romantic elation, there is a heavy military work. The author does not talk about heroism, although the great significance of the Battle of Stalingrad was immediately obvious, the reader sees the unostentatious, daily feat soldiers and officers.)
What traditions of Russian literature does V. Nekrasov continue in depicting the war?
(First of all, the tradition of “Sevastopol Tales” by L. N. Tolstoy can be traced: “You will not see the war in the correct, beautiful and brilliant order, with music and drumming, with waving banners and prancing generals, but you will see the war in its true expression - in blood, in suffering, in death ”By the way, Leo Tolstoy was also a direct participant in military events, he was at one of the“ hot spots ”of the defense of Sevastopol - the fourth bastion.)
Like Tolstoy, Nekrasov shows the inevitable death in the war de heroic, not romantic, but terrible in its simplicity and routine. Here, a liaison officer of Lazarenko's headquarters, wounded in the stomach, dies: “- I ... comrade lieutenant ... - he no longer speaks, but wheezes. One leg is bent and he can't straighten it. With his head thrown back, he takes a deep breath. Hands do not tear off the stomach. Upper lip trembles a little. He wants to say something else, but nothing can be understood. He's all tense. Wants to get up and immediately becomes limp. The lip stops trembling." The author does not give any comments on this scene, only sparingly describes how they fall asleep with the hands of the dead, covering it with a raincoat, how they continue the fight afterwards. In this seeming simplicity lies the truth about the war, about a man in the war (part 1, chapter 6)
And here is how one of the heroes of Stalingrad is depicted: “Turning to the machine gun, he gives a turn. His thin neck is shaking. How thin and pathetic she is! And a deep hole in the back. And the collar is wide. The neck dangles in it like a blade of grass. So, probably, until recently, he stood at the blackboard and blinked kindly, blue eyes not knowing what to say to the teacher” (part 1, chapter 19).
Nekrasov himself refers to Tolstoy, for example, he recalls Tolstoy's definition - "the hidden warmth of patriotism" (part 1, chapter 16).
How is the war described in the story?
(“The worst thing in war is not shells and bombs, but inactivity, lack of purpose.” Bombing, heat, confusion, general confusion - our troops are retreating. Kerzhentsev is ashamed that he, the commander, does not know where his platoon, regiment , the division because it feels guilty for the retreat, for the fact that civilians "will wake up tomorrow and see the Germans." War is not only hard fighting, but also hard physical labor. Soldiers hammer with pickaxes hard as stone, the ground. They have to to be either diggers, or carpenters, or stove-makers. The war requires more and more new victims. Here replenishment has come - many people see the rifle for the first time. "One was killed yesterday. A grenade exploded in the hands of" A sad thing is war ... "- says Kerzhentsev. )
Do you think maybe war makes a person get used to death, do human life not so significant and valuable, roughens a fighter, makes him insensitive?
(On this occasion, Nekrasov writes (part one, chapter 16): “I remember one killed soldier. He was lying on his back, arms outstretched, and a cigarette butt was stuck to his lip. A small, still smoking cigarette. And this was the worst thing that I I saw before and after in the war. More terrible than destroyed cities, ripped open stomachs, torn off arms and legs. Spread arms and a cigarette butt on the lip. A minute ago there was still life, thoughts, desires. Now - death. Such a detail cannot be invented, it must be seen and horrified. "Of course, war affects people's characters, reveals those hidden traits that are implicit in peaceful life. Some turn out to be cowards and opportunists, like Kaluga, others become firmer and more determined, like Farber in the scene of the trial of Abrosimov, others become more tolerant, like intelligence officer Chumak .
“In war, you really get to know people. It's clear to me now. She is like a litmus test, like some kind of special developer, ”Yuri thinks.)
How does the war affect the protagonist of the story, Yuri Kerzhentsev?
(Yuri Kerzhentsev grew up in Kiev, in an intelligent family, was fond of architecture, painting, music, literature. “He loved to look at the moon, and he loved chocolate, and to sit in the eighth row of the stalls, and lilacs, and have a drink with the guys,” he recalls. Chumak tells him: "But I thought you were writing poetry. You look so poetic." Before the war, Chumak “beat their faces” to such intellectuals, but now, at the front, he judges people not by their origin, not by their appearance, but according to their deeds: when taking the hill, Kerzhentsev leads the fighters on the attack, does not hide behind other people's backs, as far as possible, protects people).
What helps Yuri to survive, not to lose dignity, honor?
(The heroism of Kerzhentsev is determined by the consciousness that the one former life- native Kyiv, his home, his mother - must be protected, is determined by his intelligence, sense of responsibility, high moral qualities).
In your opinion, how autobiographical is the image of Kerzhentsev? Maybe Kerzhentsev and Nekrasov are the same person?
(The author and his hero are in many ways similar: both were born in Kiev, both are architects by education, both are fond of art, both fight at Stalingrad. True, Kerzhentsev is several years younger than the author. When Nekrasov recalls Kerzhentsev's pre-war youth, he, of course, recalls his biography. The author talks about what he knows thoroughly, experienced. The biggest praise for Nekrasov was when his story was called “officer’s notes”: “So I managed to“ deceive ”the reader, bring fiction closer to authenticity. This is not a terrible“ deception ", no one blushes for him, no art can exist without him").
(Whoever enters the story, no matter what position he occupies, in whatever capacity he acts, Nekrasov necessarily tests his courage, looking at him through the eyes of Kerzhentsev. For example, Kerzhentsev thinks with irritation about Astafiev: a protruding little finger, lips folded in a tube, sideburns, pink nails. The name Ipollit recalls Tolstoy's Ipollit Kuragin, just as narrow-minded and self-confident. Wounded in the buttocks, Astafyev asks Kerzhentsev to grab a trophy camera and watch on occasion. Astafyev is a coward, Astafyev is mercenary. And what could look funny, looks disgusting , causes hostility. Nekrasov does not go into analysis, does not try to establish relationships. He has enough facts, manifestations. Behavior in battle decides everything. This sign illuminates a person, determines the tone in which the story is said about him.)
What are the specific characteristics of Valega?
(A benevolent, even gentle tone is in the description of Valega, a small, hardy, unsmiling Altai, Kerzhentsev’s orderly: “My little, round-headed Valega! in one cloak... I'm used to you, big-eared, damned used to it... No, I'm not used to it. It's not a habit, it's something else, much more.")
Valega is a real person, and the name is genuine. Only half a year Nekrasov and his orderly served side by side. In addition to fighting qualities at the front, the ability to adapt to military conditions, the ability to survive is valued. Valega possessed these qualities: “This is a wonderful guy. He never asks anything and never sits idle for a single minute. Wherever we go, in five minutes the tent is ready. The bowler hat always sparkles like new. He knows how, it seems, everything in the world, he is reliable in any, the most difficult front-line situation.
Are Nekrasov only interested in the fighting qualities of people?
Courage, reliability in battle, a person is still not exhausted: Karnaukhov secretly writes poetry, reads Jack London, Farber feels the music, Igor Svidersky draws well. Their hobbies are not a screen, not an escape from the war, but a continuation of their former life.
For Nekrasov, the strength of spiritual, mental interests is important. Intelligence for him is not tantamount to education.
Summarize. What kind of person is the main character of the story Yuri Kerzhentsev?
(He is a real intellectual, a man of honor, he is smart, brave, has own opinion and not afraid to express it. He is friendly and attentive to people, knows how to see the good in them. He is reserved and laconic. He shows courage and fortitude not in order to seem like a hero, he cannot do otherwise. Under any circumstances, he remains human.)
III. Final word teachers
What is the significance of Viktor Nekrasov's story in literary and public life countries?
Nekrasov, earlier than other writers, revealed the spiritual heritage defenders of Stalingrad, saw in them the winners of Berlin. His story is free from bureaucratic optimism, jingoistic patriotism, his characters do not feel like pawns in the hands of an omniscient strategist. The soldiers returned from the war with a feeling of proud consciousness of their dignity, and the story “In the trenches of Stalingrad” was written with the same feeling. Vasil Bykov writes about it this way: “Viktor Nekrasov, perhaps, was the first in our literature to show the world the correctness and high essence of individuality in war, the significance of personality, in an environment that is least appropriate for it, an environment that is war and the army, with their absolute subordination of one to all, with a strict leveling of any difference.
IV. Practical tasks
1. In his review of Nekrasov's story "In the trenches of Stalingrad", A. Platonov wrote: "In the very image of our soldiers, the author managed to reveal the secret of victory." Platonov saw her in the fact that the heroes of the story "morally do not collapse." In your opinion, what is the moral stamina of the heroes of the story "In the Trenches of Stalingrad" manifested in?
2. Film director S. Eisenstein in one of his lectures, speaking about the story of V. Nekrasov, named three episodes chosen by him from chapters 13 and 16 of the first part, which he would include in the script in order to show moral stamina, “the birth of the stubbornness of future participants in the defense Stalingrad". If you were a director, what episodes would you choose in these chapters? Why?
Homework
2. Prepare reports based on the memoirs of military leaders, based on the biography of V. Kondratiev.
3. Prepare messages-stories based on the memories of relatives who remember the war.
Lesson 30 (91). "Lieutenant's prose" (review)
Lesson Objectives: give an overview of the literary situation of the "thaw" period, works about the war; introduce excerpts from the memoirs of military leaders, arouse interest in the history of the war, the history of their family.
Lesson equipment: illustrations on the theme of the war, publications about the war (stories of front-line writers, memoirs).
Methodical methods: lecture, students' reports, use of interdisciplinary connections with history.
During the classes
I. teacher's word
The theme of the Great Patriotic War did not leave the Russian Soviet literature. A new understanding of the military theme during the "thaw" is associated with the experience of writers of the military generation. Those who were lucky enough to return from the war, as if they lived for a whole generation, spoke on behalf of the generation.
Twenty years after the war, Yuri Bondarev wrote: “We have not lost the former world of youth in ourselves, but we have matured for twenty years and, it seemed, lived them in such detail, so richly, these years would be enough for two generations to live.”
In the 1950s and 1960s, works were published that showed a completely new, unusual face of war. One after another came the stories of Y. Bondarev (“Battalions Ask for Fire” and “The Last Volleys”), G. Baklanov (“South of the Main Strike” and “Span of the Earth”), V. Bykov (“Crane Cry”, “Third Rocket” , “Front page”), V. Astafyev (“Starfall”), K. Vorobyov (“Scream” and “Killed near Moscow”). The war was shown as if "from the inside", through the eyes simple soldier, combat officer. Without lacquering, without romance, they spoke frankly about the rudeness and cruelty of the war. It was the "trench" truth.
The new direction in the literature about the war was called “trench” or “lieutenant” prose. At the origins of this direction is the story of V. Nekrasov "In the trenches of Stalingrad." Like famous phrase“We all came out of Gogol’s “Overcoat!”, The writers of the front-line generation determined the role of Nekrasov’s story in their creative destiny:
"We all came out of the Nekrasov trenches." The authors-front-line soldiers, as Tvardovsky said, "saw the sweat and blood of the war on their tunic", "they did not rise above the lieutenants and did not go further than the regiment commander." They wrote about the war without ideological stereotypes, without pseudo-romantics, spoke the bloody truth, depicted what they themselves had suffered. The favorite genre of these authors is a lyrical story, written in the first person, saturated with memories of front-line youth. Moral problems turned out to be important, the idea that in war not only the character of a person is revealed, but also the personality is formed and tempered. Here is how K. Simonov wrote about this: “It seems to me that people who did not survive it read books about the war when there are some human, psychological, moral issues which are not only related to the war, but are simply exposed during the war with special force, excite not only the generation that has gone past, but also the generation that has not been at war.
The works of front-line writers caused a wide response in society. They were read and argued about: some enthusiastically approved, others believed that it was impossible to write about the war like that. Time has shown that the works of "lieutenant's" prose are in demand, precisely because they are truthful, because they reflect universal human problems that always worry people.
In your opinion, what traditions of Russian literature are continued by “trench” (“lieutenant”) prose?
(This is, first of all, Tolstoy's traditions: let us recall " Sevastopol stories”, “War and Peace” L. N. Tolstoy was the first in literature to show war not in front, but in its “true light”, combining documentary, naturalism and psychologism, accusatory and humanistic pathos. Let us recall the image of the First World War in the novel by M. A. Sholokhov “ Quiet Don”, where Tolstoy traditions are developed.)
II. Discussion of the read stories and (or) messages-stories of students about how the war affected the fate of the family.
1. Teacher's word
Front-line writers returned again and again to theme of war, the main event of their lives and the life of the country, in a new way, from the height of their lived years and their life experience, covered the events of the war years. Viktor Astafiev, one of those who managed to look at the war with merciless truthfulness, wrote: “I was an ordinary fighter in the war, and our soldier’s truth was called by one very lively writer - “trench”, our statements - “bump of sight”. Now the words "trench truth" are perceived only in their single, high sense ... "
