Добірка наукової літератури з теми "Stalingrad, Battle of (Russia : 1942-1943) in literature"

This article is devoted to the analysis of the most important dates in the historical chronicle of the Battle of Stalingrad and their reflection in Soviet literature of those years: journalism, poetry, stories, egodocuments of writers. Material from periodicals of the summer of 1942 is used; special attention is paid to works created during the days of the Battle of Stalingrad and included in the golden fund of Russian classics. The reconstruction of the chronicle of literary events of the summer and fall of 1942 proposed in the article highlights the special place of L.N. Tolstoy’s military prose, the traditions of which became decisive in the creation of the literary chronicle of the Battle of Stalingrad both in 1943 and in subsequent decades.

. The article is devoted to the influence of the Russian heroic traditions on characters of the long short story “In the trenches of Stalingrad” (the original edition in 1946) by V.P. Nekrasov, who took part in the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942–1943 years. Today the creative legacy of the writer, who had to immigrate in 1974 due to ideological disagreements with authorities, has returned to readers of our country and the story under analyses is included in the school and universities Curricular. It is of big value in patriotic education of the young, because the artistic image of the young commander of the Red Army, the author-narrator in the story “In the trenches of Stalingrad”, clearly discloses the process of the spiritual growth of the defender of motherland. The historical and functional method of research allows to show features of perception by characters, soldiers of the Stalingrad front, of works of the Russian classical literature, primarily those, which were created by talented authors and combat officers – M.Yu. Lermontov and L.N. Tolstoy, who experienced the severity of the front life and the soldier’s duty. The system method of research allows to study all the elements of the work: the title, the system of characters, the author’s position – in unity, leading to the conclusion: in the year of the Anniversary of the Victory in the Great Patriotic War the growing readers’ attention to this work is explained by the fact that the characters’ dispositions are viewed in the context of centuries-old Russian national culture, which during the Battle of Stalingrad was more important for the Red Army soldiers than ideological calls and slogans.

Introduction. The result of the Battle of Stalingrad supersedes the course of the battle itself in a great deal of historical literature. Therefore, it is no coincidence that in recent literature Stalingrad is increasingly becoming “mythologized” (A. Isaev), “unknown” (E. Kobyakov) or “forgotten” (A. Chunikhin), the return to the actual history of the Battle of Stalingrad takes the form of criticism of a generalized view, which on examination often turns out to be incorrect. Methods and materials. The work uses the methods of microhistory formulated in 1958 by the American historian J. Stewart. The actions of Red Army units are reconstructed on the basis of documents of the Central Archive of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation. The actions of Wehrmacht units are described on the basis of captured German documents from Fund 500 of the same archive. The data from the battle log of the XXXXVIII Panzer Corps and the battle log of the 24th Panzer Division of the Wehrmacht were taken from the book of Australian historian J. Mark. Analysis. The terrain to the south and south-east of Stalingrad largely determined the course of battle of the operational group of Major-General N.M. Pozharsky and the right flank divisions of the 64th Army with units of XXXXVIII Panzer Corps of General V. Kämpf. The essence of this confrontation was a fierce struggle for commanding heights. Results. At 16:30 on 11 September Major von der Lancken’s group was disbanded, and the tanks returned to their divisions. As a result of the offensive of September 8-11 the Germans managed to capture key heights in the south of Stalingrad. Nevertheless, in these battles XXXXVIII Panzer Corps suffered losses that it could not make up for. This gave the defenders of Stalingrad a chance, which they took. Due to the large volume of archival materials, the author’s team was divided. A.K. Elokhina processed German sources, and E.V. Stelnik processed data from the Central Archive of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation. The concept of the article emerged in the course of joint discussions.

Oles Honchar, who is a classic of Ukrainian literature, has created a well-known novel “The Alps” (the first part of the “The Standard Bearers” trilogy). There, we discover about how soldiers and officers (many Ukrainians are among them) of the Second Ukrainian Front passed their way through Romania from spring to autumn of 1944. Due to this, we see many Romanian realities, starting with historical-political ones and ending with locally linguistic ones, the research and explanation of which have become the purpose of this article. The author of the novel was well aware of the military-political realities of the epoch. Those realities were ongoing battle for the Romanian city of Târgu Frumos and The Jassy-Kishinev Operation (August 1944). He also knew about Rodion Malinovskyi (who was its participant and commander of the Second Ukrainian Front) and the August uprising in Bucharest in 1944. The realities also included the overthrow of the dictatorship of Antonescu by the patriotic Romanian forces led by Romanian king Michael I and a common struggle between Red and Romanian armies for the liberation of Northern Transylvania from the Hungarian occupation (Hungarian occupation was one of the Second Vienna Award conditions). The interpretations of some of the military-political realities of that time have not undergone any significant changes in the novel (The Jassy-Kishinev Operation, the Northern Transylvania liberation). At the same time, the other interpretations have negative references about the Romanian king Michael I and his so-called “collaboration”, although he learned about Romania’s entry into the war against the USSR and the Anti-Hitler-Koalition from the BBC radio message. In the novel, loanwords from Romanian language are appropriately used. Among them, we should point out “nu știu” (“I do not know”), “nu ști rusește” “Not to know Russian”, “nu-i bun război” (“War is a bad thing”), Moldavian dialect “boon diva” (“good day”) and some other words of Romanian origin. The novel states that the Red Army staff officer interrogated Romanian captives with a Moldovian translator, which inadvertently testifies to Oles Honchar’s recognition of the identity of Romanian and so-called “Moldovian” languages, which was denied for political reasons in Soviet times. On one hand, the article points out that Oles Honchar, as a distinguished master of the artistic word, successfully reproduced Romanian historical-military and locally linguistic realities of 1944. On the other hand, it tells that he was forced to follow the Soviet officialdom of that time when it was about the “bourgeois Romania” describing. He was told to demonize Antonescu, although Oles noted the reluctance of Romanians to fight under Stalingrad and the Caucasus on the side of Germany in 1942-1943. The article also tells that the novel was translated into Romanian with the name “Stegarii” (“Standard Bearers”).

The study of aspect prisoners of war in the restoration of the USSR industry during the Great Patriotic War arouses scientific interest of native historiography. Contradictory opinions and assessment of foreign prisoners of war contribution to the restoration of the USSR industrial facilities accentuate the relevance of the topic. The study of this issue at the regional level arouses great interest. The practical significance of the topic lies in the fact that, firstly, it is the material for further study of the problem of foreign prisoners of war on the territory of the Central Chernozemye Region, and secondly, it can be used as the material for the examination of a number of topics on the history of prisoners of war during the Great Patriotic War at government level. During the Great Patriotic War the front line passed through the territory of the Central Chernozemye Region (summer 1942 – winter 1943). Kursk and a part of Voronezh region were occupied by Nazi troops. In the second half of 1942 the first production camps for foreign prisoners of war were established in the Central Chernozemye Region. The increase in the number of camps, the number of prisoners of war and their involvement in production began in 1943. The main reason for the use of prisoners of war labor was, first of all, associated with a sharp increase in the number of prisoners of war after the Battle of Stalingrad; and secondly, with a shortage of manpower. In the first months of the camps operation the involvement of prisoners of war in the work remained low. But in the second half of 1944 it began the massive use of prisoners of war labor. Their labor included restoration work in all industries of the Central Chernozemye Region. By the end of the war prisoners of war had been recruited to work according to their civil specialties. Despite the active use of prisoners of war labor as a part of the complex of restoration measures in the Central Chernozemye Region their contribution was insignificant in comparison with the material damage caused. The article, based on the analysis of archival materials and historical literature, as well as on the historical-comparative, systemic, statistical and other methods of scientific research, shows the contribution of foreign prisoners of war to the restoration of industrial facilities in the Central Chernozyom region during the Great Patriotic War.