I have been reading Vasily Grossman‘s novel Stalingrad for ages, because it’s 900+ pages long and it’s too heavy to hold, so I can’t read it in bed, only in the daytime, when I can rest it on a table. It’s a wonderful book, full of all sorts of insights which have nothing to do with war or the decisive Soviet defeat of the Nazis at Stalingrad in 1942.
Stalingrad (1952) is based on Grossman’s work as a war correspondent for the Red Star, and it features characters from military real life on both sides of the battle. It is the precursor to Life and Fate (1959, see my review) which continues on with events from September 1942. It is sobering to reach the end of a 900+ page book about the battle that changed the course of the war, and then to remember that the war in Europe was to continue for another three years. The loss of life was appalling, and Grossman’s literary homage to the dead acknowledges these nameless heroes in unmarked graves with lively fictional characters. But as in real life, not all of them survive.
As Robert Chandler says in his excellent introduction, Grossman is a master of character portrayal, with an unusual gift for conveying someone’s feelings through some tiny but vivid detail.
Grossman is equally deft in his shifts of perspective, moving between the microscopic and the epic and showing the same generous understanding towards his German characters as towards his Russians. (p. x)
We are privy to scenes of their family life; their transition from peasant or professor to soldiering; their privations, trials, frustrations and doubts; and their anxieties about their comrades and their loved ones, on both sides of the front.
One of the most compelling images is a letter from Viktor Shtrum from his Jewish mother, who refused to leave her village even as the Nazis advanced and the Soviet forces had to retreat. Viktor becomes aware of Nazi atrocities in occupied territory, and he is distraught with anxiety about her fate, but (again, as Chandler makes the reader aware), Grossman, because of anti-semitism under Stalin, had to be circumspect about what he wrote. But the reader can deduce what happens. We are told about Shtrum’s mother’s last letter and her stoic resignation. We are told about its journey from hand to hand. And we are told how when he finally receives it, Viktor carries the letter about with him wherever he goes, but is unable to talk about it. This authorial silence about the contents of the letter is more poignant when we learn that these events parallel the fate of Grossman’s own mother.
He felt profoundly guilty about having allowed his mother to stay in Berdichev rather than insisting that he join him and his wife in Moscow. Her death troubled him for the rest of his life and the last letter from Anna Semyonova — who is clearly a portrait of Grossman’s mother — lies at the centre of Stalingrad like a deep hole. (p.xvi)
In contrast to Anna’s death in the ghetto, which we must imagine, there are also deaths which are swift, merciless and as the battles intensify towards the end of the book, relentless. Grossman sets a scene, brings a character to life, depicts his thoughts, words and deeds, and while the reader is still absorbing the death of this vividly rendered character, moves on to the next chapter.
These characters are unforgettable.
Lena Gnatyuk tends to the injured in the ruins, pleading with the injured to keep quiet so that the nearby Germans won’t hear them. In these closing chapters the reader has come to know Lena as Kovalyov’s heart’s desire. In the bunker they have had a fraught conversation, because he has a girl waiting for him at home, and she, though she loves him, is overwhelmed by her duty to the wounded who need her. They are part of a desperate effort to delay the German capture of the railway station until the reserves arrive, and both know that they are likely to die.
In the next chapter, we see Lena at work among the wounded. Yakhontov yells in pain, but comforts the young woman who tends to him.
‘You’re good and kind. Don’t cry, I’ll feel better in a while,’ he said, but the young woman didn’t hear this. He thought he was pronouncing words, but all she heard was a gurgle.
Lena Gnatyuk did not sleep that night. (p.833)
She reassures a soldier that his two broken legs will be set:
‘It won’t hurt. Be brave. Be brave until morning.’
In the dawn light, as it went into a dive over the railway station, the nose and wings of the Stuka turned pink. A high-explosive bomb fell in the pit where Lena Gnatyuk and two orderlies were caring for the wounded. Every last breath of life was cut short.
A cloud of dust and smoke, reddish brown in the light of the rising sun, hung in the air for a long time. Then a breeze off the Volga dispersed it over the steppe to the west of the city. (p.834)
Filyashkin is shown as a man of many flaws who rises to the occasion. Despite his wounds, he takes command as the remnants of his men fight off the German artillery.
Filyashkin was issuing commands to himself and then carrying them out himself. He was, at one and the same time, sub-unit commander, forward observer and machine-gunner.
In his mind, he is not defending himself against a sly, crafty, advancing enemy, he saw himself as the attacker.
A single simple thought, like an echo from the grinding fire of his machine gun, now took up all Senior Lieutenant Filyashkin’s consciousness. This thought furnished him with an explanation of everything of importance: his success and disappointments, his feeling of condescension to those of his peers who were still mere lieutenants and his envy of those who had already reached the rank of major or lieutenant colonel. ‘I began as a machine-gunner and I’m ending as a machine-gunner.’ This simple, clear thought was an answer to all that had troubled him during the last few hours. To machine-gunner Filyashkin, everything bad and painful in his life had ceased to matter.
Shvedkov never managed to bandage Filyashkin’s shoulder with strips of cloth torn off a bathrobe. Filyashkin suddenly lost consciousness, smashed his chin against the back of the machine gun and fell dead to the ground. (p.836)
That bathrobe, BTW, was delivered to Lena as a gift from ‘the women of America’. The parcel was well-meant, but Grossman shows how the pretty clothes and luxury perfume were sent by women who had no idea of the significant role Soviet women played in the war. Time after time he depicts women who’ve accessed education and training and new opportunities, working as equals in senior management, or as skilled artisans or professionals. Reading about Lena’s scornful rejection of these frivolous garments reminded me of Svetlana Alexievich’s The Unwomanly Face of War, translated by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky, (1985, see my review). When Filyashkin warns Lena to take a captured pistol in case she’s captured, just in case, she shrugs and replies: ‘I can shoot myself just as well with my own revolver.’
Filyashkin’s fears for Lena were well-founded. Wikipedia tells us about the rape of about 2 million German women by Soviet soldiers, (and by allied troops though that is mentioned less often) but the rape of five times that number of Soviet women by the Wehrmacht was suppressed during the Cold War both by the Soviets and the West. Wikipedia tells us that…
… sources estimate that rapes of Soviet women by the Wehrmacht range up to 10,000,000 incidents, with between 750,000 and 1,000,000 children being born as a result. (Wikipedia, War Crimes of the Wehrmacht/Rape, viewed 2/5/24)
In Kovalyov’s last minutes, he remains focussed on the task at hand. Barely conscious, he takes out his precious notebook of poetry, and pens a report to his superiors. He hands it to Rysev to deliver, but by the time Rysev reports back that everyone is dead and there’s no one to report to, he was unable to hand the report back. Kovalyov lay dead, his chest on his kitbag, his hand on his loaded sub-machine gun. Rysev takes up the gun and the remaining grenades, and pauses to look at his fallen comrade.
He could see a short dark notch on his forehead, between his eyebrows. The wind was catching his fair hair. His eyes were half hidden beneath his delicate eyelashes and he was looking sweetly and knowingly down at the ground, smiling at something that he alone knew, that none but he would ever know.
‘Instantaneous — on the bridge of the nose,’ Rysev said to himself, appalled by death’s swiftness, yet also envious. (p,841)
Mindful of the national conversation we are having about the chilling outbreak of violence against women, I found that my thoughts strayed to a different kind of war when I read the excerpt below.
Vavilov, an ordinary soldier from an ordinary village is confronted by the destruction of the city and he muses on the vast amount of labour that goes into building a city. In the ruins, he realises that there is enough broken glass to glaze the windows of every village in Russia. He thinks of the people who once lived there in the ruined city, and those who are entombed, and he realises that for Hitler, strength was a matter of violence — one man’s ability to exercise violence over another.
And he rejects that…
What we call the soul of the people is determined by a shared understanding of strength, labour, justice and the common good. When we say, ‘The people will condemn this’, ‘The people will not believe this’ or ‘The people will not agree’, it is this shared understanding that we have in mind.
This shared understanding — these simple and fundamental thoughts and feelings — is present both in the people as a whole and in each individual. Often only latent, this understanding comes to life when someone feels him- or herself to be united with a larger whole, when someone can say ‘I am the people.’
Those who say that the people worship strength must differentiate between different kinds of strength. There is a strength that the people respect and admire, and there is a strength that the people will never respect, before which it will never abase itself. (p.779)
And I thought, how apt these words are in our current circumstances.
Though there are all kinds of government actions that need to be taken,
and there needs to be funding to support front-line programs,
there are no simple solutions.
But…
We, the people, need to make our values clear, loud and clear, and assert that
we despise violence.
The ABC news last week featured a snippet about some footballer who’d been suspended for inappropriate behaviour towards women.
He has to do some sort of behavioural change course,
and find a club that will have him if he ever wants to play again.
And then the segment cut to some other footballer who was asked
if it was the end of that player’s career,
and what we heard was the same kind of excuse-making that
teachers hear from parents
whenever we try to discuss a child’s aggressive behaviour.
That was our media at work, undercutting the effort to call out unacceptable behaviour.
The reporter chose to ask that question, the player chose to answer it the way he did, and the editor chose to broadcast it without it being challenged.
Our entertainment industry sabotages our values as well.
All those Hollywood movies that depict violence as a solution to a problem.
All those crime novels and thrillers that portray violence against women
so that some hero can ‘solve the crime’.
But there is rarely any mystery about violence in our society.
Emily Maguire had it right in her 2016 novel An Isolated Incident, see my review.
The murder in that novel was not an isolated incident and in that town everyone knew who had done it and they had turned a blind eye to it.
I think that we, the people, do have a shared understanding that
violence has no place in our society.
We do have a shared understanding that
we do not use it to solve interpersonal problems.
And we will never respect those who abuse strength to inflict harm on others
or make excuses for it.
And we should say so, whenever we see it,
and we should never accept excuse-making.
If you or someone you know is impacted by sexual assault, domestic or family violence,
call 1800RESPECT on 1800 737 732 or visit 1800RESPECT.org.au.
In an emergency, call 000.
Recent Comments