The Myth of Stalingrad in Soviet Literature, 1942-1963 by Ian Roland Garner A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures University of Toronto © Copyright by Ian Roland Garner 2018 The Myth of Stalingrad in Soviet Literature, 1942-1963 Ian Roland Garner Doctor of Philosophy Department of Slavic Languages & Literatures University of Toronto 2018 Abstract This study explores representations of the Battle of Stalingrad in Soviet literature between 1942 and 1963, asking how Stalingrad became central to Russian identity in this period. The work reads Stalingrad’s cultural significance within a body of scholarship on Soviet subjectivity and memory of the Second World War. My analysis begins with a survey of frontline newspaper stories, including material by Konstantin Simonov and previously unstudied stories by Vasily Grossman, which characterized the battle in eschatological terms. I then explore efforts to encode Stalingrad in epic form immediately following the battle and further chart how the story became a vehicle for Stalin’s deification in the late 1940s by comparing Il’ia Ehrenburg’s novel The Storm and minor works. I then show how Grossman’s For a Just Cause links wartime and Stalinist motifs. Finally, I uncover how Simonov and Grossman rewrote Stalingrad during the Khrushchev period. Simonov’s Not Born Soldiers suggested Stalingrad was a resurrection that could be repeated in the present; Grossman’s Life and Fate disrupted the epic wholeness of the Stalingrad myth with polyphony. Drawing on Frank Kermode’s work on myth, I read representations of Stalingrad as being imbued with kairotic significance for a Russian nation attached to an historicist view of the world. This sense of kairos encouraged readers to sublimate their sense of self with History. The victory’s “resurrection” of the nation provided the people and the regime with a new raison- d’être in the post-war years. For both, Stalingrad promised to resolve Soviet literature’s struggle to illustrate an epic present, and formed a shared identity around memory of the battle. ii I use Pierre Nora’s work on lieux de mémoire as an analytical framework to trace Stalingrad’s entry into national memory and the subsequent fluctuations in the battle’s representation throughout the wartime, Stalinist and Khrushchev-era presents. The flexibility and externality of the lieu as a means to preserve and recycle collective memory overcame contradictions inherent in the idea of experiencing kairos in the present. Whether invoked to deify or deconstruct Stalin, Stalingrad was the discursive centre for Soviet discussion of the past. iii Acknowledgements In order of appearance: My parents – for not frowning on my rash decision to up sticks and move to a different continent so that I could read books for a living. Josh – for teaching me Canada 101. Donna Orwin – for telling me when I’m making awful decisions, patiently encouraging me to improve on good ideas, and sharing your enthusiasm and love for all things literary. Everything I could have wanted in a supervisor. The students and staff of the Slavic Department, University of Toronto – for some excellent and insightful seminars, discussions, conferences and personal support. Masha – easily the best wife ever. Thanks for looking after me, making me cups of tea, and convincing me that I can get this thing done. The good people over at SSHRC who dole out the Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarships – you provided me with the financial means to give this project its due. My colleagues at Trinity College, University of Toronto – whether we were up all night keeping our students alive, running top-notch academic programs, drinking together, or just moaning about the state of our work over breakfast, I wouldn’t have stuck at this without your camaraderie and friendship. My committee members, Dragana Obradovic and Ann Komaromi – you coached me through the marathon of writing and editing a thesis with gentle persuasion and thoughtful suggestions. Jochen Hellbeck and Lynne Viola, the final members of my examination committee, who were brave enough to wade through my writing and provide direction for the present and future. iv Table of Contents Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................ iv Table of Contents.............................................................................................................................v 1. Introduction: The Dawn of a New Day........................................................................................1 2. Journalists at Stalingrad: The Genesis of the Myth ...................................................................34 3. After Stalingrad: The People and Stalin ....................................................................................75 4. “The Greatest Event Of Our Time”: Grossman’s For a Just Cause........................................126 5. The Thaw: Debating the Stalinist Past.....................................................................................158 6. Conclusion: Confusion, Twilight and Stability .......................................................................209 Bibliography ................................................................................................................................218 Appendix......................................................................................................................................241 A. Sketches & Poems by Wartime Correspondents................................................................241 B. Works Sorted by Total Print Run, 1942-2013....................................................................246 C. Works Sorted by Total Number of Reprints, 1942-2013 ...................................................248 D. Comparative Graphs, 1942-2013 .......................................................................................250 E. Bibliography of Stalingrad Works, 1942-2013 ..................................................................251 v 1. Introduction: The Dawn of a New Day “Then hope was born. Stalingrad possessed hearts and minds. It became a word which meant hope, the nearing of a tantalizing goal and the dawn of a new day.” (Vera Panova, The Fellow Travellers, 1946) According to Dominic Lieven, “war is the best breeding ground for the myths and memories around which societies and polities cohere. It provides unparalleled examples of heroism and sacrifice for the community, as well as striking examples of united action against a common external threat.”1 Great Russian writers—Lomonosov, Derzhavin, Pushkin, Tolstoy— are inextricably linked with the authorship of the nation’s war myths. The story of the Battle of Stalingrad, fought against Nazi Germany in 1942-3 is twentieth century Russia’s great military myth. After a year of catastrophes had nearly led to the Soviet Union’s defeat, German forces, aiming to occupy Soviet oilfields in the Caucasus, rapidly advanced toward Stalingrad. By the early fall of 1942, the Wehrmacht and the Red Army were locked in street-to-street combat in Stalingrad. The city looked certain to be lost, a blow that would likely have led to the USSR’s defeat. An improbable Soviet counterattack launched on November 19, 1942 led to the encirclement of the German 6th Army in Stalingrad. By February 1943, the tattered remnants of the 6th Army surrendered. Within a few months, victory had been snatched from the jaws of defeat. The speed of the change in fortunes was inestimable: Soviet journalists covering the battle from the front described the victory at Stalingrad as a “miracle.”2 Well before the results of the November offensive became clear, though, the Soviet government had begun a campaign to paint Stalingrad as the “great turning point” (velikii perelom) that would lead to victory in the war. When the immensity of the strategic about-turn became clear, that “great turning point” acquired more than strategic significance. Its supposed consequence was a resurrection of the nation from the brink of death. Stalingrad was, according 1 Dominic Lieven, “Tolstoy on War, Russia, and Empire,” in Tolstoy on War: Narrative Art and Historical Truth in “War and Peace,” ed. Donna Tussing Orwin and Rick McPeak (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2012), 20. 2 V.S. Grossman, “Zapisnye knizhki,” in Gody voiny, ed. E.V. Korotkova-Grossman (Moscow: Pravda, 1989). All translations from Russian are, unless otherwise indicated, my own. 1 to the Soviet newspapers, a genesis: “Soon a new life will emerge here. The great and glorious town on the Volga will be reborn!”3 The idea of the resurrection, often expressed as the “dawn of a new day”—as in my epigraph, taken from Vera Panova’s 1946 novel The Fellow Travellers (Sputniki)—dominated the Stalingrad text for the next two decades. The Stalingrad story suggested the possibility of a new beginning to counter the turbulent experiences of the previous decades and, above all, the brutal destruction of the war period. For the regime, Stalingrad provided the justification for its continued rule. For the entire nation, Stalingrad celebrated the overcoming of the Nazis’ threat not just to invade, but also to totally obliterate, the Soviet Union. Writers, chief amongst them the novelists Konstantin Simonov and Vasily Grossman— relative unknowns at the outbreak of war who became journalists and covered Stalingrad from the front line,