Explanation. Literary and historical notes of a young technician Family and early years

Through the eyes of a man of my generation: Reflections on J.V. Stalin

Konstantin Mikhailovich Simonov

Through the eyes of a man of my generation

Reflections on I.V. Stalin

Lazar Ilyich Lazarev

"For future historians of our time"

(the latest work by Konstantin Simonov)

He didn’t like conversations about how he was feeling, and if they did arise, he tried to laugh it off, when they really pestered him with questions and advice - and in such cases, advice is given especially willingly and persistently - he got angry. But he let it slip several times in front of me - it became clear that he was seriously ill, that he felt bad, that he had the darkest thoughts about what awaited him. Somehow I had to say: “And I told the doctors,” I heard from him, “that I must know the truth, how long I have left. If it’s six months, I’ll do one thing, if it’s a year, I’ll do something else, if it’s two months, I’ll do something else...” Beyond that, for more long term he no longer made any wishes, no plans. This conversation took place at the end of the seventy-seventh year, he had less than two years to live...

Then, while sorting out the manuscripts left behind by him, I came across this beginning (one of the options) of the planned play “An Evening of Memories”:

“A white wall, a bed, a table, a chair or a medical stool. All.

Maybe the very beginning is a conversation either with the person standing here, or behind the scenes:

Goodbye, doctor. See you Monday, Doctor. And after this farewell to the doctor there is an exposition.

So I was left alone until Monday. I felt generally good. But it was necessary to undergo surgery. This is, in essence, like a duel, like a duel... Not in six months, but in a year. This is what the doctors told me, or rather, the doctor to whom I asked the question directly - I like to pose such questions directly. And he, in my opinion, was also inclined to this. What should I do? What does this mean for me? We decided to fight. But the situation is not such that it can be put on the table right away. We could have waited a few days. He wanted to do it himself and was leaving for a few days. The matter was not on fire, it was just necessary to decide. It was the decision that burned, not the operation. And that suited me. If so, if it’s either yes or no, or you can withstand it all or you can’t stand it, then you need to do something else. That's what? That was the whole question.

The wife agreed. We talked openly with her, as always. She also believed that this was the only way. And this, of course, made it easier for me. But what? What to do? The state of mind is not such as to start something new. But the biography with which they pestered me has not really been written. This is what should probably be done. Let at least a draft remain - if something happens. If not, there will be enough time to rewrite it completely.”

I read this with a strange feeling, as if Simonov had guessed his end, how everything would be, what choice he would face, what he would decide to do when there was very little strength left. Or prophesied all this to himself. No, of course, the doctors didn’t tell him how much time he had, and it’s unlikely they knew how long he was given. But it just so happened that poor health forced him to choose what was most important, what to do first, what to give preference to, and this choice, as outlined in the play, fell on a work that represented a reckoning with his own past.

Even in Last year Simonov’s life span of planned and started work was very wide. He set about writing a feature film about the journey of one tank crew in the last year of the war - the film was to be directed by Alexey German, who had previously adapted Simonov’s story “Twenty Days Without War.” The USSR State Cinema Committee accepted Simonov's application for a documentary film about Marshal G.K. Zhukov. For his proposed series of television programs “Literary Heritage,” Simonov intended to make a film about A.S. Serafimovich - war correspondent during civil war. Based on numerous conversations with holders of three Orders of Glory, which he had during the filming of the documentaries “A Soldier Walked…” and “Soldier’s Memoirs,” he conceived a book about the war - what it was like for the soldier, what it cost him. And a similar kind of book based on conversations with famous commanders. Or maybe - he hasn’t decided yet - we need to make not two, he told me, but one book, connecting and confronting both views on the war - the soldier’s and the marshal’s. He wanted to write a few more memoir essays about prominent people of literature and art with whom his life brought him close - together with those already published, it would ultimately form a solid book of memoirs. In general, there were more than enough plans.

Simonov’s efficiency and perseverance are known; he even took manuscripts, books, and a tape recorder with him to the hospital, but his illnesses made themselves felt more and more, his strength became less and less, and one after another, planned and even started work had to be “mothballed” and postponed until better times. time until recovery. And some of them were promised to someone, included somewhere in the plans, he spoke about these works in interviews, at reader conferences, which for him was tantamount to a commitment.

In addition to those just listed, two more works were conceived, about which Simonov did not elaborate and did not speak publicly. But when he felt completely bad, when he decided that from what he could and wanted to do, the time had come to choose the most important, he began to deal with precisely these two plans, which he had been putting off and putting off for many years, either believing that he was not yet ready to such a complex work, or believing that it could wait, the time was not ripe for it, anyway, it should be written “on the table”, because it does not have the slightest chance of publication in the near foreseeable future.

With this feeling, in February - April 1979, Simonov dictated the manuscript that made up the first part of the book, which the reader now holds in his hands. Its subtitle is “Reflections on I.V. Stalin." However, this is a book not only about Stalin, but also about himself. The manuscript absorbed in a transformed form the idea, pathos and partly the material of the play “An Evening of Memories” conceived by the writer. However, what could come of this - a play, a script or a novel - was unclear to the author. He hasn’t yet chosen a path: “For starters, let’s call it “An Evening of Memories,” and let the subtitle be “A Play to Read.” Or maybe it will turn out to be not a play, but a novel, only a little unusual. Not the one in which I will talk about myself, but the one in which there will be four of my “I” at once. The current self and three others. The one I was in '56, the one I was in '46, shortly after the war, and the one I was before the war, at a time when I had just found out that the civil war had begun in Spain - in the year thirty-six. These four “I”s of mine will talk to each other... Now, when remembering the past, we can’t resist the temptation to imagine that you knew then, in the thirties or forties, what you didn’t know then, and felt that that you didn’t feel then, attribute to yourself then your thoughts and feelings today. It is this temptation that I quite consciously want to fight, or at least try to fight this temptation, which is often stronger than us. That is why, and not for any formalistic or mystical reasons, I chose this somewhat strange form of a story about the current generation.”

This was the basis for the technique that was to become a tool of historicism. Simonov wanted to find out, to get to the bottom of why before the war and in the post-war period he acted this way and not otherwise, why he thought this way, what he was striving for then, what and how then changed in his views and feelings. Not in order to marvel at the unexpected whims of memory, its unselfish selection - it tenaciously and willingly preserves the pleasant, elevating us in its own eyes; it tries not to return to what we are ashamed of today, which does not correspond to our current ideas, and considerable mental effort is required to remember what you don’t want to remember. Looking back at the difficult years he had lived through, Simonov wanted to be fair and impartial and to himself - what has happened has happened, the past - mistakes, delusions, cowardice - must be reckoned with. Simonov judged himself strictly - to show this, I will give two excerpts from his notes for the play, they are about what is especially painful to touch. And they are directly related to the manuscript “Through the Eyes of a Man of My Generation,” which he finished dictating in the spring of 1979:

“...It seems to the present day that he always considered it a crime what was done in 1944 with the Balkars, or Kalmyks, or Chechens. He needs to check a lot in himself in order to force himself to remember that then, in forty-four or forty-five, or even in forty-six, he thought that this was how it should have been. What if he heard from many that there, in the Caucasus and Kalmykia, many changed and helped the Germans, that this was what had to be done. Evict - and that's it! He doesn’t even want to remember now his thoughts on this matter at that time, and to be honest, he didn’t think much about it then. It’s even strange to think now that he could have thought so little about it then.

And then, in 1946, that’s exactly what I thought, I didn’t really delve into this issue, I thought that everything was right. And only when he himself encountered - and he had such cases - this tragedy, using the example of a man who fought the entire war at the front, and after that, exiled somewhere in Kazakhstan or Kyrgyzstan, continued to write poetry in his native language, but not could print them because it was believed that this language no longer existed - only in this case some not fully realized feeling of protest arose in the soul.”

We are talking about Kaisyn Kuliev here, and it’s probably worth mentioning for the sake of fairness how Simonov looked in his eyes. Many years after this, when the difficult, dark times had passed for Kuliev and his people, he wrote to Simonov: “I remember how I came to you on a snowy February day in 1944 at the Red Star.” There was a machine gun hanging on your wall. These were the most tragic days for me. You remember this, of course. You treated me then cordially, nobly, as befits not only a poet, but also a courageous man. I remember this. People don’t forget about such things.”

I cited this letter to emphasize the severity of the account that Simonov presented to himself in later years, he did not want to downplay the part of responsibility for what was happening that fell on him, and did not seek self-justification. He questioned his past, his memory, without any condescension.

Here is another excerpt from the notes:

“Well, what did you do when someone you knew was there and you had to help him?

Differently. It happened that he called, and wrote, and asked.

How did you ask?

Differently. Sometimes he asked to put himself in the person’s position, to ease his fate, and told him how good he was. Sometimes it was like this: he wrote that he didn’t believe that it couldn’t be that this person turned out to be who they think he is, that he did what he was accused of - I know him too well, this can’t be.

Have there been such cases?

Cases? Yes, there was one such case, that’s exactly what I wrote. And he wrote more that, of course, I don’t interfere, I can’t judge, probably everything is correct, but... And then I tried to write everything that I knew good about the person in order to somehow help him.

How else?

How else? Well, it happened that he didn’t answer letters. Didn't answer emails twice. Once because I never loved this person and believed that I had the right not to respond to this letter from a stranger to me, about whom I, in general, know nothing. And another time I knew a person well, I was even with him at the front and loved him, but when he was imprisoned during the war, I believed what the matter was, I believed that it could be connected with the disclosure of some secrets of that time, which were not customary to talk about, could not be spoken about. I believed it. He wrote to me. Didn't answer, didn't help him. I didn’t know what to write to him, I hesitated. Then, when he returned, it was a shame. Moreover, the other, our common friend, who is generally considered to be thinner than me, more cowardly, as it turned out, answered him and helped him in every way he could - he sent parcels and money.”

It's not often that you come across people who can interrogate their memory with such ruthlessness.

Simonov did not finish the play - one can only guess why: apparently, further work on it required overcoming direct autobiography, it was necessary to create characters, build a plot, etc., and, judging by the notes and sketches, the main object of these difficult reflections on the harsh , a contradictory time, about the painful conflicts and deformations it generated, it was about himself, his own life, his involvement in what was happening around him, his personal responsibility for the troubles and injustices of the past. Creating a play, inventing a plot, giving his torment and drama to fictional characters, he seemed to push it all aside, separate it, remove it from himself. And in a book about Stalin, all this was appropriate, even necessary, such a book could not help but become for Simonov a book about himself, about how he perceived what was happening then, how he acted, for what he was responsible to his conscience - otherwise in his eyes the work would lose its moral foundation. The leitmotif of Simonov's book is reckoning with the past, repentance, purification, and this sets it apart and elevates it above many memoirs about the Stalinist era.

It must be borne in mind that this is only the first part of the book conceived by Simonov. Unfortunately, he did not have time to write the second part - “Stalin and the War”. Large folders of various preparatory materials have been preserved, collected over many years: notes, letters, recordings of conversations with military leaders, extracts from books - some of them, of independent value, are included in this book. And in order to correctly understand the first part, you need to know where the author wanted to move in the second, in what direction, what the final assessment of Stalin’s activities and personality should have been. However, in the first part, mainly based on the material of quite “prosperous” (where the leader was not violent) meetings with Stalin, which the author had a chance to attend (these were pharisaical one-man theater performances, staged once a year to teach writers by the dictator who established regime of unlimited personal power), Simonov managed to convincingly reveal his Jesuitism, cruelty, and sadism.

The discussion at these meetings was mainly about literature and art. And although the veil covering the true meaning and inner workings of Stalin’s literary - and more broadly - cultural policy was only slightly lifted there, some features of this policy clearly appear in Simonov’s notes and memoirs. And the extreme vulgarity of Stalin’s original ideological and aesthetic guidelines, and the demand for primitive didactics, and the disrespect for talent as a consequence of the complete disregard for the human person that permeates the Stalinist regime - this is a saying from that time: “We have no irreplaceable people,” and a consumerist attitude towards history - the principle rejected in words, officially condemned: history is politics, overturned into the depths of centuries - was in fact strictly implemented without a shadow of embarrassment. All this was implemented with the help of carrots (prizes, titles, awards) and sticks (a broad system of repression - from the destruction of books in print by command from above to a camp for unwanted authors).

In one of the folders with preparatory materials there is a sheet with questions relating to the Great Patriotic War, which Simonov, starting work, formulated for himself and for conversations with military leaders; they give some - of course, far from complete - idea of the range of problems that should be addressed The second part was dedicated to:

"1. Was what happened at the beginning of the war a tragedy or not?

2. Did Stalin bear the greatest responsibility for this compared to other people?

3. Was the repression of military personnel in '37 - '38 one of the main reasons for our failures at the beginning of the war?

4. Was Stalin’s erroneous assessment of the pre-war political situation and his overestimation of the role of the pact one of the main reasons for our failures at the beginning of the war?

5. Were these the only reasons for failure?

6. Was Stalin a major historical figure?

7. Were they manifested in preparation for war and in its leadership? strengths Stalin's personality?

8. Did they manifest themselves in the preparation for the war and in the leadership of it? negative sides Stalin's personality?

9. What other concept in depicting the beginning of the war can exist other than a tragic period in the history of our country, when we were in a desperate situation, from which we emerged at the cost of enormous sacrifices and losses, thanks to the incredible and heroic efforts of the people, the army, the party?”

Almost each of these questions later became the topic of serious historical research for Simonov. For example, in the report “Lessons of History and the Duty of a Writer” included in this book (made in 1965, on the twentieth anniversary of the Victory, it was published only in 1987) the severe consequences for the combat capability of the Red Army of the mass repressions of the thirty-seventh - were analyzed in detail and in many ways. thirty-eighth. Here are some brief excerpts from this report that give an idea of the conclusions Simonov came to. Speaking about the rigged trial that took place in June 1937, in which a group of senior Red Army commanders were convicted and executed on false charges of treason and espionage for Nazi Germany: M.N. Tukhachevsky, I.P. Uborevich, A.I. Cork and others, Simonov, emphasized that this monstrous process was the beginning of events that later had an avalanche-like character: “Firstly, they were not the only ones who died. Following them and in connection with their death, hundreds and thousands of other people, who made up a significant part of the color of our army, died. And they didn’t just die, but in the minds of most people they passed away with the stigma of betrayal. This is not just about losses associated with those who have passed away. We must remember what was going on in the souls of the people who remained to serve in the army, about the strength of the spiritual blow inflicted on them. We must remember how much incredible work it took for the army - in this case I’m talking only about the army - to begin to recover from these terrible blows.” But by the beginning of the war this had not happened, the army had not fully recovered, especially since “in both 1940 and 1941 paroxysms of suspicion and accusations still continued. Shortly before the war, when a memorable TASS message was published with its half-reproach, half-threat against those who succumb to rumors about Germany's allegedly hostile intentions, the commander of the Red Army Air Force P.V. was arrested and killed. Rychagov, Chief Inspector of the Air Force Ya.M. Smushkevich and the commander of the country’s air defense G.M. Stern. To complete the picture, it should be added that at the beginning of the war, the former Chief of the General Staff and the People’s Commissar of Armaments were also arrested, and later, fortunately, were released.” It is entirely Stalin’s fault that Hitler managed to take us by surprise. “With incomprehensible persistence,” writes Simonov, “he did not want to take into account the most important reports from the intelligence officers. His main guilt before the country is that he created a disastrous atmosphere when dozens of completely competent people, possessing irrefutable documentary data, did not have the opportunity to prove to the head of state the scale of the danger and did not have the rights to take sufficient measures to prevent it.”

The magazine “Knowledge is Power” (1987, No. 11) also published an extensive fragment “On the twenty-first of June I was summoned to the Radio Committee...” from a commentary to the book “One Hundred Days of War”, which was also not published due to circumstances beyond the control of the author. The military-political situation of the pre-war years, the progress of preparations for the impending war and, above all, the role that the Soviet-German pact played in this matter are carefully examined. Simonov comes to an unequivocal conclusion: “...If we talk about surprise and the scale of the first defeats associated with it, then everything here starts from the very bottom - starting with reports from intelligence officers and reports of border guards, through reports and reports from districts, through reports of the People's Commissariat of Defense and the General headquarters, everything ultimately comes down to Stalin personally and rests on him, on his firm belief that it is he and precisely the measures that he considers necessary that will be able to prevent the disaster approaching the country. And in the reverse order - it is from him, through the People's Commissariat of Defense, through the General Staff, through district headquarters and to the very bottom - all that pressure comes, all that administrative and moral pressure, which ultimately made the war much more sudden than it could have been under other circumstances." And further about the extent of Stalin’s responsibility: “Speaking about the beginning of the war, it is impossible to avoid assessing the scale of the enormous personal responsibility that Stalin bore for everything that happened. Different scales cannot exist on the same map. The scale of responsibility corresponds to the scale of power. The vastness of one is directly related to the vastness of the other.”

Simonov’s attitude towards Stalin, which, of course, does not boil down to an answer to the question whether Stalin was a major historical figure, was most importantly determined by what the writer heard at the 20th Party Congress, which was a huge shock for him, and later learned while studying history and the prehistory of the Great Patriotic War (these historical studies were especially important for developing one’s own position). It must be said with all certainty that the more Simonov delved into this material, the more evidence he accumulated from various participants in the events, the more he reflected on what the people had experienced, on the cost of the Victory, the more extensive and rigorous the account became. he presented it to Stalin.

The book “Through the Eyes of a Man of My Generation” does not talk about everything that in Simonov’s life was connected with the Stalinist order, with the oppressive atmosphere of that time. The author did not have time to write, as he had intended, about the ominous campaigns of the forty-ninth year to combat the so-called “cosmopolitan anti-patriots”; What remains outside the book is that bad time for him after Stalin’s death, when he suddenly hung his portrait in his office at home as a challenge to the changes emerging in society. It was not easy for Simonov to re-evaluate the past - both the general one and his own. On the day of his fiftieth birthday, he spoke at an anniversary evening in the Central House of Writers: “I just want my comrades present here to know that I don’t like everything in my life, I didn’t do everything well - I understand that - I wasn’t always on high. At the height of citizenship, at the height of humanity. There have been things in life that I remember with displeasure, cases in life when I did not show enough will or enough courage. And I remember it." He not only remembered this, but drew the most serious conclusions from it for himself, learned lessons, tried everything he could to correct it. Let us also remember how difficult and difficult it is for a person to judge himself. And we will respect the courage of those who, like Simonov, dare to undertake such a trial, without which it is impossible to cleanse the moral atmosphere in society.

I will not characterize Simonov’s attitude towards Stalin in my own words; it was expressed both in the trilogy “The Living and the Dead” and in the commentary to the front-line diaries “ Different days war", and in letters to readers. For this I will use one of Simonov’s letters, prepared by him as material for the work “Stalin and War”. It expresses his principled position:

“I think that disputes about the personality of Stalin and his role in the history of our society are natural disputes. They will still happen in the future. In any case, until the whole truth is told, and before that the whole truth, the complete truth about all aspects of Stalin’s activities in all periods of his life is studied.

I believe that our attitude towards Stalin in past years, including during the war years, our admiration for him during the war years - and this admiration was probably approximately the same for you and your head of the political department, Colonel Ratnikov, and for me, this admiration for the past does not give us the right not to take into account what we know now, not to take into account the facts. Yes, now it would be more pleasant for me to think that I don’t have, for example, poems that began with the words “Comrade Stalin, can you hear us?” But these poems were written in 1941, and I am not ashamed that they were written then, because they express what I felt and thought then, they express hope and faith in Stalin. I felt them then, that’s why I wrote. But, on the other hand, the fact that I wrote such poems then, not knowing what I know now, not imagining to the smallest extent the full extent of Stalin’s atrocities against the party and the army, and the entire volume of crimes, committed by him in the thirty-seventh - thirty-eighth years, and the entire scope of his responsibility for the outbreak of the war, which might not have been so unexpected if he had not been so convinced of his infallibility - all this that we now know obliges us to reassess our previous views on Stalin, reconsider them. Life demands this, the truth of history demands this.

Yes, in certain cases, one or another of us may be pricked, may be offended by the mention that what you said or wrote about Stalin in your time is different from what you say and write now. In this sense, it is especially easy to prick and offend a writer. Whose books exist on bookshelves and who can, so to speak, be caught in this discrepancy. But what follows from this? Should it be that, knowing the volume of Stalin’s crimes, the volume of disasters he caused to the country since the thirties, the volume of his actions that ran counter to the interests of communism, knowing all this, we should remain silent about it? I think, on the contrary, it is our duty to write about it, our duty to put things in their place in the consciousness of future generations.

At the same time, of course, you need to weigh everything soberly and you need to see different sides of Stalin’s activities and there is no need to portray him as some insignificant, petty, petty person. And attempts at this sometimes already appear in some literary works. Stalin, of course, was a very, very large man, a man of very large scale. He was a politician, a personality who cannot be thrown out of history. And this man, in particular if we talk about the war, did a lot of things that were necessary, a lot of things that influenced the course of things in a positive sense. It is enough to read his correspondence with Roosevelt and Churchill to understand the magnitude and political talent of this man. And at the same time, it is this person who is responsible for the start of the war, which cost us so many extra millions of lives and millions of square kilometers of devastated territory. This person is responsible for the army's unpreparedness for war. This man bears responsibility for the years thirty-seven and thirty-eight, when he defeated the cadres of our army and when our army began to lag behind the Germans in its preparations for war, because by the thirty-sixth year it was ahead of the Germans. And only the destruction of military personnel carried out by Stalin, an unprecedented defeat in scale, led to the fact that we began to lag behind the Germans both in preparation for the war and in the quality of military personnel.

Of course, Stalin wanted victory. Of course, when the war began, he did everything in his power to win. He made decisions both right and wrong. He also made mistakes, and he also had successes both in the diplomatic struggle and in the military leadership of the war. We must try to portray all this as it was. In one place in my book (we are talking about the novel “Soldiers Are Not Born” - L.L.) one of her heroes - Ivan Alekseevich - says about Stalin that he is a great and terrible man. I think that this is a correct characterization and, if you follow this characterization, you can write the truth about Stalin. Let me add on my own: not only scary - very scary, immensely scary. Just think that Yezhov and that degenerate Beria were all just pawns in his hands, just people with whose hands he committed monstrous crimes! What is the scale of his own atrocities, if we rightfully speak of these pawns in his hands as the last villains?

Yes, the truth about Stalin is truly complex, there are many sides to it, and it cannot be said in a few words. It must be written and explained as a complex truth, only then will it be the true truth.

This, in fact, is the main thing that I wanted to answer you. There is no time, as they say, to look for the most precise formulations for my thoughts - this is not an article, but a letter, but basically, it seems, I told you what I wanted to say.”

Simonov wrote this letter in 1964. And in the next fifteen years, when talking in the press about Stalin’s crimes became impossible, when his guilt for the severe defeats of forty-one and forty-two, for the incalculable losses we suffered, when even the decisions of the 20th Party Congress on the cult of personality and its consequences began to be hushed up in every possible way Simonov, who was under very strong pressure in this direction, was mentioned less and less often - only as a matter of form - and with the help of prohibitions (the “One Hundred Days of War”, notes “On the biography of G.K. Zhukov”, the report “Lessons” history and the duty of a writer"), and with the help of exhausting opportunistic remarks concerning almost everything that he wrote and did at that time (they completely disfigured the film adaptation of the novel “Soldiers Are Not Born” - so much so that Simonov demanded that the title of the novel be removed from the credits and his last name), stood firmly on his ground, did not retreat, did not back down. He hoped that the truth would ultimately triumph, that it could only be hidden for the time being, that the hour would come and the falsifications would be exposed and discarded, and that which had been kept silent and hidden would come to light. Responding to a sad and confused letter from one reader who became disheartened when faced with a shameless distortion of historical truth in literature, Simonov noted: “I am less pessimistic than you are about the future. I think that the truth cannot be hidden and history will remain true history, despite various attempts to falsify it - mainly through omissions.

And as for what they will believe more when we all die, will they believe more, in particular, those memoirs that you write about in your letter, or that novel that you write about, then this is, as they say, Grandma said in two.

I would like to add: wait and see, but since we're talking about about distant times, we will no longer see. However, I think that they will believe exactly what is closer to the truth. Humanity has never been devoid of common sense. He will not lose it in the future.”

For all his optimism, Simonov still attributed hope for the triumph of “common sense” only to the “distant future”; he could not imagine that within ten years after his death a book about Stalin would be published. It seemed unthinkable then. However, in the spring of 1979, when he dictated “Through the Eyes of a Man of My Generation,” he repeated the formula of the hero of his novel, written in 1962: “... I would like to hope that in the future time will allow us to evaluate the figure of Stalin more accurately, dotting all the i's ” and saying everything to the end both about his great merits and about his terrible crimes. And about both. For he was a great and terrible man. That’s what I thought and still think.”

It is hardly possible to accept this formula “great and terrible” today. Perhaps if Simonov had lived to this day, he would have found a more accurate one. But even then it was not unconditional and unconditional for him, especially since he did not have even a shadow of condescension towards Stalin’s atrocities - he believed that there was and could not be any justification for his crimes (that’s why, it seems to me, the fears of some journalists are in vain , that Simonov’s memories can be used by today’s Stalinists). The same Ivan Alekseevich from “Soldiers Are Not Born,” reflecting on Stalin in connection with Tolstoy’s words in “War and Peace”: “There is no greatness where there is no simplicity, goodness and truth,” refutes it. One of the leaders of the General Staff, who communicates with Stalin day after day, having the opportunity to observe him quite closely, he knows well within himself that simplicity, goodness and truth are completely alien to Stalin and therefore there can be no talk of any greatness of his.

Among the preparatory materials for the second part of Simonov’s book, the recordings of his conversations with G.K. are of particular interest and value. Zhukov, A.M. Vasilevsky, I.S. Konev and I.S. Isakov. Most of the recordings of conversations with G.K. Zhukov was included in the memoir essay “On the biography of G.K. Zhukov." These “Notes...” and recordings of conversations with other military leaders were included in the second part of the book - “Stalin and the War.”

The frankness and confidential tone of the writer’s interlocutors is noteworthy. They also tell him what, for obvious reasons, they could not then write in their own memoirs. This frankness was explained by their high respect for Simonov’s creativity and personality; talking with the writer, they had no doubt that he would use what was told to him in the best possible way.

As you know, G.K. Zhukov was a man who did not tolerate familiarity and was alien to sentimentality, but, congratulating Simonov on his fiftieth birthday, he addressed him “dear Kostya” and ended his letter with words that are intended only for close people - “I mentally hug you and kiss you.”

About the authority Simonov enjoyed with I.S. Konev, says M.M. in his memoirs. Zotov, who headed the editorial office of Voenizdat’s memoirs in the 60s. When, in preparation for the publication of a book by I.S. Konev’s “The Forty-Fifth,” the publishing house made several critical comments to the author; he, according to M.M. Zotov, “decisively rejected them. And he had only one argument: “Simonov read the manuscript.” By the way, when this book was published, I.S. Konev gave it to Simonov with an inscription confirming M.M.’s story. Zotov, - Simonov not only read the manuscript, but, as they say, put his hand to it:

“Dear Konstantin Mikhailovich!

In memory of the heroic days of the Great Patriotic War. Thank you for your initiative and help in creating this book. With friendly greetings and respect to you

A.M. Vasilevsky once, addressing Simonov, called him the people's writer of the USSR, meaning not a non-existent title, but the people's view of the war, which is expressed in Simonov's works. “It is very important for us,” Marshal wrote to Simonov, “that all your popularly known and unconditionally beloved creative works, touching on almost all the most important events of the war, are presented to the reader in the most thorough manner, and most importantly - strictly truthfully and substantiated, without any attempts to please all sorts of trends of the post-war years and today to move away from the sometimes harsh truth of history, which, unfortunately, many of the writers and especially our brother, memoirists, do so willingly for various reasons.” These words help to understand why our most famous commanders talked with Simonov with such eagerness and openness - they were captivated by his rare knowledge of war, his loyalty to the truth.

I.S. Isakov, a literary gifted man himself - which is essential in this case - who had an excellent command of the pen, wrote to Simonov, recalling the Kerch disaster: “I witnessed something that if I write, they won’t believe it. They would believe Simonov. I carry it with me and dream of telling you someday.” History of conversations with I.S. Isakov was told by Simonov himself in the preface to the admiral’s letters, which he transmitted to the TsGAOR of the Armenian SSR. It's worth reproducing here:

“We are all human - mortal, but I; as you can see, he is closer to this than you are, and I would like, without delay, to tell you what I consider important about Stalin. I think that it will also be useful to you when you continue to work on your novel or novels. I don’t know when I’ll write about this myself or whether I’ll write it at all, but with you it will be written down and, therefore, intact. And this is important." After this preface, Ivan Stepanovich got down to business and began to talk about his meetings with Stalin. The conversation continued for several hours, and I myself finally had to interrupt this conversation, because I felt that my interlocutor was in a dangerous state of extreme fatigue. We agreed on a new meeting, and when I returned home, the next day I dictated everything that Ivan Stepanovich told me into a voice recorder. He dictated, as usual in these cases, in the first person, trying to convey everything exactly as it was preserved in memory.

The next meeting with Ivan Stepanovich, scheduled for the next few days, did not take place due to his state of health, and then because of mine and his departure. We returned to the topic of this conversation again only in September 1962. I no longer remember where this second meeting took place, either again in Barvikha, or at Ivan Stepanovich’s house, but after it, just like the first time, I dictated into the recorder, mainly in the first person, the content of our conversation.”

I also cited this quote because it reveals how Simonov made recordings of conversations, reveals his “technology” that ensured a high level of accuracy.

It remains to be said that the point of view of Simonov, who conscientiously reproduces what was told to him, does not always coincide with the point of view of his interlocutors, and in general, the conversations recorded by Simonov and “Through the Eyes of a Man of My Generation,” as befits memoirs, are subjective. It would be imprudent to see in them some kind of historical verdict; these are only testimony, albeit very important ones. Simonov was clearly aware of this and wanted his readers to understand it this way. Among the notes he made in the hospital in last days life, there is also this: “Maybe we should call the book “To the Best of My Understanding.” He wanted to emphasize that he does not pretend to be the absolute truth, that what he wrote and recorded is only the testimony of a contemporary. But this is unique evidence of enormous historical value. Today they are needed like air to comprehend the past. One of the main tasks facing us, without solving which we will not be able to move forward in understanding history, is to eliminate the acute shortage of accurate facts and truthful, reliable evidence that has created in recent decades.

The manuscripts that compiled this book, which were in the archives of K.M. Simonov, which is kept in his family, was not prepared for publication by the author. Having dictated the first part of the book, Simonov, unfortunately, did not even have time or was no longer able to proofread and correct it. The book contains the dates of the dictations in order to remind readers that the writer was unable to complete the text. When preparing the manuscript for printing, obvious errors and reservations that were misunderstood when reprinting words and phrases from the recorder onto paper were corrected.

After all, how many of our plans have been ruined when faced with harsh social orders! This had a big impact on Simonov’s fate: after all, he was the “favorite” of the authorities, a young man who made a dizzying literary and literary-command career, a laureate of 6 (!) Stalin Prizes.

It was necessary to have firmness in order to later overcome all this, to reevaluate it in oneself and around...

Vyacheslav Kondratyev

Here Konstantin Mikhailovich confirmed in my eyes his reputation as a historian and researcher. After all, each of his notes, made following meetings with the leader after the war, is an invaluable document that no one else took a chance on.

And his later, 1979, commentary on the transcripts of that time is already an act of the most serious internal intellectual work. Executing, self-purifying work.

Academician A. M. Samsonov

The war and Konstantin Simonov are now inseparable in the memory of people - probably it will be so for future historians of our time.

People's Artist of the USSR M. A. Ulyanov.

It is also very important for us that all your publicly known and unconditionally beloved creative works, touching on almost all the most important events of the war, are presented to the reader in the most thorough manner, and most importantly - strictly truthfully and justifiably, without any attempts to please any trends of the post-war years and today to move away from the sometimes harsh truth of history, which, unfortunately, many of the writers, and especially our brother, memoirists, do so willingly for various reasons.

Marshal of the Soviet Union A. M. Vasilevsky.

How etched in my memory since school years- this is how it remains in memory:

- Do you remember, Alyosha, the roads of the Smolensk region,
How the endless, angry rains fell,
How tired women carried krinkas to us,
Holding them to my chest like children from the rain,

Written in the fall of '41. Perhaps the most tragic time of the Great Patriotic War. The author is the war correspondent of the Pravda newspaper Konstantin (Kirill) Mikhailovich Simonov.

“Bullets still have mercy on you and me.”
But, having believed three times that life is all over,
I was still proud of the sweetest one,
For the bitter land where I was born -

THAT war ended seventy years ago - and it’s still impossible to read these lines without trembling in your voice. This is called simple and pretentious, but in this particular case it is a completely fair word: MASTERPIECE. A masterpiece because it was written with TALENT.

Yes, time does not create idols for itself. The most typical confirmation of this is he, Konstantin Simonov. During Soviet times, he was not just the most famous, but a cult writer. Not just the then literary “general”, not just favored by the authorities, but himself - practically a symbol of THAT power (Only Stalin, not counting others, awards - SIX! Which of the writers - and not only writers! - could boast SO MANY SUCH awards !). Deputy of the Supreme Council, editor-in-chief first of Novy Mir, then of Literaturnaya Gazeta, deputy general secretary of the board of the Writers' Union, member of the presidium of the Soviet Peace Committee, member of the Stalin Prize committee, and te de, and te pe...

On the other hand, a tough literary official, although not furious, is still a persecutor of Akhmatova, Zoshchenko, the so-called “cosmopolitans”... It was his signature that was on the letter of the editorial board of the “New World”, which rejected Boris Pasternak’s novel “Doctor Zhivago”.

— A classic figure to exemplify the category of “genius and villainy”!– I say to my long-time friend, culturologist S.V. Konovalov.

I agree, but only partly. At that time, in Soviet times, there were very strict frameworks that determined the norm of behavior not only of “ordinary people”, but also of Personalities (and Simonov was, without a doubt, a Personality). Not even that: Personality first of all. Because you can’t expect any unexpected actions from “ordinary people”, but from Personalities – as many as you like. That's why they regulated it.

- In my opinion, you are disingenuous, Sergei Vladimirovich. Take, for example, the story I mentioned with Akhmatova and Zoshchenko. Didn’t Simonov act as a true villain in relation to them, for whom the “frameworks” you named were just an empty formality?

— As for Zoshchenko, perhaps. As for Akhmatova... Anna Andreevna herself was, to put it mildly, not a gift at all. And she really loved to appear before her fans in the form of a kind of “offended virtue.” So you can still figure it out here.

- What about cosmopolitans?

What about “cosmopolitans”? Yes, Simonov, as they say, denounced them. The situation obliged. More precisely, he was forced to denounce. But for some reason we forget that at the same time he helped many of these same “cosmopolitans”: he got them jobs, solved housing issues, and finally, simply gave them money. How is that? And to be fair, let’s not make him into such a complete monster! The return to the reader of the novels of Ilf and Petrov, the publication of Bulgakov’s “The Master and Margarita” and Hemingway’s “For Whom the Bell Tolls”, the defense of Lily Brik, whom high-ranking “literary historians” decided to delete from Mayakovsky’s biography, the first complete translation of the plays of Arthur Miller and Eugene O 'Nila, the publication of Vyacheslav Kondratiev's first story "Sashka" - this is a list of Simonov's "herculean feats" that is far from complete, only those that achieved their goal and only in the field of literature. But there was also participation in the “punching” of performances at Sovremennik and the Taganka Theater, the first posthumous exhibition of Tatlin, the restoration of the exhibition “XX Years of Work” by Mayakovsky, participation in the cinematic fate of Alexei German and dozens of other filmmakers, artists, and writers. So, as you can see, he had a lot of merit. Only Simonov did not advertise them.

— A small digression: but Sholokhov did not “tread the dust” on Akhmatova. On the contrary: he helped her release the collection! And he did not speak out against the “cosmopolitans”. And he even refused the very “sweet” post of General Secretary of the Writers’ Union!

- What can I say? Cunning Cossack!

— Speaking about Simonov, it is impossible to ignore the topic of his attitude towards Stalin...

— This attitude, in my opinion, very specifically characterizes the poem that Simonov wrote on the death of “Leader and Teacher”:

- There are no words to describe
All the intolerance of grief and sadness.
There are no words to tell,
How we mourn for you, Comrade Stalin...

In my opinion, no explanation is required.

- But this attitude still changed...

- Yes, it changed throughout the life of Konstantin Kirillovich - and I don’t see any shame here, no opportunism! A NORMAL person has the right to change his point of view! And here it is appropriate to quote a passage from his article “Reflections on Stalin”:

“For some of the things that happened then, I bear a bitter share of my personal responsibility, which I spoke about and later wrote in print and about which I will also say in these notes when I write the chapter about the forty-ninth year. But, of course, I was not an anti-Semite...

Please note: this was written in March 1979, less than six months before his death. That is, there was absolutely no need for Simonov to hide anything or make excuses for anything.

— And yet: who was Stalin for Simonov?

- In short, he is undoubtedly a figure both great and terrible.

— Great and terrible... Do you think Simonov’s poetry remains in demand?

Without a doubt. First of all, his war poems and poems. But besides poetry there is also prose. First of all, the trilogy “The Living and the Dead”, which has become a classic of Russian literature about the Great Patriotic War.

But the plays have a sad fate. Their time has passed. Personally I really like it diary entries- “Different days of the war.” I don’t know whether they are read and whether they will read them, but I do it with great pleasure. Great, sincere lyrics.

— Thank you, Serey Vladimirovich, for, as always, an interesting conversation!

In conclusion. No, no, I understand perfectly well: other times, other heroes, other role models and respect. The writers are also different and not at all to say that they are the best... And socialist realism is no longer our creative direction at all. In our literature today, in my opinion, there are no trends AT ALL... Hence the bitter and shameful question: will we ever become smarter? Will we ever stop being Ivans who don’t remember their kinship?

Write an essay based on the text you read.

Formulate one of the problems posed by the author of the text.

Comment on the formulated problem. Include in your comment two illustrative examples from the text you read that you think are important for understanding the problem in the source text (avoid excessive quoting). Explain the meaning of each example and indicate the semantic connection between them.

The volume of the essay is at least 150 words.

Work written without reference to the text read (not based on this text) is not graded. If the essay is a retelling or a complete rewrite of the original text without any comments, then such work is graded 0 points.

Write an essay carefully, legible handwriting.

(1) Early in the morning Lopatin and Vanin went to the first company. (2) Saburov stayed: he wanted to take advantage of the calm. (3) First, they sat with Maslennikov for two hours compiling various military reports, some of which were really necessary, and some of which seemed superfluous to Saburov and introduced only due to a long-standing peaceful habit of all kinds of office work. (4) Then, when Maslennikov left, Saburov sat down to the task that had been postponed and was weighing on him - answering the letters that had come to the dead. (5) Somehow it had become his custom almost from the very beginning of the war that he took upon himself the difficult responsibility of answering these letters. (6) He was angry with people who, when someone died in their unit, tried for as long as possible not to inform his loved ones about it. (7) This apparent kindness seemed to him simply as a desire to pass by the grief of others, so as not to cause pain to himself.

(8) “Petenka, dear,” wrote Parfenov’s wife (it turns out his name was Petya), “we all miss you and are waiting for the war to end so that you can return... (9) The tick has become quite big and is already walking on its own, and almost never falls..."

(10) Saburov carefully read the letter to the end. (11) It was not long - greetings from relatives, a few words about work, a wish to defeat the Nazis as quickly as possible, at the end two lines of children’s scribbles written by the eldest son, and then several unsteady sticks made by a child’s hand, which was guided by the mother’s hand, and a note: “And this was written by Galochka herself”...

(12) What to answer? (13) Always in such cases, Saburov knew that there was only one answer: he was killed, he was gone - and yet he always invariably thought about it, as if he was writing the answer for the last time. (14) What to answer? (15) Really, what should I answer?

(16) He remembered the small figure of Parfenov, lying supine on the cement floor, his pale face and field bags placed under his head. (17) This man, who died on the very first day of the fighting and whom he knew very little before, was for him a comrade in arms, one of many, too many who fought next to him and died next to him, then how he himself remained intact. (18) He was used to this, accustomed to war, and it was easy for him to say to himself: here was Parfenov, he fought and was killed. (19) But there, in Penza, on Marx Street, 24, these words - “he was killed” - were a disaster, the loss of all hopes. (20) After these words there, on Karl Marx Street, 24, the wife ceased to be called a wife and became a widow, the children ceased to be called simply children - they were already called orphans. (21) It was not only grief, it was a complete change in life, in the entire future. (22) And always, when he wrote such letters, he was most afraid that the one who read it would think that it was easy for him, the writer. (23) He wanted those who read it to think that it was written by their comrade in grief, a person who was grieving just like them, then it would be easier to read. (24) Maybe not even that: it’s not easier, but it’s not so offensive, not so sad to read...

(25) People sometimes need lies, he knew that. (26) They certainly want the one they loved to die heroically or, as they say, to die the death of the brave... (27) They want him not just to die, but to die having done something important, and they they certainly want him to remember them before his death.

(28) And Saburov, when answering letters, always tried to satisfy this desire, and when necessary, he lied, lied more or less - this was the only lie that did not bother him. (29) He took a pen and, tearing out a piece of paper from the notebook, began to write in his fast, sweeping handwriting. (30) He wrote about how they served together with Parfenov, how Parfenov died heroically here in a night battle, in Stalingrad (which was true), and how he, before falling, himself shot three Germans (which was not true), and how he died in Saburov’s arms, and how before his death he remembered his son Volodya and asked him to tell him to remember his father.

(31) This man, who died on the very first day of the fighting and whom he knew very little before, was for him a comrade in arms, one of many, too many, who fought next to him and died next to him, then how he himself remained intact. (32) He was used to this, accustomed to war, and it was easy for him to say to himself: here was Parfenov, he fought and was killed.

(By K. M. Simonov*)

* Konstantin Mikhailovich Simonov - Russian Soviet prose writer, poet, film scriptwriter, journalist and public figure.

Explanation.

What is compassion? Are all people capable of manifesting it? The author's text is devoted to finding answers to these questions.

In this text, K. M. Simonov poses the problem of showing compassion towards other people.

Saburov took on enormous responsibility from the very beginning of the war. Notifying the relatives of military personnel about the death was not an easy experience for him. In sentences 5-6 we see that Saburov felt disdain for those people who did not care about the relatives of the deceased. Thus, they showed indifference and indifference, which only increased the emotional pain of their relatives. Saburov himself was a man of a kind heart. Responding to letters, he tried to show the compassion that so helped the relatives of the victims. In 22-23 sentences, the author writes that in this way Saburov could soften the grief of a serious loss.

Konstantin Mikhailovich Simonov is convinced that compassion is an integral part of all people. In war or in peacetime, each of us is capable of making this world a kinder place. Indifference, in his opinion, only leads to disastrous consequences.

To prove the validity of this position, I will cite as an example the novel “War and Peace” by L. N. Tolstoy. Natasha Rostova is a truly kind and sympathetic person. She saved many of the wounded, providing them with housing, food and proper care. Natasha didn’t have a second to think, because she knew from the very beginning that this was not an obligation for her, but a spiritual urge.

Not only adults, but also children need support from others. In the work “The Fate of Man” by M. A. Sholokhov we see confirmation of this. Having lost his family and relatives, Andrei Sokolov did not lose heart. One day he met an orphaned boy Vanya, and without thinking twice, he firmly decided to replace his father. By showing compassion and helping him, Andrei made the boy a truly happy child.

Job type: 1
Topic: Main idea and theme of the text

Condition

Indicate two sentences that correctly convey HOME information contained in the text.

Text:

Show text

(1) (2) (3) < ... >

Answer options

Task 2

Job type: 2

Condition

Which of the following words (combinations of words) should stand in place of the gap in the third (3) text sentence?

Text:

Show text

(1) Venus is the brightest of the planets and the third luminary in the sky after the Sun and the Moon, it revolves around the Sun in an orbit almost indistinguishable from a circle, the radius of which is close to 108 million kilometers, its year is shorter than the Earth’s: the planet completely completes its orbit around the Sun in 225 Earth days . (2) Since its orbit is entirely inside the Earth’s orbit, in the earth’s sky Venus is always visible near the Sun against the background of morning or evening dawns and never moves further than 48 degrees from the central luminary. (3)< ... > Since time immemorial, the planet Venus has often been called by other names - “Evening Star” or “Morning Star”.

Answer options

Task 3

Job type: 3
Topic: Lexical meaning of a word

Condition

Read a fragment of a dictionary entry that gives the meaning of the word ADDRESS. Determine the meaning in which this word is used in the first (1) text sentence. Indicate the number corresponding to this value in the given fragment of the dictionary entry.

ADDRESS, - I guess, - I guess; nsv.

Text:

Show text

(1) Venus is the brightest of the planets and the third luminary in the sky after the Sun and the Moon, it revolves around the Sun in an orbit almost indistinguishable from a circle, the radius of which is close to 108 million kilometers, its year is shorter than the Earth’s: the planet completely completes its orbit around the Sun in 225 Earth days . (2) Since its orbit is entirely inside the Earth’s orbit, in the earth’s sky Venus is always visible near the Sun against the background of morning or evening dawns and never moves further than 48 degrees from the central luminary. (3) < ... > Since time immemorial, the planet Venus has often been called by other names - “Evening Star” or “Morning Star”.

Answer options

Task 4

Job type: 4
Topic: Setting stress (spelling)

Condition

In one of the words below there is an error in the emphasis: WRONG The letter denoting the stressed vowel sound is highlighted. Enter this word.

Answer options

Task 5

Job type: 5
Topic: Use of paronyms (lexicology)

Condition

In one of the sentences below WRONG the highlighted word is used. Correct a lexical error, choosing a paronym for the highlighted word. Write down the chosen word.

The need for PRACTICAL, reliable and hygienic packaging became obvious when supermarkets appeared - department stores with an established self-service system. Shakespeare himself, being a conservative, is inclined to declare the source of all evil is EVADIATION from the once and for all established order.

RESPONSE and questions from the magazine's readers are usually related to previous and relatively recent publications.

Przhevalsky was faced with quicksand, mirages, snowstorms, severe cold and unbearable heat.

The first REMINDER of the existence of the Apothecary Garden in St. Petersburg dates back to 1713.

Task 6

Job type: 7
Topic: Formation of word forms (morphology)

Condition

In one of the words highlighted below, an error was made in the formation of the word form. Correct the mistake and write the word correctly.

SEVIS HUNDRED textbooks

new DIRECTORS

FASTER than everyone else

no SHOES

the lamp has gone out

Task 7

Job type: 8
Topic: Syntactic norms. Approval standards. Governance standards

Condition

Match the sentences with the grammatical errors they contain. Grammatical errors are indicated by letters, sentences by numbers.

Grammar mistake:

A) incorrect use of the case form of a noun with a preposition

B) disruption of the connection between subject and predicate

IN) error in constructing a sentence with homogeneous members

G) violation in the construction of a sentence with an inconsistent application

D) violation in the construction of sentences with a participial phrase

Offer:

1) The white-columned hall of the Russian Museum is filled with light, penetrating from the Mikhailovsky Garden.

2) The forest wilds seemed to be numb in slumber; Not only the forests were dozing, but also the forest lakes and lazy forest rivers with reddish water.

3) Most writers work on their works in the morning, some write during the day, and very few write at night.

4) An educated person knows both literature and history well.

5) In the film “Birch Grove” by A.I. Kuindzhi, using a technique not yet used in Russian landscape, created the image of a sublime, sparkling, radiant world.

6) The rhythm of prose requires such an arrangement of words that the phrase is perceived by the reader without tension, this is exactly what A.P. had in mind. Chekhov, when he wrote that “fiction should fit into the reader’s mind immediately, in a second.”

7) Each of the film's creators said a few words at its premiere about the filming process.

8) Inspired by photographic images, the Impressionists sought an alternative approach to traditional artistic methods, according to which the human figure has been depicted for centuries.

9) Paintings painted by A.G. Venetsianov, captivate with their truth, they are entertaining and curious for both Russian and foreign art lovers.

Record your results in a table.

Answers

Task 8

Job type: 9
Topic: Spelling roots

Condition

Identify the word in which the unstressed vowel of the root being tested is missing. Write out this word by inserting the missing letter.

university

company (election campaign)

progressive

sample..rus

brilliant..sturdy

Task 9

Job type: 10
Topic: Spelling of prefixes

Condition

Identify the row in which the same letter is missing in both words. Write out these words by inserting the missing letter. Write the words without spaces, commas or other additional characters.

under..drive, with..sarcastically

closed, approached...

pr..being, pr..gradil

o..given, on..sew

Task 10

Job type: 11
Topic: Spelling of suffixes (except “N” and “NN”)

Condition

Answer options

Task 11

Job type: 12
Topic: Spelling personal endings of verbs and participle suffixes

Condition

Indicate the word in which a letter is written in place of the blank AND.

Answer options

Task 12

Job type: 13
Topic: Spelling “NOT” and “NOR”

Condition

Identify the sentence in which NOT is written with the word CONCLUSION. Open the brackets and write down this word.

In the middle of the room there were boxes with things and toys, (NOT) UNPACKED. It was (NOT) FASTING, but a completely stable thought, although instantly matured.

And, making sure that you (NOT)TALK with your fellow traveler, Ivlev surrendered to calm and aimless observation, which goes so well with the harmony of hooves and the rattling of bells.

WITH early morning the whole sky was covered with rain clouds; it was quiet, it was a (NOT) HOT and boring day, the kind that happens in August, when clouds have long been hanging over the field, you are waiting for rain, but there is none.

Soon Raskolnikov fell into deep thought, even, or rather, into a kind of oblivion, and walked away, no longer noticing his surroundings, and not wanting to notice them.

Task 13

Job type: 14
Topic: Continuous, separate and hyphenated spelling of words

Condition

Identify the sentence in which both highlighted words are written CONCLUSION. Open the brackets and write down these two words without spaces, commas or other additional characters.

The sun (DURING) the course of the day changes its position, (AT) INITIALLY describing an arc trajectory of approximately 60° in winter and 120° or more in summer.

Modern meteorological observations on oceanographic ships, and on special weather ships, TO(SAME) confirmed the existence of a belt of westerly winds in subequatorial latitudes.

(And) SO, ninety years later, the meaning of the texts, coiled like a clock spring, on both sides of the Phaistos disc was understood.

Ordinary cubes, APPEARINGLY, are still more useful for a child’s development than electronic gadgets.

Genealogically, both words come from the same root, but for SOME reasons, one of them gained popularity and gained a foothold, while the other STILL retreated into the shadows.

Task 14

Job type: 15
Topic: Spelling “N” and “NN”

Condition

Indicate all the numbers in whose place it is written NN. Write the numbers in a row without spaces, commas or other additional characters.

In numbers (1) y barns, built (2) oh on sand (3) on the shore, stored in tar in winter (4) y boats.

Task 15

Job type: 16
Topic: Punctuation marks in a complex sentence and in a sentence with homogeneous members

Condition

Place punctuation marks. Specify two sentences in which you need to put ONE comma.

Answer options

Task 16

Job type: 17
Topic: Punctuation marks in sentences with isolated members

Condition

The most erased, completely “spoken out” by us (1) words (2) completely lost their figurative qualities for us (3) And (4) living only as a word shell (5) in poetry they begin to sparkle, ring, and smell.

Task 17

Job type: 18
Topic: Punctuation marks for words and constructions that are grammatically unrelated to the members of the sentence

Condition

Place punctuation marks: indicate all the numbers that should be replaced by commas in the sentences. Write the numbers in a row without spaces, commas or other additional characters.

Honey color (1) according to experts (2) depends solely on the plant from which the nectar is collected, and (3) May be (4) all shades of brown, yellow and even green.

Task 18

Job type: 19
Topic: Punctuation marks in a complex sentence

Condition

Place punctuation marks: indicate all the numbers that should be replaced by commas in the sentence. Write the numbers in a row without spaces, commas or other additional characters.

Task 19

Job type: 20
Topic: Punctuation marks in a complex sentence with different types communications

Condition

Place punctuation marks: indicate all the numbers that should be replaced by commas in the sentence. Write the numbers in a row without spaces, commas or other additional characters.

In the Hermitage I was dizzy from the abundance and density of colors on the canvases of the old masters (1) And (2) to relax (3) I went to the hall (4) where the sculpture was exhibited.

Task 20

Job type: 22
Topic: Text as a speech work. Semantic and compositional integrity of the text

Condition

Which of the statements correspond to the content of the text? Write down the answer numbers without spaces, commas or other additional characters.

Sayings:

1) Senior Lieutenant Bondarenko and Junior Lieutenant Gavrish died performing military duty in the battle during the capture of the Oak Grove.

2) The Germans conducted systematic mortar and gun fire from the grove, where two lines of deep longitudinal trenches with three to four dozen fortified dugouts were made.

3) The battle for Oak Grove began at twelve o'clock in the afternoon, and only by eight o'clock in the evening was this territory recaptured from the enemy.

4) Although spring had come, there was a lot of snow in the forest, and it was difficult for the soldiers to advance; they were forced to manually move the guns and dig trenches in the snow.

5) The nameless groves and copses where daily fierce battles took place were given by regimental commanders.

Text:

Show text

(1) (2)

(3) (4)

(5) It was exactly twelve. (6)

(7) (8)

(9) (10) But someone couldn't stand it. (11)

(12) (13) Called fire on herself. (14) (15)

(16) The Germans fell silent. (17)

(18) Same thing again. (19)

(20) (21)

(22) (23) Oak Grove was taken.

(24) (25)

(26) It was already getting dark. (27) (28) (29)

(30) (31) (32)

(33) (34) According to the calendar it is spring. (35)

(36) (37)

« (38) (39) (40) Forward, to the west!

(41) The monument stands tall. (42) (43)

(44)

(45) (46) (47)

(48) (49) (50)

(According to K.M. Simonov)

Task 21

Job type: 23
Topic: Functional and semantic types of speech

Condition

Which of the following statements are true? Write down the answer numbers without spaces, commas or other additional characters.

Statements:

1) Sentences 1-2 present the reasoning.

2) Sentence 6 includes a description.

3) Sentences 14, 16-17 talk about sequential actions.

4) Propositions 20 and 21 are contrasted in content.

5) Sentence 43 introduces the narrative.

Text:

Show text

(1) Having made several heavy fire raids early in the morning, the Germans now conducted systematic mortar and gun fire. (2) Here and there, tall pillars of snow rose up among the trunks.

(3) Ahead, in the grove, as reconnaissance found out, there were two lines of deep longitudinal snow trenches with three to four dozen fortified dugouts. (4) The approaches to them were mined.

(5) It was exactly twelve. (6) The midday sun shone through the trunks, and if not for the dull explosions of mines flying over my head, the forest would have looked like a peaceful winter day.

(7) The assault groups were the first to slip forward. (8) They walked through the snow, led by sappers, clearing the way for tanks.

(9) Fifty, sixty, eighty steps - the Germans were still silent. (10) But someone couldn't stand it. (11) A machine gun burst was heard from behind a high snowfall.

(12) The assault group lay down, it did its job. (13) Called fire on herself. (14) The tank following her turned its gun as it moved, made a short stop and hit the spotted machine-gun embrasure once, twice, three times. (15) Snow and fragments of logs flew into the air.

(16) The Germans fell silent. (17) The assault group rose and rushed forward another thirty steps.

(18) Same thing again. (19) Machine-gun bursts from the next dugout, a short dash of a tank, several shells - and snow and logs flying upward.

(20) In the grove, it seemed that the air itself was whistling, bullets crashed into trunks, ricocheted and fell powerlessly into the snow. (21) It was difficult to raise your head under this fire.

(22) By seven in the evening, units of the regiment, having fought through eight hundred snowy and bloody meters, reached the opposite edge. (23) Oak Grove was taken.

(24) The day turned out to be difficult, there were many wounded. (25) Now the grove is entirely ours, and the Germans opened hurricane mortar fire on it.

(26) It was already getting dark. (27) Not only snow pillars were visible between the trunks, but also flashes of explosions. (28) Tired people, breathing heavily, lay in broken trenches. (29) Many people closed their eyes from fatigue, despite the deafening fire.

(30) And along the ravine to the edge of the grove, bending down and running in the intervals between gaps, thermal carriers walked with lunch. (31) It was eight o'clock, the end of the day of battle. (32) At the division headquarters they wrote an operational report, in which, among other events of the day, the capture of Oak Grove was noted.

(33) It has become warmer, thawed craters are again visible on the roads; from under the snow the gray towers of the broken German tanks. (34) According to the calendar it is spring. (35) But if you move five steps away from the road, the snow is chest-deep again, and you can move only by digging trenches, and you have to carry the guns on yourself.

(36) On a slope from which white hills and blue copses are widely visible, there is a monument. (37) Tin Star; with the caring but hasty hand of a man going into battle again, terse solemn words were written.

« (38) Selfless commanders - senior lieutenant Bondarenko and junior lieutenant Gavrish - died a brave death on March 27 in battles near the Kvadratnaya grove. (39) Farewell, our fighting friends. (40) Forward, to the west!

(41) The monument stands tall. (42) From here you can clearly see Russian winter nature. (43) Perhaps the comrades of the victims wanted them, even after death, to far follow their regiment, now without them, marching west across the wide, snowy Russian land.

(44) There are groves spread ahead: Kvadratnaya, in the battle under which Gavrish and Bondarenko died, and others - Birch, Oak, Krivaya, Turtle, Noga.

(45) They were not called that before and will not be called that later. (46) These are small nameless copses and groves. (47) Their godfathers were the commanders of the regiments fighting here for every edge, for every forest clearing.

(48) These groves are the site of daily bloody battles. (49) Their new names appear every night in divisional reports, and are sometimes mentioned in army reports. (50) But in the Information Bureau report all that remains is a short phrase: “Nothing significant happened during the day.”

(According to K.M. Simonov)

Konstantin (Kirill) Mikhailovich Simonov (1915-1979) - Russian Soviet prose writer, poet, screenwriter, journalist and public figure.

Task 22

Job type: 24
Topic: Lexicology. Synonyms. Antonyms. Homonyms. Phraseological phrases. Origin and use of words in speech

Condition

From sentences 41-47, write down contextual antonyms. Write the words in a row without spaces, commas or other additional characters.

Text:

Show text

(1) Having made several heavy fire raids early in the morning, the Germans now conducted systematic mortar and gun fire. (2) Here and there, tall pillars of snow rose up among the trunks.

(7) The assault groups were the first to slip forward. (8) They walked through the snow, led by sappers, clearing the way for tanks.

(9) Fifty, sixty, eighty steps - the Germans were still silent. (10) But someone couldn't stand it. (11) A machine gun burst was heard from behind a high snowfall.

(16) The Germans fell silent. (17) The assault group rose and rushed forward another thirty steps.

(18) Same thing again. (19) Machine-gun bursts from the next dugout, a short dash of a tank, several shells - and snow and logs flying upward.

(22) By seven in the evening, units of the regiment, having fought through eight hundred snowy and bloody meters, reached the opposite edge. (23) Oak Grove was taken.

(24) The day turned out to be difficult, there were many wounded. (25) Now the grove is entirely ours, and the Germans opened hurricane mortar fire on it.

(33) It has become warmer, thawed craters are again visible on the roads; The gray turrets of destroyed German tanks begin to appear from under the snow again. (34) According to the calendar it is spring. (35) But if you move five steps away from the road, the snow is chest-deep again, and you can move only by digging trenches, and you have to carry the guns on yourself.

(44) There are groves spread ahead: Kvadratnaya, in the battle under which Gavrish and Bondarenko died, and others - Birch, Oak, Krivaya, Turtle, Noga.

(According to K.M. Simonov)

Konstantin (Kirill) Mikhailovich Simonov (1915-1979) - Russian Soviet prose writer, poet, screenwriter, journalist and public figure.

Task 23

Job type: 25
Topic: Means of communication of sentences in the text

Condition

Among sentences 43-48, find one that is related to the previous one using possessive pronoun and adverbs. Write the number of this offer.