Review Of 800 Days On The Eastern Front

Nikolai Litvin recalls his experiences from his tenure as a Red Army soldier in his memoir 800 Days on the Eastern Front. Litvin transcribed his memories of the war seventeen years after he left the military, which provided him ample time to process his experiences and formulate his thoughts on what happened. Using a concise writing style, Litvin packs his memoir with vivid details of military operations and offers valuable details about Stalinist thinking and Soviet life. Not surprisingly, Litvin’s memoir maintains a Soviet bias, and the storytelling is clearly impacted by the unique experiences of a Red Army soldier. To truly understand 800 Days on the Eastern Front, the reader must decipher how Litvin understands his experiences, the impacts

One instance was when an investigator told Litvin and a cook that, “I have orders for your arrest and to take you back to the 91st Transportation Battalion under escort.” , due to them deserting their unit. Although Litvin and the cook never solely decided to leave their assignment, they joined a previous commander who inquired about them joining him through a letter, but not an official order, which technically meant Litvin and the cook deserted their positions. Typically, a person who was punished for following the words of a commanding officer would put up more of a fight, but Litvin blames himself and call the decision to join his old officer’s protection detail a “momentary lapse of reason” and claims that the signalmen were more sensible to not follow along. Overall, Litvin’s lack of resistance to a questionable arrest illustrates that Stalinist thought is deeply ingrained in Litvin’s brain, and has a massive impact on the way he comprehends and shares his

Litvin illustrated one of the numerous examples of Soviet nationalism when he discussed how the military collected food from the collective farms. Litvin Claims, “Times were very difficult for the people in these regions because land had been devastated by war… the army did not have to seize food from the peasants—Soviet authority engaged in this.” The above passage paints the Soviets’ handling of peasants in a positive light and does nothing to ponder the impact that collectivization had on agriculture in the country. Certainly, the harsh occupation by the Germans did not help the agriculture production, but the relentless collectivization of farming ruined the efficiency of agriculture in the Soviet Union. However, Litvin in no way paints Stalin in a negative light, but rather boasts about how Soviet authorities procured agriculture goods from peasants. Through blatant examples of Soviet nationalism, Litvin exhibits Stalinist thought and the vast impact it has on Soviet