Arguments on the topic “War” for the Unified State Exam essay. The impact of war on human life

Almost every adult, even the kindest and most sympathetic, has an enemy or even several. Man is a social being, and human relationships are very complex. After all, an animal’s enemy is only the one in whose food chain the animal itself is included. For people, everything is much more complicated. Throughout life, we meet different people in different situations, so it often happens that we cannot get along with each other. Because of misunderstandings, disagreements, and conflicts of interests, enemies appear.

Is it possible to respect the enemy? Of course it is possible, and sometimes even necessary. After all, your personal relationship, hostility, does not negate the fact that he can be a smart, intelligent and even noble person worthy of respect. A striking example from life is my sister’s boss. She is an overly harsh boss and is often unfair to her subordinates, so few people have a good relationship with her in the service. But recently, my sister found out that her boss had taken off in her car in the middle of the night to save stray puppies and take them to a veterinary clinic, and later brought them all to her home for foster care. This is a noble act. And he says that a person whom we do not love or even hate, we may simply know very poorly. There are also plenty of examples in history and literature when the enemy was worthy of respect. Here is a striking historical example. On August 5, fierce fighting took place near Smolensk. The onslaught could not be contained. Napoleon's army entered the city. The next day, General Dokhturov's corps left the city. No one knew what fate befell General Skalon, who fought on the front line, in the thick of the battle. There was no way to search for his body; it was necessary to retreat as quickly as possible. It turned out that the Russian general, killed by grapeshot, was discovered by the French the morning after the bloody battle at the Molokhovo Gate. Napoleon was delighted with the feat of his enemy and gave the order to bury the general with full military honors. The Emperor was personally present at the funeral and led the ceremonial salvo of weapons. And even according to Russian custom, he threw a handful of earth into A.A.’s grave. Skalona, buried near the walls of the Royal Bastion of the Smolensk Fortress. This example suggests that even in war, the enemy is worthy of respect if he is brave, honest and noble, fulfills his military duty with dignity, and does not give up in the face of danger.

Thus, we can conclude that the enemy can be respected. The enemy, like any person, is probably endowed with some qualities worthy of respect. We may simply not know this person well, and he may not know us well. After all, a person behaves differently with different people. And he also has close people, friends who love him. But on the other hand, there are people who are truly nasty and vile. People who do very bad things. There are those who betray friends and set up comrades. And also those who hurt children and abuse animals. Those who do not appreciate the care of loved ones, neglect them, and deceive their elders. Such an enemy should not be respected, I think.

Mercy
2. The problem of mercy towards a defeated enemy was shown by Sholokhov in his work “Quiet Don”. This happened in 1914, where the author shows the perception of people in the first days of the war. We will consider only the episode where each Cossack treated the prisoner differently. Chubaty was the first to notice him and led him to a pine tree. The prisoner fussed, trembled, unfastening the buckle. His life was on the brink of death, and this hair could have been torn off by the Cossack Grigory, but, strangely, he “carefully helped him.” Grigory showed mercy to the prisoner, unlike Chubaty, who perceived people “like dough.” The prisoner felt fear, he tried in every possible way to dissuade Grigory and the other Cossacks from having Chubaty lead him to headquarters. The horror in his eyes, “raised curls and a confident, brave gait” remained in Gregory’s memory. He did not wish death to someone who could calmly kill him. But he could not calmly react to the fact that Chubaty “cut down” the prisoner. That is why he tried to shoot the one who shot at the unarmed hussar. Thus, showing mercy towards a defeated enemy should be inherent in every warrior, since this trait is an integral part of a truly good human essence.
People's need for consolation
2. KROTOV V. G. The Worm Ignatius and his dreams. but he sobbed very sadly.
Worm Ignatius knew that the moth had something to worry about. Something happened to Micah’s left wing. It became more and more difficult to wave them, the doctors shrugged their paws and did not know what to advise. Now it was no longer possible to fly at all.
How to console him? Maybe consolations will only make things worse for him? But little worm Ignatius could not leave him to grieve alone.
“I once dreamed of being a wizard,” he said thoughtfully, not even addressing Micah, just to himself. “If someone is feeling bad, cast a special spell just for that occasion, and everything will be fine.”
“Yeah,” Mikha said in a trembling voice, but without sobs, “I dreamed and dreamed, but I didn’t dream.”
“And then I little by little realized one amazing thing,” continued the little worm Ignatius. – It’s not just about WHAT happened to you, but WHY. If you think about it, it turns out better than any spell. For example, what do you say about becoming a wizard?
- Like this? – the moth was surprised.
“Oh, this is a business conversation,” the worm rejoiced. - Let's discuss everything in detail.
They started talking, and the conversation dragged on for a long time...”

1. The internal enemy - breast cancer with a probability of 87 percent frightened actress Angelina Jolie so much that she decided to have a bilateral amputation. According to the actress, she deliberately brought her own story to the public to try to save other women. Many people realize the threat of breast cancer, which forced Jolie to go under the surgeon’s knife, too late. Angelina Jolie: “I am lucky to have a partner, Brad Pitt, who gives me love and support. So anyone whose wife or girlfriend is going through this should know that you are a very important support. During each operation, Brad was at the Pink Lotus Center, where I was treated. Together we managed to find reasons to laugh. We knew that treatment was a necessary thing for our family and that it would bring us closer together. That’s what happened.”

Cooperative activity.
1. in social psychology - an organized system of activity of interacting individuals, aimed at the purposeful production and reproduction of objects of material and spiritual culture. Distinctive features of joint activities:
1) spatial and temporal co-presence of participants, creating the possibility of direct personal contact between them - exchange of actions, information, as well as mutual perception;
2) the presence of a single goal - an anticipated result of activity that meets common interests and contributes to the realization of the needs of each of the participants; as a prototype of the result and at the same time the initial moment of activity, the goal also refers to the constitutive features;
3) the presence of organizational and management bodies, embodied either in the person of one of the participants vested with special powers, or distributed;
4) division of the activity process between participants, due to the nature of the goal, means and conditions for achieving it, the composition and level of qualifications of the performers; this presupposes the interdependence of individuals, manifested: a) either in the final product of activity - in this case, individual operations are performed in parallel and do not depend on the sequence of actions of others; b) either in the process of its production - in this case, individual operations are interdependent (specialized and hierarchized), because they must be performed simultaneously as functionally different components of a complex operation, or - in strict sequence, when the result of one operation serves as a condition for the beginning of another;
5) the emergence of interpersonal relationships in the course of activity - on the basis of objectively defined functional-role interactions and acquiring a relatively independent character over time; conditioned initially by the content of the activity, they themselves influence its process and results. S.Yu. Golovin. Dictionary of a practical psychologist

“The problem of attitude towards prisoners in fiction” “A prisoner of war is a soldier taken prisoner” From the dictionary of S.I. Ozhegova Objectives: 1. To trace the attitude towards prisoners of war using literary material. 2. Consider the “Basic provisions of the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols”, section III “Protection of prisoners of war”. 3. Inform students of the existing problem and find out their opinion regarding the issue of prisoners of war. 4. Consider the role of the ICRC on this issue. Objectives: 1. Bring to the attention of students the relevance of the issue of the rights of prisoners of war. 2. Show the horrors of war using literary examples. 3. Using a survey, make schoolchildren think about the problems associated with captivity. 4. Provide information about the rights and responsibilities of prisoners of war. Research methods: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Study of stories and novellas on the proposed topic. Consideration of the found works in the chronological order of their writing. Identification of the characteristics of attitudes towards prisoners of war in a certain period of time. Study the “Basic provisions of the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols”, section III “Protection of prisoners of war”. Questioning of modern schoolchildren on the problem of prisoners of war. Review the literature on the ICRC's contribution to prisoners of war issues. The relevance of this problem is natural, since there is not a day or even a minute in the world when wars are not going on in some corner of our planet. And not one of the warring parties does without losses: some die, others are captured. And we must treat this issue with understanding, because every life is priceless, because every soldier who dies or is captured is, first of all, a person, a soul with his own dreams about the future, with his own past, and not a military unit. And the present of this captive person (the deceased no longer has a future, he can only be transported to his relatives and buried with dignity) depends on being kept in captivity. The attitude towards prisoners in Rus' has long been humane. The “Conciliar Code” of Muscovite Rus' (1649) demanded mercy towards the vanquished: “Sparing an enemy who asks for mercy; not killing the unarmed; not fighting with women; not touching young children. Treat prisoners humanely, be ashamed of barbarism. No less than weapons to defeat the enemy "Love of humanity. A warrior must crush the power of the enemy, and not defeat the unarmed." And they did this for centuries. Every era, every century, every decade, even every day and hour dictates its views on certain problems. Time changes, and the point of view of the whole society changes. And the attitude towards prisoners of war is no exception. Attitude towards prisoners of war using the example of literary works written during the Second World War and after it. Formula for attitude towards prisoners of war: 1) attitude towards Soviet prisoners of war: a) held by the Germans; b) those who returned from German captivity. 2) attitude towards German prisoners of war. War! The peculiarities of this difficult time dictate an irreconcilable attitude towards the enemy. Consequently, during the war, prisoners of war from the ranks of those who invaded foreign territory are beasts, non-humans, devoid of any human qualities. Wars of conquest or liberation are one of the aspects that influences the attitude towards prisoners of war. The attitude towards invaders is harsher than towards liberators. And this is not surprising, since the one who defends his native land, born and nurtured by this land, fights for every centimeter of it, for every blade of grass and blade of grass. Once on foreign territory, civilians also suffer at the hands of the invaders. And these are someone’s family and friends. And then revenge settles in the hearts of people and gradually takes possession of them. The past horrors of captivity fight against the same feelings, and there is a clear example of this from the story by M. Sholokhov “The Science of Hatred” of 1942. Lieutenant Gerasimov was captured and experienced all the hardships of captivity: “They beat me in the camp with fists, sticks, butts. They beat us so simply, out of boredom or for fun... We slept right in the dirt, there were no straw bedding, nothing. Let's gather in a tight heap and lie down. All night there is a quiet fuss: those on top are chilling. It was not a dream, but bitter torment.” The last words, in my opinion, have a double meaning. After being liberated from the camp, he returns to the front, but cannot see living Nazis, “precisely the living, nothing looks at the dead... even with pleasure, but he sees the prisoners and either closes his eyes and sits pale and sweaty, or turns around and leaves.” The words of the main character are very indicative: “...And we learned to fight for real, and to hate, and to love.” Sholokhov M. Autobiographical story - “This is us, Lord!” was written in 1943. Exactly 30 days in hiding, knowing that mortal danger was nearby and he had to be in time, K. Vorobyov wrote about what he had to experience in fascist captivity. Terrible pictures pass before the reader’s eyes: “Shorn heads, bare legs and arms stick out like forests from the snow on the sides of the roads. These people walked to the place of torture and torment - the prisoner-of-war camps, but did not get there, died on the way... and silently and menacingly sent curses to the murderers, sticking out their hand from under the snow, as if bequeathing - Revenge! Revenge! Take revenge!” Vorobyov K. There is also a type of prisoners of war where special detachments deliberately capture military personnel behind enemy lines who have important information about their troops, these are the so-called “tongues”. Such prisoners of war were highly valued. Such a case is described in K. Vorobyov’s story “My Language is My Enemy,” written in 1943. Accordingly, “language” was treated as a precious commodity, because it had to be brought alive to one’s superiors. Since the story was written in 1943, the “tongues” are depicted as faceless. But what’s interesting is that Bekasov, the main character of the story, “kept a list of his “languages” and they were all listed under the names: Kurt, Willy, Richard, another Kurt, Fritz, Helmut, Michel, Adolf, and another Richard. Bekasov, having found out that the German’s name was Karl, lost all interest in him.” Vorobyov K. The attitude towards prisoners of war depends on what stage the war is at (beginning, turning point, end), the duration, the economic state of the army and its fighting spirit, whether there is an idea or an ultimate goal for which the warring parties are fighting. The literature of the post-war period, in addition to revealing a new perspective on wartime problems, began to treat prisoners of war differently. Human qualities suddenly began to appear in the prisoner, some character traits appeared, even his appearance began to acquire individual traits. And during the war, any representative of the enemy army is a fascist, a monster, a soulless creature. This made some sense. In this way, the image of an implacable enemy was formed in the soldier, on the other hand, they raised their morale and strengthened their sense of patriotism. The story “One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich” 1962 Alexander Isaevich Solzhenitsyn depicts one day in the life of a prisoner: “It is considered true that Shukhov was imprisoned for treason. And he gave evidence that yes, he surrendered, wanting to betray his homeland, and returned from captivity because he was carrying out a task for German intelligence.” But neither Shukhov nor the investigator could come up with what task. So it was just a “task”. Shukhov remained in captivity for two days, and then escaped, not just one, but five of them. Three died in the wanderings. Two survived. Ivan Denisovich has been in the camp for 10 years because he mentioned two days of captivity, being glad that he escaped from captivity. This fate befell many prisoners of war. And this is not surprising, since the slogan during WWII was the words: “Die and don’t give up!” Solzhenitsyn A.I. In the story "Sashka" 1979 Vyacheslav Kondratyev's main character, Private Sashka, communicated with a German who was captured by him. He even says that he experienced “a great sense of power over the prisoner: if I want, I will kill, if I want, I will have mercy.” But he cannot simply kill an unarmed person on the orders of the battalion commander. Even having violated the charter, he is looking for possible options to save his (a young German student who says that he is not a fascist, but a German soldier) life. The soldier’s honesty and straightforwardness inspire respect in Sashka’s soul for the prisoner of war: “He, too, took an oath.” I was struck by the description of the look of a person doomed to death: “...their eyes were somehow brightened, detached, as if already from the other world...The eyes died before the body. The heart was still beating, the chest was breathing, and the eyes... the eyes were already dead.” The reaction of the battalion commander in the story towards the prisoners of war is understandable; one can also sympathize with him, because in the person of the prisoner he sees the culprit in the death of his beloved girl Katya, who died on the same day. Kondratyev V. Literature of the war period reflects the state of affairs during the war, the fighting spirit of the army and the people. Nothing increases the feeling of patriotism like war. Proven! At the beginning of hostilities, the soldiers could not understand how to relate to the enemy, since they could not accept the very fact of war. After the Nazis began to build concentration camps, burn villages, kill everyone, young and old, and abuse prisoners of war, a feeling of merciless revenge and cruelty arose towards the enemy. And any German began to be perceived as something shapeless and faceless. But until the turning point during the war, literature had a slogan character, I would say, optimistic-pessimistic. “There is nothing more terrible than a cornered animal,” says popular wisdom. And this statement is true, as history has shown. At the end of the war, the attitude towards the enemy and towards prisoners of war, respectively, was lenient, because the soldiers anticipated an imminent victory and were tired of the war. Post-war literature about the Second World War, having reconsidered its attitude to the war, having seen the mistakes and shortcomings of the command, the meaninglessness of some orders and actions of military leaders, took a fresh look at prisoners of war: a German prisoner of war is a person with his own problems, dreams, character and not necessarily a fascist. In the literature, in my opinion, the attitude towards prisoners of war is mainly subjective, and the literature examines some typical situations. The attitude towards prisoners of war in literature depends entirely on the prevailing circumstances, although it has common features. Luneva O.S. and Lunev A. Parting words to a soldier 2009. War is a toy for big guys, a game of politicians going ahead. This virus has struck the innocent, And grief enters every home. Soldier, you are fully equipped, Strong, confident, packed, And a bearing worthy of praise, And discipline - exhaustion, intensity. Before you is an unfortunate prisoner... Yesterday he was also sure that there is no braver person on earth. Today... he stands defeated, trampled, wounded, neutralized. You too can be captured, disarmed, even oppressed. And every century is disfigured by war, And every year is infected by war. HISTORICAL REFERENCE. Until the 2nd half of the 19th century, there were no multilateral agreements in international law establishing a regime of military captivity. The first convention on the laws and customs of land war, which established the rules governing the regime of military captivity, was adopted in 1899 at the 1st Peace Conference in The Hague. The 2nd Hague Peace Conference (1907) developed a new convention that more fully defined the legal regime of prisoners of war. The First World War of 1914-18 necessitated further development of the rules of military captivity, and in 1929 the Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War was adopted. During the Second World War 1939-1945, Germany, violating international conventions, subjected prisoners of war to torture and mass destruction. In order to prevent the arbitrariness of the belligerents, the Geneva Convention concerning the Treatment of Prisoners of War was developed and signed in 1949, aimed at humanizing the rules of warfare. This convention included fundamentally new norms: the prohibition of discrimination against prisoners of war on the grounds of race, color, religion, sex, origin or property; the establishment of criminal liability for violation of the provisions of the convention, etc. An innovation was the extension of the provisions of the convention to civil and so-called “national liberation” wars. Thus, the main conventions governing the regime of military captivity are: the Regulations on the Laws and Customs of War on Land (Annex to the 4th Hague Convention of 1907) and the Geneva Convention of 1949 concerning the Treatment of Prisoners of War. According to various estimates, the number of Soviet soldiers in German captivity in 1941-1945. ranged from 4,559,000 to 5,735,000 people. After 1945, we captured 4 million Germans, Japanese, Hungarians, Austrians, Romanians, Italians, Finns... What was the attitude towards them? They were pitied. Of our captured Germans, two-thirds survived, and of ours in German camps, a third! “In captivity, we were fed better than the Russians themselves ate. I left part of my heart in Russia,” testifies one of the German veterans who survived Soviet captivity and returned to their homeland, Germany. The daily ration of an ordinary prisoner of war, according to the norms of the boiler allowance for prisoners of war in the NKVD camps, was 600 grams of rye bread, 40 grams of meat, 120 grams of fish, 600 grams of potatoes and vegetables, and other products with a total energy value of 2533 kcal per day. Unfortunately, most of the provisions of the Geneva Conventions “On the Treatment of Prisoners of War” remained only on paper. German captivity is one of the darkest phenomena of the Second World War. The picture of fascist captivity was very difficult; the atrocities did not stop throughout the war. Everyone knows what the “cultured” Germans and Japanese did during the Second World War, conducting experiments on people, mocking them in death camps... The main provisions of international law regarding prisoners of war are as follows: Violation of the life and physical integrity of a prisoner of war (murder , mutilation, ill-treatment, torture and torture), as well as attacks on their human dignity, including humiliating and degrading treatment, are prohibited. No prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or scientific or medical experimentation unless justified by considerations of treatment. The state in whose power prisoners of war are is obliged to maintain them free of charge, as well as to provide them with appropriate medical care; prisoners of war must enjoy the same food, accommodation and clothing as the troops of the state that took them prisoner. Personally owned property of prisoners of war, with the exception of weapons, military property and military documents, remains in their possession; They are given complete freedom to practice religious rites and are allowed to send and receive letters, individual or collective parcels and money transfers. Prisoners of war (with the exception of officers) may be involved in work not related to military operations; Prisoners of war must not be used in hazardous or health-threatening work without their consent. The work performed by prisoners of war must be paid: part of the salary is withheld for the costs of maintaining prisoners of war, and the remaining amount is given to them upon release. Prisoners of war must obey the laws, regulations and orders in force in the armed forces of the state in whose captivity they are held; for disobedience, judicial or disciplinary measures may be applied to them (collective punishments for individual offenses are prohibited). Prisoners of war cannot be tried or convicted for actions that are not punishable under the laws of the state in whose power they are; Penalties cannot be applied to them other than those provided for the same acts committed by persons from the armed forces of the holding state. For a failed escape, prisoners of war are subject to disciplinary punishment only. Any unlawful act or omission of the detaining State resulting in the death of a prisoner of war or endangering their health is prohibited and constitutes a serious violation of the convention. Persons guilty of such actions are considered war criminals and are subject to criminal prosecution. Social survey The view of modern schoolchildren on the problem of being in captivity. We invite you to participate in the survey. Please take the questions seriously. Please mark your answer with a check mark next to the suggested statements. Answer quickly, as the person’s first reaction is important. If you were in a war, and during hostilities you had to communicate with prisoners of war, how would you behave towards them? A) I would try to find out the problems of these people and would strive to help them B) I would try to humiliate their dignity C) I would try to exchange them for my prisoners of war D) I would like to find out as much information as possible about the enemy E) I would behave in accordance with them towards them Convention on Human Rights E) (other)_______________________________________________ If you, as a military man, were captured, how would you behave in this situation? A) He would tell about everything he knew about his army. B) I would throw a tantrum. C) Would behave aggressively towards those to whom he was captured D) Would come to terms with what was happening E) Would commit suicide E) Would try to escape G) Would try to make contact with the enemy and find a way out of the current situation THANK YOU! Young men of grades 8 and 11 (37 students) took part in the survey. Out of 19 eighth-graders, to the first question (If you were in a war, and during hostilities you had to communicate with prisoners of war, how would you behave towards them?), posed in the questionnaire, the students gave the following answers: A) Tried would find out the problems of these people and would strive to help them 6 B) Would try to humiliate their dignity C) Would try to exchange them for their prisoners of war 4 D) Would like to find out as much information as possible about the enemy 9 E) Would behave towards them according to Convention on Human Rights studying, 31.5% 0 0 studying, 21% studying, 47.5% 0 0 For question II (If you, being a military man, were captured, how would you behaved in this situation?) The eighth-graders answered this way: A) He would tell about everything he knew about his army. B) I would throw a tantrum. C) Would behave aggressively towards those who were captured D) Would come to terms with what was happening E) Would commit suicide E) Would try to escape G) Would try to get into contact with the enemy and find a way out of the current situation 0 0 1 student 1 student 0 5 students 26% 12 students 64% 5% 5% 0 0 0 A survey conducted among 11 students (18 people participated in the survey) gave the following indicators. To the first question (If you were in a war, and during hostilities you had to communicate with prisoners of war, how would you behave towards them?) the opinion of 11 was divided as follows: A) I would try to find out the problems of these people and would strive to help them 3 students B) Would try to humiliate their dignity 0 C) Would try to exchange them for their prisoners of war 5 students D) Would like to find out as much information as possible about the enemy 10 students E) Would themselves in relation to them in accordance with the Convention on Human Rights 0 17% 0 28% 55% 0 To the second question (If you, as a military man, were captured, how would you behave in this situation?) the high school students answered this way : A) I would tell you about everything that I knew about my army. B) I would throw a tantrum. C) Would behave aggressively towards those to whom he was captured D) Would come to terms with what was happening E) Would commit suicide E) Would try to escape G) Would try to get into contact with the enemy and find a way out of the current situation 1 study -sya 0 1 student 1 student 0 9 students 6 students 5.5% 0 5.5% 5.5% 0 50% 33.5% Monitoring for the first question 60 50 40 8 -th grade 11th grade 30 20 10 0 a in d A) I would try to find out the problems of these people and would try to help them B) I would try to exchange them for my prisoners of war D) I would like to find out as much information as possible about the enemy Monitoring to II -th question 70 60 50 40 8th grade 11th grade 30 20 10 0 a c g A) I would tell you about everything I knew about my army. C) Would behave aggressively towards those who were captured D) Would come to terms with what was happening E) Would try to escape G) Would try to get into contact with the enemy and find a way out of the situation Observations show that students and 8- x., and 11th graders focus attention and highlight certain points from the proposed list. It is a pity that none of the students checked item D in question I (Would behave towards them (prisoners of war) in accordance with the human rights convention). I think this is due to the fact that schoolchildren are not familiar with Section 3: “Protection of Prisoners of War” from the “Basic Provisions of the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols.” ICRC and PRISONERS OF WAR (SECTION 3) 10. Assistance provided by the ICRC and other relief societies The role of relief societies, the ICRC and the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies in providing assistance to prisoners of war during the two world wars was so significant that the Convention devotes an entire article to them with a view to encourage their activities and facilitate them in every possible way. In accordance with this article, the Powers are obliged to provide the societies with their duly authorized delegates with all facilities for visiting prisoners of war, distributing relief parcels and materials of any origin intended for religious and educational purposes, and also for helping prisoners of war to organize their leisure time within the camps. The special position of the International Committee of the Red Cross in this area must always be recognized and respected. 11. Right of the Protecting Powers and the ICRC to visit prisoners of war The Convention further provides that representatives or delegates of the Protecting Powers must be allowed to visit all places where prisoners of war are held, in particular places of internment, detention and work. They must have access to all premises used by prisoners of war. ICRC representatives enjoy the same rights. The appointment of these representatives is subject to the approval of the Power holding the prisoners of war to be visited. Parties to a conflict must provide the International Committee of the Red Cross with all means within their capabilities to enable it to carry out its humanitarian mission entrusted to it by the Conventions and the Protocol to provide protection and assistance to victims of conflicts. The ICRC may also carry out any other humanitarian activities for the benefit of such victims with the consent of the parties to the conflict concerned. The Federation of Red Cross Societies and National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies also have the right to every assistance in carrying out their humanitarian mission. Luneva O.S. Angel of Peace The RED CROSS comes to the rescue, glorifying humanity in our world, giving shelter and bread to the downtrodden, defending human rights throughout the earth. He brings the grain of humanity into the hearts of people, He extends a helping hand to the captives, He hurries... Where the intensity of passions reigns, Our ANGEL OF PEACE spreads his wings! 2009 Materials used: 1. “For the sake of peace on earth” stories of Soviet writers about the Second World War, Moscow, publishing house “Pravda”, 1990. 2. “Russian literature of the 20th century” anthology, Moscow, “Enlightenment”, 1997. 3. “Basic provisions of the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols”, International Committee of the Red Cross, Moscow, 2003. 4.Internet resources.

Essay in Unified State Exam format

11th grade students

School No. 28 Stasenko Sofia

The problem of preserving humanity in war

The main thing in war is to always remain human. Despite the wounds it inflicts, mercy must never be forgotten. V. Astafiev reflects on the problem of preserving humanity in wartime. Why is it so important to remember the value of every life?

The author reveals this problem by describing a case when fighters from warring sides ended up in the same hospital. First, he shows a soldier, broken by the war and grief from the loss of loved ones, who longed to drown out his pain by killing captured Germans. When he opened fire on them from a machine gun, Boris, who was watching them, tried to knock the weapon out of his hands, to stop him from senseless bloodshed, but he “rushed towards him and did not have time.” An attempt to avenge the death of his family on people who had nothing to do with it did not bring relief to the soldier; he continued to suffer, as those he shot at were now suffering. At the same time, the writer transfers the action to the neighboring hut, where “the wounded lay side by side: both ours and strangers.” The doctor, treating the wounds of both Russians and prisoners, treated all patients equally, and “the wounded, whether ours or strangers, understood him, obeyed, froze, endured the pain,” and meanwhile, in a trough full of darkened bandages, “mixed and the blood of different people has thickened.”

Mercy and humanity are never a mistake. Thus, the heroine of Vitaly Zakrutkin’s story “Mother of Man,” Maria, despite all the evil that the Nazis inflicted on her and her family, tries to help a young German dying from his wounds. He calls her “mom”, and at this moment all hatred leaves Mary’s soul, only compassion for the boy, not for the enemy, and the awareness of how fragile human life remains.

Among the works that truthfully tell about the terrible everyday life of the Great Patriotic War is the story “Sashka” by front-line writer V. Kondratyev.

The scene where Sashka takes the tongue “with his bare hands”, since he was unarmed, is one of the key ones in the work. Having been in the most dangerous and hopeless attacks, Sashka saw in the guise of a prisoner not an enemy, but a person deceived by someone. He promised him life, since on a leaflet picked up on the way to headquarters, it was written that Russian soldiers did not abuse prisoners. On the way, Sashka constantly felt a sense of shame both for the fact that their defense was worthless and for the fact that their dead comrades lay unburied. But most of all, he felt awkward because he suddenly felt limitless power over this man. This is him, Sashka Kondratieva. An analysis of his state of mind shows why he was never able to shoot the prisoner and, as a result, violated the battalion commander’s order.

War brings pain, and it does not choose victims for itself: everyone is drawn into a terrible whirlpool, which is why there are no winners in it, there are only losers, for whom in the end there is nothing left but the dead. But at the same time, there will always be those who, like Mary from the story “Mother of Man” and the hero of the story “Sashka,” will remember goodness and mercy and remain human.

(1) Boris had one desire: to quickly get away from this broken farm and take the remnants of the platoon with him.

(2) But he hasn’t seen everything today.

(3) A soldier in a camouflage suit smeared with clay emerged from the ravine. (4) His face looked like it was cast from cast iron: black, bony, with bloodshot eyes. (5) He walked quickly down the street, without changing his pace, turned into the garden, where German prisoners were sitting around a set fire to a barn, chewing something and warming themselves.

- (6) Keep warm, flayers! - the soldier said dully and began to rip the machine belt over his head. (7) He knocked his hat onto the snow, the machine gun got tangled in the hood of his camouflage coat, he tore it away, scratching his ear with the buckle.

- (8) I'll warm you up! (9) Now, now... - (10) The soldier raised the bolt of his machine gun with frantic fingers.

(11) Boris rushed to him and didn’t have time. (12) Bullets splashed across the snow, one shot-through German huddled around the fire, and the other collapsed into the fire. (13) The prisoners began to gag like frightened crows, rushing in all directions. (14) The soldier in the camouflage jumping up and down as if he was being tossed by the earth itself, baring his teeth, yelling something wildly and blindly frying him anywhere in bursts.

- (15) Get down! - (16) Boris fell on one of the prisoners and pressed him into the snow. (17) The cartridges in the disk have run out. (18) The soldier kept pressing and pressing on the trigger, never ceasing to scream and jump. (19) The prisoners fled from the house, climbed into the barn, fell, falling through the snow. (20) Boris snatched the machine gun from the soldier’s hands, grappled with him, and both fell. (21) The soldier rummaged around his belt, looked for a grenade - he couldn’t find it, he tore his camouflage coat on his chest.

- (22) They burned Marisha! (23) All the villagers... (24) Everyone was driven into the church. (25) They burned everyone! (26) Mom! (27) Godmother! (28) Everyone!.. (29) The whole village... (30) I have a thousand of them... (31) I’ll finish a thousand! (32) I will cut and gnaw!..

- (33) Quiet, friend, quiet! - (34) The soldier stopped beating, sat down in the snow, looking around, his eyes sparkling, still intense. (35) He unclenched his fists, clenched so tightly that his nails left red indentations on his palms, licked his bitten lips, grabbed his head, buried his face in the snow and began to cry silently.

(36) And in the nearby dilapidated hut, a military doctor with the sleeves of his brown robe rolled up was bandaging the wounded, without asking or looking whether they were his own or someone else’s.

(37) And the wounded lay side by side: both ours and strangers, moaning, screaming, others smoked, waiting to be sent. (38) The senior sergeant with a diagonally bandaged face and bruises growing under his eyes slobbered on a cigarette, burned it and put it in the mouth of an elderly German who was motionlessly looking at the broken ceiling.

- (39) How are you going to work now, head? - the senior sergeant mumbled indistinctly, nodding at the German’s hands, wrapped in bandages and footcloths. - (40) All frozen! (41) Who will feed your family? (42) Fuhrer? (43) Fuhrers, they will feed you!..

(44) And the soldier in the camouflage suit was taken away. (45) He wandered, stumbling, with his head down, and still cried protractedly, silently.

(46) The orderly who was helping the doctor did not have time to undress the wounded, put on their clothes, or give them bandages and tools. (47) A slightly wounded German, probably one of the military doctors, helpfully and dexterously began to care for the wounded.

(48) The doctor silently extended his hand for the instrument, impatiently clenched and unclenched his fingers if he did not have time to give him what he needed, and equally gloomily said to the wounded man: “(49) Don’t yell! (50) Don't twitch! (51) Sit still! (52) Whom I told, okay!”

3) And the wounded, whether ours or strangers, understood him, obeyed, froze, endured the pain, biting their lips.

(54) From time to time the doctor stopped work, wiped his hands on a calico footcloth hanging near the stove, and made a goat’s leg from light tobacco. (55) He smoked it over a wooden washing trough full of darkened bandages, scraps of clothing, shrapnel and bullets. (56) The blood of different people mixed and thickened in the trough.

Here is a bank of arguments for an essay on the Unified State Exam in the Russian language. It is dedicated to military topics. Each problem has corresponding literary examples that are necessary to write a paper of the highest quality. The title corresponds to the formulation of the problem, under the title there are arguments (3-5 pieces depending on complexity). You can also download these arguments in table form(link at the end of the article). We hope that they will help you in preparing for the Unified State Exam.

In Vasil Bykov’s story “Sotnikov,” Rybak betrayed his homeland, fearing torture. When two comrades, looking for provisions for a partisan detachment, ran into the invaders, they were forced to retreat and hide in the village. However, their enemies found them in the house of a local resident and decided to interrogate them using violence. Sotnikov passed the test with honor, but his friend joined the punitive forces. He decided to become a policeman, although he intended to run away to his own people at the first opportunity. However, this act forever crossed out Rybak’s future. Having knocked out the supports from under his comrade’s feet, he became a traitor and a vile murderer who is not worthy of forgiveness.
In Alexander Pushkin's novel The Captain's Daughter, cowardice turned into a personal tragedy for the hero: he lost everything. Trying to win the favor of Marya Mironova, he decided to be cunning and disingenuous, rather than behave courageously. And so, at the decisive moment, when the Belgorod fortress was captured by the rebels, and Masha’s parents were brutally killed, Alexey did not stand up for them, did not protect the girl, but changed into a simple dress and joined the invaders, saving his life. His cowardice completely repulsed the heroine, and even being in his captivity, she proudly and adamantly resisted his caresses. In her opinion, it is better to die than to be at one with a coward and a traitor.
In Valentin Rasputin’s work “Live and Remember,” Andrei deserts and runs to his home, to his native village. Unlike him, his wife was a courageous and devoted woman, so she, risking herself, covers her runaway husband. He lives in a nearby forest, and she carries everything he needs secretly from the neighbors. But Nastya’s absences became public knowledge. Fellow villagers swam after her in a boat. To save Andrei, Nastena drowned herself without betraying the deserter. But the coward in her person lost everything: love, salvation, family. His fear of war destroyed the only person who loved him.
In Tolstoy’s story “Prisoner of the Caucasus,” two heroes are contrasted: Zhilin and Kostygin. While one, having been captured by the mountaineers, bravely fights for his freedom, the other humbly waits for his relatives to pay the ransom. Fear clouds his eyes, and he does not understand that this money will support the rebels and their fight against his compatriots. For him, only his own fate comes first, and he doesn’t care about the interests of his homeland. Obviously, cowardice manifests itself in war and reveals such traits of nature as selfishness, weak character and insignificance.

Overcoming fear in war

In Vsevolod Garshin’s story “Coward,” the hero is afraid to perish in the name of someone’s political ambitions. He is worried that he, with all his plans and dreams, will end up as just a last name and initials in a dry newspaper report. He doesn’t understand why he needs to fight and risk himself, what all these sacrifices are for. His friends, of course, say that he is driven by cowardice. They gave him food for thought, and he decided to volunteer for the front. The hero realized that he was sacrificing himself for the sake of a great cause - the salvation of his people and homeland. He died, but was happy, because he had taken a truly significant step, and his life acquired meaning.
In Mikhail Sholokhov's story “The Fate of a Man,” Andrei Sokolov overcomes the fear of death and does not agree to drink to the victory of the Third Reich, as the commandant demands. He already faces punishment for inciting rebellion and disrespecting his guards. The only way to avoid death is to accept Muller’s toast, to betray the homeland in words. Of course, the man wanted to live and was afraid of torture, but honor and dignity were more important to him. Mentally and spiritually, he fought with the occupiers, even standing in front of the camp commander. And he defeated him by force of will, refusing to carry out his order. The enemy recognized the superiority of the Russian spirit and rewarded the soldier who, even in captivity, overcomes fear and defends the interests of his country.
In Leo Tolstoy's novel War and Peace, Pierre Bezukhov is afraid to participate in hostilities: he is awkward, timid, weak, and not suited for military service. However, seeing the scope and horror of the Patriotic War of 1812, he decided to go alone and kill Napoleon. He was not at all obliged to go to besieged Moscow and risk himself; with his money and influence, he could sit out in a secluded corner of Russia. But he goes to help the people in some way. Pierre, of course, does not kill the French emperor, but saves the girl from the fire, and this is already a lot. He conquered his fear and did not hide from the war.

The problem of imaginary and real heroism

In Leo Tolstoy's novel War and Peace, Fyodor Dolokhov shows excessive cruelty during military operations. He enjoys violence, while always demanding rewards and praise for his imaginary heroism, which contains more vanity than courage. For example, he grabbed an officer who had already surrendered by the collar and insisted for a long time that it was he who took him prisoner. While soldiers like Timokhin modestly and simply carried out their duty, Fedor boasted and boasted about his exaggerated achievements. He did this not for the sake of saving his homeland, but for the sake of self-affirmation. This is false, unreal heroism.
In Leo Tolstoy's novel War and Peace, Andrei Bolkonsky goes to war for the sake of his career, and not for the bright future of his country. He only cares about the glory that Napoleon, for example, received. In pursuit of her, he leaves his pregnant wife alone. Finding himself on the battlefield, the prince rushes into a bloody battle, calling on many people to sacrifice themselves with him. However, his throw did not change the outcome of the battle, but only ensured new losses. Having realized this, Andrei realizes the insignificance of his motives. From that moment on, he no longer pursues recognition, he is only concerned about the fate of his native country, and only for it is he ready to return to the front and sacrifice himself.
In the story “Sotnikov” by Vasil Bykov, Rybak was known as a strong and brave fighter. He was in good health and powerful in appearance. In fights he had no equal. But the real test showed that all his actions were just empty boasting. Fearing torture, Rybak accepts the enemy’s offer and becomes a policeman. There was not a drop of real courage in his feigned courage, so he could not withstand the moral pressure of the fear of pain and death. Unfortunately, imaginary virtues are recognized only in trouble, and his comrades did not know whom they trusted.
In Boris Vasiliev’s story “Not on the Lists,” the hero single-handedly defends the Brest Fortress, all the other defenders of which fell dead. Nikolai Pluzhnikov himself can barely stand on his feet, but he still fulfills his duty until the end of his life. Someone, of course, will say that this is reckless on his part. There is safety in numbers. But I still think that in his situation this is the only right choice, because he will not get out and join combat-ready units. So isn't it better to give the last fight than to waste a bullet on yourself? In my opinion, Pluzhnikov’s act is a feat of a real man who faces the truth.
Victor Astafiev’s novel “Cursed and Killed” describes dozens of destinies of ordinary children whom the war drove into the most difficult conditions: hunger, mortal risk, illness and constant fatigue. They are not soldiers, but ordinary residents of villages and villages, prisons and camps: illiterate, cowardly, tight-fisted and not even very honest. All of them are just cannon fodder in battle; many are of no use. What motivates them? The desire to curry favor and get a deferment or a job in the city? Hopelessness? Maybe their stay at the front is reckless? You can answer in different ways, but I still think that their sacrifices and modest contribution to the victory were not in vain, but necessary. I am sure that their behavior is not always controlled by a conscious, but true force - love for the fatherland. The author shows how and why it manifests itself in each of the characters. Therefore, I consider their courage to be genuine.

Mercy and indifference in an atmosphere of hostilities

In Tolstoy's novel War and Peace, Berg, the husband of Vera Rostova, shows blasphemous indifference to his compatriots. During the evacuation from besieged Moscow, he takes advantage of people's grief and confusion by buying their rare and valuable items cheaper. He does not care about the fate of his fatherland, he only looks into his own pocket. The troubles of the surrounding refugees, frightened and oppressed by the war, do not touch him in any way. At the same time, the peasants are burning all their property so that it does not fall to the enemy. They burn houses, kill livestock, and destroy entire villages. For the sake of victory, they risk everything, go into the forests and live as one family. In contrast, Tolstoy shows indifference and compassion, contrasting the dishonest elite with the poor, who turned out to be richer spiritually.
Alexander Tvardovsky’s poem “Vasily Terkin” describes the unity of the people in the face of a mortal threat. In the chapter “Two Soldiers,” the old people welcome Vasily and even feed him, having spent precious food supplies on the stranger. In exchange for hospitality, the hero repairs the elderly couple's watches and other utensils, and also entertains them with encouraging conversations. Although the old woman is reluctant to take out the treat, Terkin does not reproach her, because he understands how difficult life is for them in the village, where there is even no one to help chop wood - everyone is at the front. However, even different people find a common language and have compassion for each other when clouds gather over their homeland. This unity was the author’s call.
In Vasil Bykov's story "Sotnikov" Demchikha hides partisans, despite the mortal risk. She hesitates, being a frightened and persecuted village woman, not a heroine from the cover. Before us is a living person who is not without weaknesses. She is not happy with uninvited guests, policemen are circling the village, and if they find something, no one will survive. And yet, the woman’s compassion takes over: she shelters the resistance fighters. And her feat did not go unnoticed: during interrogation with torture and torture, Sotnikov does not betray his patroness, carefully trying to shield her and shift the blame onto himself. Thus, mercy in war begets mercy, and cruelty only leads to cruelty.
In Tolstoy's novel "War and Peace" some episodes are described that indicate the manifestation of indifference and responsiveness towards prisoners. The Russian people saved officer Rambal and his orderly from death. The frozen French themselves came to the enemy camp, they were dying of frostbite and hunger. Our compatriots showed mercy: they fed them porridge, poured them warming vodka, and even carried the officer into the tent in their arms. But the occupiers were less compassionate: a Frenchman I knew did not stand up for Bezukhov when he saw him in the crowd of prisoners. The count himself barely survived, receiving the meager rations in prison and walking in the cold on a leash. In such conditions, the weakened Platon Karataev, to whom none of the enemies even thought of giving porridge with vodka, died. The example of Russian soldiers is instructive: it demonstrates the truth that in war you need to remain human.
An interesting example was described by Alexander Pushkin in the novel “The Captain's Daughter”. Pugachev, the ataman of the rebels, showed mercy and pardoned Peter, respecting his kindness and generosity. The young man once gave him a short fur coat, not stinging in helping a stranger from the common people. Emelyan continued to do good to him even after the “reckoning”, because in the war he strove for justice. But Empress Catherine showed indifference to the fate of the officer devoted to her and surrendered only to the persuasion of Marya. During the war, she showed barbaric cruelty by arranging the execution of rebels in the square. It is not surprising that the people rebelled against her despotic power. Only compassion can help a person stop the destructive power of hatred and enmity.

Moral Choices in War

In Gogol's story "Taras Bulba", the youngest son of the protagonist is at a crossroads between love and homeland. He chooses the first, forever renouncing his family and homeland. His comrades did not accept his choice. The father was especially grieved, because the only chance to restore the honor of the family was to kill the traitor. The military brotherhood took revenge for the death of their loved ones and for the oppression of the faith, Andriy trampled on holy vengeance, and for defending this idea Taras also made his difficult but necessary choice. He kills his son, proving to his fellow soldiers that the most important thing for him, as an ataman, is the salvation of his homeland, and not petty interests. Thus, he forever cements the Cossack partnership, which will fight the “Poles” even after his death.
In Leo Tolstoy’s story “Prisoner of the Caucasus,” the heroine also made a desperate decision. Dina liked the Russian man who was forcibly held by her relatives, friends, and her people. She was faced with a choice between kinship and love, the bonds of duty and the dictates of feeling. She hesitated, thought, decided, but could not help but help, because she understood that Zhilin was not worthy of such a fate. He is kind, strong and honest, but he does not have money for ransom, and that is not his fault. Despite the fact that the Tatars and Russians fought, that one captured the other, the girl made a moral choice in favor of justice rather than cruelty. This probably expresses the superiority of children over adults: even in struggle they show less anger.
Remarque's novel All Quiet on the Western Front depicts the image of a military commissar who drafted high school students, still just boys, into the First World War. At the same time, we remember from history that Germany did not defend itself, but attacked, that is, the guys went to their death for the sake of other people’s ambitions. However, their hearts were set on fire by the words of this dishonest man. So, the main characters went to the front. And only there they realized that their agitator was a coward hiding in the rear. He sends young men to their deaths, while he himself sits at home. His choice is immoral. He exposes this seemingly courageous officer as a weak-willed hypocrite.
In Tvardovsky’s poem “Vasily Terkin,” the main character swims across an icy river to bring important reports to the attention of the command. He throws himself into the water under fire, risking freezing to death or drowning after catching an enemy bullet. But Vasily makes a choice in favor of duty - an idea that is larger than himself. He contributes to victory, thinking not about himself, but about the outcome of the operation.

Mutual assistance and selfishness on the front line

In Tolstoy's novel War and Peace, Natasha Rostova is ready to give up carts to the wounded in order to help them avoid persecution by the French and leave the besieged city. She is ready to lose valuable things, despite the fact that her family is on the verge of ruin. It's all about her upbringing: the Rostovs were always ready to help and help a person out of trouble. Relationships are more valuable to them than money. But Berg, the husband of Vera Rostova, during the evacuation, bargained things cheaply from frightened people in order to make capital. Alas, in war not everyone passes the test of morality. The true face of a person, an egoist or a benefactor, will always reveal itself.
In Leo Tolstoy's Sevastopol Stories, the "circle of aristocrats" demonstrates the unpleasant character traits of the nobility, who found themselves at war because of vanity. For example, Galtsin is a coward, everyone knows about it, but no one talks about it, because he is a high-born nobleman. He lazily offers his help on the outing, but everyone hypocritically dissuades him, knowing that he won’t go anywhere, and he’s of little use. This man is a cowardly egoist who thinks only of himself, not paying attention to the needs of the fatherland and the tragedy of his own people. At the same time, Tolstoy describes the silent feat of doctors who work overtime and restrain their frenzied nerves from the horror they saw. They will not be rewarded or promoted, they do not care about this, because they have one goal - to save as many soldiers as possible.
In Mikhail Bulgakov's novel The White Guard, Sergei Talberg leaves his wife and runs away from a country torn by civil war. He selfishly and cynically leaves in Russia everything that was dear to him, everything to which he swore to be faithful to the end. Elena was taken under the protection of her brothers, who, unlike their relative, served to the last the one to whom they took the oath. They protected and consoled their abandoned sister, because all the conscientious people united under the burden of the threat. For example, the commander Nai-Tours performs an outstanding feat, saving the cadets from imminent death in a futile battle. He himself dies, but helps innocent young men deceived by the hetman to save their lives and leave the besieged city.

Negative impact of war on society

In Mikhail Sholokhov’s novel “Quiet Don,” the entire Cossack people becomes a victim of war. The former way of life is collapsing due to fratricidal strife. Breadwinners die, children become unruly, widows go crazy from grief and the unbearable yoke of labor. The fate of absolutely all the characters is tragic: Aksinya and Peter die, Daria becomes infected with syphilis and commits suicide, Grigory is disappointed in life, lonely and forgotten Natalya dies, Mikhail becomes callous and impudent, Dunyasha runs away and lives unhappily. All generations are in discord, brother goes against brother, the land is orphaned, because in the heat of battle it was forgotten. As a result, the civil war led only to devastation and grief, and not to the bright future that all the warring parties promised.
In Mikhail Lermontov's poem "Mtsyri" the hero became another victim of the war. A Russian military man picked him up, forcibly took him away from his home, and probably would have continued to control his fate if the boy had not fallen ill. Then his almost lifeless body was thrown into the care of the monks in a nearby monastery. Mtsyri grew up, he was destined for the fate of a novice, and then a clergyman, but he never came to terms with the arbitrariness of his captors. The young man wanted to return to his homeland, reunite with his family, and quench his thirst for love and life. However, he was deprived of all this, because he was just a prisoner, and even after escaping he found himself back in his prison. This story is an echo of war, as the struggle of countries cripples the fate of ordinary people.
In Nikolai Gogol's novel “Dead Souls” there is an insert that is a separate story. This is a story about Captain Kopeikin. It tells about the fate of a cripple who became a victim of war. In the battle for his homeland, he became disabled. Hoping to receive a pension or some kind of assistance, he came to the capital and began visiting officials. However, they became bitter in their comfortable workplaces and only drove the poor man, without making his life filled with suffering any easier. Alas, constant wars in the Russian Empire gave rise to many such cases, so no one particularly reacted to them. You can’t even definitely blame anyone here. Society became indifferent and cruel, so people defended themselves from constant worries and losses.
In Varlam Shalamov’s story “The Last Battle of Major Pugachev,” the main characters, who honestly defended their homeland during the war, ended up in a labor camp in their homeland because they had once been captured by the Germans. No one took pity on these worthy people, no one showed mercy, but they were not guilty of being captured. And it’s not just about cruel and unjust politicians, it’s about the people, who have become hardened from constant grief, from inescapable deprivation. Society itself indifferently listened to the suffering of innocent soldiers. And they, too, were forced to kill the guards, run and shoot back, because the bloody massacre made them like that: merciless, angry and desperate.

Children and women at the front

In Boris Vasiliev's story “The Dawns Here Are Quiet,” the main characters are women. They, of course, were more afraid than men to go to war; each of them still had close and dear people. Rita even left her son to her parents. However, the girls fight selflessly and do not retreat, even though they are up against sixteen soldiers. Each of them fights heroically, each overcomes her fear of death in the name of saving her homeland. Their feat is taken especially hard, because fragile women have no place on the battlefield. However, they destroyed this stereotype and conquered the fear that constrained even more suitable fighters.
In Boris Vasiliev’s novel “Not on the Lists,” the last defenders of the Brest Fortress are trying to save women and children from starvation. They don't have enough water and supplies. With pain in their hearts, the soldiers see them off into German captivity; there is no other way out. However, the enemies did not spare even expectant mothers. Pluzhnikov's pregnant wife, Mirra, is beaten to death with boots and pierced with a bayonet. Her mutilated corpse is pelted with bricks. The tragedy of war is that it dehumanizes people, releasing all their hidden vices.
In Arkady Gaidar's work “Timur and His Team,” the heroes are not soldiers, but young pioneers. While the fierce battle continues on the fronts, they, as best they can, help the fatherland to survive in trouble. The guys do the hard work for widows, orphans and single mothers who don’t even have anyone to chop wood. They secretly perform all these tasks without waiting for praise and honor. For them, the main thing is to make their modest but important contribution to victory. Their destinies are also ruined by the war. Zhenya, for example, grows up in the care of his older sister, but they see their father once every few months. However, this does not prevent children from fulfilling their small civic duty.

The problem of nobility and baseness in battle

In Boris Vasiliev’s novel “Not on the Lists,” Mirra is forced to surrender when she discovers that she is pregnant with Nikolai’s child. There is no water or food in their shelter; the young people miraculously survive, because they are being hunted. But a lame Jewish girl emerges from hiding to save the life of her child. Pluzhnikov is watching her vigilantly. However, she was unable to blend into the crowd. So that her husband does not give himself away, does not go to save her, she moves away, and Nikolai does not see how his wife is beaten by the rabid invaders, how they wound her with a bayonet, how they cover her body with bricks. There is so much nobility, so much love and self-sacrifice in this act of hers that it is difficult to perceive it without an internal shudder. The fragile woman turned out to be stronger, more courageous and nobler than the representatives of the “chosen nation” and the stronger sex.
In Nikolai Gogol's story "Taras Bulba", Ostap shows true nobility in war conditions when he does not utter a single cry even under torture. He did not give the enemy spectacle and rejoicing by defeating him spiritually. In his dying word, he only addressed his father, whom he did not expect to hear. But I heard. And he realized that their cause was alive, which means he was alive. In this self-denial in the name of an idea, his rich and strong nature was revealed. But the idle crowd surrounding him is a symbol of human baseness, because people gathered to savor the pain of another person. This is terrible, and Gogol emphasizes how terrible the face of this motley public is, how disgusting its murmur is. He contrasted her cruelty with Ostap’s virtue, and we understand whose side the author is on in this conflict.
The nobility and baseness of a person are truly revealed only in emergency situations. For example, in Vasil Bykov’s story “Sotnikov,” two heroes behaved completely differently, although they lived side by side in the same detachment. The fisherman betrayed his country, his friends, and his duty out of fear of pain and death. He became a policeman and even helped his new comrades hang their former partner. Sotnikov did not think about himself, although he suffered from torture. He tried to save Demchikha, his former friend, and avert trouble from the detachment. So he blamed everything on himself. This noble man did not allow himself to be broken and gave his life for his homeland with dignity.

The problem of responsibility and negligence of fighters

Leo Tolstoy's Sevastopol Stories describes the irresponsibility of many fighters. They just show off in front of each other, and go to work only for the sake of promotion. They do not think at all about the outcome of the battle, they are only interested in rewards. For example, Mikhailov only cares about making friends with a circle of aristocrats and receiving some benefits from his service. Having received a wound, he even refuses to bandage it so that everyone will be shocked by the sight of blood, because there is a reward for a serious injury. Therefore, it is not surprising that in the finale Tolstoy describes precisely defeat. With such an attitude towards your duty to your homeland, it is impossible to win.
In “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign,” an unknown author tells about the instructive campaign of Prince Igor against the Polovtsians. Striving to gain easy glory, he leads a squad against the nomads, neglecting the concluded truce. Russian troops defeat their enemies, but at night the nomads take the sleeping and drunken warriors by surprise, kill many, and take the rest prisoner. The young prince repented of his extravagance, but it was too late: the squad was killed, his estate was without an owner, his wife was in grief, like the rest of the people. The opposite of the frivolous ruler is the wise Svyatoslav, who says that the Russian lands need to be united, and that you shouldn’t just meddle with your enemies. He takes his mission responsibly and condemns Igor’s vanity. His “Golden Word” subsequently became the basis of the political system of Rus'.
In Leo Tolstoy's novel War and Peace, two types of commanders are contrasted with each other: Kutuzov and Alexander the First. One takes care of his people, puts the well-being of the army above victory, while the other thinks only about the quick success of the cause, and he does not care about the sacrifices of the soldiers. Due to the illiterate and short-sighted decisions of the Russian emperor, the army suffered losses, the soldiers were dejected and confused. But Kutuzov’s tactics brought Russia complete deliverance from the enemy with minimal losses. Therefore, it is very important to be a responsible and humane leader during the battle.