A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Summaries & Analyses
Quizzes
Reading Tools
Content Warning: This section of the guide includes discussion of racism, religious discrimination, graphic violence, animal death, child death, death by suicide, physical abuse, emotional abuse, and death.
Dementiy Trifonovich Getmanov, a Party secretary from an occupied Ukrainian province, travels to Ufa before taking his post as commissar of a tank corps. He hosts a farewell dinner with his wife, Galina Terentyevna; her brother, Nikolay Terentyevich; State security officer Mashuk; and propaganda executive Sagaydak. Getmanov is disappointed at not receiving a more senior post. His corps commander, Colonel Novikov, whom he dismisses as an upstart, intends to marry Krymov’s ex-wife. Mashuk labels Krymov dubious, noting his connection to Trotskyists. Awkward moments occur when Nikolay mentions Stalin’s son, Yakov, as a POW and how Getmanov’s son defaced a Stalin portrait. Sagaydak once worked as an editor; he suppressed news of the state-made famine, blaming kulaks instead of state policy.
Late at night, Getmanov writes warrants to ensure his family’s care. He and Galina watch their sleeping children; he feels the conflict between paternal tenderness and iron severity. When the Party car arrives, he bids an emotional farewell.
In Kuibyshev, Yevgenia Nikolaevna Shaposhnikova, Lyudmila’s younger sister, lives in a communal apartment with Jenny Genrikhovna, an elderly German who was once her family’s governess. Jenny is arrested and deported to the Far North. When Yevgenia inquires at the NKVD about sending a coat, she is dismissed. Tenants gossip that Yevgenia informed on Jenny, whose cat is eventually killed.
Yevgenia has no residence permit or ration card. Grishin, an impassive passport official, thwarts her with mind-numbing bureaucracy. Her boss, Rizin, is sympathetic but timid. Becoming increasingly desperate, she begins to lose hope until a writer named Limonov, an old family friend, intervenes by talking to his friend, an important local official. The next morning, Yevgenia’s permit is ready.
Yevgenia befriends her neighbor, Vladimir Andreyevich Shargorodsky. He is from an old noble family and has been exiled multiple times. His love of Russian poetry makes her reflect on her ex-husband, Krymov, who, as an internationalist, was indifferent to such things. Limonov visits, makes a clumsy advance which she deflects. Shargorodsky joins them, and the two men debate pre-revolutionary Russian literature. Yevgenia questions her lingering sorrow for Krymov and dawning realization that she may love Novikov.
Lyudmila is on a steamer to see her wounded son, Tolya. She reflects on past callousness and worries that she is a bad person. Officials had originally been assigned the entire steamer; when military authorities ordered soldiers and civilians on board, legitimate passengers made a scene. Their indifference disgusts her. She finds solace with common soldiers who share food.
The steamer is ordered to Saratov to collect more wounded. At Kuibyshev, high-ranking civilians disembark. Lyudmila feels relief to be among those sharing their grief.
At Saratov, a woman shoves a blind soldier down, shattering Lyudmila’s sense of shared humanity. She reaches the hospital, a converted school. A clerk locates her son’s file card.
Lyudmila learns that Dr. Mayzel’s operation was technically successful but precarious. Tolya briefly regained consciousness, she learns. While Sister Terentyevna was answering a call from Dr. Platonov, Tolya died with a childlike smile on his face. Lyudmila does not arrive to see him in time.
Hospital commissar Shimansky gives a sanitized account of Tolya’s death, omitting that certain doctors advised against the procedure. Lyudmila calmly requests to see her son’s grave, to speak with his doctor and nurse, and asks that her presents be distributed to other wounded.
Sister Terentyevna shows Lyudmila where Tolya died. Dr. Mayzel frankly recounts the operation, sharing his feeling of guilt. She senses that he needs forgiveness and comforts him, realizing everyone feels guilty before her.
At the cemetery, a labor battalion of old soldiers unloads coffins. One observes that thousands are buried in wartime with no one attending; another remarks that people still mourn, though no one sees them.
Lyudmila stands before Tolya’s grave among identical mounds. Overwhelmed, she speaks to him and remembers his childhood until a nosebleed breaks the reminiscence. That night, feeling delirious, she covers the grave with her coat. By dawn, an empty crushing pain remains.
Back in Kazan, Lyudmila has become quiet, gaunt, and mechanical. She recounts the trip, distressing her family with her bloody uniform. Viktor tells her mother that Lyudmila talks in her sleep, suggesting that she lives a separate life at night.
Lieutenant Viktorov, a fighter pilot in reserve, walks the northern forest near the airfield, reflecting on ancient Russia. Emerging into a sunny glade, he feels pure happiness.
Viktorov is haunted by memories of Stalingrad hospital, but the thought of Vera Shaposhnikova brings him happiness. He recalls kissing her, fantasizes flying to be with her, and connects Princess Dolgorukaya’s historical devotion to his own sense of longing.
The squadron redeploys. Major Zakabluka reads his orders. Commissar Berman speaks. When Lieutenant Solomatin makes an antisemitic joke to Jewish pilot Lieutenant Korol about Berdichev, Korol explodes. Berman twists it, publicly accusing Korol of possessing the “mentality of the shtetl” and “abominable nationalism” (169, 170), saying he will re-educate him.
That night, the pilots learn their destination is Stalingrad. They remember fallen comrades and say goodbye to local girls. At dawn, they take off.
At a Soviet camp in the far north, thousands of prisoners are woken by sirens at five and march to mines. Similar scenes unfold across the Soviet Union.
Political prisoner Abarchuk, in the camp tool store, despairs over thoughts of Tolya (his son with his first wife, Lyudmila). Assistant Barkhatov, a criminal, terrifies him. His friend Nyeumolimov says Magar, Abarchuk’s oldest comrade and mentor, has been placed in the camp. Three days later, orderly Abrasha Rubin is murdered with a nail from Abarchuk’s store. Barkhatov threatens Abarchuk, who reports Barkhatov and the killer to the operations officer, seeing it as restoration of his political integrity. Trufelev tells him Magar is dying.
In the infirmary, Magar worries that their revolutionary cause was a mistake, that they wrongly crushed freedom, and their camp faith is merely self-preservation. He insists that they ask a dead peasant’s forgiveness. Horrified, Abarchuk rejects this. The next morning, Magar has hanged himself. Abarchuk clings to Tolya as his only hope.
In late summer 1942, Nazi Germany was at the peak of its military power. Confidence, not wartime pressure, allowed the most inhuman policies. The September 12, 1942 decree transferred jurisdiction over all European Jews to the Gestapo.
A Jewish woman named Sofya Osipovna Levinton travels in a cattle-wagon, reflecting on her sense of lost identity. Passengers cling to the hope of a work camp. She feels deep pity, especially for a silent six-year-old orphan, David, on whom she has taken pity. She devises a method to catch rainwater on a rag and gives her wet rag to the boy.
Accountant Naum Rozenberg was in a Jewish work crew forced to exhume and burn bodies. Though the guards refer to the bodies as items, he refers to them as “people.” After finishing, the crew was made to dig their own grave. Rozenberg escapes, only to be recaptured a week later. On the train, he cries out for his murdered wife, Golda.
Ghetto librarian Musya Borisovna watches from her window as SS, Ukrainian police, and Gestapo silently surround the ghetto for final liquidation, feeling she is taking “the measure of the history of [their] age” (203).
The farewell dinner for Party secretary Getmanov establishes the corrosive effect of state ideology on personal and professional relationships. As Getmanov and his comrades toast Stalin, whom they call “our father,” their conversation speaks to a world governed by political calculation, rather than human principle. Getmanov’s life has been an “intense, unsleeping labour” of absolute submission to the Party’s will (102), a state in which he has no personal sympathies that conflict with official interests. This mindset is the lens through which he and his guests view the world. They assess Colonel Novikov’s character based on the political liability of his fiancée’s ex-husband, Krymov, whom the security official Mashuk dismisses as a “dubious character.” This exchange reflects The Inherent Inhumanity of Totalitarianism, replacing individual merit with a paranoid calculus of association. The unstated rules of this society are policed by fear; when Nikolay Terentyevich mentions Stalin’s captive son, for example, he commits a gaffe that, while seemingly forgiven, will be silently held against him. The contrast between Getmanov’s private, “piercing ache of tenderness” for his children and the public, “unshakeable, iron severity” his role demands reveals the psychological split required to function as an agent of the state (114, 115).
Yevgenia’s struggle to obtain a residence permit illustrates how the state wields bureaucratic power to grind down the individual. Trapped in a logistical loop by the impassive official Grishin, Yevgenia finds that her family’s revolutionary credentials and her own essential war work are meaningless. Grishin’s calm, unblinking refusal to help makes the state’s power feel absolute and arbitrary, and, inside his office, Yevgenia feels “no longer a human being, […] but simply another petitioner” (124). Her experience suggests a system where the bureaucracy functions as a maze designed to exhaust and defeat the powerless. Her eventual success comes through the personal intervention of the influential writer Limonov, exposing the hypocrisy of a system that functions on connections rather than its own stated principles. The narrative juxtaposes Yevgenia’s bureaucratic ordeal with her conversations with the exiled nobleman Shargorodsky, who speaks of a pre-revolutionary cultural “Atlantis” that has been submerged. This contrast highlights the theme of Intellectual Freedom Versus Ideological Control, positioning Shargorodsky’s world of literature and philosophy as a lost realm of individual thought, crushed by the same state that torments Yevgenia with its incomprehensible regulations.
In a cattle-wagon bound for a death camp, Sofya Levinton’s humane gesture of giving her wet rag to the orphan David provides a focal point for the theme of The Power of Unconditional Kindness. Surrounded by people stripped of their identity, reverting “to the state of cattle” (198), Sofya’s small act of compassion is entirely disconnected from any ideology, self-interest, or strategic goal. It is a spontaneous, private act of human empathy that exists in direct opposition to the systemic, state-sponsored cruelty that has imprisoned them. This moment echoes Lyudmila’s experience on the Volga steamer, where common soldiers share their meager soup with her, a simple act of communion that momentarily eases her grief. However, the novel refuses to romanticize the poor or the suffering. Lyudmila’s hope for a bond with “people bound together by the same grief” is compromised in Saratov when she witnesses a woman casually shove a blind soldier to the ground (140). This jarring incident complicates the theme, suggesting that kindness is not an automatic byproduct of shared hardship. Instead, the novel explores kindness as a fragile, conscious choice made by individuals in defiance of a dehumanizing world.
Lyudmila’s journey to Saratov and her vigil at her son’s grave serve as a psychological study of a loving mother refusing to accept the finality of death. Her journey on the steamer introduces the symbol of the Volga River, which is a silent, lasting witness to her private agony set against the backdrop of a nation’s collective suffering. Her initial calm at the hospital is a form of delusion, a state in which her love is so powerful that Tolya remains alive to her. The narrative explains that “her love was so strong that Tolya’s death was unable to affect it” (154). At his grave, confronted by a field of identical mounds, her grief creates its own reality, a hallucinatory world filled with vivid memories of his childhood. This reverie is broken by a sudden nosebleed, a physical intrusion of violent reality that forces her to confront the stark truth of her son’s death. Her subsequent delirium, where she covers the grave with her coat to keep him warm, dramatizes the irrationality of maternal love in the face of absolute loss. The episode concludes with an “empty, crushing pain” (155), capturing the unresolvable nature of her trauma and showing how catharsis can remain elusive.
The narrative structure in the final chapters of this section makes a direct comparison between the Nazi and Soviet totalitarian systems. The depiction of the vast, synchronized network of Gulag camps is immediately followed by the personal ideological crisis of the prisoner Abarchuk. His lifelong communist faith is undermined by the deathbed confession of his mentor, Magar, who renounces their cause and declares, “We didn’t understand freedom. We crushed it” (193). This moment of Soviet disillusionment is starkly juxtaposed with an explicit historical account of the Nazi decision for the “final destruction of the Jewish nation” (195), followed by scenes inside a camp-bound cattle-wagon. The experiences of Sofya Levinton and the traumatized accountant Naum Rozenberg detail the methodical dehumanization central to the Holocaust. Rozenberg’s desperate effort to retain his sanity by mentally counting “people” instead of the guards’ term “items” mirrors the struggle for individual integrity in the Gulag. By placing these two worlds side by side—the Soviet camp where Abarchuk feels his humanity slipping and the Nazi transport where individuality is systematically erased—Grossman presents his central thesis: Despite their different ideological justifications, the two state terrors are functionally and morally equivalent expressions of The Inherent Inhumanity of Totalitarianism.



Get in-depth, chapter-by-chapter summaries and analysis from our literary experts.