Search this site

Pictured: Colonel General V.I. Chuikov with Major General M.G. Vainrub (right). For more on Chuikov's relationship with Vainrub, see this link . Soviet war correspondent and poet Evgeny Dolmatovsky kept a wartime diary  which was published in the Smena journal  at the end of the war. Alongside accounts of strategy and destruction, Dolmatovsky’s journal highlights the heroism and personal connections that defined these soldiers, focusing particularly on Major General Matvey Vainrub, a young Soviet Jew and celebrated figure within the tank divisions. Known for his remarkable bravery, Vainrub was already legendary from the Battle of Stalingrad, his courage earning him deep admiration across all ranks. Dolmatovsky’s reflections on Vainrub and his bond with General Chuikov offer a moving portrayal of wartime brotherhood, resilience, and sacrifice, spotlighting the complex, diverse stories of those whose actions would soon bring an end to the war. In his entry on 26 April 1945, Dolmatovsky wrote the following: “ I spent all these days in Berlin, in the troops of General Chuikov  – I made this entry in my notebook and remembered another entry from the time of the end of the Battle of Stalingrad: I spent all these days in Stalingrad in the troops of General Chuikov . There are many old acquaintances here. Hero of the Soviet Union, Major General of Tank Troops Matvey Vainrub [also translated as Weinrub – M.K.] is one of the youngest generals: he is barely over thirty. Legends of his bravery have been circulating since Stalingrad. Everyone loves him for his bravery, from the driver to the commander. During the battles for Küstrin, Vainrub was seriously wounded for the fifth time. Chuikov himself brought him to the hospital and, when the doctors hesitated to meet him, shouted at them: ‘Why are you hesitating?! My Vainrub is bleeding!’ He said it as if Vainrub were an inseparable part of himself. Now the young general walks with a cane, limping, sometimes wincing slightly from pain. His tanks are fighting in the city, and he, despite the fact that he has not yet recovered from his injury, constantly goes out to them along the broken and brick-strewn streets.” Pictured: (from right to left) Major General Matvey Vainrub, writer Konstantin Simonov, cameraman Ilya Arons at the Reichstag building in Berlin, May 1945. In this entry, Dolmatovsky not only captures the intensity of the final days of World War II in Berlin but also introduces Major General Matvey Vainrub as a striking example of bravery and resilience. Vainrub, a Soviet Jew, stands out not only for his youth—one of the youngest generals at just over thirty—but also for his legendary courage, a quality that has earned him admiration from all ranks, from drivers to commanders. His identity as a Soviet Jew is significant, reflecting the Soviet Union's complex relationship with its Jewish population, where loyalty to the state and acts of heroism were often held in high regard despite underlying societal challenges. The mention of Vainrub’s multiple injuries during the war underscores the brutal sacrifices made by Soviet soldiers. His fifth wounding at Küstrin, followed by Chuikov’s impassioned response, reveals the close bonds formed in combat. Vasily Ivanovich’s exclamation, “My Vainrub is bleeding!” as he brought Vainrub to the hospital, evokes a sense of personal pride and protectiveness over his comrade, almost as if they were family. This deep connection shows the unity that transcended individual backgrounds, as well as the respect Vainrub had earned among his fellow soldiers, including his commanders. Despite his injuries, Vainrub’s return to the battlefield on crutches exemplifies his determination and sense of duty. His visible limp and occasional winces from pain did not deter him from walking Berlin’s rubble-strewn streets to stand beside his tanks, symbolizing the relentless spirit of the Soviet forces. As a Soviet Jew, his defiance and commitment carry an additional layer of significance, challenging stereotypes and standing as a testament to the diverse contributions of Soviet citizens in the fight against fascism. Dolmatovsky’s entry thus captures not only the strategic achievements of the Soviet army but the personal stories of resilience, unity, and sacrifice. It is a reminder of the multifaceted humanity of those who fought, with figures like Vainrub embodying courage and dedication amid one of history’s most defining moments. Text on the back of the photo: To our dear comrade Polikarp Dmitrievich Ovchinnikov, In loving memory of the meeting at the Pioneer Palace of the Zheleznodorozhny district, Kiev, on 12 January 1983, in honor of the 40th anniversary of the Battle of Stalingrad, with members of the Komsomol and schoolchildren, alongside participants of the Battle of Stalingrad, veterans of the 62/8 Guards Army, and veterans of the Great Patriotic War: Fedorov Alexey Fedorovich - twice Hero of the Soviet Union, leader of the partisans in Ukraine, member of the Central Committee of the CPSU, deputy of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, chairman of the Kiev section of the Soviet Committee of Veterans of War; Matvey Vainrub Grigorievich  - Hero of the Soviet Union, deputy commander of the 62/8 Guards Army, Lieutenant General of the tank forces; Veterans of the Great Patriotic War: Poet - Nikolai Aleksandrovich Tzlenik, Grigory Grigorievich Bratslavsky, Nathan Borisovich Gutarech, and Larisa Alexandrovna Melnikova, secretary of the Railway Regional Committee of the Party of the city of Kiev.

Pictured clockwise: Promotional evaluation of Col. Matvey Vainrub to the rank of Major General, 2 March 1944. Marked "SECRET", the document is a recommendation for promotion of Col. Matvey Vainrub to the rank of Major General, Tank Forces. Chuikov's signature is at the bottom in blue pencil. The evaluation is co-signed by Member of the Military Council, Maj. Gen. Doronin, whose signature is to the right of Chuikov's in red pencil; Generals Chuikov and Vainrub during the war; Hero of the Soviet Union Lieutenant General Vainrub, 25 May 1959; General Fedor Chuikov (Marshal Chuikov’s younger brother) with General Vainrub, 1988. Researching information for composing entries for a blog allows for the exploration of numerous related topics. In the case of Marshal Chuikov, it is interesting to examine his life and work academically through the lens of social science theories, especially with a focus on leadership. There are times when challenging information comes to light, and my desire is to address the controversy, review various sources to provide a researched and balanced response, and confront misinformation directly. This blog post seeks to address a claim that Marshal Chuikov possessed a level of anti-semitism. The accusation comes from a letter to the editor written by author Judd Teller for The New York Times dated 25 April 1955. In his letter, Teller wrote that Chuikov allegedly made a negative statement about Jewish leadership in the Red Army at a military review in Germany in 1946. According to Teller, Chuikov’s remarks precipitated discrimination against Jewish Red Army officers. The letter to the editor was written in response to news about Vasily Ivanovich’s promotion to Marshal, the highest military rank in the Soviet Union, which took place in March 1955. Teller used the promotion to contrast the treatment of Marshal Chuikov from a prominent Soviet Jew, Georgi Alexandrov, who was a dismissed and disgraced Minister of Culture. Teller’s intent was to draw attention to anti-semitic policy in the Soviet Union. As a researcher, I have a few thoughts to share… First, Marshal Chuikov deserved his high rank, status, and accolades due to his achievements, outstanding work ethic, his depth of character, and his ability to connect with superiors and subordinates alike. Also, many of Chuikov’s soldiers were in fact Soviet Jews—and he wrote favorably about them in his memoirs. The Red Army was diverse with troops from numerous regions and ethnicities—and Chuikov cared about his soldiers— all of them , regardless of background or gender. One 62nd (8th Guards) Army officer in particular was mentioned by researcher Reuben Ainzstein, author of the journal article titled “The War Record of Soviet Jewry”  from Jewish Social Studies , published in January 1966: “Lieut. Col. Vainrub [also spelled Weinrub ], as he then was, played a sufficiently important part in the defense of Stalingrad to be mentioned several times by Marshal Chuikov in his memoirs. […] Chuikov made him commander of the practically non-existent armored forces of his 62nd Army after sacking Vainrub’s superior, Colonel Volkonsky. In that post Vainrub played a unique part in the area of the Central Ferry Terminus, thus allowing Rodimtsev’s [13th Guards] division to reinforce the decimated defenders of the city. […] But Matvey Vainrub was not only a fine tank commander. According to Chuikov, he proved himself a remarkable organizer who ensured the repair of damaged tanks in the beleaguered Stalingrad Tractor Works and, after their fall, in the ravines and gullies of the Volga bank, and could always be counted upon to have the repaired tanks delivered to the spot where they were most needed. Also according to Chuikov, Vainrub showed himself an ingenious tactician who invented new methods of using tanks in close cooperation with infantry and engineers, thus defeating the battle-ram tactics of German armored fists. And there was no one better than Vainrub in laying ambushes for attacking German tanks and infantry, to quote Chuikov again” (15). In Stalingrad, Lieutenant-General Chuikov promoted the Jewish Lieutenant-Colonel based on his merits and leadership potential. He certainly did not allow a difference in ethnicity to influence his decision. Vainrub exceeded Chuikov's expectations. Moreover, Vainrub also helped to shield Chuikov when he and his officers were targeted by German mortars toward the end of the war. Ainzstein continued: “On 29 March 1945, the 8th Guards Assault Army launched its final advance towards the German capital by storming the fortress of Küstrin on the Oder [River]. A day earlier, Chuikov, Vainrub, and their respective adjutants had set out to inspect the advanced positions of their men from which the assault of the fortress was to be launched. […] What happened next we learn from Chuikov’s memoirs, The End of the Third Reich : ‘When I came to,’ Chuikov relates, ‘I found that I was covered by bodies. Vainrub had covered my head with his chest, [Chuikov’s brother] Fyodor was lying on top of Vainrub, and spread out on top of the all of us, as though protecting us all with his body, was a bloody Alyosha. He was dead. Vainrub was wounded: a bomb splinter entered one of his legs above the knee. By some miracle Fyodor and myself were unscathed’” (16). Next, Colonel-General Chuikov supposedly made his remarks at the military parade which happened in 1946, during a time when he was not in a position to affect wider Red Army policy regarding a purging of the ranks in the Soviet occupation forces in Germany. General of the Army Chuikov was promoted to the position of Commander of the Soviet Ground Forces in Germany in 1949, three years later. The incident was first reported in February 1952 in the Christian Science Monitor , nearly 6 years after the remarks were purportedly made. This begs the question of why there was such a significant time lapse in reporting if he did indeed make such a statement. A final thought on the situation… A Jewish Vainrub helped save Vasily Ivanovich’s life toward the final days of the Great Patriotic War. To make a negative remark about Jewish leadership in the Red Army a little over a year after this “close call” event at a military review in Germany demonstrates a lack of gratitude and a fading memory. However, Chuikov did not forget about Vainrub’s actions, and shared his appreciation in his memoirs written years after the events occurred. In Marshal Chuikov’s works, he is quick to celebrate his soldiers’ accomplishments and was proud to serve alongside them. And the fact that Vainrub is mentioned numerous times demonstrates his effectiveness from Stalingrad to Germany…

Pictured: Lieutenant-General V. I. Chuikov, Stalingrad, summer 1942. Before globalization was the norm, organizations were constructed as centralized, stratified structures with upper leadership dictating their will to employees at the lower levels. Decision-making was strongly controlled, and only authority figures were allowed to decide policy and practice in a 'top-down' direction. Hierarchical organizations were slow-moving, depending heavily on a chain of command to communicate information. However, in today’s global business environment, it is imperative for organizations to be nimble to anticipate trends and subtle changes in the world market. To meet the need for increasing local innovation and speeding up decision-making, organizations often flatten their hierarchy. In this environment, team leaders are empowered to make more decisions directly without having to move up the chain of command for approval. To inspire a cohesive, collaborative work environment, titles and senior positions may be changed or eliminated entirely. During the development of the content in this blog entry, I spent time considering how to correctly classify the organizational structure of the 62nd Army in Stalingrad. After spending years studying leadership and managerial science and investing time researching Vasily Ivanovich’s leadership style and practice as well as the structure and actions of the 62nd Army during the Battle for Stalingrad and beyond, I surmise that the 62nd Army was actually a hybrid between the typical hierarchical organization and a flattened one, allowing for greater flexibility to address various situations as needed. In the Red Army, there was certainly a hierarchy in place with the rank and file military structure. However, there were some unique characteristics of the Soviet military that helped to facilitate open communication. One quality involved the use of the term 'comrade.' After the Russian Revolution, 'tovarishch' became widely used to reflect equality of position in society. Deconstructing nobility, moving to a classless society, and enacting collective ownership over property were some of the hallmarks of communism. In general, 'comrade' was a universally appealing term to people in the USSR—even ranking generals were referred to as Comrade General or Comrade Commander. In the case of the 62nd Army, equalization meant that the military council leadership was approachable, setting the tone for the rest of the organization. Also, common soldiers were entrusted with acting on their own initiative as needed. As Chuikov remarked about storm groups in his book titled The Battle for Stalingrad: “The soldier in a storm group must have initiative and boldness, must rely on himself alone and believe in his own powers. No one else can carry out his job for him; his comrades have got enough of their own to do. The soldier needs to know exactly where he is going to launch the assault from, by what means he is going to enter the house, where he will go and what he will do next. In an assault he is very often left to his own devices, acts alone, on his own responsibility. Clearly, to wait and look round for one’s comrades is letting them down, not helping them. Once you are inside the house it is too late to ask the commander to repeat his explanations of what you have to do.” (323) True, General Chuikov established his authority as the Commander of the 62nd Army. But his was not a tyrannical posture. He shared the difficulties his soldiers faced—the practice of equality in the Red Army meant locating headquarters very close to the front lines of the battle. This procedure is considered to be dangerous and was atypical of army commanders. In fact, Chuikov’s foe, German General Paulus, kept his headquarters away from the Stalingrad front lines in the village of Golubinskiy during the summer and autumn of 1942, before the time of Operation Uranus’ great encirclement. Equality amongst the soldiers also meant that individual innovation and initiatives were encouraged and even celebrated. Chuikov was familiar with ways to positively motivate his army because he knew that coercion would only go so far in a desperate situation. In a previous blog entry, I explored the sniper movement which Vasily Ivanovich endorsed and encouraged. Snipers like Vasily Zaitsev were celebrated in the army newspaper, which served to lift morale for the soldiers. Zaitsev was also instrumental in training other snipers to do the same. Leading from the peril of the frontline while also recognizing the fluid yet critical role of frontline decision-makers in the ranks serves armies well in critical operations where morale can make or break. Chuikov reinforced the sincere rather than political meaning of 'comrade’ in his leadership style. Whether soldier or employee, people work better when they are working with and for each other, rather than for an unseen hierarchy. Special thanks to Rustem Vakhitov for his historical contributions and review.

Pictured: Lieutenant-General V.I. Chuikov, 1942. Building upon a previous blog entry where I explored flattening the hierarchical structure of the 62nd/8th Guards Army, another way to frame the structure Chuikov’s army is through the use of formal and informal structures. It is possible for an organization to utilize both formal and informal structures successfully, and the 62nd/8th Guards Army is a prime example of how this works. A formal structure is one based on a recognized hierarchy, following a chain of command as one might typically find in the military. While there are advantages to this formality, there are some genuine challenges as well. Chidiebere Chibuike revealed that formal organizational structures are hierarchical, with clear lines of authority and communication, and are typically used in larger organizations with complex operations. They provide clarity and stability but can be rigid. Chibuike continued the comparison by examining informal organizational structures, which are decentralized with fluid relationships and communication patterns, often found in smaller organizations or within teams in larger organizations. They are flexible and adaptable, fostering camaraderie and innovation, but can be unclear and inefficient, making it hard to know where to seek guidance or support. As one can surmise, moving fluidly from formal to informal structures requires a balance of excellent communication and team member empowerment; an organization-wide understanding of the strategical, tactical, and operational direction; and the willingness of leaders and team members alike to utilize a shared leadership model. Marisa Sanfilippo recently wrote an article on this leadership model, where she stated the following: “Shared leadership is more of a collaborative effort. One person is still in charge, but power and influence are shared within the group. This could mean individuals have more autonomy over decisions related to their positions or an open-door policy where everyone’s ideas are given fair consideration.” A significant hindrance to a shared leadership model is micromanagement, which is described as a managerial behavior characterized by excessive supervision and control over employees' work and processes, coupled with minimal delegation of tasks or decision-making authority to staff. Bilyana Petrova asserted that micromanagement occurs due to “fear of failure, extreme need for control and domination, inexperience in management, insecurities, unskilled team members, unhealthy ego, etc.” Some micromanagers may be driven to act obsessively due to issues in their personal lives. However, the most common reason for micromanagement is a lack of trust and respect for their team members. On to Chuikov’s leadership of the 62nd/8th Guards Army… The situation in Stalingrad in 1942/1943 was indeed a dire one—a scenario where Vasily Ivanovich and his staff needed to utilize a variety of tactics and operations to achieve the overall strategy of holding the city at all costs. He had to employ a high level of trust in his junior officers and their military units to achieve their goal despite insurmountable odds and constant enemy bombardment. In addition, Marshal Chuikov wrote copiously about using small assault ‘storm (or sturm) groups’ to constantly counterattack and keep the Germans off balance. Vasily Ivanovich describes this in his book The Battle for Stalingrad: “The soldier in a storm group must have initiative and boldness, must rely on himself alone and believe in his own powers. No one else can carry out his job for him; his comrades have got enough of their own to do… In an assault, he is very often left to his own devices, acts alone, on his own responsibility. Clearly, to wait and look around for one's comrades is letting them down, not helping them. Once you are inside the house it is too late to ask the commander to repeat his explanations of what you have to do.” Moreover, the use of snipers in the ruins of Stalingrad struck fear in the enemy. Edwin Hoyt, author of 199 Days: The Battle for Stalingrad, included Chuikov’s philosophy on urban warfare—“Every German soldier must be made to feel that he is living under the muzzle of a Russian gun.” To achieve this, it was crucial for snipers to act independently and with stealth. Wartime footage from Stalingrad showed Soviet snipers from within the rubble, actively picking off the enemy and instilling fear and anguish in their prey. In conclusion, Chuikov’s leadership of the 62nd/8th Guards Army during the Battle of Stalingrad highlights the effective use of both formal and informal structures. Despite the rigidity of military hierarchy, Vasily Ivanovich actively empowered junior officers and promoted initiative among soldiers. This blend of structured command with flexible, autonomous units like storm groups and snipers proved crucial in responding to challenging battlefield conditions. By employing a shared leadership model, Chuikov emphasized trust and minimized micromanagement, demonstrating how adaptable leadership and the integration of different organizational structures can achieve success in high-stakes situations.

Pictured: A copy of Order #227 , ‘Not One Step Back,’ which was decreed by Stalin on 28 July 1942. The message was read to units of soldiers on the Bryansk Front, dated 29 July 1942. This document belonged to the Deputy Chief of the Hospital GLR-1951 for Political Affairs, Battalion Commissar Major L. S. Keller. When consistently conducting research on a historical figure, one sometimes discovers misinformation and mythology attributed to the person. Unfortunately, such misrepresentation can be perpetuated through the acceptance of such information at face value only. A researcher must be intuitive and doggedly pursue the truth, digging to find a more complete, accurate picture. While I am not a true historian per se , I have been a student of leadership at the post-baccalaureate level since 2008 when I first began my journey into the social sciences. Doctoral studies in leadership theories, practices, and research have been a part of my life since 2010. Now to address the misinformation… Antony Beevor, a well-known British historian and writer, penned the work Stalingrad: The Fateful Siege. While much of his writing is accurate, his statements indicating that Chuikov himself was responsible for 13,000 soldier deaths  for cowardice relating to the infamous Order #227 ‘Not One Step Back’  are challenged. This distortion found its way into documentaries such as BBC’s “War of the Century,” which I have viewed critically numerous times as part of my research. Such misrepresentation paints the picture of Chuikov as a harsh, draconian, ruthless tyrant lacking empathy or remorse regarding the ordinary soldier. Yes, there were executions due to cowardice at the front—Lieutenant-General Chuikov admitted to such. However, Soviet documents  in Russian archives indicate fewer than 300 executions by the NKVD in Stalingrad during the worst part of the battle, from July to mid-October 1942. And one must recall there were multiple armies in the Stalingrad Front. Authors Michael Jones and Jochen Hellbeck debunk Beevor’s claims in their respective works, which are the sources referenced in my blog posts due to their accuracy. Regarding Order #227 , Vasily Ivanovich realized that he was also strictly bound by this same order—what applied to the ordinary soldier also applied to officers. In his work titled From Stalingrad to Berlin , Marshal Chuikov shared his thoughts and experiences related to Order #227 : “Calls ‘Not a step back!’ were distributed earlier. But never before the entire staff, both the command and the private, has not a single document disclosed with such complete frankness the position of our country. This order was essentially an appeal to the entire Soviet people, for the Red Army was the people's army, flesh and blood of the entire multinational Soviet people. The party, the Soviet government openly shared their difficulties with the people, this could not fail to find the most ardent response and could not fail to produce results. Every soldier, every commander was imbued with responsibility before the Motherland, before the people. Indeed, there was nowhere else to retreat. This document was a whole stage in political work. Political workers were given the opportunity to frankly, without embellishing reality, explain the situation to ordinary soldiers and demanded to follow orders exactly. Commanders of all levels realized that retreat was no longer a panacea for all evils. But it would be naive to believe that this order alone brought a turning point in the psychology of the soldiers. [The order] kind of expressed the mood that has ripened in everyone since the beginning of the summer campaign. The order itself, without the awareness of hundreds of thousands of people of the tragic situation in which we all found ourselves, would not have done anything. Pain, vexation, bitterness - this is what our soldier was born within the days of a difficult retreat. The Red Army men and junior commanders told me: ‘We retreated last year... Well, that was understandable... Sudden blow, we lost a lot of aircraft and tanks even before we entered the battle. Now we have tanks and planes, we have weapons... Now we can stop the enemy! Why, why are we retreating?!’”

Pictured: (L-R) An envelope with a description of Marshal V. I. Chuikov’s book,  Army of Mass Heroism; the book’s cover art; and a matchbox cover ad for the book from 1960. English translation of the Ukrainian envelope verbiage: The illustrated book of memoirs of Marshal of the Soviet Union V.I. Chuikov “Army of Mass Heroism” is an exciting story of the former commander about the heroic battles near Stalingrad and within the city in the unforgettable [year of] 1942. The exploits of the soldiers and officers of the 62nd Army, veterans of the Stalingrad defense, became a wall to protect the Volga fortress. The book can be purchased in the regional bookstore or consumer union, as well as through the republican store “Book by Mail.” The longer I research the life and work of Marshal Chuikov and the Battle for Stalingrad, the deeper my admiration and respect for the 62nd Army and members of the Military Council becomes. These soldiers overcame a plethora of trials, from shortages of ammunition, supplies, and manpower as well as utter exhaustion of consistently heavy combat. Marshal Chuikov composed his memoir Army of Mass Heroism  while stationed at the Kiev Military District to describe the sacrifices of the brave men and women who answered the call to defend the Motherland to the bitter end. A prolific author, Vasily Ivanovich went on to publish several books and journal articles detailing the 62nd Army (later 8th Guards Army) actions and their push from Stalingrad in 1942 to Berlin in 1945. For example, in spite of communication challenges, soldiers from all over the Soviet Union who spoke various languages worked together to combat the Nazis. Other generals and officers shared their accounts of the successes of the Red Army in Stalingrad in their memoirs as well. The following excerpt of author Ivan Paderin’s “In Stalingrad” is from the English language publication titled Soviet Military Review  from December 1982. Paderin was one of General Chuikov’s 8th Guards Army soldiers who fought with him from Stalingrad to Berlin. “In their newspapers, the Nazis described the House of Specialists (now known as the Sergeant Pavlov House) as a fort garrisoned by at least a battalion. They were wrong. The whole of the Soviet Union was defending the Sergeant Pavlov House. It was held by Pavlov and Afanasyev, Russians; Sagbaida and Glushchenko, Ukrainians; Mosiyashvili, a Georgian; Turdylev, an Uzbek; and Ramazanov, a Tatar. They managed to hold it for 56 days. The author has devoted many kind lines to Major-General Nikolai Mitrofanovich Pozharsky, Chief of artillery of the Army. Pozharsky skillfully commanded the artillery. He was constantly on the firing positions displaying personal courage and skill in fighting the enemy. An antiaircraft battery covering the command post of the army failed to shoot down any of the dive bombers that were constantly harassing the Mamaev Hill. Suddenly a man with a cape on his shoulders appeared on the firing positions. He took the place of a gun layer. After the third round, the leader of a Luftwaffe dive-bomber squadron crashed to the ground. General Chuikov rang up the battery, saying: ‘Good show, boys. Recommend the gun layer for an Order.’ Chuikov asked the battery commander to give him the rank, surname, first name and patronymic of the gun layer. He was extremely surprised to hear: ‘Rank -major-general, surname – Pozharsky’… The army commander said, ‘Send the gun layer to me, otherwise he will grab all your Orders.’ Later, Marshal of the Soviet Union Vasily I. Chuikov remarked that Pozharsky was a real antiaircraft sniper and excellent organizer of his branch. Under Pozharsky the artillery worked wonders on the banks of the Volga, maneuvering with fire and displaying unexcelled accuracy. However, it was the infantry units and formations that bore the main burden of the fighting. They are the main heroes of the story” (54-55).

Pictured: Lieutenant-General V. I. Chuikov with his soldiers in Stalingrad on the banks of the Volga, late 1942 or early 1943. Famous wartime journalist Henry Shapiro interviewed Commander Lieutenant-General Chuikov during the Battle for Stalingrad in late December 1942. Although the encirclement of the Germans took place in November, the fighting was still fierce in the city and the interview had to be conducted by telegraph from the 62nd Army's HQ. Vasily Ivanovich shared as openly as he could during this conversation, which provided useful insights into the nature of the battle. Eventually, the full transcript of the interaction was published, appearing in newspapers across the globe including The Honolulu Advertiser  on 2 February 1943. An excerpt of this account capturing the words of the Commander of the 62nd Army follows: “I want to say a few words about our weapons. The war has proved all our weapons, from rifles to cannon, are very good provided they are properly used. In the Battle for Stalingrad the Russian hand grenade won general respect. It is much better than the German hand grenade. Extremely popular (sic) with the Germans is our 'Katyusha,’ which the enemy calls 'Stalin's Machine.' All living objects are destroyed wherever its shells burst. However, all these weapons would have been of no value if they were not in the hands of men willing to die for freedom. All our men used to say: ‘There's no land beyond the Volga.’ Experience in the battle of Stalingrad already allows us to draw some conclusions. Each city, each building can become a fortress if quickly and skillfully adapted for defense, and if the soldiers don't fear encirclement and are not afraid to get into the houses and stay there. The battle inside the city is a fight at close distance when light weapons--bayonets, rifles and light machine guns are used. The fighting inside the city requires the greatest initiative from every officer and soldier. One should not be afraid to take position in the immediate neighborhood of the enemy. The nearer to the enemy, the smaller the losses. “It is very important to train more snipers. This is profitable business. Costs are small-a few cartridges; revenues are many enemy corpses. Radio communication is very important. Wire often is cut by shells, bombs or fire. Radio sets require specially constructed dugouts. In one engagement, four radio sets went out of action at once although there was no visible damage. Radio sets are delicate apparatus, and in that dugout even the tea glasses burst from shell shocks. "German propaganda went too far sometimes. Once four Germans drove up to our positions in a car. We asked them where they were going. They replied they were going for some food and some eggs—’Our radio and our newspapers announced Stalingrad's fall.' Winter has come. Winter is our element. The Russians are well adapted to fight in winter, and no matter what preparation the Germans made for winter, we are better prepared. The officers who served under General Chuikov described the appearances of his quarters as follows: ‘They are simply furnished with maps on the walls and table. Now and then one hears a rustling sound; it is the earth sliding off the dugout's log walls as the ground is shaken continually by blasts from shells, mines and bombs.’ […] When asked to explain how the defense of Stalingrad, which General Chuikov called a miracle of modern war, was accomplished, his officers simply quote their leader: ‘Guts and readiness to die.’”

Pictured: Colonel-General V. I. Chuikov briefing the 8th Guards Army, Poland. Emotional intelligence  describes the ability of a person to control their own emotions to navigate triggers appropriately. It is a desired character trait for team members in organizations, especially for leaders, because others observe such behaviors for emulation. A leader’s actions and attitudes impact their followers and set an example of acceptable conduct. Leaders who are emotionally intelligent hold their reactions in check, even when facing others who have deeply wronged them. It is akin to “turning the other cheek” and is perceived as a position of strength instead of weakness. During the Great Patriotic War, the Nazis notoriously perpetrated heinous crimes against numerous people groups including Jews, Christians, political dissidents, captured Soviet soldiers, Roma, homosexuals, Poles, and the mentally ill. After invading Poland and the Soviet Union to the east, when moving through a new region, Germans destroyed and plundered like locusts. Soldiers of the 8th Guards were eyewitnesses to such crimes against humanity in the Soviet Union and at the Nazi concentration camp known as Majdanek, near Lublin in eastern Poland. Even hardened soldiers found it difficult to talk about for many years after discovering these camps. Marshal Chuikov’s account of these events includes the story of Senior Sergeant Yukhim Remenyuk, who had every reason to harbor a white-hot rage against the Nazis to exact revenge for his murdered and abducted family members. However, Vasily Ivanovich speaks of this soldier as a true hero for rising above his raw emotions and acting out of a deep sense of honor in his book titled From Stalingrad to Berlin . “I come to something that is difficult to talk about. It seemed to me that nothing could surprise me that would concern the face of fascism. I've seen everything! And the battles in Stalingrad, the burned and destroyed villages and cities of Ukraine, I saw mountains of corpses of German soldiers thrown into a senseless slaughter. What could be worse than a crime against your own people, against your own army? It turns out that this is not the worst thing yet... On the southeastern outskirts of Lublin, our units freed the prisoners of Majdanek. Now the word ‘Majdanek’ is known to everyone who is to some extent interested in the history of the Second World War. Then it was one of the usual names. It had not yet thundered all over the world, it was yet to be heard about at the Nuremberg trials. Death camp... Not a camp! Death Factory! Organized and built according to the latest engineering technology, with the help of which the Nazis were sophisticated in the destruction of people. I omit all the details that are now widely described in many documentaries. But to be honest, when I was told, when I saw the photographs taken by our officers, I did not go there... My heart shook. Millions of people burned in kilns. Millions! Men, women, children, old people... Spared no one! They hung the living on hooks, killed them with truncheons, gassed them... What can now stop the hand of a Soviet soldier when he enters German soil? Yes, the most difficult task was looming for the command staff of the army, and especially for the political workers. This is where a lot of work was needed. To inspire, to explain... But how? How can you explain, if the families of many of our soldiers were destroyed, and some, perhaps, burned in these ovens! We feared that from now on no one would take German soldiers [as prisoners]... But true heroes know how to restrain their anger—a strong spirit is not vindictive, he is just! On the very next day after the liberation of Majdanek, a captured German officer was brought to me. He was captured by the commander of the machine-gun crew of the 88th Guards Rifle Division, Senior Sergeant Yukhim Remenyuk. The fate of this warrior is amazing. In 1941, as soon as the war began, Yukhim went to the front. With a pain in his heart, he left his native place. He fought on the Volga, took part in many battles. From an ordinary soldier he rose to a senior sergeant, for valor and courage he received four high government awards - the Order of the Red Star and Glory, medals "For Courage" and "For the Defense of Stalingrad." Sometimes, in an hour of respite, he would say to friends: ‘Here we come to our places, I will invite you to visit. There I have Yarinka, daughter Oksana, old people - father, mother. Well, we have an apiary [and] a forest.’ […] And it turned out that the unit where Yukhim served really ended up in his native place and the company went into battle for the village. Yukhim was the first to break into the village - and to his yard. But [the village] is not there, there is no yard, there is no hut either - only ruins. The kindergarten was burnt. Only one old apple tree stands, and on it is a hanged father, and near the apple tree is a murdered mother. The Nazis took Yarinka and Oksana with them, said a neighbor who managed to hide in the cellar. The soldiers learned about Yukhim's grief and took an oath to avenge his family. Yukhim has been reborn since that day. He became stern and could not hear the word ‘fascist’... But he brought the prisoner. Alive. I didn't touch it..."

Pictured: Handwritten letter from Lieutenant-General V. I. Chuikov to his wife; Cover art for a book commemorating the 62nd Army and the Battle for Stalingrad; title page for the book featuring authors A. D. Stupov and V. L. Kokunov. The text of Chuikov’s letter dated 16 July 1943 reads: “Hello my dear Valechka! My greetings and kisses to you. Hugs and kisses to Nelichka and Rina. This letter will be sent using hand delivery by Comrade Stupov, who is going to Moscow to complete the book «62nd». Also sending some food stuff with him. I would really like to know how did you all get settled in Moscow—is there any hope of moving to an apartment and visiting the village. My health is fine, [and I am] in a cheerful mood. The situation becomes even funny, since the German offensive on Kursk was smashed to smithereens and they can hardly repeat anything similar. Fritz will have a bad time this year. We already have no small success…” As a researcher, when one can link a personal letter or conversation with another event, it is an exciting discovery and provides context and a form of triangulation for qualitative data collection and analysis. I recently found a photo of Marshal Chuikov’s letter dated 16 July 1943 online—the original was gifted to the Tula Regional Museum of Local Lore by his relatives. The contents of Vasily Ivanovich’s wartime letter written to his wife Valentina Petrovna give the reader an insight into the affection he had for his family; moreover, it gives references tied to other historical events. According to Chuikov, the letter was personally carried from the front to Moscow by author Alexey Dmitrievich Stupov, the Deputy Head of the Political Department of the 62nd Army, who collected content for publishing a book written for Red Army officers and soldiers. It also provides references to Chuikov’s health, battle conditions, and location which may have been censored had the letter been processed via the typical channels for military mail. Titled 62nd Army in the Battles for Stalingrad , the 2nd edition of the book’s abstract stated the following acknowledgment for Vasily Ivanovich’s contribution, which he referenced in his personal letter: “The authors did not aim to give complete and comprehensive coverage of the events of the Battle of Stalingrad. Their task was to use the example of the 62nd Army to show the growth of combat skill and the heroism of the valiant defenders of Stalingrad, whose experience of struggle serves and will continue to serve the cause of further improvement of the combat skills of soldiers and officers of the Soviet Army. […] The authors express their deep gratitude to Army General V. I. Chuikov, Twice Hero of the Soviet Union, who gave very valuable instructions and comments in preparing materials during the Battle of Stalingrad and in preparing the first edition for printing.” Vasily Ivanovich’s letter also referred to the Battle of Kursk, which was the largest tank battle in history. In July 1943, Germany launched Operation Citadel , a response to their humiliating defeat at the Battle of Stalingrad, around the Soviet city of Kursk in western Russia. During The Great Patriotic War, this was Germany's last chance to regain dominance on the Eastern Front, and it was also the last blitzkrieg offensive of the war. Although the Red Army defeated the Germans at Kursk, the victory came at a great cost to the Soviets. While the Battle for Kursk raged on, Chuikov provided an overview of the 8th Guards Army’s duties in his book titled In Battles for Ukraine : “On 7 July, at the height of the fighting on the Kursk-Oryol salient, I and the commander of the neighboring 1st Guards Army, Colonel-General V. I. Kuznetsov, were summoned to the front headquarters. We realized that the time had come for us to act. Front Commander Rodion Yakovlevich Malinovsky explained the idea of ​​the Headquarters of the Supreme High Command: taking advantage of the battles near Kursk, by the fact that the main striking forces of the Nazi army were involved in these battles, launch an offensive against the Donbass by the forces of the Southwestern Front, having the task of either overturning the enemy, or, in extreme cases, to pin down his forces in the sector opposing the Southwestern Front. The task for the 1st and 8th Guards Armies was formulated as follows: by bringing two armies into battle, cross the Severny (Seversky) Donets, break through the enemy defenses in the area of ​​the city of Izyum and, developing the offensive, in the general direction through Barvenkovo ​​to Krasnoarmeiskoye, together with the troops of the Southern front advancing from the Mius River to Stalino, defeat the Donbass grouping of the enemy and reach the Dnieper.” Next, Chuikov described the activities of the 8th Guards Army at the battlefront from mid-July 1943, the time period during which his letter home was dated: “The deadline for readiness for the offensive was set on 15 July. The preparation was allotted, therefore, eight days. To accomplish the assigned tasks, the 8th Guards Army at that time had three fully-equipped rifle corps: the 28th Guards, 29th Guards, and 33rd Rifle Corps. The 33rd Rifle Corps was already in position for the offensive, being at the forefront. It was necessary to clarify the intelligence data about the enemy and to imagine the location of his artillery positions and firing points as fully as possible. Usually, these data are found out by reconnaissance in battle. But this would mean giving up the suddenness of the strike. Army Intelligence Chief Colonel M. Z. German found a creative solution to this problem. He proposed to create a single map of the enemy's defensive fortifications based on all, even the smallest, data about the enemy that had accumulated by that moment in army units. Contact with the enemy always tells something even to an ordinary fighter. […] The map was revised twice or thrice, and at last everything was ready. I invited the commanders and chiefs of military branches, heads of departments of headquarters to a meeting, listened to their reports on readiness for the offensive, about the enemy, traveled with them to the areas selected for the offensive, studying the right bank and the front line of the German defense. […] And just like that, an insignificant front-line episode crushed our aim at surprise. At the location of the 74th Guards Division, two soldiers went for a swim at night. They were lost and went not to the oxbow lake as they had planned, but to the bank of the Northern Donets. They climbed into the water and were captured by enemy reconnaissance. The situation was extremely tense. The enemy feared our advance. Our two soldiers were a godsend for them. […] We managed to establish that our fighters, even under torture, did not name the hour of the beginning of our offensive. The warning to the enemy command, as we see, was received a few minutes before the start of artillery preparation. Still, it was a warning. The enemy got the orientation. At dawn on 17 July, aviation and artillery preparation began in the sectors of the 1st Guards and 8th Guards Armies. Artillery preparation lasted 1 hour 30 minutes. We concentrated up to 19 guns per kilometer of front and 75-90 guns from concealed positions for direct fire. […] The sultry July dawn with its bright orange colors flared up over the steppe. Guards mortars fired blinding volleys. Over the river, over the reeds, over the bushes along its banks, a dense fog stretched and enveloped everything with an impenetrable smoke screen…”

Pictured: Commander of the 8th Guards Army, Colonel-General V.I. Chuikov with soldiers and commanders, 1944 One year after the massive Red Army victory at Stalingrad, the war waged on and Chuikov’s 8th Guards were in the thick of the offensive. After clearing the Germans out of Russia, the 8th Guards Army pushed through Ukraine to liberate towns and villages. Vasily Ivanovich was promoted to Colonel-General in 1943, and there was a strong bond of trust and comradery with his soldiers. While he was their leader, he was also in the position of being a follower and listening to his subordinates. The concept of leadership comes from a relationship between leaders and followers  who are bound together by the understanding that they belong to the same social group. To be effective leaders, people must share their followers’ values, concerns and experiences, and advance the interests of the group rather than their own. Moreover, it means that the leader must listen to—and take advice from—their followers. The following excerpt from Stalingrad Guards Go West  describes one such instance. While traversing on horseback on the difficult roads in Ukraine, Chuikov’s life depended upon his willingness to listen and take instruction from his subordinates. “On the morning of 6 February 1944, I decided to track how the 27th Guards Rifle Division, which was moving out of the Novo-Ivanovka area through Chervony Zaporozhets to Tok station, would be brought into action. It was impossible to go by car. The adjutant and I got on the riding horses. To Tok station the road lay through Bazavluk, Tokovskoye, where we could cross the bridge over Kamenka. Leaving Bazavluk, we saw a road with deeply cut ruts. It seemed to us a good reference point. We decided that our units had passed here, and calmly drove along it. The sun was beating in our faces, so we were moving south. The direction seems to be taken correctly. We rode across the field along the broken track. However, for a long time no one came across us. A doubt crept in me, are we going right? We climbed the hillock. I decided to check the map and stopped the horses. An adjutant and a horseman stopped behind me. I unfolded the map... And suddenly, from somewhere from the side, bursts of automatic weapons and rifle shots were heard. Bullets whistled. My horse reared up and fell to the ground. An old cavalry habit helped me out--I managed to free my legs from the stirrups and, jumping off the saddle, immediately fell into a deep road rut. The adjutant and the horse breeder were beside me. Almost simultaneously, they shouted for me to mount one of their horses. In response, I ordered: 'Get off! Get down!' They both fell into a rut. A second later, their horses were also cut off by automatic fire. The car tracks were profoundly deep. We lay for several minutes without moving. Bullets dug into the ground very closely. We pretended to be dead for a while. But it was impossible to lie idle for a long time. […] I was wearing a general's hat with a red top and trousers with stripes--in a word, signs well known to the Germans. And lying still was unbearable. Icy water seeped through the clothes and bound the body with cold hoops. We crawled along the track. The enemy noticed the movement and increased submachine gunfire. The adjutant shouted from behind: ‘Commander! Throw down your hat! They're aiming at the red top!’ The appeal was, of course, not in form, but before the observance of the form in this position? I took off my cap, but the German fire did not stop. We crawled on our bellies. Very soon, liquid mud was crammed into the cuffs of my hunting cowhide boots. The adjutant advised me to throw off the boots. I had to obey him again. […] What does it mean to crawl through liquid mud? We moved forward, shoveling the mud like a bulldozer. Soon, we heard that the bullets no longer lay near us but flew over us much higher. Therefore, we descended from the hillock into the dead space. We crawled for a while more as a precaution. Finally, the shelling stopped. We got up and went to the village.”

Photo:  The Advocate, a newspaper of Northwestern and Western Tasmania, 14 March 1953. Front-page article  titled “Callous Russian Attack on Plane Brings New Tension” Leadership roles come with a heavy burden, and there are times when a leader must take a stand in a difficult situation. Being an authentic leader also means responding appropriately when one’s actions are called into question by others, especially on the stage of world events. Before promotion to the rank of Marshal of the Soviet Union, General Chuikov was given military leadership responsibilities in the Soviet-German sector, a responsibility he took seriously. In 1949, he became Commander-in-Chief of the Group of Soviet Forces in Germany after his predecessor, Marshal Sokolovsky, was reassigned. Formerly allied nations were now engaged in the Cold War, and tensions between the superpowers increased over time. After October 1949—the formation of the German Democratic Republic—the Commander of the Soviet troops in Germany performed purely military functions. In particular, he coordinated (interacted) with the paramilitary formations of the GDR. Vasily Ivanovich was tasked with protecting Soviet territory in Germany, which meant taking a firm stance against western military actions which threatened the Soviet zone. One such occurrence happened during Chuikov’s leadership, and the following article describing what happened was published o n 14 March 1953 in Tasmania’s newspaper The Advocate  as a major headline: “The shooting down of a British Lincoln bomber by Soviet jet fighters yesterday struck a blow to hopes of an easing of the present East-West tension. Britain and Russia bitterly accused each other of air-space violations. Six British airmen were killed in what the British High Commissioner in Germany (Sir Ivone Kirkpatrick) called a ‘deliberate and brutal act of aggression.’ Sir Ivone yesterday protested to the Russians ‘in the strongest possible terms,’ an instruction from Mr. Churchill. At the same time a British Foreign Office spokesman denied a Soviet charge that the Lincoln had been trespassing over the East Zone of Germany at the time. ‘If the Russian airmen had paid a little less attention to the gunnery and a little more to navigation these regrettable incidents would be less frequent.’ The British authorities maintain that the bomber was flying correctly along the Berlin-Hamburg air corridor in the direction of a British zone when it was deliberately attacked. Britain has asked for reparations for the loss of life and damage to the aircraft, and is also expected to request the Russian authorities to punish those responsible for the tragic incident. The bomber, cruising on an exercise flight, approximately 30 miles south-east of Hamburg, West Germany, was attacked at 2.30 p.m. in a cloud-flocked sky. […] The Russian Version The Russians claim the Lincoln was 75 miles inside forbidden East German territory. They also allege it fired first on the Soviet planes when ordered to land. The Russian Commander-in-Chief in Germany General Chuikov in a note to the British High Commissioner Sir Ivone Kirkpatrick protested against the violation of the Russian zone. It said two Soviet planes sighted the British inside East German territory. ‘The Soviet planes demanded that the trespassing plane should follow them and land at the nearest airfield. The trespassing plane not only failed to submit to this lawful demand, but fired on the Soviet planes.’ [Chuikov’s] note added: ‘One of the Soviet planes was obliged to answer by a warning shot. The trespassing plane, however, continued firing. Soviet fighters were obliged to return the fire, after which the British aircraft began to lose height. The bodies of four airmen have been found. One badly injured airman has been taken to hospital. On the shattered plane were two aviation guns, a machine-gun of large calibre, ammunition and some spent cartridges. In informing you of the above most annoying facts concerning British military aircraft, I also protest to you against the violation of British aircraft of the German Democratic Republic frontier.’” As one can tell, the incident caused increased tension between the Soviets and the British in post-war Germany. Deborah Larson’s work titled  Anatomy of Mistrust: U.S.-Soviet Relations During the Cold War  provides insight into the outcome of the tense situation. In response to the Soviet-British conflict over aerospace, U.S. President Eisenhower commented during a 19 March 1953 press conference that Soviet efforts to seek peace after the incident would be ‘just as welcome as it is sincere’” (44). Larson continues: “As if to answer Eisenhower’s request for proof of its sincerity, the Soviet government made numerous conciliatory gestures. The Soviets eased restrictions on the diplomatic corps and on journalists and adopted a more restrained rhetoric. On 27 March 1953, the Soviet government apologized to the British government for a fatal air collision over East Germany; and shortly afterward the chairman of the Soviet Control Commission in Berlin, General Vasily Chuikov, invited the United States and France to join in British-Soviet talks on air-corridor safety. The Soviets also loosened traffic blocks around Berlin and admitted a group of American journalists to Moscow” (45). In reflection of the above accounts, the response of leadership to world crisis in exchanging suspicion and mistrust for open dialogue demonstrates the focused commitment of these leaders. All stakeholders needed to take a step back from the incident, regroup, and then move forward with an alternate approach in response. The Cold War was a precarious time of modern world history, and neither side wanted to appear weak. However, it was crucial to international relations for the British, French, American, and Soviet Union leaders to strengthen diplomatic relations for a resolution. Special thanks to reviewers/contributors Rustem Vakhitov and Randy Blackerby

Pictured: The Battle for Stalingrad , inscribed by Marshal V. I. Chuikov, which reads, "General Wheeler (spelled Уиллер in Cyrillic), with best wishes of the author, V. Chuikov, 31 March 1969"; an article from the 30 March 1969 edition of The New York Times  describing the delegation from the USSR to the US for Dwight Eisenhower's funeral (held in the National Cathedral on the afternoon of 31 March 1969), which included Marshal Chuikov; an article from The Times-Reporter  which divulges details of Chuikov's visit to the Pentagon during this trip in 1969, where he presented General Earle Wheeler with this signed copy of his book. During the height of the Cold War, former US President Dwight D. Eisenhower died on 28 March 1969. Due to his status as a former head of state and also famous for his role in the Second World War as the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe, delegations from numerous nations traveled to Washington, D.C. to pay their respects. The USSR also participated by sending a delegation from Moscow. Interestingly enough, Marshal Ivan Konev was originally slated to journey to the United States as a governmental representative. However, according to The New York Times,  Marshal Chuikov's name was substituted, presumably at the last minute. Chuikov, along with First Deputy Foreign Minister Vasily Kuznetzov, led a four-person delegation from the Soviet Union, arriving at Dulles International Airport. While in Washington, Vasily Ivanovich "slipped, unnoticed, across the Potomac" to the Pentagon, where he was accompanied by the military attaché of the Soviet Embassy. During his lengthy visit to the Pentagon--the headquarters of the US Department of Defense--Marshal Chuikov met with Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Earle Wheeler. Although the two senior military officials were from nations that were no longer allies, they conversed about various topics for an hour. Questions about the increase in offensive missiles as well as the intentions of each respective nation arose, but Chuikov and Wheeler also engaged in "soldierly amenities" as well. As a display of goodwill, Vasily Ivanovich presented Wheeler with an inscribed, signed copy of the English translation of his landmark work, The Battle for Stalingrad . In return, General Wheeler gifted Marshal Chuikov with a medallion. After his visit to the Pentagon, Vasily Ivanovich toured the National War College, which was a special trip arranged by Wheeler. Marshal Chuikov attended Eisenhower's funeral, which was held at the National Cathedral (President Nixon and his family arrived at 4:34 PM). On the evening of 31 March 1969 at 7 PM, the Soviet delegation attended President Nixon's Reception  for Distinguished Foreign Visitors, which was held in the Blue Room at the White House. In his diary of events of the day, White House Chief of Staff H. R. Haldeman described  Vasily Ivanovich as a Russian Marshal who captured attention at the reception in his uniform "with rows and rows of ribbons."