Erich Maria Remarque. All Quiet on the Western Front. Translated by A. W. Wheen. (New York: Ballantine Books, 2001. pp. 296).
Author Erich Remarque’s book, All Quiet on the Western Front, takes place during World War I, with Germans defending against the French. Germany's “Iron Youth,” represented by Paul Baumer and his friends, begin the war as barely-adult schoolmates who enthusiastically, naively join the war. Unaware of the harsh realities of combat, they quickly find out that war is really a living hell disguised as both earning chivalrous honor and giving vital patronage. If not dodging bullets, shunning gas attacks, or engaging in trench warfare, Paul battles the threat of starving to death and losing mental stability. Paul must face the awful reality in which he finds himself and prepare for his return, permanently changed.
This paper will focus on two unmistakable anti-war themes that Remarque uses to de-glamorize war and expose its hardships. Saturated with a clearly pessimistic picture of war, the first theme that Remarque expresses through the characters (and their attitudes) is that war is inane, yet inescapable. For example, the “Iron Youth” in this case are baited with tempting traps of implied obligation to fight for their country—whether or not they have actually seen a Frenchman, or more to the point—want to kill one. The second theme of focus is that war destroys a soldier’s psyche. Crucial comradeship for example, on the front, bestows rewarding benefits of companionship to the lonely soldier who is separated from missed family and friends. However, the precarious lifespan of these family-like army friendships (that are subject to the permanent effects of bullets, bombs, and death, etc.) is temporary. To say the least, exhaustingly and constantly dodging death, then dealing with major losses amongst comrades could only cause the soldier’s emotions to sever and his heart to harden.
The first theme is that war is horrible, yet unstoppable. In the begginning, Paul and his friends were encouraged to join and fight a war driven by intellectual adult minds, but not theirs (i.e. young soldiers who were actually doing the fighting). By mentioning Kantoreck, the academic instructor who encouraged Paul and friends to join the fight, Paul describes his frustration for such non-soldiers by describing them as people like Kantoreck who think they knew what is best, but really make no significant sacrifices or contributions (e.g. engaging in combat, offering their lives for their country, etc). In the following passage, Paul admits his naivety, and their deception:
The idea of authority, which they represented, was associated in our minds with greater
insight and a more humane wisdom. But the first death we saw shattered this belief. We
had to recognize that our generation was more to be trusted than theirs. They surpassed us
only in clever phrases and in cleverness. / While they continued to write and talk, we saw
the wounded and dying, While they taught that duty to one’s country is the greatest thing,
we already knew that death-throes are stronger. (12)
By saying that his generation is trusted more than the non-soldier patriots like Kantorek, he means that without actually experiencing war first hand—that a human being is more than disposable chemicals in a mind riding a horse named soldier, they’re minds blanketed by shear ignorance (and pointless patriotism). Further, Paul looks for an answer to the reason for war, to actually explain the experience, but “never quite succeeds” (19). But, he appears to accept the fact that fighting for one’s country is the only answer to this big war mystery.
On one occasion, Paul recieves leave from the army and returns home temporarily. He finds it difficult to understand or relate well to the people back home. While the soldiers on the front desire peace and wish for an end to the hardships, the hometown non-heroes enthusiastically talk about pressing on to Paris. During an evening at the Pub, Paul respectfully disagrees with a non-soldiers opinion to march on through Paris: “I reply that in our opinion a break-through may not be possible. The enemy may have to many reserves.” Despite his informed response, the non-soldier simply “dismisses the idea loftily and informs me I know nothing about it” (167). Furthering their deception and fueling the national pride, Paul feels misunderstood and does not belong:
They talk to much for me. They have worries, aims, desires, that I cannot comprehend. I often sit with one of them in the little beer garden and try to explain to him that this is really the only thing: just ot sit quietly, like this. / They are different men here, men I cannot properley understand, whom I eny and despise. (169)
The second theme goes beyond facing harsh ridicule from the beer hall citizens; a war instead, kills a soldier’s psyche. Remarque makes this clear. Paul watched many, if not all, of his friends die. He describes his vile surroundings and tells of the atrocities non-soldiers will never see: “We see men living with their skulls blown open; we see soldiers run with their two feet cut off, they stagger on their splintered stumps into the net shell-hole. / We see men without mouths, without jaws, without faces…life is at en end. Perhaps withstanding the bouts of fear and death could renders much worse damage than from an actual bullet or a sharp bayonet.
The only redeaming quality that war can offer is, as Paul argues, is “comradeship” (26).
Comradeship is crucial for the soldiers because it helps the keep their wits, and cope with loss. Paul describes the feeling of losing these key companions as, “a vast, inapprehensible melancholy” (121). For example, one day, the French came and began attacking the village. While evacuating, Paul and his friend Kropp were hit by flying bullets. They were bandaged up and sent on a train back home. After a few weeks, Kropp's leg is wrought with infection and amputated at the thigh. Shortly after their friendship is severed by circumstance: Paul is sent back to the war, and Kropp is sent home.
The hardest loss was that of Kat. He was the last of Paul's friends to die in the war. He acted as Paul's friend and mentor, bonded by the hardships of the war. Then, in October of 1918, Paul finally fell. The book describes his death as, "...his face had an expression of calm, as though almost glad the end had come" (296). Shortly afterwards, the war ended.
In conclusion, this book does not focus on heroic stories of bravery, but instead, gives a realistic view of the hellish misery the soldiers experienced. Even though the bitter war did eventually end, and peace was reached, the soldiers who survived physically suffered broken spirits. Remarque, wants the reader to understand that war is terrible, to make sure that an abhorrent event like fighting a war, is not incorrectly associated with chivalrous honor and vital patronage.
Author Erich Remarque’s book, All Quiet on the Western Front, takes place during World War I, with Germans defending against the French. Germany's “Iron Youth,” represented by Paul Baumer and his friends, begin the war as barely-adult schoolmates who enthusiastically, naively join the war. Unaware of the harsh realities of combat, they quickly find out that war is really a living hell disguised as both earning chivalrous honor and giving vital patronage. If not dodging bullets, shunning gas attacks, or engaging in trench warfare, Paul battles the threat of starving to death and losing mental stability. Paul must face the awful reality in which he finds himself and prepare for his return, permanently changed.
This paper will focus on two unmistakable anti-war themes that Remarque uses to de-glamorize war and expose its hardships. Saturated with a clearly pessimistic picture of war, the first theme that Remarque expresses through the characters (and their attitudes) is that war is inane, yet inescapable. For example, the “Iron Youth” in this case are baited with tempting traps of implied obligation to fight for their country—whether or not they have actually seen a Frenchman, or more to the point—want to kill one. The second theme of focus is that war destroys a soldier’s psyche. Crucial comradeship for example, on the front, bestows rewarding benefits of companionship to the lonely soldier who is separated from missed family and friends. However, the precarious lifespan of these family-like army friendships (that are subject to the permanent effects of bullets, bombs, and death, etc.) is temporary. To say the least, exhaustingly and constantly dodging death, then dealing with major losses amongst comrades could only cause the soldier’s emotions to sever and his heart to harden.
The first theme is that war is horrible, yet unstoppable. In the begginning, Paul and his friends were encouraged to join and fight a war driven by intellectual adult minds, but not theirs (i.e. young soldiers who were actually doing the fighting). By mentioning Kantoreck, the academic instructor who encouraged Paul and friends to join the fight, Paul describes his frustration for such non-soldiers by describing them as people like Kantoreck who think they knew what is best, but really make no significant sacrifices or contributions (e.g. engaging in combat, offering their lives for their country, etc). In the following passage, Paul admits his naivety, and their deception:
The idea of authority, which they represented, was associated in our minds with greater
insight and a more humane wisdom. But the first death we saw shattered this belief. We
had to recognize that our generation was more to be trusted than theirs. They surpassed us
only in clever phrases and in cleverness. / While they continued to write and talk, we saw
the wounded and dying, While they taught that duty to one’s country is the greatest thing,
we already knew that death-throes are stronger. (12)
By saying that his generation is trusted more than the non-soldier patriots like Kantorek, he means that without actually experiencing war first hand—that a human being is more than disposable chemicals in a mind riding a horse named soldier, they’re minds blanketed by shear ignorance (and pointless patriotism). Further, Paul looks for an answer to the reason for war, to actually explain the experience, but “never quite succeeds” (19). But, he appears to accept the fact that fighting for one’s country is the only answer to this big war mystery.
On one occasion, Paul recieves leave from the army and returns home temporarily. He finds it difficult to understand or relate well to the people back home. While the soldiers on the front desire peace and wish for an end to the hardships, the hometown non-heroes enthusiastically talk about pressing on to Paris. During an evening at the Pub, Paul respectfully disagrees with a non-soldiers opinion to march on through Paris: “I reply that in our opinion a break-through may not be possible. The enemy may have to many reserves.” Despite his informed response, the non-soldier simply “dismisses the idea loftily and informs me I know nothing about it” (167). Furthering their deception and fueling the national pride, Paul feels misunderstood and does not belong:
They talk to much for me. They have worries, aims, desires, that I cannot comprehend. I often sit with one of them in the little beer garden and try to explain to him that this is really the only thing: just ot sit quietly, like this. / They are different men here, men I cannot properley understand, whom I eny and despise. (169)
The second theme goes beyond facing harsh ridicule from the beer hall citizens; a war instead, kills a soldier’s psyche. Remarque makes this clear. Paul watched many, if not all, of his friends die. He describes his vile surroundings and tells of the atrocities non-soldiers will never see: “We see men living with their skulls blown open; we see soldiers run with their two feet cut off, they stagger on their splintered stumps into the net shell-hole. / We see men without mouths, without jaws, without faces…life is at en end. Perhaps withstanding the bouts of fear and death could renders much worse damage than from an actual bullet or a sharp bayonet.
The only redeaming quality that war can offer is, as Paul argues, is “comradeship” (26).
Comradeship is crucial for the soldiers because it helps the keep their wits, and cope with loss. Paul describes the feeling of losing these key companions as, “a vast, inapprehensible melancholy” (121). For example, one day, the French came and began attacking the village. While evacuating, Paul and his friend Kropp were hit by flying bullets. They were bandaged up and sent on a train back home. After a few weeks, Kropp's leg is wrought with infection and amputated at the thigh. Shortly after their friendship is severed by circumstance: Paul is sent back to the war, and Kropp is sent home.
The hardest loss was that of Kat. He was the last of Paul's friends to die in the war. He acted as Paul's friend and mentor, bonded by the hardships of the war. Then, in October of 1918, Paul finally fell. The book describes his death as, "...his face had an expression of calm, as though almost glad the end had come" (296). Shortly afterwards, the war ended.
In conclusion, this book does not focus on heroic stories of bravery, but instead, gives a realistic view of the hellish misery the soldiers experienced. Even though the bitter war did eventually end, and peace was reached, the soldiers who survived physically suffered broken spirits. Remarque, wants the reader to understand that war is terrible, to make sure that an abhorrent event like fighting a war, is not incorrectly associated with chivalrous honor and vital patronage.
1 comments:
hi aaron, how come you have stopped writing? i thoroughly enjoyed this blog....:)
Post a Comment