Leadership in War

“Kropp on the other hand is a thinker.  He proposes that a declaration of war should be a kind of popular festival with entrance tickets and bands like a bull fight.  Then in the arena the ministers and generals of the two countries, dressed in bathing-drawers and armed with clubs can have it out among themselves.  Whoever survives, his country wins.  That would be much simpler and more just than this arrangement, where the wrong people do the fighting.” (Remarque, 41)

 

            This excerpt is taken from a conversation between the soldiers about the best way to end World War I.  Remarque makes it clear that the men feel they are fighting for a cause that is not their own, and this quote clearly illustrates that opinion.  This is contrary to the romantic view of this subject, which is that soldiers fight because they are obedient men who will gladly die for their leaders without second-guessing their motives.  Kropp and the rest of the men in All Quiet on the Western Front lost this general faith in their leaders shortly after arriving to battle.  “It’s simply amazing, I tell you, that the ordinary tommy sticks it all up here on the front line. Simply amazing!” (Remarque, 45) says Kat, astonished that average men risk their lives without any practical benefits for themselves. 

The scene of the wounded horses provides a metaphor.  “Like to know what harm they’ve done,” (Remarque, 64) says Detering, frustrated about the slaughter of the innocent horses.  The men feel the same unfairness about their own situation as the horses.  They are also unconcerned with the political motives of the war, and have little to gain but everything to lose by fighting it.  As Kropp says, “the wrong people do the fighting,” (Remarque, 41).

The quote also exemplifies an interesting statement about leadership.  Kropp mocks the national leaders by suggesting that they dress in “bathing-drawers”.  He, like the other soldiers, does not respect the men in authority over him until they earn it.  Himmelstoss and Katczinsky provide opposing examples.  When Himmelstoss mocks Paul and Kropp who are carrying the latrine bucket, he gives them strict orders when they accidentally spill it on him.  But the two refuse to follow the orders.  “…that was the end of his authority,” says Paul.  Himmelstoss did not respect his men, so his men refuse to respect him.  This is the same disrespect Kropp feels for the German national leaders, although to a lesser degree because he is at least still willing to fight.  Katczinsky is the leader of the group, and the men have great respect for him because he goes out of his way to provide for them.  When the men are hungry and without food, Kat magically appears with hot bread.  When there is a gas attack, Kat is the first to warn his men to put on their masks.  Because he cares for his men, Kat’s men respect him.  This statement about leadership is repeated throughout the book.

          Kropp’s proposal to end the war provides an example for repeated themes of respect and proper leadership.

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

Have mercy on the souls of these young men

When viewing war, soldiers are generally seen as faceless warriors sent to a foreign field for a greater cause. Besides the families directly affected by war, it is rare that people think about how these young people were “torn” from their worlds and thrown into the war. Flint’s poem, “Lament”, was able connect the effect of war on society through the lives of young men with the use of Biblical references and other metaphors.

Flint begins the poem with a discreet reference to the faith based lesson of Abraham and his willingness to sacrifice his son for a greater cause, which in that situation was the Lord’s will. At the end of the first stanza he says, “The young men of the world/ Are condemned to death/ They have been called upon to die/ For the crime of their fathers.” This could be perceived in several ways. The “crime” could refer to Adam’s picking the forbidden fruit in genesis. More realistically, it could refer to the decisions of the young men’s forefathers whose actions may have led to the war and their son’s potential deaths. Adam’s crime eternally banished humans from the Garden of Eden. By eating from the Tree of Knowledge and Truth, Adam and Eve realized how crude their situation was by living unclothed and exposing their bodies. It could be said that eating from the fruit led to war due to jealousy, competition, and other challenges brought with this newly found knowledge. The passage shows how these young men go off to war for crimes they did not commit and how they may be forced to pay the ultimate price.

As these young men go on to war, Flint describes, “The young men of the world, the growing, the ripening fruit, have been torn from their branches, while the memory of the blossom is sweet in women’s hearts.” This passage uses the specific imagery of a fruit being picked from a plant prematurely. The men are these fruits and the tearing Flint describes is more violent due to specific word choice. The fruit being picked or falling from the main plant that provides sustenance and life would have sounded more natural. This tearing could be the same motion that tears a soldier’s arm off due to the violence that war encompasses. The women in these men’s lives that are referred to are most likely the mothers that remember their sons as children, just beginning to grow into men that would be workers and fathers that would build the future society. Most of the mothers had probably not raised their sons to be slaughtered, but instead to become men similar to their husbands. Flint finishes the stanza by saying “They have been cast for a cruel purpose/ Into the mashing- press and furnace.” This means that these young men are not even considered humans by their superiors as they are thrown into deadly environments similar to a “mashing press and furnace.” The fruits of man’s labor are mankind’s greatest achievements which includes the younger generation of men.

Flint discusses how these young men are no longer in control of their action, but rather their actions control them. He wrote, “The young men of the world/ No longer possess the road:/ The road possesses them./ They no longer inherit the earth:/ The earth inherits them.” The second metaphor is referring to the Bible once again from the beatitudes, in particular “The meek shall inherit the Earth.” Flint is calling these men “meek” because they are still gentle and not yet belligerent and changed by war; however, they shall not inherit the earth because they will no longer maintain that passiveness after the war, if they survive. The earth inherits them as their bodies are put into the ground when these men are buried. These young men that entered World War I were similar to animals being sent to a slaughterhouse. They had lost control of their lives by joining the war effort. Flint’s poem was able to illustrate the abstract aspects of war that don’t always involve direct violence.

Read Full Post »

“Another Brick in the Wall”

“For us lads of eighteen they ought to have been mediators and guides to the world of maturity, the world of work, of duty, of culture, of progress-to the future.  We often made fun of them and played jokes on them, but in our hearts we trusted them.  The idea of authority, which they represented, was associated in our minds with a 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 phrases and in cleverness.  The first bombardment showed us our mistake, and under it the world as they had taught it to us broke into pieces.” (12-13)

 

            In every society the culture and ideas of that society are passed down to the younger generations.  Teachers in schools and everything the youths are involved in changes or structures how the youths will think later in life.  The society does this either subconsciously or not subconsciously.  The training and schooling of the youths is very important to a society because the youths are what will continue their legacy when they are gone and take their country father into the future causing it to be a pretty important task to teach the younger generations lessons.

            The quote above from All Quiet on the Western Front is an example of how countries or societies will influence their youth.   The quote shows that the youths in this particular case are only at war because they were influenced by their society and teachers.  In a larger view this could mean that all youths or people really go to war for their country or do things for their country because from birth they have been influenced by there societies.  The idea of societies influence has been widely spread by Pink Floyd in the song “Another Brick in the Wall”, which means that everything a society does just adds another brick to the wall separating you from who you really could be.  Teachers play a big role because they are the ones that actually do the teaching.  The idea then would mean that all war is caused by the influence an older generation had on a younger one and that all wars are fought by people, who have been influenced by there societies to do so.  In both of these cases the people may have not made the decisions they have made if they were not influenced by their societies.   War can be caused by societies influence on its people.

            The quote is important to the book because it is what causes the young group of men to join the war.  Mr. Kentorek was their teacher and had influenced them to join the war but once they get there they realize everything they had learned didn’t matter anymore and that it was all was false to what they thought.  The quote allows there to actually be a story because if the teachers and the society of the boys hadn’t influenced them they would never have gone to war.  But their wall was shattered the minute they got to the war.  Societies influence on the characters of the book led to them ultimately joining the war.

            The quote explains societies influence on its youth.  It shows how the book was able to take place as well as gives a good example of why wars may be fought.

Read Full Post »

Delights of War

Albert expresses it: “The war has ruined us for everything.”

            He is right. We are not youth any longer. We don’t want to take the world by storm….We were eighteen and had begun to love life and the world; and we had to shoot it to pieces. The first bomb, the first explosion, burst in our hearts. We are cut off from activity, from striving, from progress. We believe in such things no longer, we believe in war. (88)

 

            Erich Maria Remarque’s classic war novel is famous for its depiction of World War I and its effect on the common soldier. It relates the story of Paul Bäumer, a German soldier in the First World War. Paul and his friends join the war on a patriotic whim, expecting heroic and romantic battles. They soon come realize that war is not romantic. But amid the horrors they encounter, war becomes a part of them, and they experience the same delights of war presented by Gray in The Warriors.

           

            In his work, J. Glenn Gray states that men have multiple attractions to war. The first attraction Gray mentions is the delight in seeing. Soldiers enjoy watching war and its effects. Paul is no different. At many points throughout the novel, he marvels at what he sees on the battlefield. He describes the moving of munitions vehicles as “strangely beautiful and arresting” (57). He is moved by these guns and trucks and compares them to knights and horses. Later, in the midst of battle, he and his comrades stop fighting to watch the artillery crush the oncoming enemy attack. He is captivated by the bloodshed it causes. In spite of the horrors of the battlefield, Paul is intrigued by the sights of war.

 

            Gray’s second attraction is a soldier’s delight in destruction. Paul constantly finds himself caught up in battle, enjoying the power he has and the destruction he causes. He tells of a soldier’s “animal instinct” that is awakened upon reaching the battlefield (56). He tells of the “ferocity” they fight with that turns them “into thugs, into murderers, into…devils” (114). He also refers to the destruction caused by shelling as “amusement” (128). Paul is no longer the innocent youth he entered the war as. He now finds an innate delight in, not only watching, but also causing the very horrors of war that he is transformed by.

 

            Gray’s final attraction of war is the delight in comradeship. This is the factor that affects Paul most. The friendships he builds in war are unlike any he has ever known. He says that comradeship is the “finest thing that arose out of the war” (27). He also says that the connection he has with his comrades is stronger than that of lovers. Throughout the tragedies of war, it is these friendships that keep Paul going. He believes that his relationships with his comrades are so powerful that he is completely separate from the outside world now. He is at his happiest when surrounded by his friends, even if on the battlefield. His finds his comfort in this comradeship.

 

            Although Remarque’s novel is meant to show the horrible realities of war, it confirms all of Gray’s delights of war. The young men are no longer affected by what they were when at home. They miss their homes, but they no longer belong there. Paul finds that he is happiest when he is on or near the front, not at home. He and his comrades have found the delights of war. They no longer hold their old believes. They believe in war.

Read Full Post »

A Man’s Mind in a Youth’s Body

“Ah! Mother, Mother! You still think I am a child- why can I not put my head in your lap and weep? Why have I always to be strong and self-controlled? I would like to weep and be comforted too…” (Remarque 183)

 

            There is no question in one’s mind that War changes man, but how much does war change man? What does war change about man? The quote above is Paul Baumer’s answer to himself about his dieing mother’s advice for the war. As Paul comforts his mother that he will be alright and look out for himself when he goes back to the front, one sees that it is actually Paul who needs the comforting, not his mother who sits safely at home. It is Paul that the war has changed more than his mother. The war has changed Paul so much in fact that Paul has been stripped of his youth, forced to mature rapidly, and ultimately changes his life, especially his civilian life.

            As most recruits, Paul is most likely eighteen or nineteen, the midst of his youth, when introduced into the war. Paul never gets to go to college at the normal age, he never gets to enjoy his transformation to a young adult, and won’t have the good memories of his youth. Instead, the war will strip Paul of his youth, throw him headlong into a man’s game, and force him to mature at an abnormal rate. As seen in countless examples of war literature (for example, Red Badge of Courage,), war forces man, especially the inexperienced and immature youth, to mature quickly, or to learn quickly or die. Maturing after all is learning; without learning and experience one will not change their ways of life, therefore not maturing. When an average person is expected to learn quickly, in school per say, there is no life threatening circumstances; therefore, the person will learn by trial and error with the only threat of a bad grade if they fail. In war, when one is expected to learn quickly, one cannot fail to learn quickly for the reward is death. This is not to say that all deaths in war are the result of failure to mature quickly, but merely to suggest that many of the surviving have gone through a rapid maturity, learning the ways of war (when to duck, when to run, when to be quiet, when not to run). When one in war reflects, one will see their own transformation of maturity through their actions and thoughts. One of the most prominent ways one recognizes their own transformation is when one returns to normal civilian life.

            In All Quiet on the Western Front, Paul has a six-week leave. During this time Paul returns home to be with his family. The minute Paul steps off the train one can see how he has changed and how he will never interact with civilian life as he once did. One of his first reactions to civilian life is that of irritation. When he steps off the train is immediately bothered by a “helping” woman who offers him coffee as if they knew him, even calling him comrade. How can this woman who has never seen him and has no relationship to him call him comrade? She has nothing in common and has shared no hard times with Paul. One can see that it is no wonder that he dismisses the woman. Another obvious change to his reaction with civilian life is when he sees his family. At first he is happy and overcome with emotion, but these emotions are soon overcome with the realization of how different he has become and how he will never be able to return to living like this. Paul states, “But now I see that I have been crushed without knowing it. I find I do not belong here any more, it is a foreign world” (Remarque 168). He tries to recall the good memories of his childhood while lying in his own room, but cannot hold on to the memories. Later his father takes him to talk his buddies but Paul doesn’t enjoy the interaction with the civilians and does his best to get away. One can obviously see Paul’s dislike for normal, civilian life.

            His youth denied to him, the war forcing him to learn quickly, his distaste for civilian life, Paul nor anyone cannot doubt that the war has changed him. One can see how Paul’s maturity, due to the war, has ultimately altered his life forever. No more will Paul par take in childish games, or think in childish ways. Paul is a man in a youth’s body. His actions and thoughts are forever shaped by his maturity in the war.

Read Full Post »

The Separation of Humanity from Nature

Wilfred Owen’s poem “Futility” compares humanity and nature and their respective roles on the earth.  The poem discusses the meaning of life for both nature and man using “the king old sun” representing nature and “him” representing man, more specifically, a soldier.

Human kind’s role on the earth is unknown according to the poem when it states, “- O what made fatuous sunbeams toil/ To break earth’s sleep at all?”  This line, in translation, asks the question, “why does the sun rise to wake the earth?”  Essentially, the line is asking why God has mankind alive in the first place.

The king old sun’s role on the Earth is to provide for the rest of life.  The poem reveals nature’s role in the beginning of the second stanza, “Think how it wakes the seeds…”  The sun’s role is to wake the rest of the earth.  The sun brings life trough its light and heat to give to nature.

In the beginning of the poem, nature interacts with human kind: “Move him into the sun -/ Gently its touch awoke him once…”  Nature does its job to bring life to the earth, awakening him.  God created the sun for just this reason.

God put humankind on the earth to contribute to nature as well, but at one point, the human race broke off from nature.  There is now a distinct separation between nature and man.  To the narrator, human kind does not have a roll on the earth.  Because humans have broken away from nature, humans no longer have a roll to contribute to nature.  Selfishly, humans only contribute to themselves.  Examples of these contributions are war, science, even philosophy.

Read Full Post »

A Re-evalutaion of Man

The poem “Futility” by Wilfred Owen, utilizes the personified main subject, “the old king sun,” and its relationship to a soldier, “him,” to question man’s purpose on earth. The king old sun is responsible for waking “him” at home as well as in France. However, “this morning and this snow” it has failed. It might symbolize death, or it might symbolize the unconsciousness of the soldier. A conflict is presented.

“Are limbs so dear-achieved, are sides/ Full-nerved,–still warm,–to hard to stir?” A point is aroused that could take on a couple of meanings. One being that of a body, a fallen soldier in battle, laying motionless on the earth in an endless slumber. The other could describe mankind’s nature. The obstinacy of man to resolve conflicts. Two warring sides, each unyielding, and unable to reach an agreement of peace. “Was it for this clay grew tall?” Man was created from dust. The poem attempts to question the decisions man has taken, regarding the destruction of themselves and the earth. Is man created to fight his fellow men–enemies–at the expense of others? If so, why does the sun bother to shine?

The poem almost places man as a defiant friend to the kind and giving friendship of the old king sun. Instead of appreciating its charm, its significance, its magnitude, man has refused to acknowledge the sun. He has become ungrateful, and the question arises whether the old king sun should even shine at all. The poem goes as far as to portray the sun as foolish. Wasting its time shining its “fatuous sunbeams” on an earth where “the limbs” are too stubborn to end petty conflicts. Nature and the genesis of man are not operating in unison and the speaker questions whether it is worth continuing to try to fix.

Such is true as far as the nature of war is concerned. Many times war can be prevented. Other times it seems inevitable. But has man gone too far in his rage? He has continued to kill men, destroy the earth, and disrespect nature. The speaker of the poem hints at great points that leave readers to think about the role of man on earth as it has been played out. Man was not created for destruction. Man was not created to mistreat nature. Yet is seems to be the center of our existence. The poem uses the king old sun as an example of nature’s vitality to man. All the jobs the sun fulfills, all the things it wakes up, should not be forgotten. Man must realize the extent he has gone to in his time on earth, and attempt to correct himself. Because if the sun stops shining tomorrow, time stands still.

Read Full Post »

Expansive Comradeship

“Comrade,” I say to the dead man, but I say it calmly, “to-day you, to-morrow me. But if I come out of it, comrade I will fight against this, that has struck us both down; from you, taken life—and from me—? Life also. I promise you, comrade.  It shall never happen again.” (Remarque 226)

 In this passage from Erich Maria Remarque’s All Quiet on the Western Front, Paul Baumer is overcome by guilt after killing an enemy soldier.  Paul was hiding in a trench on the enemy’s side when another man jumped into it, and Paul stabbed him without thinking. The man does not die instantly however, and Paul is forced to spend hours hiding in the trench with the dying man.  Once he does die, Paul is so overcome by guilt that he feels it necessary to justify his actions.  While doing this, he decides there are no benefits to war.  War simply takes away life and in this fact all soldiers share a common bond.  No matter the cause they fight for, all soldiers are united by the sacrifices they make and the horrors they witness.  This quotation is extremely significant to not only the novel but to all literature of war because it explores a new facet of comradeship which crosses enemy lines. 

            This specific passage is significant to the novel because Paul is able to see the true meaning of comradeship.  Throughout the novel, it is evident Paul has a strong bond with his fellow soldiers.  At one point when he is reunited with his fellow soldiers after being separated, he speaks of the relief he finds in his comrades.  He explains, “I am no longer a shuddering speck of existence, alone in the darkness;—I belong to them and they to me; we all share the same fear and the same life, we are nearer than lovers, in a simpler, harder way” (212).  Though his connection with his comrades is strong, it is detached in a way because he must be prepared to say goodbye to any one of them because they could be killed at any time.  His comradeship extends to the enemy soldier he kills because he realizes just like his comrades who fight on the same side as him, this dead soldier also faced the same fears and made the same sacrifices as he did.  This passage is also significant to the novel because it is the first time Paul speaks directly against war.  He often speaks of the grotesque and brutal aspects of war but never really speaks out against the establishment itself.  Even when he returns home for a short leave, he still wishes to return and resents the men who did not go to war.  Paul describes his feelings saying, “I would like to be here and forget the war; but also it repels me, it is so narrow, how can that fill a man’s life, he ought to smash it to bits; how can they do it, while out at the front … the wounded are carried back on waterproof sheets and comrades crouch in the trenches” (169).  This obligation to fight is somewhat obliterated after he kills the enemy soldier and is forced to stay in hiding with him.  He begins to see war in a completely new way, as an institution which simply destroys life. 

            This passage challenges the old ideals of comradeship and war and in this way is significant to all literature of war.  Comradeship is considered to only exist between those who are fighting for the same cause.  J. Glenn Gray in The Warriors defines comradeship as “the one genuine advantage of battle that peace can seldom offer” (Gray 39).  Though comradeship in All Quiet on the Western Front still fits this definition, it goes against Grays other necessity in order for true comradeship to exist.  Gray believes that comrades must be united by passion for the cause.  Remarque never really describes the soldiers as having any true attachment to the cause, yet they still have a very strong bond with each other, which allows Paul to feel comradeship with the enemy.  Because Paul is not consumed by the cause he is fighting for, he is not limited by it and therefore feels a bond with the enemy soldier.  All Quiet on the Western Front is also very unique as a war novel in that it explores the enemy’s side.  Stephen Crane’s The Red Badge of Courage simply describes the enemy in a detached manner as “the red eyes across the river” (Crane 12) and never as a group of individuals.  Paul feels a connection with the enemy soldier because he realizes that they are both doomed by war. 

            Below the title on the cover of All Quiet on the Western Front, it reads “The Greatest War Novel of All Time.”  This is a rather extreme claim to make.  In comparison to Virgil’s Aeneid, Homer’s Odyssey and The Iliad, and many more famous stories of war is All Quiet on the Western Front really the greatest? Probably not, however it can definitely be considered in the highest of ranks of war literature.  The novel is so highly esteemed because the novel goes outside of the general perimeters of other war novels.  Feeling a connection to the enemy is only one way All Quiet on the Western Front goes beyond the expectations of the everyday war novel.  The novel’s honesty about circumstances and the thoughts of the soldiers also make it original.  The anti-war sentiment of the main character and his vowing to end war, which of course he cannot keep, also make the novel distinctive.  Though it may not be the “Greatest War Novel of All Time” it can still be considered in the highest of ranks because Remarque goes beyond the general expectation of what makes a war novel.  

Read Full Post »

Just Do It

                                                       I soon found out this much:– terror can be endured so

                                                       long as a man simply ducks;–but it kills, if a man thinks

                                                       about it. (All Quiet on the Western Front, 138)

       Remarque’s All Quiet on the Western Front works to disassemble a multitude of war myths and supposed glories. The brave soldier who charges an enemy trench is not impenetrable as the embellished stories tell. For the common man to survive, he must learn to adapt to battle, to “duck” and dodge oncoming dangers while being brave when necessary and practical. If a soldier stops to consider the greater meanings of the conflict and its impact on the men involved, he will momentarily lose the survival instincts that navigate a man safely through battle. In All Quiet, Paul Baumer comes to realize this danger which has been a widespread flaw in the characters of numerous war literature works like Hamlet and The Red Badge of Courage, and this knowledge guides him through the war.

       Man is truly in a natural state when at war due to his innate behaviors and aggression, but his high level of analysis of different circumstances often causes him to ignore these instincts and consider the situation with reasoning and sound judgment. It is precisely this reasoning that initiates a lapse in instinctual behavior and jeopardizes the safety of the man. For instance, if Paul were raiding a seemingly weak stretch of English trench with his company when a line of enemy soldiers emerged with bayonets at the ready, prepared to maul the sprinting Germans, hesitation would be deadly. The continuation of the charge could be potentially suicidal but may also yield a victory and the safety of many Germans while a retreat would save most of the men. Hesitation, however, would be a deadly mistake. Not only would the men be exposed in No Man’s Land for a considerable amount of time, but options would rapidly diminish. The enemy would be aware of the Germans’ location in the field, so a second charge would be defeated, and the men could not safely reach their own trenches. No matter if the men decide to continue the charge or retreat, the instinct which tells them which path to follow is crucial to obey.

       In a less physical sense, Paul Baumer’s catharsis is equally applicable to the consideration of mankind’s and the individual’s place in the war and his response to the conflict. Man, in literature, tends to often overanalyze the implications of war. In The Red Badge of Courage, Henry Fleming experiences a mental battle as he attempts to reconcile his performance in battle with the glorified, expected behavior of a heroic figure. He throws down his rifle and runs as if “Death [was] about to thrust him between the shoulder blades” after just the second engagement with rebel forces. He was taught about the Greek men who were ordered by their wives to either return with their shields or be carried on one, meaning that a hero must fight no matter the danger and must die honorably. Henry undergoes psychological torment in concocting an excuse for his cowardice. His initial decision to flee the battle was undoubtedly caused by his excessive thought on the subject of his bravery and whether he would hold firm or run when faced with his first taste of battle. He planted doubt in his abilities and bravery, ultimately costing him his pride. Shakespeare’s Hamlet investigates a similar dilemma. Hamlet, determined to gain revenge on his father’s murderer, Claudius, seeks an opportunity to slay the present king. Hamlet, however, is plagued by hesitation and over analysis. Upon finding Claudius praying alone and vulnerable to an attack, Hamlet begins to weigh the consequences. He finally concludes that to kill Claudius while praying would send the king to heaven while Claudius condemned old Hamlet to damnation by killing him with Hamlet’s sins still unforgiven. While Hamlet potentially has reached a valid argument, his hesitation and waste of opportunities is indicative of his excessive thought and lack of action. In the end, Hamlet kills Claudius but is killed himself, a result that may have been avoided by using strong, direct action and ignoring countering notions created by his own mind.

       Paul Baumer, an experienced veteran, understands the nature of war. When the young recruits are assigned to his company, Paul and the others must teach them that war is not as it is portrayed in history books or political speeches and demonstrations. War is an innate part of nature, an entity in which animals and humans participate alike. A man must submit to the ways of war and cast off human behavior like critical reasoning and delay in action to more fully comprehend a set of circumstances. War is natural and thus must be approached in a natural, instinctual mode in order to survive.

Read Full Post »

Using Words Appropriately

st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
<!– /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:””; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} –>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:”Times New Roman”;}

She smiles at me foolishly, so obsessed with her own importance: “Just look, I am giving a soldier coffee!”-She calls me “Comrade,” but I will have none of it. (156)

The word “comrade” is tossed around so much within literature addressing war topics that modern readers can become desensitized to its magnitude. Here, however, in Erich Maria Remarque’s All Quiet on the Western Front, the protagonist Paul Baumer expresses obvious discontent with the informal usage of the word by a French pedestrian girl. Throughout Remarque’s famous World War I novel, Paul attempts to define comradeship, through his thoughts and experiences in battle, to the best of his ability, yet this situation suggests that everyone outside of combat will never fully understand the tremendous connotations of the word. To Paul, attaining the title “comrade” involves deeds more along the lines of self-sacrifice, not serving coffee. Therefore, the discrepancies between usages of the word “comrade” by soldiers and non-soldiers can help define the inability of soldiers and civilians to fully understand one another.

To the French girl, comradeship means getting someone coffee; to Paul, he and his “comrades,” (those in his regiment both fighting alongside him and lying dead on the battlefield) are “nearer than lovers” (212). Clearly, the girl speaks lightheartedly and by no means aims to offend. However, it is as if the young German soldier wishes to proclaim the word off limits to all civilians because they simply do not understand it. In comparison, today, African-Americans use the “N word” when speaking to one another, yet become upset when a white person uses the same word because those white individuals do not understand that the meaning of the word is different to African-Americans. Basically, the gravity of the word will never be fully understood by those outside of the African-American race and is therefore upsetting when spoken. Paul also declares, “by far the most important result was that it awakened in us…the finest thing that rose out of war-comradeship” (26-27). Therefore, he and his school-mates themselves had no idea what comradeship truly was until setting foot on a battle field and entrusting their lives to one another for the first time. Obviously, the girl has never done either of these actions, so she has no friends with whom the bond is strong enough to label as “comradeship.”

The lack of connection between soldiers and civilians is not a theme unique to Remarque’s writing. This idea of soldiers being unable or unwilling to express or explain their feelings to those who have never been a part of war is one common in war-centered art forms. For example, J. Glenn Gray, a veteran of World War II, writes in his book The Warriors “Many men both hate and love combat. They know why they hate it; it is harder to know and to be articulate about why they love it” (28). In other words, veterans have incredible emotions directed at battle and there experiences therein, yet putting these emotions into words is very difficult. Therefore, only other veterans can truly connect with these emotions, for one veteran does not have to articulate his feelings well for another veteran to understand him. As further evidence, even this idea in itself is an example because upon reading these very lines from Gray’s book, a soldier can relate while one who has never seen combat can only try to understand. The opening scene from the film Saving Private Ryan also echoes this idea. An aged World War II is overcome by emotion at the gravesite in Normandy and falls to his knees. His family tries to help him out and is genuinely concerned about him. They recognize something is wrong, yet they have no idea what bothers their loved one so greatly. They will never understand exactly what images, sounds, and feelings cause the reaction; he will never try to make them understand. One can easily see, then, why Paul Baumer is disturbed by the French girl’s unfounded usage of the word “comrade.”

I honestly have no idea why my posts always have that junk at the beginning and are never in the right font.

Read Full Post »