Differences between wars
I think you must be right about the Great War's being different. Add to the absence of a clearcut moral cause the incredible degree of carnage (which All Quiet so far has touched only by indirection), and it must have been an unimaginable experience. How could they not become old almost instantly?
On the other hand, isn't some of this meant by Remarque to be a commentary not just on this war but on war in general? Would any combat situation force realites on you that would and should never happen in civilization? In fact, couldn't you say that civilization is a condition opposite to war? To go back to the "latrine passage," Paul says that "one could sit around like this for ever"--ie, nothing better can be imagined where the only alternative is the front. And then he goes on to say that even in such ironically pastoral moments, there is "in each of us a constraint," because they understand that it's merely a matter of luck or inches that they're sitting here at all.
When I contemplate past wars, I wonder if WW II was really the exception in having such a clearcut moral imperative. Could it be that the massive scale of the destructive capacity of WWI--a first in history--sort of obscures the pretty normative territorial and political motives for the war?
Comments
WWI is unique in that we see this disillusionment from all combatants, not just those whose side lost. I have found similar sentiments from the journals of Confederate soldiers and the veterans in Napoleon's army. But I haven't found this attitude in Union soldiers or from British soldiers of the Napoleonic era.
Posted by: Ruth Ann Alsobrook | June 18, 2007 04:48 PM
After a Veteran's Day honor service at the school where I taught before 9-11, a uniformed veteran came to my 2nd grade class to answer questions. After he introduced himself, an awestruck boy asked, "Did you win the war?" He answered, "Son, no one wins in war." I think that says it all.
Posted by: Teresa Tuggle | June 20, 2007 07:12 AM