Advertising

« Dehumanization again | Main | Irony »

Re: Dehumanization again

Dr. Allums, your question about war being in some sense humanizing for some people reminds me of Paul Fussell's World War II memoir, "Doing Battle." Fussell, who wrote the second book we'll take up in our summer series, was a vain, brilliant and callow suburban California boy who was sent to fight in Europe. He begins his narrative with this note to the reader:

Late in the afternoon of March 15, 1945, in a small woods in southeastern France, Boy Fussell, aged twenty, was ill treated by members of the German Wehrmacht. His attackers have never been identified and brought to justice. how a young person so innocent was damaged this way and what happened as a result is the subject of this book.

Fussell is being sarcastic. The subtitle of the book is called "The Making of a Skeptic." He was seriously wounded on that day, in an attack that killed the men fighting next to him. His memoir tells about how his war experience turned him into an ironist obsessed with sailing "the gulf between youth and age, innocence and experience, levity and seriousness."

Fussell's war experience also turned him into a ferocious critic of those who would valorize war. He writes:

In some letters and diaries from the [Second World] war edited by Ronald Blythe, we find a London air-raid warden describing a little boy fetched out of a fire who kept saying, "My little widdle, my little widdle," as he searched for it with his hands. But it had been burnt off. Blythe ends his anthology with a famous letter of farewell written by a flight officer to his mother. He says, "For all that can be said against it, I still maintain that this war is a very good thing; every individual is having his chance to give and dare all for his principle like the martyrs of old." Tell that to the boy who lost his widdle.

Comments

Forgive me for getting off topic, but I haven't seen any mention of the first paragraph of chapter 2 when the narrator says he has a play called "Saul" sitting in his writing table that has now "has become so unreal to me that I cannot comprehend it any more." I wonder what that play was about? Maybe it's the Old Testament Saul, the first Israelite king and somewhat reckless warrior. Or, Remarque could be referring to the New Testament Saul who had his name changed to Paul after his conversion while on a business trip to Damascus.

I lean towards the latter because of the sudden life-changing event that the narrator finds himself in. But there's a big difference between preaching redemption and becoming a soldier!

The title question: "What is War For?"

So far, the comments relate to the philosophy of war at least as much as to the literature of the novel that is the backdrop to the discussion.

My view of war is that it is a continuum within civilization. The aggressors know why they go to war and the defenders take to heart the lessons learned currently to become the next agressors. The object of the current defenders' aggression will not necessarily be the ones who wronged them, but surely the most likely victim around.

If at any time in "civilized" history no group was attacking any other group, then wouldn't our hindsight teach us that some group was already planning for and collecting the necessary resources for the next aggression?

If we can learn the answer to "What is War For?", perhaps there is an alternative to be discovered as well.

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)