Category: All Quiet on The Western Front

Context has been used throughout time and history and has influenced texts. A writer can be influenced by context and the context in how and when it the novel was produced. Erich Maria Remarque’s novel All Quite on the Western Front written in 1928, is a story of a young 19-year-old boy named Paul Bäumer, who was a German soldier that fought during World War 1, on the Western Front. Although the book is fictional it is assumed that some of the experiences from Paul are also what Remarque experienced, because Remarque was a soldier during World War 1. The constant fear and trepidation the men faced daily gave terrifying and surreal accounts of the war. The novel All Quite on the Western Front gives a detailed understanding of what war was like on the other side of the fight, we can use texts as examples of how during any type of conflict/war both sides experience the same horrors no matter the time or the participants.

The Iliad is a great example of how similar Remarque novel and Greek war literature are and how we can use knowledge of Greek war literature to better understand what it was like for the men at the front line in All Quite on the Western Front. The Iliad is a Greek poem written by Homer from 800 to 700 B.C. It tells the story of a great hero Achilles who is the bravest fight of the army of Agamemnon in the Trojan War. The story starts in the middle of the Trojan War when the commander of the Greek army steals away a young girl, Achilles being the hero of the story tells him to not be greedy and give her back, then out of spite Agamemnon gives the girl back but steals away Achilles future wife. By doing this to Achilles, Agamemnon loses his greatest fighter. Achilles’ best friend Patroclus begs him to rejoin the war to help the Greeks win, but again Achilles refuses. Patroclus continues to go to war and is killed by Hector, the great warrior of the Troys. Once Achilles hears word of this he goes back to the war and kills Hector in a big battle. Then when fighting outside of the walls of Troy, Paris hits Achilles in his only weak spot, which kills Achilles and the war continues.

Just like All Quite on the Western Front, the stories are based on the battlefield, this is very common in war literature, as the stories are about the horrific occurrences on the battlefield. Paul is constantly seen on the battlefield seeing many horrific things, “At the sound of the first droning of the shells we rush back, in one part of our being, a thousand years. By the animal instinct that is awakened in us we are led and protected”, this is just one example of what the character Paul experiences.

Paul and Achilles are the protagonists of their stories, both men have shown the reader their vulnerabilities, for Achilles, it’s the story of his mother dipping him in the river but holding him by his ankle, therefore, making that the only place he is vulnerable, whereas for Paul he is vulnerable because he is an inexperienced 19-year-old who feels lost and has nothing to go home to after the war. When Paris shoots the arrow and the god Apollo sees it as the only opportunity to kill Achilles re-routes the arrow to Achilles’ weak spot and is killed, the reader feels a sense of loss as well as relief for Achilles who was fighting in a war to avenge his only to avenge his friend, at the end of All Quite on the Western Front we also feel this sense of relief that the character doesn’t have to keep fighting in a war he doesn’t believe in.

Both stories show comradeship, for Paul it’s his friends from school and the men he meets on the front line, whereas for Achilles it’s his old friend whom he has known since he was little. Both the stories show how to get through the war the main character needs their friends, it’s their last grip on reality. Achilles’ only real grasp on wanting to live was his mother, future wife, and best friend, and continuously those things are being taken away from him, just like the soldiers in the First World War in Remarque’s novel. Paul’s friends are taken away from him one by one, each leaving its damage. When his closest friend Kat dies, the story doesn’t get any better for Paul.

“We sit opposite one another, Kat and I, two soldiers in shabby coats, cooking a goose in the middle of the night. We don’t talk much, but I believe we have a more complete communion with one another than even lovers have.”

It is evident in both stories that hubris is the main underlying theme, Agamemnon uses his power of command the chief to think that the laws do not apply to him, in the beginning of the Iliad Agamemnon is seen stealing two young women away from their homes, which even in that time was illegal. He is seen abusing his power which our hero in the story does not stand for, so he leaves the war. This is also the same in All Quite on the Western Front, Himmelstoss who was just a simple postman became a corporal for the German army. He was hungry for power and to show off his bravery to his family back at home, “Returning to the barracks he had to go along a dark, uninhabited road. There we waited for him behind a pile of stones. I had a bed cover with me. We trembled with suspense, hoping he would be alone. At last, we heard his footstep, which we recognized easily, so often had we heard it in the mornings”. Paul and his friends wait for Himmelstoss to return so that they can jump him and beat him. Paul hated his drilling sergeant because of strictness and unfairness, just like Achilles who hated Agamemnon, who treated Achilles almost the same as Himmelstoss treated Paul.

This shows the reader that no matter the side or the battle the soldiers will experience the same things, they share horror stories like for example shells dropping and they share the same closeness with friends and they also will all experience the loss of friends and loved ones. So, therefore, throughout time and history no matter the war or the side all soldiers experience the same things.

Wilfred Owen was a soldier in WW1, he was an educated man fighting for Britain on the front line. Owen was an unknown poet at the time but during his many years serving, he wrote dozens of poems which would lead to him being one of the most known war heroes of his time. Owen wrote realistic poems about what war was like for the men on the front line, he wrote about his friends dying, and he wrote about the attacks that the soldiers had to endure, just like All Quite on the Western Front it gives grim accounts of the war, as well as showcasing the fact that people who were not on the front line had no idea what it was like for them. “On the platform, I look round; I know no one among all the people hurrying to and fro. A red-cross sister offers me something to drink. I turn away, she smiles at me too foolishly, so obsessed with her importance: ‘Just look, I am giving a soldier coffee!’—She calls me ‘Comrade,’ but I will have none of it.” And just like in Dulce et Decorum Est, Owen tells how if you had seen what he had seen you would not tell children who want to be heroes that it is sweet and fitting to die for one’s country.

“My friend, you would not tell with such high zest

To children ardent for some desperate glory,

The old lie: Dulce et decorum Est

Pro patria mori.”

“This book is to be neither an accusation nor a confession, and least of all an adventure, for death is not an adventure to those who stand face to face with it. It will try simply to tell of a generation of men who, even though they may have escaped its shells, were destroyed by the war.” Remarque talks about what he lived through by using a fictional character whom the reader can assume experienced the same horrors as Remarque did. Owen and Remarque are seen to constantly draw parallels and come to the same conclusion, war is not fun and games and not something people will just forget about, like Remarque says a generation of men is destroyed by the war. Owen states in Dulce et Decorum Est

“if in some smothering dreams, you too could pace

Behind the wagon, we flung him in,

And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,

His hanging face, like a devil sick of sin;”

“– An ecstasy of fumbling

Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time,”

“It is just as much a matter of chance that I am still alive as that I might have been hit. In a bombproof dug-out I may be smashed to atoms and in the open may survive ten hours’ bombardment unscathed.”

In both of these ‘stories,’ the writers tell about how war is not something of skill, not something a man can train for and come out alive. It is something that is complete luck and if luck is not on your side then you are dead. Both of them went through the war even though they were on opposite sides they experienced the same thing as one another, which to some readers is a complete surprise, but by having the previous knowledge of what the Allis went through and then reading All Quite on the Western Front and realizing that they went through the same thing, it gives the reader a greater understanding to why the men that came home were broken from what they experienced. Because they all had the same weaponry, they all had guns and gas and grenades, but linking these two pieces of work together really sets in the reader’s mind that this happened, and many people were killed.

“He fell in October 1918, on a day that was so quiet and still on the whole front, that the army report confined itself to the single sentence: All quiet on the Western Front. He had fallen forward and lay on the earth as though sleeping. Turning him over one saw that he could not have suffered long; his face had an expression of calm, as though almost glad the end had come.” Remarque ended All Quite on the Western Front with the possibility that Paul was killed in combat, but it is not confirmed. This although not in Owen’s writing is how Owens’s own personal story ended, during a battle peacefully slipping off the earth. As the reader, I draw similarities to those stories because it shows that after all their work the men just fade away to be another war story, even though they were on opposite sides of the war.

All Quite on the Western Front without the context of World War One and other stories, still gives the reader an amazing insight into what it was like for the soldiers. But by having that context or reading it after and relating it to Remarque’s novel, it gives the reader different perspectives and realizations.

The books read in class: All Quiet on the Western Front (by Erich Maria Remarque), and Things Fall Apart (by Chinua Achebe), are books that both demonstrate the different reasons why people engage in wars. People engage in wars for reasons such as their want to display patriotism, many others believe it is the right thing to do, and the last few do not know. As we come to understand through these two readings, there are many cases where two opposite groups of people fight for different causes under the same bond. Just like the example was given, “there are many ways to build a house,” if you fight over the tools used, you will not get it built. What I did understand from both books, is how both Okonkwo, from Things Fall Apart, and Paul Bäumer, from All Quiet on the Western Front, develop their identity through the dignity and honor of those who are around them.

The book All Quiet on the Western Front is told from the perspective of a 19-year-old man named Paul Bäumer who fights for the German army during WWI on the French front. As we come to understand, it is because of “Kantorek, who preached us into enlisting,” that Paul and many of his friends voluntarily joined the army (Remarque 174). “Preaching” to the students the honor it would bring upon them to fight in the “glorious war,” the students become brainwashed, and a bandwagon is created which follows with them voluntarily enlisting themselves into the war including those students who wanted nothing to do with it. From having thought of the war as something glorious and wonderful, to living in pure and constant terror, Paul struggles to find the meaning of who he has now become and how the war has affected him. Coming to realize that, “if it has not been for Kantorek, Joseph Behm, (the boy who didn’t want to enlist) would have lived much longer” (Remarque 174) the boys are faced with the chilling reality that they could lose their lives. Taking him and his classmates 10 weeks to realize the empty cliche they have enlisted for, we come to see how war has yet again managed to mentally destroy a group of young men.

As explained in Chapter 5, this generation of students was known as “the lost generation” which resulted in having had their heads filled up by Kantorek with views of nationalism. Nationalism the self-centered belief that only one country matters was spread. This resulted in not only Kantorek’s pressure for the boys to enlist but also pressure from their parents. It was thought of as if you did not enlist for the war, you were turning your back on your country. The belief of going to war was the best thing a man could do for his country was pushed by all, teachers, schoolmasters, and older men. As it was explained, “no one in particular wants it… we didn’t want the war and yet half the world is in it all the same time” (Remarque 206). Paul and his friends did not want to kill or be killed, but it was the same pressure of society telling them what to do that got them trapped in fighting. Again we see how patriotism for one’s own country overrules the sense, as Paul says, “I see how peoples are set against one another, and in silence, unknowingly, foolishly, obediently, innocently slay one another” he goes into combat and fights in action (Remarque 263). Opposed to Baumer, his friend who just merely follows instructions, now wanting to be there maintains to himself, does not express any ideas, and continues going as he is pledging his allegiance to his country.

Erich Remarque’s harsh novel, All Quiet on the Western Front depicts the young German trooper Paul Baumer’s encounters in World War I, from his preparation to his passing in action. Nonetheless, as opposed to demonstrating how Paul develops as an individual, building up his thoughts and esteem, the novel instead indicates how Paul—alongside his combatants—endures the war by doing the inverse. The hatred of action constrain the soldiers to create a pack-like bond.

The beginning of All Quiet on the Western Front emphasizes how war destroys unique men into an entirely different character. Most life accounts are described in the first person, as the person relates his or her improvement from a child into a grown-up. In any case, Paul starts his story by talking not about himself but rather about his unit, utilizing the plural pronoun ‘we.’ From the opening, Paul absorbs into the mass—a mass, additionally, that has been diminished to roles and beast desire. The third-person plural reflects all through this first part as the officers work as a solitary unit, driven by the common wants: ‘We were becoming restless,’ ‘We were energized,’ and ‘We were in simply the correct state of mind.’ The feelings that drive this emerge not from raised assumptions but instead from the most basic animal needs. What join the men, are not the head and the heart, but the stomach and the digestion tracts—full stomachs and usual bathrooms.

To endure the disgust of war, Paul must play out a kind of personal suffering, destroying his feelings and sensitivities with the goal that all the remaining parts are, as he puts it, a ‘human animal.’ Paul portrays how he should remove himself from his feelings and depend exclusively on programmed animal impulses. In war, what influences an individual human can cost a soldier his logical soundness, if not his life. As Paul puts it, feelings—the characteristics that make up human experience—are ‘fancy enough amid peacetime.’ An officer must not just dispose of his quick, passionate responses to enduring; however, he should likewise divide his connections to the past and plans for what is to come. The war turns into the point of convergence of his nature, and his character previously or after turns into an unnecessary diversion. The main things that are an issue in the war zone are the quick physical improvements: blood, appetite, weapons, and suffering.

The men are not just animal-like in the manner in which they dismiss human feelings: The rough ways they battle for dominance through the activity of power make them brutal. In clarifying how a secondary like Himmelstoss could transform into such a harasser as a military officer, Paul’s companion and close contender, Kat, calls attention to that the military’s capacity structure draws out the animals covered up inside people. Kat contends people share more for all intents and purposes with the set of all animals than they might want to concede. When he takes part in violently crowding the clueless Himmelstoss, Paul himself outlines Kat’s point by participating in conduct more fitting to a group of beasts than to a human.

On the off chance that, as Kat contends, it is the structure of the military that is in charge of drawing out the troopers’ group disapproved, animal side, at that point maybe peace negotiation will empower these men to recover their humanity. However, for Paul, the possibility of peace negotiation does not appear to guarantee the arrival of the human network. Paul envisions that any appearance to humanized society will be a significantly distancing background, one in which ‘men won’t get’ him and in which veterans of his age will move toward becoming ‘unnecessary.’ His war experience has prohibited him from the general non-military personnel network, and now the primary type of system he can depend on is the animalism of his soldiers.

War is an experience that has physical and psychological damage on its victims. Many soldiers who have fought in war often become disconnected from their past lives and their loved ones. They may act in ways that may not seem appropriate or normal to people who have not experienced war but these actions are just the ramifications of the horrors of the war. In chapter ten of All Quiet on the Western Front by Erich Maria Remarque, Remarque shows how war makes soldiers act in extreme ways and how war can only be understood among the soldiers themselves, both of which convey Remarque’s theme that war dehumanizes soldiers so much that they become alienated from the rest of society.

In chapter ten, Remarque shows how the actions and decisions the soldiers make are difficult for civilians to understand which supports his argument that war dehumanizes soldiers and isolates them from society. At the beginning of chapter ten, Paul and his friends experience luxury for the first time in a long time. They have a shelter with mattresses and find fresh meat and vegetables. For once, they feel like regular people and feel a small semblance of humanity. While they are preparing the feast, Paul and his friends become in danger when the enemy sees the smoke from the chimney and starts firing shells. The shells “ke[pt] dropping closer and closer … around [them], [but they] still … cannot leave the grub in the lurch” (Remarque 235). Paul should be concerned about his safety but instead, he complains that “frying the pancakes is getting difficult” (Remarque 235). Regular civilians would have run away at the sound of a bomb since it is our human nature to flee from danger, but for soldiers, it is part of their daily lives. Remarque’s description of the war scene seems casual and normal since it is from Paul’s perspective. The tone suggests the shellings are just a mere interruption of the soldiers’ daily lives and they feel annoyed that the bombing is ruining their feast. Remarque shows that Paul and his friends have become so used to the bombing and danger that they would rather risk their lives to have real food for once. It may be difficult for normal people to understand why Paul chooses to risk his life for food, but for Paul and his comrades, real food reminds them of their humanity. They are determined to enjoy a meal that reminds them of their lives before the war. Later in the chapter, when Paul and Kropp are on the hospital train, Paul becomes too embarrassed to lie on the bed. The bed is covered with clean linen and Paul does not feel worthy to lay in it because he has lice. Paul asks the nurse to remove the bed covers because his “shirt has gone six weeks without being washed and is muddy” which makes him “feel like a pig” (Remarque 246). The nurse laughs at Paul and says that the least she could do for him is to wash the sheets after he uses them and jokes that even the lice can have a good day. In this scene, Remarque shows how war has dehumanized Paul so much that he feels he does not deserve a basic, clean bed. Remarque also shows how the nurse does not understand Paul’s reluctance to get in bed to show how people who do not experience war can not understand a soldier’s decisions. The nurse’s joking manner contrasts how ashamed Paul is, and shows how Paul feels isolated from society because she does not understand him. A similar instance occurs when Paul needs to use the bathroom. He feels embarrassed again to tell the nurse he needs to use the restroom. The nurse has to help Paul articulate his needs by asking him, “[l]ittle or big” (Remarque 249). Remarque shows again how Paul feels uncomfortable asking for the bathroom to demonstrate how war has impacted Paul to feel like he should not ask someone as “wonderful and sweet” (Remarque 248) as the nurse to use the bathroom because he is a lowly soldier. Again, the nurse does not understand Paul’s hesitance to ask for the bathroom as she simply asks “Little or big?” This scene is another example of how soldiers and civilians are separated because civilians have been psychologically impacted by war. In these scenes, Remarque uses Paul’s actions to show that soldiers may act in questionable ways, but that is only because war has dehumanized them.

Remarque further demonstrates how war dehumanizes soldiers leaving them isolated from society when he shows the comradeship between the soldiers. When Paul is in the hospital, he is placed in a room with Josef Hamacher. Josef covers for Paul when the hospital inspector asked who threw the bottle. Paul does not know Josef and is curious as to why he covered for him. When Josef says that he has a shooting license, they “all understand. Whoever has the shooting license can do whatever he pleases” (Remarque 253). Remarque shows a bond the soldiers have when they understand Josef’s reasoning immediately. Josef covering for a stranger is also an example of how soldiers are bonded together. Remarque also shows the importance of comradery when Albert’s leg is amputated. He becomes depressed and would rather shoot himself than live without a leg. Paul believes that “[i]f [Kropp] were not here with [them] he would have shot himself long ago” (Remarque 268). In the doctor’s eyes, he has just saved a life, but Kropp feels the opposite. Remarque shows how Albert feels worthless because, without his leg, he can no longer fight in war. Remarque also shows how if Paul had not been there for Kropp, Kropp may have not survived. The comradeship between the soldiers is all Kropp has left since the war has changed him forever. In both of these scenes, only the soldiers understand each other. The nuns do not understand why the soldiers do not want their prayers and would rather sleep, but among themselves, the soldiers do. Albert relies on the soldiers in the room after his amputation because no matter how clean and safe the hospital is, it would be a foreign environment without his friends. The war experienced has created a distance between the soldiers and society.

Remarque uses Paul, Kropp, and the other soldiers to “tell of a generation of men, who even though they may have escaped shells, were destroyed by war” (Remarque). The war has destroyed an entire generation of young men like Paul, leaving them “lost”—physically and psychologically damaged and unable to return to their past lives or society. Remarque writes that even if they manage to escape the shells, the experiences they have had permanently transformed them, leaving an unbridgeable divide between the young men who fight and the communities they have left behind.

Chapter 1: Why is it Ironic that Kantorek refers to the men as the “Iron Youth”?

The Irony in “Iron Youth”

Kantorek refers to the men as “Iron Youth” because they are willing to do anything for their country. The “Iron Youth” describes a strong German man, who will fight to protect his country. When the men have read what Kantorek wrote to them, they think, “ Youth! We are none of us more than twenty years old. But young? Youth? That is long ago. We are old folk” (Remarque 18). The men are bitter about the term that Kantorek refers them to because the term does not accurately describe what their experiences were in the war. The men discover quite quickly that they are no longer children and must mature because they have faced the hardships of defending their country, and they no longer believe that they are “iron youth”.

Chapter 2: Why are Kemmerich’s boots significant?

The significance of Kemmerich’s boots

Kemmerich’s boots have an extremely significant value because the boots represent the insignificance in human life when it comes to survival during the war. After Kemmerich dies, Paul “…give[s] [Müller] the boots…[and] they fit well they fit well” (Remarque 33). Paul collected all of Kemmerich’s belongings and gave the boots to Müller because he had asked for them. Müller had been asking for the boots ever since Kemmerich was admitted into the infirmary, and when Müller got them, he had forgotten that they had belonged to someone else. No one spent any time grieving their friend’s passing. Immediately after Kemmerich’s death, Müller wears the boots as if nothing happened, which shows that human life has no value during the war, but a pair of boots does.

Chapter 3: Why is it ironic that Paul and his friends refer to themselves as “stone-age veterans” when they compare themselves to the recruits?

The irony in “stone-age veterans”

It is ironic when Paul and his friends refer to themselves as “stone-age veterans” because they are only ages 19 through 20, and the reinforcements are the same age or older. As the recruits walk in, “Kropp nudges [Paul]: ‘Seen the infants?’”(Remarque 35). The men watch the recruits walk in, and they try to show off their masculinity and maturity towards them. Paul and his friends refer to themselves as the “stone-age veterans” because even though they are similar in age, the recruits have not seen what Paul and they have seen before. They haven’t seen the horrors of the war but Paul and his friends have suffered through all of it and have witnessed many horrifying things.

Chapter 4: How does the scene with the horses move beyond the mere death of an animal? Is there something symbolic or representative of a larger idea in this scene?

The Symbolism of Horses to Death

The death of the horses symbolizes the death of innocence in mankind. One comrade believes that horses have a soul of innocence and are beautiful creatures. A young comrade had been severely injured and couldn’t survive, he was just “‘Young [and] innocent——’”( Remarque 73). During an attack, a young comrade had been injured so badly, they needed to put him out of his misery. The horses symbolize all the young men fighting for their country. Most of them are 20 years old or younger and are full of innocence. They have barely experienced what life has to offer and will not be able to anymore.

Chapter 5: What dreams do the various members of the group have about going home? What do these dreams tell you about their characters? 2 chunks

The Dreams of the Comrades

The members talk about what dreams they have for their lives outside of the war. Detering dreams about “‘…harvesting’” when he gets home (Remarque 80). He is worried about his farm back home because his wife is the only one looking out for it. Detering dreams about going back to his old life, working and doing something he enjoys at the same time. His dreams show us that he is human and has the same desires as anyone else fighting in the war.

Unlike Detering’s dream to go back home and work, Kropp dreams about going back home and doing nothing but getting drunk. The men tell him to respond seriously, but Kropp says “What else should a man do?” (Remarque 77). Kropp has no hope for when he returns home, he believes that he should just do nothing because he’s going to die anyway. Some of the other members have hope for when they go home, but Kropp thinks that he should drink and do nothing worth his time because everyone dies one way or another.

Chapter 6: To what level are the men reduced during an attack?

Wild Beasts during an Attack

The men stoop down to a level of greed when it comes to life because, on the war front, the goal is who can survive. The men “…have become wild beasts. [They] do not fight, [they] defend [themselves] against annihilation” (Remarque 113). Paul says that they have become wild beasts now because they no longer sit and wait helplessly, they attack and kill if it means they will make it out alive. The men have never been greedy during the war; they share food, and supplies, and give each other support. Now they are defending themselves against death and have become greedy with life because they want to survive.

Chapter 7: Why does Paul say he should never have gone on leave?

Paul’s Regret Going on Leave

Paul’s coming home had brought all these feelings and memories back to him, making him feel emotionally unstable. Paul is finally at home with his family, “But a sense of strangeness will not leave [him]” (Remarque 160). He feels strange being back at home because now he faces reality, with his mom being ill and his family not being able to make enough. Coming back home put a pause in his life on the front. At home, he feels a rush of emotions coming to him because on the front they turned their emotions off to focus on fighting but now at home his mother’s illness makes him sad, and speaking with Kemmerich’s mother as well.

Chapter 8: What is wrong with Paul’s mother? What is the author’s purpose in including his mother’s condition?

Paul’s Mother’s Condition

Paul’s mother was diagnosed with cancer and the doctors are unsure if it can be cured. Paul’s father doesn’t want to ask how much surgery would cost because then “‘— the surgeon might take it amiss and that would not do; he must operate on Mother”(Remarque 197). They are unsure of the cost of surgery but could not even think to ask the doctor because he might back out of doing it. Paul’s father works so hard, even when he is tired and overworked, but he doesn’t know if they have enough money to pay for the surgery, and that makes them feel bitter. Paul wishes he could help them, but there is nothing he can do because people look down on poor people.

Chapter 9: Why is Paul so affected by Duval’s death?

Duval’s effect on Paul

Paul kills an enemy man, Gérard Duval, for the first time and is overwhelmed with guilt. Paul repeated over and over again “‘I want to help you, Comrade…’” to Duval (Remarque 220). Paul brutally stabbed an enemy man, who fell into a pit that Paul was hiding in and was guilt-ridden about what he had just done. Paul had never felt this way before. He kept trying to keep Duval alive and begged for forgiveness. This guilt changed the way Paul feels about killing; he never wanted to kill him, and he never wanted to be enemies either, he just wants everything to be over.

Chapter 10: What role does God/Religion play in this novel?

Religion to the Comrades

God and religion were played by an absence of faith within the soldiers. At the Catholic Hospital, the sisters were saying prayers for the men but the men kept telling them to “‘Shut the door’”(Remarque 251). The sisters say prayers every morning, with all the doors open, so everyone can get their share of prayers. The men have faced the deaths of their friends and comrades, and there has never been a God to save them. They had never said prayers to God because such horrific things were happening, how did they even know he existed or was helping them?

Chapter 11: How and why does Kat’s death impact Paul so greatly? What larger ideas does Kat’s death help the reader better understand about war?

Kat’s Death

The death of Kat impacted Paul so greatly because they were the last two men to survive everything they had been through together. Kat was one of Paul’s only remaining friends, so “When Kat is taken away [he] will not have one friend left”(Remarque 288). Kat was always there for Paul; when Paul was a young recruit, he looked out for him and gave him extra food so Paul could not bear to see his close friend go too easily. In a way, dying seems to be an upgrade rather than living during the war because now Paul has no one and he feels he doesn’t have anything to live for in his life.

Stanislaus Katczinsky

He is resourceful (can scrounge up sustenance in remote places), efficient, smart, and reliable, the boys listen/look up to him and trust his judgment.

“I’m sure that if he were planted down in the middle of the desert, in half an hour he would have gathered together a supper of roast meat, dates, and wine.” (Remarque, {33})

[His words] cut clean through the thought. (page 54)

We see how in different situations, the boys look at him to see how things might go. He has been in the front far longer than them, they notice his mood changes while they are at the front and are usually accurate.

He hates the fact that they are making kids fight and lose their lives in a war they have no business in. He sees no use in it. “Give them the same grub and equal pay, the war would be over in a day(page 41)

Very smart, and says intellectual things for just a shoemaker. (page 43)

He likes to talk.

He and Paul are very close despite the age gap. The war doesn’t care about age. “A glance at Kat – a glance from him to me; understand one another.

He would let a solider of his pain but not a horse(63)

He still gets nervous (65)

Such a kid, young innocence (pg 73)

He cares for these boys as they are his. Paul has a son-like devotion to Kat

Towards the end, he becomes a bit more morbid.

We do not hear much from him until he dies. He loses his love of talking perhaps.

He changes because he thinks too much. He thinks more deeply about the war and what it means and that makes him sad.

I connect to Kat in the sense that I too stop and think (too much) he detests the war and hates that young lives are being lost.

If he hadn’t been made a nice officer, the theme of comradeship would have held less water. He is there to show an old person’s view of things, that they aren’t all bad. It could have been a very old vs young theme. If he wasn’t smart or resourceful, he wouldn’t have held much respect from the boys, and wouldn’t have been close with Paul. Only after his death do we see that Paul really mourns, with out his character, we might have seen Paul as very indifferent to death, but he isn’t, he has to be so he doesn’t go indane but he lets himself break for Kat.

Contributes to the theme of a senseless war and comradeship. The ideals of war, he fights with a heart like any of them, he has a great comfort with the ideals of war.

With his difference in age and maturity. the war has made them equals, brothers almost. He was some influence on there thoughts whenever whenever they talked about the war.

Character development and analysis

Chapters discussed: Chapters 1-11

Stanislaus ‘Kat’ Katczinsky is known for his intelligent mind and the father-like relationship he cultivates with the boys. He is respected as a leader among the men in his squad due to his height in age, maturity, and knowledge of the front. He is resourceful and reliable, hence why Paul acknowledges how lucky he is to have him at his back. Kat is very well-spoken as “[his words] cut clean through the thought.” (Remarque, 54), and his take on the war greatly influences what the other men think as they respect and trust his instincts. Kat is a scavenger; he can find food, clothes, and other necessary supplies in places others can’t. He has a sixth sense about the outcome of a battle, making him a treasured asset to Paul and the other boys. They follow his lead, like in the case of Ginger the cook. It took him challenging the cook to serve them their meal before the other men began to back him up in getting their fair share of rations.

Kat valued life and although he fought as was his duty, didn’t agree with the ideals of war. We see this within the conversation amongst the men about the senselessness of the war, and those who gain from the bloodshed. He says with contempt that “there must be some people to whom the war is useful.” (205). Having taken on a similar role of a guardian to the boys, it pained him to watch them lose their innocence and to see the war tear them apart inside out. As Paul said “[they] no longer young men…[they] were eighteen years old, and [they] had just begun to love the world and to love being in it, but we had to shoot at it. The first shell to land went straight for [their] hearts.” (88) We can tell how much Kat loves them, as he doesn’t refer to them as boys, but as comrades.

Kat’s character is developed throughout the book as his love of talking is seen less. It seems like the ‘kat’ got his tongue as the book progressed as there are fewer conversations he speaks in. This happened because he let the war and the hostility of it all get to him. They could cope with all the horror as long as they didn’t think about it much and relive the scenes in their heads. He got too deep in his thoughts, let them consume him and he lost his way a bit at the end. Seeing the boys die one by one throughout the war took a toll on him and he began to lose hope. His words become a lot more morbid towards the end.

Readers can easily connect with this character in the sense that sometimes when experiencing traumatic events, people tend to get in over their heads and start to brew hate from within, comparable to how Kat held the higher officials in great contempt. It could turn into an unhealthy spiral. Another factor in this character that makes him relatable is the way he takes Paul and the other boys under his wing. People have that hero instinct in them and always want to help the helpless. When they were first sent to the front, they must have been just like the recruits; clueless. Yet, Kat takes them not as subordinates but as equals and teaches them all they need to know to survive. Most readers, just like Kat, are against the ideals of having a war and wasting young lives.

Kat plays a huge influence on the novel’s theme. If he hadn’t been very dependable and helpful, Paul would have never made such a tight bond with him, weakening the story’s theme of the trenches bringing everyone down as equals. With all the time they spent together, Kat and Paul were able to form this unique bond that they wouldn’t have had otherwise if they had met outside of the war due to their age gap. Their unique friendship is obvious when Paul mentions “a glance at Kat – a glance from him to me; understand one another” (51). Another reason for his character was to contribute to the motif of a senseless war. He fights with heart and bravery just like the rest of them but is in great contempt for the people who started this war but are making the wrong people fight. He wished they weren’t forced to kill and die and thought if “[given] the same grub and equal pay, the war would be over in a day (41). He just wanted peace to reign over all the bloodshed and it is a shame he didn’t live to see it happen. Any difference in character could have had a different effect on the book. If he hadn’t been written to be kind of heart, the theme of comradeship would have held less water because he shows that friendship can be bred anywhere and among any type of person. Kat is there to show an old person’s view of the war, and that they aren’t all bad. It could have been a very ‘old vs young’ theme if he didn’t become close to Paul and his fellow soldiers. If he wasn’t smart or resourceful, he wouldn’t have held much respect from the boys, and wouldn’t have been close with Paul.

His death is an abrupt end to an already depressing chapter. By then, he seems to know he is dying as when Paul speaks of meeting again once the war is over, he doesn’t attempt to give an address or number. He makes no big profession of wisdom and his last words are just words. At war, the soldiers are left to leave their lives in the hands of Chance so they can’t prepare for their death, they don’t know their last words will be their last. With his sixth sense, he sensed his time had come and wanted to go in peace in a place where there was none. Paul might have learned to guard himself against his emotions, but it is obvious that Kat had left a mark in his life and he would do anything to get his friend back.

“War is the greatest plague that can afflict humanity, it destroys religion, it destroys states, it destroys families” (Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr). During World War I many people joined the war to have money to provide for their family, not knowing what they were getting themselves into. The “Lost Generation” was what people called those who grew up during the war, which played a vital role in not just the ways that they were viewed by others, but the way they thought of themselves. In the novel All Quiet on the Western Front, by Erich Maria Remarque, war degraded the innocence of youth into animal-like beings. Paul, the main character, sacrifices everything in his life, for nothing in return, except a life of horror and misery. Throughout the war Paul and his comrades lose their sense of hope, their sense of humanity, and sense of purpose in the world.

Initially, before Paul and his friends joined the war, they wanted to get out of school as fast as possible and longed for the respect associated with being older. To their schoolmaster, they are considered “Iron Youth”, but they don’t like that association. During their first few weeks in the war, Paul and his friend realize that joining the war may not have been the smartest choice after all. Trying to cope with their longing for home and their innocent childhood, Paul exclaims “Our early life is cut off from the moment we came here, and that without our lifting a hand. We often try to look back on it and to find an explanation, but never quite succeed” (Remarque 19). What might sound like a good experience at first, undoubtedly negatively affected them in return. When Paul and his friends joined the military, without doing a thing, they were stripped of their identity and connection to the things that they loved. That has always been the notion of the military, but when trapped by blind nationalism from their schoolmaster, there was no turning back. Joining the war is not an easy choice to make and the fact that Paul didn’t realize how he was tricked by false information, truly takes a toll on him throughout the war. Paul struggles to find the sole reason why he joined the military, cutting himself off from his past and trying to cope with his life choices. This is the reason why nationalism played a key role in the increase of military enlistment during World War I people didn’t realize the truth about what others were telling them regarding the war and joining the military. The people whom Paul once considered to be his friends are now his comrades in war. When Paul and his comrades are reflecting on their time in the military, Paul says, “We are not youth any longer. We don’t want to take the world by storm. We are fleeing. We fly from ourselves. From our life…We are cut off from activity, from striving, from progress. We believe in such things no longer, we believe in war” (87). At this very moment, Paul and his comrades realize that they are not youth anymore. Growing up as an innocent child is about striving and dreaming about the future. Now in war, the only future that they can think about is surviving another day. That sense of hope for Paul and his comrades is no longer, only thinking about the ideals of survival. As Paul said, “We don’t want to take the world by storm”(87), rather one day at a time. This idea of not thinking about the future truly holds Paul and his comrades back from any sense of hope. This causes them to fall into a hopeless daily cycle and experience the horrific ideas and philosophies of war. Before enlisting in the war, they were just starting to love their lives and had hopes and dreams for the future, but once they got their guns, they had no choice, but to shoot their hopes and dreams into pieces. Now, all comrades are the same, with little that sets them apart, constantly trying to grasp and cherish the last bit of their identity that they still have. This is what keeps these comrades from emotionally surviving the war every day. Without one spark to fuel their hope, they cannot hold up during the war, nor maintain their sanity.

After being sucked into the horrors of war, Paul and his comrades lose their attachment to their family and their grasp of humanity. Sitting in the trenches when no shots are ordered to be fired, all they can do is sit still and grapple with their emotions, attempting to cope with the horrors that fester their inner spirit. This moment of silence is especially hard for Paul because he constantly recollects life’s hardships, which takes an enormous toll on Paul’s inner self because this is something that he doesn’t usually do often. Reflecting on the past and trying to accept what he can’t recover from his once innocent self. Paul acknowledges the truth about himself and his comrades “We are forlorn like children, and experienced like old men, we are crude and sorrowful and superficial – I believe we are lost” (123). At this point in Paul’s life in the war, he feels that he no longer has a sense of purpose. After being heavily tormented by the war, Paul and his comrades are completely worn out and they believe that there is nothing that they haven’t seen before. Paul and his comrades have experienced more death in one day, than others not in the war experience in a lifetime. Though these boys are young, they feel old, due to all that they have gone through and the intense strength and wisdom that is needed to survive the war. To Paul, his conglomeration of experiences can only be described as “lost”, which ironically directly correlates with the term that others called these types of comrades during the war, “The Lost Generation”. Although it is a simple term, Paul and his comrades truly feel that they are lost and are incapable of breaking free from the horrors of war, which masks their identity, the only thing that encourages them to fight one more day. By now, Paul and his comrades do not care about the life stories that they have stripped from their enemies and no longer see their enemies as human. Paul recognizes that “We have become wild beasts…we can destroy and kill, to save ourselves, and be revenged…If your father came over with them you would not hesitate to fling a bomb into him” (Pn). Paul and his comrades now are no longer truly immersed in the idea of war, but rather in the ideals of survival. To them, survival is greater than the idea of family or anything else that they used to cherish and love. They are in the mindset that they can’t properly distinguish between another being and their own family or comrade. It has come to the point when this blindness is affecting not just the way that they look at the war, but the way that they view their purpose in the world.

After “living the war” for a great deal of time, Paul and his surviving comrades feel as if they know nothing except for war. This prevents them from continuing their life from before the war, as they are constantly trying to find a motive and a purpose for continuing to live. By the time Paul returns home on leave during the war, he feels no connection to the things that he previously loved. Paul currently is unable to physically recognize a place that he can call “home” and feel that he is safe and at ease. Paul time and time again tries to convince himself that he is not currently at war and that everything is okay when Paul “say[s] over to [him]self: ‘You are at home; you are at home.’ But a sense of strangeness will not leave me, I can find nothing of myself in all these things. There is a distance, a veil between us” (pn). Although coming home for a break from war might sound like a good thing to most, it feels like torture to Paul. Coming back to what Paul once called home is harder for Paul than actually staying in the dreadful trenches. Coming “home” and distancing himself from his family of comrades that he feels a true connection to, is the hardest for Paul because in war he and his childhood friend all are experiencing the same thing. Coming home, no one can understand or even imagine what Paul went through. This left Paul sitting alone and attempting to cope with his overflowing emotions and experiences, having no one to empathize with or support him. What Paul once considered a safe space, now feels no different than the dreadful and mellow atmosphere in the trenches. Paul cannot recognize that he is currently not in the war and feels a disconnect from his earlier life before the war. The feeling of not belonging results in a feeling of no purpose in the world and no desire to live life. Having this stranger-like perception, constantly diminishes and corrodes Paul’s connection to his family, distancing himself from what he felt used to matter most. By the time Paul is the last one left from his comrades whom he felt a true connection with, Paul is left with mountains on his shoulders trying to find one little spark of hope. At this point, Paul is helpless and feels that he has no meaning or purpose to live. Paul would much rather die than live with these horrors that are engraved into the roots of his identity. This scar is one that he will have to live with every day, a tragic experience that can never be undone. Paul lies down and says “Let the months and years come, they can take nothing from me, they can take nothing more. I am so alone, and so without hope that I can confront them without fear” (295). At this point, when Paul lost everything and has hit rock bottom point in his life, he demonstrates that he doesn’t even have a spark of hope inside him, due to giving his life and inner spirit solely to the war. Paul feels that nothing more can be taken from him because he has nothing left to give. Paul has lost everything and at this very moment, he realizes that his hopes for his future before the war, can now never be truly fulfilled. Whatever motivation to push forward he ever had, has now been drained, never to be regained again. Paul no longer fears war because the enemy cannot take anything else from him, a horror he once dreaded.

From the whole spirited “iron youth” to the embittered “stone-age-veterans” of the lost generation, Paul has lost everything in life and all he got in return was living in his misery. “It can take years to mold a dream. It takes only a fraction of a second for it to be shattered” (Mary E. Pearson). Every dream Paul had ever had, had been taken away from him the moment he stepped on the front. War has stripped Paul and his comrades of their humanity, transforming them into animal-like beings, willing to kill their friend for survival. War changes people and that is a fact. Paul and his comrades no longer can live their lives without a struggle, due to their forever-taken innocence, hope, and feeling of purpose in the world.

Work Cited

1. “War, What Is It Good For? – How Should Christians Deal With War?” Hope 103.2, 19 Dec. 2018, hope1032.com.au/stories/open-house/2018/war-what-is-it-good-for-how-should-christians-deal-with-war/.
2. Forman, Gayle. If I Stay. Penguin Random House LLC, 2019.
3. Pearson, Mary. The Kiss of Deception: the Remnant Chronicles; Book 1. Square Fish, Henry Holt, and Company, 2015.

A comparative analysis of Erich Maria Remarque’s “All Quiet on the Western Front (Western Front),1928” and John Steinbeck’s “The Grapes of Wrath (Grapes), 1939” provokes the audience to reconsider their understanding of morality. Set during WWI, Remarque explores the demoralizing corruptions of war by mirroring his personal experiences at the Western Front. Steinbeck’s Grapes, set during the 1930 American Dust Bowl, is constructed through the Joad family’s tribulations, considering their dehumanization in a period of societal crisis. Despite the difference in context, both texts thoroughly explore means of combating dehumanization in times of disaster, with companionship presenting at the crux of survival. In doing so, both composers explore society’s reliance on companionship as a coping mechanism against the exploitation of an inferior class through stratified power.

Both Western Front and Grapes explore the impacts of dehumanization of an inferior class in the presence of corruptive exploitation. In Western Front, Remarque establishes his opposition to war through the first-person perspective of the protagonist, reflecting on his own experiences in WWI. His encounters mirror this stance in the novel, essentially recounting the horrific reality behind the glorified war heroes. The use of emotive language in Chapter 1 “…the first death we saw shattered this belief…” provokes the audience to empathize with the cruelty against Paul, augmenting the psychological impacts of corruption. As he later weeps “…you are poor devils like us…you could be my brother” after killing his enemy, the psychological trauma as a result of corrupt propaganda is exhibited through Paul’s metaphorical outburst. His realization contrasts the prior romanticized conceptions of war, conveying a sense of injustice and betrayal, thereby engendering the hypocritical corruption by superiors in a stratified society. By conveying a text-to-world connection, this corruption prompts a deeper understanding of historical events by readers. Subsequently, Remarque engages readers to gain a deeper insight into their judgment of changing human ethics. The differing context of Steinbeck’s Grapes results in the same theme of dehumanization by corruptive power being conveyed through dialogue instead. A realistic portrayal of the Oklahomans through their southern dialect provides authenticity to the characters, which consequently allows the audience to sympathize with the characters’ hardships. When Ma Joad recounts “…them people…Made me feel ashamed…An’ now I ain’t ashamed…Why, I feel like people again” in chapter 22, she creates a comparison between two separate times, similar to Western Front, though contrastingly characterizing the past with the dehumanizing encounters of hardship. Referring to the disingenuous landowners as “the people” and relating it to her shameful transformation, Ma Joad emotionally deliberates the exploitation of her people as inferiors, which also evokes empathy from the audience. This is furthered through a biblical connotation in Chapter 2 “crushed its hard skull-like head” where man’s violence toward insects parallels the landowners’ treatment towards farmers. Both Western Front and Grapes explore the dehumanizing impacts of corrupt stratification in separate periods of disaster through a differing sense of intimacy to emphasize the composer’s values regarding the actuality of turpitude.

The similar ruinous contexts of both Western Front and Grapes are continuously emphasized through threats against the protagonists’ survival. Through the metaphor of the protagonist as “human animals,” in Western Front, Remarque illustrates the psychological transformation Paul and his comrades undergo to survive the front. Their transformation into beasts implies the sacrifice of thought and human qualities, instead relying wholly on animalistic instincts. This is evident through Paul’s dialogue, “You were only an idea to me before, an abstraction” as he weeps for an enemy he killed. Remarque’s metaphor urges the audience to comprehend the psychological devastation that wreaks on a soldier’s humanity, acknowledging the disintegration of humanity as a mechanism of survival, which is further shown through the repetition of “Meyer is dead, Max is dead, Beyer is dead…” The evident suppression of human emotions as a necessity of survival confronts the audience as ethical beings, challenging their perception of emotional adversity in different contexts. Steinbeck’s Grapes, in contrast, challenges the reader to reconsider their judgment of what comprises adversity. The composer develops this through the biblical allusion “to put something of Manself, and to Manself take back something of the wall…For man…walks up the stairs of his concepts.” The highly stylized linguistics, grandeur, and repetition in the biblical allusion appeals to the morality of the audience. While the language illustrates its significance, the content is evocative of the biblical parable: man builds himself through toil. Steinbeck’s commentary on coping with struggle through a realistic recounting of survival based on the acknowledgment of dignity greatly influences the audience’s perception of coping mechanisms. This philosophy of survival greatly clashes with the morals of the Western Front, which Remarque explains as a transforming agent. However, the contrasting approaches in representing struggle enable each text to challenge various morals.

The significance of companionship in portraying human connections during disaster is engendered in both Western Front and Grapes. By delving into the featured bond of mankind in a time of war, Remarque didactically exhibits the interdependence of soldiers, prompting the audience toward an understanding of basic morals. The accumulative imagery in Chapter 5, “two men, two-minute sparks of life; outside…the circle of death. We sit on the edge of it crouching in danger…” emphasizes Paul and his comrade’s irrefutable relationship; their bond is idolized by Paul, signifying the criticality of intimacy. This is emphasized through a passionate tone and dialogue as Paul utters “more complete communion with one another than even lovers have,” analogizing their comradeship to the acknowledged intimacy of lovers. The comparison allows the audience to comprehend the consequential unity from desperation, injecting a sense of poignant pathos. Remarque imparts a sense of reverence regarding camaraderie by eulogizing this solidarity during hardship. The intimate dialogue used to represent companionship in the Western Front heavily contradicts the broad, impersonal mechanism in Grapes. By interspersing intercalary chapters through his narrative, Steinbeck communicates various interpretations in his general descriptions of situations in Grapes. The impartiality of this abstraction reinstates a bond between audience and text, which – though dissimilarly from the Western Front – spurs a sense of connection between the fictional and real world. The parallel structure of “…twenty families became one family…loss of home became one loss” in chapter 17 exemplifies an utter allegiance, prompting the audience to empathize with the richness of companionship. It represents the importance of coalescing between communities to cope with the shared hardships – a concept mirrored in reality. Further on, the aphorism, “children were the children of all” emphasizes the sanctity of communing generations through toil, by connoting the biblical allusion in its prose. The aphorism imparts this fellowship as a moral, compelling the audience to reconsider its significance. The mechanism of companionship throughout disaster is represented contrastingly by Western Front and Grapes, regarding interpersonal and intertextual connections with the audience, hence explicating morals

As fiction mirrors reality, it has the power to challenge the reader as a moral being. Western Front and Grapes explore the dehumanization in separate periods of adversity. Through differing techniques, they exemplify the overarching companionship developed in each narrative as a mechanism of survival. The composers consequently explore society’s reliance on companionship as a coping mechanism against the exploitation of an inferior class through stratified power to challenge the audience as moral beings.

The senselessness of war affects even the best of people and turns them into people you wouldn’t be able to recognize. In the novel, All Quiet On The Western Front by Erich Maria Remarque, the main character Paul Baumer gets sent to fight in the German war where they did not have the best fighting technology. This led to many tragic incidents taking place and Paul being severely affected by them. Throughout the novel, Paul starts questioning if war is really necessary. Paul begins to believe war is senseless like when he is forced to kill a French soldier who jumped into his shell hole, and when Paul witnesses all of his friends die, and how leaders create wars, yet they do not fight in them.

Paul first starts realizing war is senseless when he is forced to kill a French soldier named Gerard Duval. Pauls’s mental health is getting worse when he says, “My state is getting worse, I can no longer control my thoughts” (222). After Paul has his interaction with the French soldier, he has a conversation with his best friends about how war is senseless. In this conversation, they all agree that powerful leaders create wars that they don’t fight themselves and that’s what makes war senseless. After Paul kills the French soldier, he feels emotions he’s never felt before but then is brought back to the reality of war, “With one bound the lust to live flares up again and everything that has filled my thoughts goes down before it” (226). Paul realizes he cant hold onto such harsh emotions from something he was forced to do. He feels as though he cannot let something that he was forced to take over him and control his emotions. Paul concludes that war is senseless because of the terrible emotions he feels.

Paul’s most important things in the war were his friends who turned into family, but when they all started dying, Paul realized how much they impacted his life. Paul’s close friend Muller died after being shot in the stomach and Paul received two items that impacted him, “Before he died he handed over his pocket-book to me, and bequeathed me his boots-the same that he once inherited from Kemmerich” (279). Paul receives belongings that once were passed on through his friends, and they hold a sentimental value that can never be replaced. The boots once belonged to Paul’s friend Kemmerich, who died early on in the war but then got passed down to Muller. Paul’s best friend Kat, dies in Paul’s arms which causes a lot of trauma for him. Kat has been hit in the head by a fragment of an exploding shell, “There is just one little hole. It must have been a very tiny, stray splinter. But it has sufficed. Kat is dead” (291). Paul was trying to save Kat by carrying him on his back to safety. When Paul laid Kat down on the ground, he realized that Kat had died in his arms. Soldiers are truly affected by war when horrific tragedies occur such as death and that is what proves war is senseless.

A frequent theme in the novel is how leaders create wars that they do not fight in. Paul reveals his thoughts on this topic; “How senseless is everything that can ever be written, done, or thought, when such things are possible. It must be all lies and of no account when the culture of a thousand years could not prevent this stream of blood being poured out, these torture chambers in their hundreds of thousands. A hospital alone shows what war is” (263). Paul feels extremely lonely now that all of his friends have died, so he has retreated to thinking about all of the horrific incidents he’s been in. Once Paul analyzes the different situations he’s been in over time and notices what a toll it has taken over his mental well-being. An instance where Paul recognizes that leaders create wars, but don’t fight them is when “I am young, I am twenty years old; yet I know nothing of life but despair, death, fear, and fatuous superficiality cast over an abyss of sorrow. I see how people are set against one another, and in silence, unknowingly, foolishly, obediently, innocently slay one another. I see that the keenest brains of the world invent weapons and words to make it yet more refined and enduring” (263). Many soldiers in war don’t know what they are getting themselves into, only after they have experienced dreadful conditions. When leaders create wars, they make soldiers fight for them, although these soldiers don’t exactly know what they are fighting for. Paul reflects on the situations he’s been in for the last couple of months and he concludes that war is full of innocent people getting killed and wounded fighting for things they do not know on.

Overall, the novel All Quiet On The Western Front reveals how senseless war is. In many ways, this novel proves that war is senseless when Paul is forced to kill someone who jumped into the same shell hole as him when Paul watches his closest friends die in the line of war, and how leaders make wars that they force soldiers to fight in.

Joseph Sciuto once declared, “Humanity, the earth with its streams and gardens, animals, and innocence are the real victims of war.” The war affects all manners of life, especially the innocent ones, by corrupting and transmogrifying them into a dehumanized, soulless body with a complete lack of their original character. In his semi-autobiographical novel, All Quiet on the Western Front by Erich Maria Remarque, Paul accompanied by his comrades traverses through the many obstacles that the war administered upon them, encountering many deaths mentally and physically along the way. Paul soon realizes the destruction war causes and inflicts upon everything around him and how his comrades exist as mentally destroyed soldiers due to the war. Through the use of death and nature imagery, Erich Maria Remarque conveys the theme of the absolute mental and physical destructiveness of war to reveal how, in reality, war destroys all men, regardless of whether they survive or perish.

Remarque initially expresses the theme of the physical and mental destructiveness of war through the use of death imagery. For instance, while amid the front, Paul notices all the devastation and suffering around him and details this anguish by stating,

“We see a dark group, bearers with stretchers, and larger black clumps moving about. Those are the wounded horses. But not all of them. Some gallop away in the distance, fall, and then run on farther. The belly of one is ripped open, the guts trail out. He becomes tangled in them and falls, then he stands up again” (Remarque, 63).

Remarque gives the ghastly image of the physical and mental destructiveness of war to reveal how war not only affects men but also animals. The idea of animals, who never possessed a choice to join the fight, becoming affected by the carnage of war shows how battle attracts and tortures all living things, especially the innocent. Warfare mentally corrupts and dehumanizes soldiers as shown when Paul refers to the enemy as “a dark group” rather than individual people. Additionally, as Paul slowly makes his way to the front, he notices many structures and communicates what he sees, “On the way we pass a shelled school-house. Stacked up against its longer side is a high double wall of yellow, unpolished, brand-new coffins. They still smell of resin, pine, and the forest. There are at least a hundred” (99). The use of death imagery and descriptions of coffins around Paul helps reveal the physical and mental destructiveness of war where the coffins act as already ready and prepared which indicates how the military officials expect a multitude of deaths. The coffins smelling like pine and forest also imply the recent construction, suggesting the idea that all other coffins were quickly used up as the destructiveness of war results in a large death toll. Likewise, the schoolhouse, symbolic of life and childhood, existing as destroyed due to the shelling shows how war affects soldiers’ minds as war corrupts the personality and lives of soldiers, dehumanizing them. Moreover, soon after Kat dies of a stray splinter, Paul reflects upon warfare’s implications within his life and how the war “can[‘t] take nothing from me, they [war] can take nothing more. I am so alone, and so without hope that I can confront them without fear” (295). Paul realizes how much the war takes away from him: his friends, his comrades, his sense of a normal life, and his humanity. This death imagery within Paul’s mind of feeling completely detached and desolate reveals how mentally destructive war acts upon soldiers by stealing their humanity and personal treasures. As a result, the soldier’s mind becomes dead with no more real physical purpose in life, leading to Paul not fearing the war, foreshadowing his death. Therefore, death imagery manifests the theme of the mental and physical destructiveness of war, implementing the idea of war affecting soldier’s lives in more ways than just physically.

Furthermore, Remarque utilizes nature imagery to illustrate the theme of the mental and physical destructiveness of war. For example, as Kemmerich lies on the brink of death, Paul details the aspects of his dying body by stating,

“Kemmerich nods. I cannot bear to look at his hands, they are like wax. Under the nails is the dirt of the trenches, it shows through blue-black like poison. It strikes me that these nails will continue to grow like lean fantastic cellar plants long after Kemmerich breathes no more. I see the picture before me. They twist themselves into corkscrews and grow and grow, and with them the hair on the decaying skull, just like grass in good soil, just like grass, how can it be possible” (15)?

The dirt under Kemmerich’s nail reminds Paul of the front and symbolizes how the front never leaves a soldier’s life. Describing Kemmerich’s hands as similar to wax represents his hands melting, manifesting the idea of Kemmerich slowly dying. This image of nature proves the physical and mental destructiveness of war as the soldiers’ minds remain infested with thoughts of the war which they can not get away from, and the physical destruction on the body as shown with Kemmerich indicating similarities with a decaying skull. Furthermore, as Paul remains amid war, firing and bombing sounds arise which trigger him to recognize the importance of the earth to a soldier by stating, “

“To no man does the earth mean so much as to the soldier. When he presses himself down upon her long and powerfully when he buries his face and his limbs deep in her from the fear of death by shell-fire, then she is his only friend, his brother, his mother; he stifles his terror and his cries in her silence and her security; she shelters him and releases him for ten seconds to live, to run, ten seconds of life; receives him again and often forever” (55).

The image of the earth protecting the soldiers by shielding them from the destructiveness of war parallels the idea of a mother protecting their children. However, this protection and safety only lasts a brief amount of time until the soldiers must return to the war and leave the warm embrace of the earth. The war petrifies the soldiers, mentally destroying them into seeking refuge from an inanimate object that they see as a meaningful figure in their life, whom they can not live without. Lastly, as Paul reaches a shelter of reserves, only to turn back again into the horrors of combat, he describes the corrupted earth by stating,

“The brown earth, the torn, blasted earth, with a greasy shine under the sun’s rays; the earth is the background of this restless, gloomy world of automatons, our gasping is the scratching of a quill, our lips are dry, our heads are debauched with stupor–thus we stagger forward, and into our pierced and shattered souls bores the torturing image of the brown earth with the greasy sun and the convulsed and dead soldiers, who lie there–it can’t be helped–who cry and clutch at our legs as we spring away over them” (115-116).

The image of the blasted earth and fatigued soldiers reveals how the war affects not only the men but also the setting and atmosphere around them. By depicting the earth as “brown earth with the greasy sun”, Remarque utilizes how brown symbolizes decay and the greasy sun represents the blood staining the earth which exemplifies the morality of war. Also, the soldiers who remain expressed as convulsing and soul-shattering imply that they suffered before their fatal death, mentally affecting the surviving fighters around them. Thus, nature imagery effectively proves the theme of the physical and mental destructiveness of war, evincing the idea that war affects more than just the soldier.

Throughout the novel, All Quiet on the Western Front, Erich Maria Remarque utilizes death and nature imagery to solidify the theme of the complete physical and mental destructive properties of war to acknowledge how even those who survived still suffered from the war. By using nature and death to illustrate the destructiveness of war, Remarque creates powerful images regarding the absolute tragedies of battle. Warfare pollutes soldiers’ minds by dehumanizing and corrupting them, even after the war ends. Remarque emphasizes this mental and physical brutality administered upon all soldiers with a great structure in deathly detail by showing how innocent men fight other innocent men. The result of this brutality causes a loss of morality and the soldiers lose all of what makes them their individual. Thus, the warfare causing the fighting of men leads to pointless deaths and endless tragedies, all for nothing.