Interpretation of war and the relationship between soldiers and civilians are different when discussing World War 1 and the wars of today. Whether one is a soldier, spectator from far away, or a civilian watching it first hand, war cannot truly be comprehended and understood, unless it has been physically experienced. Erich Maria Remarque, a German World War I veteran, depicts the atrocities and brutalities of war in his novel, All Quiet on the Western Front. The gap between the expectations of soldiers and civilians are solidified through civilians’ inability to comprehend the impacts of war.
This destruction of war has created such a profound impact on soldiers as they are now unable to formulate and comprehend their true identity as compared to their interpretation of who they were before the war. The foundation for this insurmountable gap is solidified through a lack of civilian understanding and comprehension of the purpose of the war and a clear understanding of its objectives in the end. The basis of the civilians’ perceptions of soldiers is derived through overriding nationalist and patriotic ideals of a nation.
According to civilians, these soldiers are seen as “young heroes. They believed the driving principle for joining the war was out of glorified honor of being a soldier sacrificing their lives. The soldiers themselves originally went into the war celebrating this nationalist fervor and were described to be “crammed full of vague ideas which gave to life, and to the war also an ideal and almost romantic character. ” Unfortunately, these idealized paradigms of what it means to be a “soldier” are proven false.
Even wartime propaganda supported these romanticized views and the soldiers themselves recognized the false accusations “about good humour of the troops. These flawed analyses about the war and soldiers hindered civilians from recognizing the true brutality of war. Remarque even emphasizes a specific interaction between a soldier and civilian by characterizing a woman who excitedly reports how she served a soldier coffee. Paul ignores this woman’s excitement and instead of feeling proud and empowered, feels annoyed and agitated because of this woman’s ignorance to what being a “soldier” actually entails.
Remarque utilizes this situation to demonstrate how these romanticized, nationalist stereotypes dominate civilians’ wareness and understanding of how brutal and traumatizing being a soldier actually is. There is an explicit incongruence between how civilians perceive soldiers and what it actually means to be a soldier. The relationship between civilians and soldiers and their understandings of each other during this wartime experience prohibited many individuals from bridging the gap between life at home and life represented by war.
Paul and the other soldiers’ experience with the French women demonstrate Paul’s first realization of the difference between is identity as a mature, male soldier and as a young, civilian boy. These men and the French women are physically divided by a bridge that neither chooses to cross over. This physical divide symbolizes the gap between war life and civilian life. The men, however, are able to eventually interact with the women and in turn undergo a transformation both physically and mentally.
The first physical experience these soldiers have of their first bombardment demonstrate how the world they had known “broke into pieces. These soldiers were physically rattled by the irst bombardment, and with them any pre-war stereotyped understandings. Paul’s attempt to bridge this divide between these young, French, female civilians, and himself as a mature soldier demonstrates his first acknowledgment of the incongruence between his experiences and those around him. Talking to the French woman, Paul completely strips himself of his clothes and with it his powerful, soldier identity. He “let [him]self drop into the unknown” without any assurance from his uniform.
While he is able to finally feel a sense of civilian intimacy with a woman, his true character becomes threatened y her preconceptions of what it means to be a soldier. The French woman imagined Paul as a glorified, honorable, powerful soldier, but as he described he was going on leave, she immediately lost interest. This incongruence marks Paul’s first recognition that civilians do not understand what it truly means to be a soldier. The soldiers “distinguished the false from the true, [and] suddenly learned to see. ” The soldiers were initially blinded by preconceived heroic, romanticized, nationalist ideals, like these French women.
The soldiers’ experiences on the front owever, allowed them to see past these stereotypes in order to truly understand the harsh war experience. Civilian preconceptions targeted soldiers’ identities for not living up to romanticized standards of a soldier, supporting a greater divide between soldiers and surrounding bystanders. The second encounter threatening the gap between civilian and war life deals with Paul’s return home on leave. He physically crosses a bridge from one side of his town to the other, and as a result recognizes, not an external conflict, but an internal incongruence.
Paul’s return to the comfort of his home is ronically highlighted as an awkward, discomforting “foreign world. ” Upon first entering his house, Paul clings tightly to his helmet and rifle, demonstrating the insecurity and discomfort of what was once a safe place that provided security. He clings to these objects for comfort, ironically and symbolically clinging to the war in search of safety and protection. His father attempts to convince him to keep his uniform on, while his mother argues for changing into his normal civilian clothes.
This difference in perceptions on how his parents view him leads to confusion on ow he sees himself. He tries to return to his old life by trying to re-assert himself into the familiarity of his town, but no matter how hard he tries, he knows he does not feel as if he is the same person. He knows there is a “distance… a veil” between himself and the people around him. His attempt to bridge this incongruence only further confuses and frightens him. He knows the gap is vast and immense and tries to bridge the gap by hiding his true feelings. The war has taught these soldiers to repress their feelings in order to survive.
To these soldiers, their nly goal is survival and Paul, like many other soldiers, realize that it is impossible to capture and explicate the true extent of their experience. Paul’s final words to his mother before his departure are “we have so much to say, and we shall never say it. ” This sudden realization Paul has as a soldier demonstrates his realization that his life will never be the same. There is a widening gap between his past civilian life and his present and future life as a veteran. This unpredictable and unsafe characterization resembles the ambiguity and insecurity of the war’s “no man’s land.
The immense entirety of this indeterminate place captures soldiers’ now undefined and confused identities. These soldiers are no longer in a war between themselves and the enemy, rather, they are stuck in the middle of “no man’s land” unable to re-assert themselves into their past civilian lives after the traumatic changes of the wartime experience. Being in a war as a soldier or civilian changes the person you are into a person that is new to you. Until you realize you are a new person with new experiences, you will begin to think and react to things differently.
It is very nlikely that an individual will be able to have the same experience after a real, harsh, brutal experience, such as war. In attempts to bridge the incongruity between ignorance and experience, soldiers begins to recognize that their lives will never be the same and “even though they may have escaped [the] shells, [they] were destroyed by the war” This destruction created the gap that lies within civilians’ inability to understand and comprehend the soldier’s experience, as well as, the inability of the soldiers to comprehend the internal effects of their wartime experiences.
