The History Book Club discussion

Welcome to the continuation of the wonderful book: All Quiet on the Western Front!

by Erich Maria Remarque

Elizabeth S (who is a great moderator) is continuing this book discussion this week.

This is a May/June/July discussion so everybody has plenty of time to read this selection.

This week's assigned reading is as follows for Week Four:

Week 4, May 23-29: Chapter Four (pages 51-74)

I know that everyone can muster the 23 pages this week. This, I know, will prove to be a great discussion of World War I, different perspectives on a soldier who is portrayed to actually have served in the German army as well as the effects of war and suffering and despair on all sides.

This is the eighth historical fiction group selected book.

We will open up a thread for each week's reading. Please make sure to post in the particular thread dedicated to those specific chapters and page numbers to avoid spoilers if you are catching up.

This book was kicked off on May 2nd.

We always enjoy the participation of all group members. Amazon, Barnes and Noble and other noted on line booksellers do have copies of the book and shipment can be expedited. The book can also be obtained easily at your local library, or on your Kindle or even Audible.

This is a non spoiler thread.

Welcome,

~Bentley

Here is a link to the introductory thread:

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/5...

Here is a link to the Table of Contents and Syllabus:

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/5...

Here is the link to the glossary which is a spoiler thread so beware if you do not like spoilers of any kind - but the links added here will be very useful in understanding the personages discussed, their background, the events and the battles, or the environment itself, etc.

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/5...

Here is a link to the Military History folder which deals with World War I: (there is a lot here)

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/group_...

Thank you for joining Elizabeth and the History Book Club on this journey.

Baumer's group is sent up to the front on "wire fatigue" (page 51). Baumer describes how the veterans and recruits change/adjust as they move to the front. They collect the stakes and wires and move up to the line. It only takes a few hours to do the wiring. As they rest for a bit, a bombardment begins. Baumer helps out one of the new recruits. After the bombardment they endure the wrenching screaming of nearby wounded horses. More shells fall and they take refuge in a graveyard. Baumer, Kropp, Kat, and a recruit endure a gas attack, and then the recruit is seriously injuured by a falling coffin. They all work to free him and wonder if it is worth it. Finally they are back on the trucks headed to the huts.

This is our first trip to the front with Baumer. It is a quick, but eventful, trip.

My fourth-grade son has been studying for a test in school about poetry devices, so I'm really noticing those in this chapter. Baumer isn't just a writer, he is a poet. We see metaphor, "The front is a mysterious whirlpool" (page 55). We see repetition, "Earth! Earth! Earth!" (page 55) and the use of rain on page 74. We see personification, as the earth "shelters [the soldier] and releases him for ten seconds to live" (page 55). And simile, "The searchlights begin to sweep the dark sky... like giant tapering rulers" (page 59).

Anyone else noticing examples of poetic devices? I'd be interested how many are lost or changed in the translation. Alliteration, for example, isn't likely to stay consistent.

Here is a good list of poetic devices with their definitions: http://projects.uwc.utexas.edu/handou...

I am not ignoring the comments of Elizabeth but this is what I wrote when I finished the reading before this weeks commetns were opened:

Finally our boys are off to some action. Their action however is to string barbed wire and be the targets for artillery and gas attacks.

The hardening of our 19 year olds shows by Breamers sheltering of the younger, or anyway newer, man during the barrage.

The need to tell others about gas masks while/before putting them on is illustrating these fellows being in this together.

The fact that the horses suffering and dying seems less acceptable to endure than the men is telling too. The need for decency – the horses didn’t enlist or even support the government or feel patriotism.

There is continued loss of men but, so far, none of ours has suffered injury during our reading – Kemmerich was down already when we arrived.

So we havn't seen the enemy, in person, yet

Great thoughts, Vince. I like reading what you thought of the chapter before you saw other people's comments.

You make a lot of good points, any of which can start an interesting discussion. I'll start with the last, "So we haven't seen the enemy, in person, yet." So far, the enemy is just something out there sending shells at our boys. There hasn't been much discussion about who the enemy is, or why they are the enemy. We hear about the youth being encouraged to join up, and Baumer talks about how they love their country. But not much more politics than that.

I was thinking about that, too. Warfare has changed so quickly that you have these huge artillery pieces that "de-personalize" war. You go back 30 years and you see the changes there that the direct attack is becoming ineffective, but you didn't have gas, artillery pieces shooting a mile away or more, etc. I'd think it makes the whole experience more terrifying.

Elizabeth S wrote: "Great thoughts, Vince. I like reading what you thought of the chapter before you saw other people's comments.

You make a lot of good points, any of which can start an interesting discussion. I'l..."

I seem to have some memory from somewhere that this war was promtoed over sometime in the press - creating in several countries, Germany & England at least & I think France too, a ground swell of support for the war. I thinnk I remember that literacy was at new highs in western Europe and newspapers were everywhere (no TV after all)

It is interesting that so far the enemy has remained abstract. It is especially interesting to me because as an American, I tend to automatically have the American sentiment about who the enemy is in this war.. and that is the Germans. (No anti-German sentiment here .. I am half German myself). But when you are raised on a certain perspective, you tend to continue to see things that way as a starting point. Of course, as you read this book, nationality slips away and you tend to see these characters as fellow-humans. This is especially true because nationality is not stressed at all. It is only mentioned that the boys love their country .. which most people can relate to whichever country they are from. I think at this point in the book, this is why the enemy is kept abstract, because the author is trying to steer us away from any tendencies to side with "the right side" and point to the fact that overall there likely isn't one.

Elizabeth, I had no idea that poetry was taught in any capacity in the fourth grade but I'm glad it is:) I too feel that the writing is very poetic and wonder what is lost in translation. However, I have read bad translations of books in the past and although I have no way of knowing, this seems like a good one.

What did everyone think about when Kat and Baumer consider killing the young recruit at the end of the chapter. They are about to do so, when others arrive. As soon as there are witnesses, they decide to get him the stretcher although they know he will suffer horribly for hours until he dies. Did anyone else consider the contrast regarding how the horses are treated compared to the recruit? No one ever questions that killing the horses was the right thing to do. Yet, in the case of a man, it is the opposite. What is the "right" choice here?

Bryan wrote: "I was thinking about that, too. Warfare has changed so quickly that you have these huge artillery pieces that "de-personalize" war. You go back 30 years and you see the changes there that the dir..."

It is weird, because it seems like depersonalizing war should make it less scary. But it is the opposite. Never knowing when a shell might fall and kill you in seconds. Or (maybe) worse, maim you and shred those around you.

That is so right, Elizabeth, you don't know when you will get it. At least if you see a "old fashioned" 19th century charge, you know what is going on in some way.

Sarah, I found that section striking; these vets know what is coming next for the new recruit: horses and people become the same in the eyes of mercy. However, I think they made the right choice of getting a stretcher: he might not walk but he has pretty good odds he will live. I can't help but think this recruit is going to have a rough time adjusting to his wounds, though. Not easy.

Vince wrote: "I seem to have some memory from somewhere that this war was promtoed over sometime in the press - creating in several countries, Germany & England at least & I think France too, a ground swell of support for the war. I thinnk I remember that literacy was at new highs in western Europe and newspapers were everywhere (no TV after all)"

I keep thinking of WWI as a transition war-- new technology was emerging but wasn't as widespread or as effectively used as WWII. Propaganda was not a new thing, but being able to mass-produce it and get it out quickly was new. To some extent, that balanced with the reporting from the front. I think this was the first war where people could follow along daily with the battles. The first chance for the people at home to read concurrent and first-hand accounts of the fighting. As people knew more about war and the enemy, propaganda was "needed" to motivate people enough to keep fighting.

Indeed, with the telegraph and some phone lines, I think it was much easier to get daily accounts.

Sarah wrote: "It is interesting that so far the enemy has remained abstract. It is especially interesting to me because as an American, I tend to automatically have the American sentiment about who the enemy is..."

You make very good points, Sarah, and ask some nicely thought-provoking questions. On one level, this book is just a joe-blow soldier writing about what happened to him. On another level, Remarque has carefully crafted this story to get his message across that war is horrible. I think it is no accident that the wounded horses and the wounded recruit are in the same chapter. I think we are meant to compare them, and ask ourselves what is, or should be, different. It is a mercy to kill an injured horse. Is it a mercy to kill an injured man? It is mentioned that the horses are innocent. But aren't the privates, the young men fresh from home, also somewhat innocent? Did they start the war? What are they getting from it? The answers are difficult.

Bryan wrote: "Indeed, with the telegraph and some phone lines, I think it was much easier to get daily accounts."

And I think this was the first big war that had war reporters, newspaper men (now we would add women) who spent some time with the troops and then wrote about it.

Sarah wrote: "What did everyone think about when Kat and Baumer consider killing the young recruit at the end of the chapter. They are about to do so, when others arrive. As soon as there are witnesses, they decide to get him the stretcher although they know he will suffer horribly for hours until he dies. Did anyone else consider the contrast regarding how the horses are treated compared to the recruit? No one ever questions that killing the horses was the right thing to do. Yet, in the case of a man, it is the opposite. What is the "right" choice here? "

This is such a big question I separated it out.

Firstly, I've been wondering to myself if they were really going to do it. In my memory of past times reading the book, they just talked about it and seriously considered it. This time through, it struck me that they had actually decided to go through with it, and then other people arrived.

But there are lots of examples in life where people decide to do something, and then hesitate and/or change their minds when it comes to actually doing it. Would Baumer and Kat actually have done it? Since they are soldiers and have become used to killing, I think they were probably numbed enough to follow through. But maybe one of them would have said, "Naw, let's just wait."

Personally, I think the "right" thing to do is what ended up happening, i.e. getting the stretcher and at least trying to save the recruit. (Interesting, isn't it, that the recruit doesn't have a name. More of that depersonalization.) Yes, there is a strong argument that it would be a mercy to kill someone who will die anyway and who is in great pain. But how can you judge the "will die anyway" part? And how much pain is enough? Yes, I think there are some situations where it seems blazingly obvious. And I think Remarque is trying to give us one of those situations to make us think. But once you start down that mercy killing path, it becomes easier and easier to do it again and harder and harder to accurately judge.

Great response Elizabeth.

I thought one of the interesting things about this chapter was the description of how the soldiers changed as the approached and then arrived at the front.

As their transport carries them to the front, Baumer describes, "The roar of the guns makes our lorry stagger, the reverberation rolls raging away to the rear, everything quakes. Our faces change imperceptibly. We are not, indeed, in the front line, but only in the reserves, yet in every face can be read: This is the front, now we are within its embrace" (page 53).

On page 54 Baumer writes, "Every time it is the same. We start out for the front plain soldiers, either cheerful or gloomy: then come the first gun-emplacements and every word of our speech has a new ring."

Baumer says, "It is not fear" (page 53). At least he says it isn't fear for those who have been at the front repeatedly since they have grown thick skins. Do you think that is true? How long do you think it takes to become so numb to fear?

Elizabeth S wrote: "Vince wrote: "I seem to have some memory from somewhere that this war was promtoed over sometime in the press - creating in several countries, Germany & England at least & I think France too, a gro..."


Mentioning propaganda and WWII it should be noted that Goebbles was a first thinker in propaganda for the Nazis. He actually arranged to have separate campaigns for farmers, for factory workers etc. He sent people to bars in neighborhoods to determine the feelings in that area and what concerned those people.

He led campaign mailing with different messages for different interest groups and different areas.

Just a passing comment.

Goebbles was indeed a master manipulator. It is rather frightening to even think about it. And whenever you think about it, you can't help but wonder, "How influenced am I by the news and information I have?" We talk a lot about challenging our leaders, but our source of news also needs challenging at times.

Sarah wrote: "It is interesting that so far the enemy has remained abstract. It is especially interesting to me because as an American, I tend to automatically have the American sentiment about who the enemy is..."

Yes, it's really interesting. For me it's obvious that the French, British, Americans and Russians were the enemy. In WWI, the Japanese were even enemies of Germany. Italy plays an ambivalent role. Actually, they were allies of Germany and Austria. Italy joined the side to get to South Tyrol. The Allies had promised this.
The opponents, however, are an anonymous mass. There is no personalized enemies. My grandfather was a railroad soldier, i.e. he belonged to the military field of railways, and was stationed in Romania. He needed not to fight. He therefore told by the beauty of the country and the friendliness of the people. So something very different than the story of the soldier baumer.

Thanks for sharing about your grandfather, Baseni. Soldiers who went to the front truly had a different experience. My grandfather was in training when WWII ended, and so he was never sent overseas. We all enjoyed listening to his "war stories" about his experiences in training. But even then I think he somehow let us know that his experiences didn't cover the whole story. There are so many different stories.