Erich Maria Remarque writes of many moral and ethical dilemmas, and political situations with which he conveys his opinion of war. Remarque was a pacifist, one who opposes the use of force under any circumstance. He clearly used his novel, All Quiet on the Western Front, as a means to illustrate his anti- nationalist views. Remarque harshly critiques nationalism through his main character Paul Baumer and the other soldiers, who recognize that their real enemies are not across the trenches, but in high offices in their own country. The image of a glorified war was the ideal method to draft soldiers into battle, yet the true essence of war was personified as a malevolent contrast to the nature and purity of life, as war itself became the villain. Paul is bitter about the nationalism that has forced him and countless others to enter the war, but he manages to use it for humane purposes. Remarque injects the morality of war, as he unites Paul with the Russian prisoners through a universal language and music, knowing that arbitrary political powers have made them enemies. Paul also empathizes deeply with the Frenchman he kills, seeing past the man's nationali

Through Paul, Remarque’s nationalistic view doesn’t deny heroism of any soldier. He sees this heroism as a desperate determination to stay alive. He kills and destroys the enemy to avoid suffering the same fate. Remarque embraces camaraderie in war, rather than heroism. Simultaneously, war has changed the soldier’s view of life’s essentials. In conclusion, Remarque’s political, ethical and moral views are all a chain reaction of the other. If there were never a focus on nationalism, there wouldn’t be any problem with Paul and the other soldiers having to disconnect themselves from their emotions. Many themes that Remarque exhibits can all be based and related to his overall biased views, as he provides a whirlpool of political, ethical, and moralistic connections to war.

The “lost generation” felt a terrible sense of betrayal by the older generation. Paul and his comrade’s minds were filled with romantic ideals of patriotism, which led them to voluntarily join the war. The patriotic myths of war that the older generation portrayed became more apparent to Paul through the course of his journey of war. When Paul and his friends talk about enemies, they do not speak of the soldiers on the other side. Instead, they concentrate their hostility on Kantorek and Himmelstoss, their superiors and fellow countrymen. Paul and his classmates view Kantorek and other formerly trusted authority figures like him as the origin of their pointless suffering. These authority figures have sent them to war with the tragically false illusion that they were embarking on an exciting journey to fight for honor and glory.

The authority figures, Kantorek and Himmelstoss, view all common soldiers who are forced to fight in the trenches, regardless of their national origin, as victims. When Paul kills the Frenchman, he has realized that it wasn’t him who made him commit the act, but the idea of war that his superiors have put in his mind. “Comrade, I did not want to kill you…. But you were only an idea to me before, an abstraction that lived in my mind...” (79) Here, before Paul realizes how similar the Frenchman was to himself, he only kills the Frenchman because of his need to survive. If the scenario was on the flipside and Paul was in the Frenchman’s position, it is prophesized that the Frenchman would have killed Paul, because as one of Rema

Some topics in this essay:
Paul Kat, Paul Russians, Paul Baumer, Paul Remarque’s, Kantorek Himmelstoss, Contrarily Paul’s, Paul Russian, Paul Frenchman, Maria Remarque, Western Front, “lost generation”, paul comrades, authority figures, war paul, chapter six paul, political ethical, camaraderie chapter, effects war, war chapter, life war, theme camaraderie, quiet western front,