Written just ten years after the end of World War I, All Quiet on the Western Front evoked the immediacy and enormity of suffering in modern warfare. The battle scenes showing deep trenches, underground bunkers, barbed wire entanglements, machine gun emplacements, flares, artillery, aviation, and unprecedented noise emphasized the unromantic, unglamorous aspects of impersonal war. The futility of infantry attacks, which dominated military strategy on both sides, resulted in incredible casualty figures: ten million battle deaths and twenty million seriously wounded, as well as tremendous civilian casualties.

Told from the perspective of the ordinary foot soldier, such horrors produced a sense of absurdity, as is evident in the conversation among the soldiers about what had caused this incredible conflagration. The movie correctly points a finger at the “kings and generals” on all sides. In an age largely innocent of mass communications, political and military elites controlled diplomacy, international relations, and the decisions that led to war.

By 1914, a history of national rivalries had divided Europe into competing imperial alliances. The Triple Entente, formed by Britain, Russia, and France, faced the Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy. Within those groups, each government maintained distinct national interests. But the alliances obliged each country to support their allies against mutual rivals.

The assassination of the heir to the Austrian throne in July 1914 set off a domino effect that led to the outbreak of a general war the following month. Public opinion had little to contribute to the outbreak of war, but government propaganda fueled nationalist sympathies to win civilian support for hostilities. The early scenes of All Quiet on the Western Front capture the enthusiastic mood of the major belligerent countries. Most expected the war to be over in three months; it lasted for three months and four years (August 1914-November 1918).

The terror of war, so vividly described in the film, had unexpected effects. Because soldiers were generally better clothed, equipped, and fed (despite obvious shortages) than in previous wars, for the first time more men were killed by enemy weaponry than by disease. Medical treatment for the wounded was more sophisticated, too, but no system could relieve the immense number of victims. As the movie indicates, World War I soldiers also experienced a new kind of medical malady, known as “shell shock.” (Today’s language for comparable symptoms is post-traumatic stress disorder.) Postwar studies found that such psychological injuries particularly afflicted men who had a deep emotional commitment to their cause but lacked the ability, in the face of prolonged bombardments, to take individual action.

The futility of military strategy and the resulting high casualties did not diminish expectations of victory on both sides. Believing that one last surge would turn the tide, military leaders continued to expend soldiers and materiel. Such false optimism contributed to the disillusionment of the postwar years.

All Quiet on the Western Front expressed the despair of a generation misled and sacrificed by its teachers, preachers, and political leaders. That view reinforced anti-German feelings among the victor nations (Britain, France, and the United States) and supported the belief that Germany was the primary aggressor in the war. The Treaty of Versailles that formally ended World War I implemented that idea, forcing Germany to accept blame and to pay enormous monetary reparations to Britain and France.

A decade later, All Quiet on the Western Front transcended such national differences, showing that Germans, too, were victims. The movie’s perspective reinforced anti-militaristic views among the Western Allies as they faced the rise of fascism during the 1930s.

Back to top   At the Movies   All Quiet on the Western Front