The Great War And Modern Memory By Paul Fussell

In Paul Fussell’s book, The Great War and Modern Memory, he discusses some of the ways in which World War I affected the men who fought in it, specifically those in the trenches. One of Fussell’s main points in his book as he tries to characterize World War I was the widespread irony that spread in its wake. Even though the focus of his book is based upon the British perspective of World War I, Fussell also briefly mentions the effects of the war upon other countries involved in the war.

One of the main themes of The Great War and Modern Memory was the irony that surrounded the war and affected the soldiers fighting in it. One of the reasons why the war was so ironic was because it was worse than many people were expecting it to be. In response

to the assassination of the archduke of Austria-Hungary and his consort, most of the world powers started a war that resulted in over 16 million people dead. Fussell tells the readers in his book that “every war is ironic because every war is worse than expected” (Fussell 7). He also says that in war, the “means are so melodramatically disproportionate to its presumed ends” (Fussell 7). Many tactics that were employed by the British and their allies that were supposed to be beneficial ended up giving them different results than intended, such as “air bombardment, which was supposed to shorten the war, prolonged it by inviting those who were its targets to cast themselves in the role of victim-heroes and thus stiffen their resolve” (Fussell 8). However, according to Fussell, World War I was more ironic than any preceding wars because it “reversed the Idea of Progress”, which had led people to believe that humanity had advanced to a point where we did not need to resort to war to solve problems. Clearly, humanity had not evolved past the use of war to solve problems, which was made evident to people when war broke out.
Fussell also argues that another reason why World War I was so ironic was because of the misconceptions that people had about it before they entered the war.

For example, in his book, Fussell says that prior to World War I, many people still believed in the old saying “dulce et decorum est pro patria mori” meaning “It is sweet and proper to die for the fatherland”. At the beginning of the war, many were under the impression that going to war for their country was a sign of glory and honor. Fussell cites the poet Wilfred Owen’s poem “Dulce et Decorum est” in order to show his readers that this impression of war was false. In his poem, Owen tells his own audience how gruesome and dirty war can really be using a narrator who sees a man die before his eyes. In the poem, Owen tells his readers, especially those who had never actually been in any type of combat that if they really knew how horrible war was, then “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”. Fussell explains to his readers that part of the reason why the war seemed so bad, especially to those fighting in it, was because they had been fed propaganda about war and how it would bring honor and glory upon themselves and their families if they fought for their

country.
The effects of World War I were widespread and seemed to polarize all the nations involved and the soldiers fighting in it due to feelings of nationalism towards their countries. The polarization of the soldiers was due in part to the situations of the soldiers in the trenches. On the British side, there were extremely poor conditions from the substandard construction of the trenches which made them “wet, cold, smelly, and thoroughly squalid” (Fussell 43). Compared to the German trenches, Fussell said that the British trenches were amateur. On the German side of the war, the trenches “were deep, clean, elaborate, and sometimes even comfortable” (Fussell 44). Their dugouts contained luxuries that the British did not have such as “bunk-beds, as well as door bells, water tanks with taps, and cupboards and mirrors… boarded walls, floors, and ceilings; finished wooden staircases; electric light; real kitchens; and wallpaper and overstuffed furniture, the whole protected by steel outer doors” (Fussell 44). Based upon their living conditions in the trenches, it is difficult to believe that the British and the German forces were affected in the same ways during the war. The British were under the impression that they would not be in the war for long because they thought that they would win it by the first Christmas of the war, but this did not happen, which was reflected in the state of their trenches, which were not equipped to be lived in for long term. Fussell says that “the English were amateur, vague, ad hoc, and temporary. The German were efficient, clean, pedantic, and permanent” (Fussell 45). Although the soldiers may have faced similar situations upon the battlefield, the British were the ones who seem to have gotten the worst of the war situation. As for the American troops, Fussell briefly mentions that they were also living in the same conditions as the British troops; however, the Americans only came into the war towards the end, so they did not have to live in the morale lowering conditions for as long as the British had had to.
Despite the differences between the living situations of the British and the German soldiers in the trenches on the war front, there are still universal experiences that were shared by all the combatants who fought in the war. For example, Fussell cites the tradition of the “theatre of war” (Fussell 191). This is referring to the separation of a soldier’s mind between their normal, “real” self and their self that is acting as a soldier in war. Fussell further explains this by saying that “Seeing warfare as theater provides a psychic escape for the participant: with a sufficient sense of theater, he can perform his duties without implicating his “real” self and without impairing his innermost conviction that the world is still a rational place” (Fussell 192). It was a tool that the troops often used, especially in times of emergency or heightened anxiety. Fussell cites a man named Carrington who explained this phenomenon by saying that when he was calmly explaining tactics and plans to his men, he would “notice how one ego calmly talked tactics while the other knew that all this energy was moonshine. One half of me was convinced that all this was real; the other knew it was an illusion” (Fussell 192). This phenomenon was universal for all soldiers who fought in World War I.
In addition to the division of the self because of the tendency of society to think of war in terms of the theater, another universal experience of soldiers in the war was the concept of the “death space”, which is a phenomenon in which the norms of everyday life are suspended and a feeling of numbness and acquiescence to the destruction all around set in. It is characterized by a sense among the affected that they have no way to truly relate their experiences to those who have never undergone battle and those who have never experienced the phenomenon have no way to understand it. Fussell explains in his book that many of the writers whose works he chose to use in The Great War and Modern Memory have undergone this phenomenon or tried to relate to the experiences of others who have experienced the phenomenon. Because the combatants of the war were fighting for survival everyday amidst the destruction that the war caused, they developed a feeling of numbness to their surroundings, which was difficult for them to explain to noncombatants after the war ended, especially when it seemed like the combatants had returned to their normal lives at the end of the war. Although the regular citizens of Britain were well aware of how close the war was to them because of the sounds of gunfire, they had not been steeped in the death and destruction that had occurred in the trenches on the front of the war. The literary works that Fussell employs in his literary criticism of World War I attempt to convey the feelings of the “death space” to people who had not fought in the war and those who came after it, so that others would not be fooled by the deceptive vision of a war that would give them honor and glory as they had.
Throughout The Great War and Modern Memory, Paul Fussell explores various pieces of literature that convey experiences of soldiers from World War I and several other wars. One of the main themes that he applies to the period was the irony of the entire war and nearly every circumstance that surrounded the war. Additionally, he discusses the differences in situations of the British and French combatants versus the Germans and how not all the experiences of soldiers in the war were equal. Despite the inequalities of the trench soldiers’ experiences, there were other parts of the war that were universal such as the theatrics of war and the concept of the “death space”. Finally, throughout his book, Fussell carries the ironic tones that characterized World War I throughout history and attempts to show his audience that similar themes have been evident in most of the wars that preceded and followed World War I. Additionally, he uses this book to tell readers that people have a tendency to fight the war that occurred before ones that are currently being fought and he warns that we should be careful of possible consequences that may result from this happening.