We talked a lot in class about the way that Vonnegut portrays the two extreme types of soldiers, which are either miserable and not "heroes," and the violent soldier following the true war novel hero archetype.
However, Vonnegut seems to portray the British soldiers somewhere in between. Vonnegut tells us that these soldiers are officers from who fought at the very beginning of the war. They are experience soldiers who, I would assume are the best soldiers that Britain had to offer since they were the part of the first wave of British soldiers. Despite this, they aren't portrayed as warmongers or violent like we see with Weary and Lazaro. On the other hand, they don't follow the same model as the Americans. They are very well off, they have an abundance of food and have been treated as well as you could expect by the Germans, who see them as the ideal British soldiers.
While Vonnegut uses some irony to describe the British POWs, he uses it more to contrast how upbeat and happy they are with the Americans, rather than to mock them like he does with the other Americans. You wouldn't think that they were POWs in the middle of a war based on Vonnegut's description of them.
One quote that I found interesting says that, "They were adored by the Germans, who thought that they were exactly what Englishmen ought to be. They made war look stylish and reasonable, and fun." I think that this quote aptly sums up Vonnegut's purpose of making an anti-war novel. These ideas of what the Germans think that war should look like are the same ideas of a "glorious war" that gets engrained in the minds of the young children and convinces them to fight for glory. This is the exact idea that Vonnegut wants to disprove, that war is not at all like the war stories that glamorize war, rather, these soldiers end up like Billy and the rest of the Americans. These British soldiers are the type that would write a war novel about how "honorable" it is to fight when they were captured early on in the war lived out the rest of the war in luxury compared to the Russian POWs who are dying meters away from them from malnutrition. The British show a stark contrast between the expectation and reality of the war for the young soldiers convinced to fight for glory.
Interesting story - my great-grandfather was in a POW camp in Italy for most of WW2, and he described how insanely rich the British soldiers were - like they had really good equipment and boots and food and got packages and like actually had body mass. (probably also said this in light of returning home and seeing the conditions in which my great-grandma and grandma were living).
ReplyDeleteBut anyway - I do agree that there's this interesting effect of having this group of soldiers playing into the hands of the enemies, complicating the concept of villains/heroes. In addition, they also seem just as affected by the same delusions which affect all of the American soldiers.
For some reason my first impression of the British soldiers were that they were inexperienced soldiers who were playacting what they thought was war. In some ways I thought that they were representing not the end of the war, but the beginning where there was an outpouring of national pride and those tearful yet somehow glamorous send offs. I think the reason why the Germans were so nice is that the British men evoked the ideals of chivalry and brought them the supposed glamour of war they were promised.
ReplyDeleteSo, if you've ever watched Bridge Over the River Kwai, my distinct impression is that Vonnegut is viciously mocking that movie (or, more precisely, the attitudes displayed by the main character of that movie), and, more generally, the mythos of the British army (tea kettles in the tanks, that sort of thing). The British and their focus on honor and tea and biscuits in war, and even making it through the war alright, become a focal icon of complete absurdity, far more than most of the other "characters" that Vonnegut makes fun of.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the points you've made it in the post. Among other things, it seems like Vonnegut is sort of using the british soldiers as a contrasting point to Billy and the other American POWs. Sort of a comedic "Hey look, these brits are doing better than the people who captured them". I guess that kind of goes back to your point about it downplaying the glorification of war. It kind of illuminates the weird frame that Vonnegut is writing the book from. the anti-war, in a way anti-human narration.
ReplyDelete