Talk:Storm of Steel

Untitled

The entry states that the book "is largely devoid of editorialization". But at the end we are told that there has been a relentless revision activity from the first 1920 edition to the last (forty years later). German scholars have proved Junger heavily edited his war diary (editing out some parts, inserting others, changing some important details), to the point that it should be called a novelistic diary. Shouldn't the voice be changed?--213.140.21.227 09:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The book went through 12 editions in short order, relentlessly revised by Juenger himself. The original diaries were made accessible to scholars at the German Literature Archive in 1996 and will be published in 2010. The war appears in the diaries in much more gruesome detail (so do his sexual adventures).

Shooting prisoners

The article said: In the book he stated that English prisoners were shot (? how often), and that doing so was wrong but understandable. Where does he say so? To my memory, he said something different, namely that surrender was not accepted under certain circumstances (shooting until the last second). -- Zz 16:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, he says something along these lines. At one point two brittish soldiers delivering food to the front trench gets lost in the fog and more or less walks into the german trench. At this point he comments that they where shot and rationalizes this with that even though he would prefer to have taken them as prisoner, the situation could not afford that. If I can be bothered, I'll see if I can find the exact page in the 2003 translation. Znog (talk) 02:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Not accepting surrender is the same thing as taking no prisoners - not "something along those lines."

I re-inserted my reference to shooting prisoners. I read that in the 1929 edition and have made a note of that in the test. Someone removed my reference to that and said that they could not remember reading that it the book. It is possible that the person who removed that reference read a later edition of the book.Andrew Nielsen (talk) 05:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

As semantics tell you, not accepting prisoners is a general act as opposed to not accepting surrender in special situations. The situation was described as somebody shooting at oncoming attackers until the attackers armed with bayonet were at stabbing distance. -- Zz (talk) 17:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

No: the author stated, explicity, that shooting prisoners was done under certain circumstances. No mention was made of oncoming attackers or stabbing distance. What edition did you read? Joseph Goebbels was not a literary critic, but I won't delete his kind words for this book, seeing as how they tell you just about all you need to know about who generally reads it. I especially enjoyed some moron's snippy remarks about Remarque. I hope they encourage neo-Nazis everywhere to march into battle and get torn to pieces by shrapnel.

The main difference between Remarque and Jünger is that the former takes, authentically, the viewpoint of a commonsoldier, while the second takes, authentically, the viewpoint of an officer. --93.133.251.234 (talk) 09:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

"I hope they encourage neo-Nazis everywhere to march into battle and get torn to pieces by shrapnel" - and I hope white, male, liberal, bourgeois, self-righteous hypocrites come to endure the horror to which they commit women and children. Rather meaningless drivel about "neo-nazis" is easy to espouse, but sacrificing women and children on a pyre of pathetic free speeech rhetoric to defend an industry of misery that makes war look pleasant by comparison makes most men, irrespective of their politics, just as bad as the mere spectre of Nazism. Any clown can assert the illusion of cleverness by raging against Nazism. It takes a little more thinking power than this pretense requires to live your life struggling against what has now become a paradigm of hypocrisy among anti-fascists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.145.125.74 (talk) 00:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The article stated: He said that, at times, it was appropriate to shoot prisoners, not merely not accept surrender. No citation given in several years. I wait for one. -- Zz (talk) 13:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Citations? It's in the book: the author was in favor of shooting prisioners in certain circumstances. At least in the verson of the book from about 1929. This might be sorted out fast if the people who said that that was not in the book said what edition they were reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Nielsen (talk • contribs) 05:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

That is neither a quote, nor a reference, nor a citation. There are some nice introductions to wikipedia you might wish to read. -- Zz (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Position towards war

The entire section is without references. It looks as if it is based on original research. It has a NPOV issue as well, as it seems to be in defense of Jünger's book. -- Zz (talk) 13:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Reception

Starting with a quote by Goebbels is supposed to send a clear message. Sopmebody tried to counteract this by quoting Gide in return. However, either is just not enough or even inappropriate as a reflection on the reception history of the book. -- Zz (talk)

real talk, the book was well-received by both fascists and leftists. that happened. deal with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.36.151 (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

these quotes need a citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.157.180 (talk) 03:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)