War has always been, and likely always will be, a controversial subject. There are those like Rupert Brooke in his poem, “The Soldier,” who overlook the violent details and gruesome deaths that come along with war and instead focus on the more glamorous aspects of war promoted in propaganda where brave, well-prepared men can do an honorable service to protect their country. Alternatively, many share the view expressed by Wilfred Owen’s poem, “Dulce et Decorum Est,” in which they are unable to look past the overwhelming violence and danger soldiers face during wartime and are against those who try to glamorize the reality of war. World War I (“WWI”), the subject of both poems, incites additional controversy because the majority of soldiers in that war were drafted rather than enlisting voluntarily and were forced by the country to put their life at risk regardless of whether or not they agreed with the cause they were fighting for. In addition, because WWI was fought on a global scale, its impact was far-reaching and was the subject of debate. In “Dulce et Decorum Est,” Wilfred Owen challenges the unrealistically optimistic outlook taken by Rupert Brooke in his poem, “The Soldier,” which glamorizes the horrors of war.

Rupert Brooke’s “The Soldier” highlights exclusively the positive side of war with a perspective that is blindly patriotic and promotes involvement in war. The speaker of the poem views war as a necessary evil to protect his country that he is readily willing to die for. While he recognizes the possibility of death once in the first line, he never addresses the gore and violence that play a major part in war, especially in World War I where trench warfare made its debut. Rupert Brooke avoids these topics because he wants to be patriotic by writing a poem that encourages men to fight for their country rather than scare them away from the war effort. For this reason, he focuses on the “laughter, learnt of friends, and gentleness” that can be found among men during war (Brooke 13). While these things can be found among soldiers, this is, unfortunately, an unrealistically optimistic description of wartime where there is regularly violence, injury, and death. The speaker regards a soldier losing his life as “a pulse in the eternal mind” where they are dying for a greater good and the well-being of their country (Brooke 10). Once dead, the speaker believes the soldiers will have “hearts at peace, under an English heaven” because they have done an honorable deed by serving their country and deserve to find peace and happiness in the afterlife. “The Soldier” focuses on only the aspects of war that would encourage men to enlist themselves, but does not reveal the true reality of wartime which is morally wrong because Brooke is promoting a lie to drafted men about what they can expect during wartime while also not accurately depicting the horrors soldiers were forced to endure by their countries.

Wilfred Owen focuses on the negative aspects of war in “Dulce et Decorum Est” which could be seen as unpatriotic because it would certainly not inspire anyone to enlist themselves in the war. In his poem, Owen solely refers to the intense violence, gore, and death that comes along with war. He writes about soldiers that are “guttering, choking, drowning” in gas (Owen 16) and “men [that] marched asleep” (Owen 5) because they are so exhausted. Owen hardly describes a war front that has been well-prepared for combat or one where spirits are high like war recruitment posters depict. “Dulce et Decorum Est” could be considered unpatriotic because it creates an incredibly bleak image of war that could deter men from wanting to enlist. However, Owen is not necessarily against the war effort, but rather opposed to those who glamorize the brutal reality of war. The poem’s title is the beginning of the phrase “Dulce et decorum est, Pro patria mori” (Owen 27-28) which translates from Latin as “It is sweet and proper to die for one’s country.” Owen clearly disagrees with this statement so he ironically names the poem using only the first few words and refers to the phrase in its entirety as “The old Lie” (Owen 27) told to men before they have reached the war front and to the public to justify the soldier’s deaths. While Owen is not necessarily against the war effort, he is against those who lie to soldiers and the rest of the world by sharing an idealistic image of war rather than revealing its whole, ugly truth and gruesome reality.

While Brooke and Owen’s poems feature outlooks that are two contrasting extremes, Owen’s “Dulce et Decorum Est” more accurately depicts war time. Brooke’s poem that favorably describes war is much shorter than Owen’s poem that criticizes it which suggests that there are significantly more negative things to be said about war than positive. Both poems refer to dreams, but with opposing tones. In “The Soldier,” Brooke describes what his country has given to its people as “dreams as happy as her day” (Brooke 12) and a life that is so incredible that it could be the subject of a dream. Because his country has given him so much, he believes it is worth dying for. Contrastingly, the speaker of “Dulce et Decorum Est” states that “In all my dreams, before my helpless sight, He plunges at me, guttering choking, drowning.” (Owen 15-16) and describes these dreams as “smothering” (Owen 17) because they are all about traumatic moments from the war the speaker was forced to fight in. The dreams in “Dulce et Decorum Est” are likely a symptom of the speaker’s post-traumatic stress disorder which is common among soldiers, especially in a war as violent as World War I. Because soldiers in the war were suffering so greatly, Owen believed that men deserved to know what they were signing up before they enlisted or were drafted rather than let them believe and expect war to be similar to the glamourized lie told to them by recruitment posters and literature like Brooke’s “The Soldier.” Wilfred Owen did not write “Dolce et Decorum Est” with the goal of being unpatriotic, but rather with the desire to educate men by telling of the horrors they will have to face. Owen’s poem more accurately describes the gruesome details of war because its primary goal is to illuminate and educate the reader, while Brooke’s poem glosses over the details because its primary goal is to promote war, a goal that would not be served by frightening the reader with the sounds, smells, and squalor of the battlefield. In World War I, soldiers “endured some of the most brutal forms of warfare ever known” (Wilcox) so men had a right to know the violence and danger they would be going up against before enlisting and leaving their families.

While there is a lot of violence in war, it is not solely death and gore or solely fraternity and prepared men honorably serving their country. The truth of the war likely lies somewhere between the messages of Rupert Brooke and Wilfred. While there is surely some “laughter, learnt of friends; and gentleness,” (Brooke 13) there is often a significant amount more of “vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues” (Owen 24) and violence that traumatizes the soldiers so deeply that they carry the horror into peacetime with post-traumatic stress disorder. Still, if potential soldiers were fully educated regarding the physical and mental risks of war, they might refuse to serve.  For that reason, governments release only positive propaganda to keep morale high and to persuade its citizens to support the war.  After all, wars are better waged when a country is unified in its support of the cause.  In Brooke’s view, however, a country is not deserving of its citizens’ loyalty and support if they are purchased with lies and omissions. Rupert Brooke was not opposed to fighting a war based on principles or honor, but he believed that the soldiers fighting on behalf of those principles should be treated with honesty and respect in terms of the sacrifices they would be expected to make. By shining a light on the daily horrors of war, Brooke sought to share the soldier’s story with the rest of the world and to arm young men with enough information to make decisions that honored both themselves and their country rather than continue to spread idealistic war propaganda.
