Finished with the War: A Soldier's Declaration - Siegfried Sassoon - Analysis

Original document
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Finished_with_the_War:_A_Soldier%E2%80%99s_Declaration

Analysis

Sassoon’s repetition of the personal pronoun “I” makes it particularly prominent, and consequently serves to reinforce that these are the author’s statements through constantly drawing reference to himself. This serves to make his declarations more personable, more relatable, as there is a definite character behind them, and resultantly the proclamations have greater gravitas for a reader as it is clear that these are the arguments of an impassioned individual, not a report by an emotionally devoid authority or a constrained, detached collective.

Equally, the repetition of the phrase “I believe” overly accentuates Sassoon’s points, enhancing the clarity of the document and the rapidity in which these concepts can be comprehended. The use of the word “…believe…” is also imperative, as its meaning of a resolution in perception helps to direct each of the proclamations following the phrase at the adversary of the piece, namely the cabinet.

Given that the “…conduct of the war…” lay in the jurisdiction of the military, his lack of protest insinuates that he continues to support the armed forces and lays no blame on them for the conditions in which the troops exist. The significance of this is the implication that the military are performing their obligations to the best of their ability, and that the fallacy lies not with the military. Thus, his accusations that it is “…political error and insincerities…” implies that the blame for the protraction of the conflict derives from the administration entirely, with “…insincerities…” portraying the government as a scheming, malevolent entity which has deceived the population; this term also infers a sense of dishonour is attributable to the politicians, that their intrigues are the cause of the sorrows of millions, and subsequently conveys a degree of fury on the part of Sassoon. In turn, one might propose that in concert with the personable language utilised, this effectively functions as emotive language, trying to inculcate a sense of anger and disaffection amongst readers. “…political errors…” also provokes outrage due to the implication that the government, whose task it is to be astute and competent in political matters, is inept, and increases the manifold woes of the body politic. These “…political errors…” are thus inferred to result in inordinate casualties, which in coalition with the concept that the political intrigues of ministers are also extending the conflict, serve to imply that the fault lies with the government.

To compound this, his distinction that he is “…a soldier… acting on behalf of all soldiers…” infers a unity, a fraternity between himself and all other men current campaigning on the Western Front, and that these are their shared views. From this, one might discern a sense of segregation between combatants and the authorities, an impression that they are disparate, in that he identifies as being a “…soldier… acting on behalf of all soldiers…” rather than as an individual make announcements on behalf of his compatriots. Indeed, the ambiguity of the phrase “…all soldiers…” implies that these denouncements are done universally against the establishments of all nations rather than from one perspective. Therefore, there is a sense that the forces of the different nations feel identification with one another rather than with their own governments, consequently implying that the profound dissent of Sassoon is ubiquitous.

Sassoon states that he has borne witness to and experienced the sufferings of the men, yet can “… no longer be a party to prolong these sufferings…” There is overt suggestion that he has a sense of responsibility and guilt regarding these agonies, as the term “…no longer be a party…” implies that he regards himself as being part of the reason for the agonies the men are subject to through his failure to vocalise his dissent, to increase consciousness of the existence of the men at the front. Consequently, this document assumes a degree of righteous or moral action, as the implications are that he is compelled to reveal the truth due to his own troubled conscience, regardless of the repercussions; the latter aspect is reinforced by his initial declaration that this is a “…wilful act of defiance of military authority…”, which proposes that he recognises the implications that this document will have, and indeed did have.

The term “…callous…” means to have a hardened disregard for the situations of others, whilst a “…complacency…” is a state of uncritical regard for one’s self and their actions; consequently, when utilised together, the inference is that the body politic’s lack of critical analysis concerning the government’s actions are equally to blame for the sufferings of the troops, as in their apathy they don’t care for the circumstances which the troops are in. Therefore, one might suggest that there is a degree of resent towards the public in that they haven’t taken a true interest into the affairs of the front, facilitating the continuation of the detrimental state of existence at the front.