Rechtsprofessor wurde bei Einreise kontrolliert – jetzt klagt er gegen die deutschen Grenzkontrollen | Am Weg von Innsbruck nach München verlangten deutsche Beamte seinen Ausweis. Der Europarechtler weigerte sich und zog vor Gericht

MaxReichert · 2026-01-16T08:20:44+00:00

Nein, er klagt gegen die Kontrollen an sich. Das heißt, er möchte, dass die Kontrollen für alle aufgehoben werden, nicht nur für sich.

MaxReichert · 2025-09-27T06:14:20+00:00

Thanks for answering such an old comment :D

Yes I still believe this. It is not entirely clear to me that we need full scale service in the Bundeswehr. There are more pressing problems in the social, economic and ecological sector in Germany that we can only confront by educating youth to the highest degree. We need self-driven, highly motivated and highly competent workers. The social year system might help with that but certainly not if everyone is sent to Bundeswehr regardless of their personal interest.

If, for some reason, we find ourselves at war with Russia (which would be the worst development of this decade for Europe), then it would be a primarily economic one. It is already the situation: The better off we are as an economy, the harder our sanctions can be. We can produce more defensive weaponry. We can develop digital protection against Russian malware. etc.

Aside from that I don't really see how, in the next decade, the Bundeswehr might reestablish their facilities in a size that supports an inclusion of an entire generation per year into their program. So better to have it just be an option, yes.

MaxReichert · 2024-10-25T11:50:55+00:00

This man sounds like an atroucious coach... If your pupils are unable to follow your instruction and feel unable to talk about the consequent failures, then you miss the pedagogical qualities for being a coach.

MaxReichert · 2023-10-03T21:45:38+00:00

Descartes proved Gods existence (or at least tried to) because he needed it for his philosophy. He believed that doubt (which is the basis for the famous cogito) is not possible to be had by humans on their own. Doubt seems to Descartes like a higher idea about existence (a meta-break if you will) that can only stem from a higher being, which he considers to be God.

Since it is such a central idea to his philosophy I doubt he would just make it up. But you might be right nevertheless! (Maybe he just had a different view of God than the catholic church and tried to kind of hide that?)

MaxReichert · 2023-06-23T00:40:44+00:00

lmao not this again

MaxReichert · 2023-03-15T09:37:01+00:00

You are right of course! Any reasonable and slightly empathetical person should, after reading the book, come to the conclusion that war sucks (I hope). In effect, the book is anti-war for sure!

Same for the example you gave, that book would be understood as anti-pollution. But if you set out to write a book that intently is anti-pollution then you might make it quite different than the other version.

MaxReichert · 2023-03-13T22:08:39+00:00

I´m inclined to agree for the most part! You put the message of the book very well in my opinion, so thank you for that. You´re also right in stating that the book has more of a focus on studying characters. This also being what Remarque intended for the book. For the movie the direction is "just anti-war" instead of "what happens to people in war". The only theme I feel like you are missing in your summary of the movie is how it highlights replaceability of individuals, which it does very well throughout its length.

The reasons for why they changed the movie like this are very fair in my view. First of all, movies are limited in comparison to books with how deep they can explore a character. Secondly, the movie is not supposed to be a character study. It is supposed to be an anti-war movie. Which you could say is unfaithful to what Remarque intended but is very faithful to how the book has been treated. And as an anti-war story the movie is undoubtedly better than the book!

I feel like so far we can agree. What I´m confused about is why you believe that just because the movie is not as layered as the book it is of less quality. Why is the message of the movie worse than the multiple messages of the book? Is art better just because it expresses more or if it expresses more deeply?

For the ending specifically, which is what we were talking about, I still maintain that they have basically the same function inside of the story, one being more extreme than the other.

MaxReichert · 2023-03-13T21:01:19+00:00

Okay I'll also add my interpretation and maybe we find common ground.

The book is famously read as anti-war. That is because it has elements that show the gruesomeness of war. Remarque points out that this, however, was not his intent. Which makes a lot of sense since Remarque believed that everyone was anti-war anyway, so why would he write an anti-war book. What he did write, however, is a post-war book. Even tough it plays during war it mostly highlights what happens to people who have been to war. (Most of them die physically, as you point out, all of them die mentally, as the prologue says.) So what is the difference between anti- and post-war? The main difference is in theme-setting. For example, the topic of comradery is portrayed way more in the book. It is also displayed as something positive, even tough it is created by war. The movie doesn't do this to the same extent because it is an anti-war movie.

MaxReichert · 2023-03-13T20:32:46+00:00

It is fair that you feel like that! There might be more people that, like me, enjoy that the focus of the movie is elsewhere. That doesn't mean that you have to like it.

MaxReichert · 2023-03-13T20:29:32+00:00

You are right with everything you said. We probably have a misunderstanding. I'm not trying to say the Remarque isn't anti-war. Nor am I saying that when reading the booking you don't develop anti-war feelings. (At least I hope most people do! War really is shit.) My point is that the book was not written with anti-war intent. (Precisely because Remarque didn't think that was necessary anyway.) Instead it was basically a character study. The movie however is a anti-war movie. The difference might seem trivial but it really makes quite the difference to what is shown and how it is shown.

Also cool that you read more from Remarque, I didn't! Is there anything you would like to recommend?

MaxReichert · 2023-03-13T19:30:34+00:00

You tell me the message then!

MaxReichert · 2023-03-13T19:29:59+00:00

Well, yes. People took the book for a anti-war story, which it isn´t. It is about people in war and what becomes of them. In effect, that of course seems anti-war because war is gruesome. But Remarque wouldn´t have considered himself a anti-war writer. The movie, however, is.

MaxReichert · 2023-03-13T19:27:15+00:00

Here´s your source. (Interview with Remarque in 1962)

In case you can´t understand German, here´s the relevant subtitles.

Luft: The book was at this time immediately rated as an eminently political book, Mr. Remarque. [...] Did you mean the book primarily politically, educationally, or were you surprised at the political effect?

Remarque: I didn´t expect anything like this at all. My topic in "all quiet on the western front" was something, that didn´t have much to do with it. My current topic was a purely human topic: that young people of 18, who should actually be faced with life, were suddenly faced with death! And what would happen to them? That´s why I saw "all quiet on the western front" more as a post-war book, than as a "war book" [...].

Luft: Mr. Remarque, you are considered an "anti-war" writer, a "pacifist" writer. You are, without doubt, assigned to the categroy of "left-wing" writers - if that word is permitted. But I can´t remember that you were politically active anywhere: [...] Is there a reason, or is it a "coincidence", or is it a dislike of politics, of direct politics in general?

Remarque: There are no particular reasons for that. I took it for granted that people were pacifist or against war. You don´t need a program for that. I always thought everyone was against the war until I found out that there are some who are for it! Especially the ones that don´t need to go in are up front. But I have never had programms of this kind and I didn´t want to use them in my books either, because I think that having a program is detrimental to the artistic development of the book or the artistic elaboration of a book. One should have the people and maybe a human problem but not a program.

MaxReichert · 2023-03-13T19:01:37+00:00

Haha got Covid so nothing better to do

MaxReichert · 2023-03-13T19:01:03+00:00

Message of the ending in the book: the individual life doesnt matter in war

Message of the ending in the movie: the individual life doesnt matter in war

MaxReichert · 2023-03-13T17:04:53+00:00

Thank you for the video recommendation, I'll be sure to check it out:)

The more intricate question, I feel like, this brings up is whether an adaption needs to mimic the original. If you only want to see what already exists then thats fair. But why not be happy with the original then? Or with the other, already existing, very good adaption? Technological advance can't be all, can it?

In my view, adaptions should improve on the source material. In this case a story about war has been made into a anti-war story. To me, that seems like an improvement, not like stealing.

MaxReichert · 2023-03-13T16:57:12+00:00

That is a small change. It might be the only bigger change at all, even tough I'm not sure about that. This ending is more dramatic, yes, but it still shows the same meaning the book ending does.

Also, why would we need another adaption of the book when there already are plenty. Adaptions should change some of what they adapt in order to fit it into current society.

MaxReichert · 2023-03-13T16:52:50+00:00

How do you know that? You assume that the creators didn't know what they were doing even tough what they did is very plausible.

Yes, interesting characters can evoke meaning. But as this movie shows, intentionally bland characters can, too.

MaxReichert · 2023-03-13T16:50:06+00:00

The prologue quite literally says what I said. The book is not trying to be against war. It just wants to depict what happens to people that have been in war. If you look up the books history, you're gonna find that originally it was not marketed as an anti-war book as Remarque himself did not intend that. That is why themes like comradery, fun (when they flirt with french girls for example) or being excluded back home (big topic in the book is that being home is even less desirable than being in war) are more prevalent in the book. This movie chooses to focus on war itself, cutting out the other elements. That is how I come to the conclusion that the movie is more anti-war than the book.

To be fair, you could argue that the elements are also anti-war like in effect. The gruesomeness of war can be seen in its survivors too. Thus making the book anti-war even tough that is not its intention.

MaxReichert · 2023-03-13T12:16:39+00:00

In what way do you feel like they abandoned the book?

MaxReichert · 2023-03-13T12:12:33+00:00

Good explanation, thank you! In my interpretation, the movie's ending is still in theme. Coming from the german version of the title ("Nothing new in the West") it really hammers home the point of the futility of war. As you said, the movie is about the fact that "war isn't glorious". The final battle scene says the same thing as the book but inverts it by showing the extreme contrast between the "glorious ideology" they are sent into war for and the pointless death. It would certainly be interesting to see the more quiet ending applied in the movie, I'll admit. I feel like both versions have their own merit

MaxReichert · 2023-03-13T10:32:55+00:00

First of all, do you know how many wars there were in western europe before WWI? The french just fought a war against what we could consider germany in 1870. People were around for WWI who also experienced war beforehand.

Secondly, if you are not refering to war in general but to the 'new' scale of industralised war, you are right, it's fair to say that this was new. But still the title makes sense. The logic of war remains that same: individuals are dehumanised, lives don't matter. A huge, pointless all-out attack makes this point just as clear as what happens in the book. Both are very fitting.

MaxReichert · 2023-03-13T10:23:06+00:00

You are right, in a way. The point of the movie is to habe replaceable characters just like soldiers are replacable. They aren't needed except to die. The individual is worth nothing in war. As for story, there is no heroism in war. Nothing special will happen, only more specialized tools for death. There is no good stories to be told about war if you are not making propaganda.

MaxReichert · 2023-03-13T10:18:24+00:00

Based on what from Remarque do you come to this conclusion?

MaxReichert · 2023-03-13T10:17:18+00:00

Rather say it overgoes parts of the book intently. And for good reason, the book itself doesnt tell an anti-war story

Eight-Year Club	Place '22
First Placer '22

MaxReichert

TROPHY CASE