That was my first thought when I read the title. The article itself is more nuanced: > But otherwise, soldiers on both sides were likely to think that the more

That was my first thought when I read the title. The article itself is more nuanced: > But otherwise, soldiers on both sides were likely to think that the more formidable Them was the rats and lice, the mold in the food, the cold or the comfortable officer at headquarters who seemed, in the words of one soldier, an “abstract tactician who from far away disposes of us.” > But in studying diaries and letters, Mr. Ashworth observed surprisingly little hostility toward the enemy expressed by trench soldiers; the further from the front, the more hostility. In the words of one front-line soldier, “At home one abuses the enemy, and draws insulting caricatures. How tired I am of grotesque Kaisers. Out here, one can respect a brave, skillful, and resourceful enemy. They have people they love at home, they too have to endure mud, rain and steel.” I believe a goal of the essay is to have the reader start from the idea that the soldiers were "bitter foes", only to show, through evidence, that that wasn't the case, and that there are good reasons for what happened.