The standard by which all anti-war films should be compared

Rating: Null/10 (18 December 1999)

I first saw this film in 1950 while in highschool and I was impressed.
It was different from the World War Two films made in the 1940's that glorified war with the possible exception of the excellent "Pride of the Marines" starring John Garfield. (This film showed very effectively the horror and the nightmares suffered by a soldier blinded in the heat of battle.)
Although I served on active duty with the U.S. Army Signal Corps during the latter part of the Korean Era, I was blessed with the fact that I was still in radio school when the war ended.
Later stationed in Germany (12/53 to 2/56) I saw many military memorials for the 1914-18 war. I asked a German acquaintance why there were no WW-II memorials. His reply, with a cynical laugh, "There were so many dead, military, civilians, - everybody - that they didn't even bother!"
This symbolized the sad failure of this otherwise fine film.
Mankind failed to learn about the horrors of war. Goebbels, who became Hitler's propaganda minister, and other Nazis set off stink bombs in Berlin theaters showing the film. Yet it, other fine anti-war films, and a knowledge of history right up to the Vietnam conflict should convince most thoughtful persons that "War is Hell".
A footnote: I was once told that Erich Maria Remarque's last name was really "Kramer" and that he reversed the spelling to "Remark" and replaced the "K" with a "que" presumably to give it a "French appearing" spelling. Are there any film buffs out there that can confirm/discredit this bit of trivia for the record?