Reflections, Analysis, and Interpretation of Wolfgang Borchert’s “The Rats Do Sleep at Night”

Wolfgang Borchert’s short story “The Rats Do Sleep at Night”, written in the immediate post-war period and published in 1947, is one of the most haunting texts of German rubble literature. Borchert does not need a grand stage, a historical lecture, or a moral sermon wrapped in golden ribbon. A boy sits among the ruins. An old man comes by. They talk. Outwardly, hardly anything happens. Inwardly, however, an entire shattered world becomes visible: war, loss, innocence, trauma, helplessness — and the question of how a person is supposed to go on living when their love remains fixed to a place of death.

The connection to Hachikō and to the song “Kein Gnadenbrot” by Die Toten Hosen does not lie in a direct similarity of plot, but in a shared motif: someone stays. Someone waits. Someone guards a place where the lost relationship was last still tangible. Hachikō waits at the station for his deceased master. The dog in the song remains by the grave. Jürgen sits in the ruins and guards his dead little brother from the rats. Three different stories, three different tones — but the same bitter movement at their core: love does not simply disappear just because the beloved person is gone.

Borchert’s worldview is radically damaged from the very beginning. The world in which Jürgen sits is no longer ordered, meaningful, or morally reliable. It is a landscape of ruins, both outwardly and inwardly. Houses have been destroyed, families torn apart, children forced into roles no child should ever have to carry. War does not appear as a heroic event, not as a field of courage, but as a machine that ultimately leaves behind a child who believes he must keep watch over the dead. Anyone who still wants to babble about glory and fatherland after that should first try explaining to a nine-year-old why his brother is lying under stones. Good luck with that.

Jürgen’s life is not shaped by his own free choice, but by external conditions that have crashed down upon him. War, bombs, death, rumours, fear: these are the forces that hold him in place. He is not sitting there because he freely decided to become a particularly dutiful little guard. He is sitting there because he is traumatised and because an idea has been planted in his mind: rats eat the dead. This idea is cruel, but for Jürgen it is logical. If the world has already allowed his brother to die, then he at least wants to prevent anything further from happening to him after death. It is childish, irrational, and at the same time heartbreakingly consistent.

This is where Borchert’s story touches Hachikō. Hachikō, too, remains in one place because the relationship to the lost person seems to continue there. The station is not just any station; it is the place of return. That is where his master used to come back. So the dog continues to wait there. In human interpretation, this becomes loyalty, almost a monument on four paws. And of course it moves us. It is hard not to soften at Hachikō’s story, unless one’s inner life consists mainly of chipboard.

Yet precisely in comparison, Borchert’s text becomes sharper. Hachikō waits for someone whose death he cannot understand. Jürgen does not wait for a return. He guards a dead body. His loyalty is not hope, but duty. He does not want his brother to remain exposed any further. This makes his attachment to the place even darker. Hachikō’s station at least contains the memory of reunion. Jürgen’s ruin contains only the point at which reunion became impossible.

The song “Kein Gnadenbrot” by Die Toten Hosen also takes up this motif of abandoned loyalty. The dog who remains at his master’s grave after his death is a figure in which love, dependence, and abandonment merge. The title itself is already bitter: “Gnadenbrot” refers to the meagre continued existence granted to an old animal out of pity. To receive no “Gnadenbrot” means that not even this last remnant of care is guaranteed. The animal’s loyalty is not rewarded; it stands alone in a world that continues as if nothing had happened. This, too, fits Borchert: the world moves on, but for Jürgen it has stopped at one particular place.

The crucial question, therefore, is this: Is such staying beautiful, noble, touching — or dangerous? In Hachikō’s case, it becomes legend. In the song, it becomes a sad accusation. In Borchert’s story, however, it becomes a problem that must be solved. For Jürgen is not a symbolic animal. He is a child. And a child who remains in the ruins beside his dead brother must not be romanticised.

Any glorification of that would be an aesthetic insult. His loyalty is an expression of love, yes. But it is also the expression of a psychological captivity.

This is where the old man enters the story. His power is limited. He cannot undo the war. He cannot dig out the brother and bring him back to life. He cannot conjure up a healed world, call in an institution, or offer a grand solution. All he has is language, patience, and human understanding. But that is precisely where his agency lies. He recognises that Jürgen cannot be saved by harsh truth. Anyone who simply tells a traumatised child, “That is pointless, go home,” may be factually right and still fail humanly. The old man does something different. He lies.

This lie — “the rats do sleep at night” — is the moral centre of the story. It is factually false, but existentially right. The old man takes Jürgen’s fear seriously without fully submitting to it. He does not destroy Jürgen’s sense of duty; he makes it bearable. If the rats sleep at night, Jürgen is allowed to leave at night. He does not betray his brother. He does not abandon him. He is allowed to live without giving up his love. This is an extraordinarily delicate form of humanity: not lecturing, not shaming, not brutally enlightening, but building a bridge the other person can actually cross.

In this way, Borchert also answers the question of agency in a destroyed world. The individual is at the mercy of great historical forces. Jürgen could not prevent the war. The old man could not stop the bombs. No one in this story possesses power in a political or military sense. But Borchert shows another, smaller, and perhaps more important form of power: the power to make the next step possible for another human being. No world-saving, no pathos, no fanfare. Just an old man allowing a child to go home. Sometimes civilisation is apparently that small. And exactly that large.

The rats stand for more than animals. They are the image of a world in which even death no longer seems dignified or complete. They embody decay, fear, and degradation. The rabbits the old man speaks of form the opposite pole. Rats belong to ruins, darkness, and death. Rabbits belong to care, warmth, and life. Jürgen is not merely to be led away from something, but toward something: toward living creatures, toward care, toward an everyday life that may perhaps begin again. This is not a happy ending. The brother remains dead. The city remains destroyed. But a child is, for a moment, released from his vigil over the dead. In Borchert’s sparse, gaunt, post-war grey way, that is almost optimistic.

Literarily, the story is powerful precisely because it does not put itself on display. Borchert does not write expansively; he condenses. The language is sparse, dialogic, simple. It fits a world in which grand words have become suspicious. After a war that fed itself on grand words, small and precise language may be the only decent language left. Borchert does not explain what trauma is. He shows a boy who cannot leave. He does not explain what humanity is. He shows an old man who finds a saving lie. Sometimes literature does not need to do more than that. But it must not do less either.

In comparison with Hachikō and “Kein Gnadenbrot”, it becomes clear how differently loyalty can be interpreted. Loyalty can move us when a dog waits. It can accuse when an animal remains abandoned by a grave. But it can also become destructive when a child believes he must remain with the dead. Borchert’s story shifts the motif out of sentimentality. It does not ask: How beautiful is it that someone remains so loyal? It asks: Who helps the loyal one when loyalty itself is destroying him?

This is also where the story’s contemporary relevance lies. People still remain at places of loss today. Not always visibly, not always literally among ruins. Sometimes these places are memories, feelings of guilt, old wounds, family histories, missed farewells. Sometimes someone is still inwardly guarding something that can no longer be saved. And often what helps is not cold truth, but language that takes the pain seriously while still making movement possible. Not every lie is good. But not every truth is helpful merely because it is correct. Life, unfortunately, is not an administrative form, even if some people would dearly like it to be.

Borchert’s text shows a society that has failed, and one human being who, on a small scale, does not fail. That is its bitter hope. The large structures have placed Jürgen in the ruins. The old man’s small act of humanity may bring him out again. The story moves between these two poles: power destroys, powerlessness suffers, care does not save everything, but sometimes it saves the next evening.

Read in this way, Jürgen, Hachikō, and the dog from “Kein Gnadenbrot” stand beside one another like three figures at three places of loss: ruin, station, grave. They all show that love does not simply vanish after death. It remains, waits, keeps watch, freezes, endures. But Borchert adds the decisive human question: Must it remain there? Or may someone come and say: For today, it is enough. You are allowed to go home.

In the end, the rats probably do not sleep. Biologically speaking, that is rather thin ice. But that is not the point. What matters is that Jürgen may perhaps sleep. That he no longer has to sit alone among the ruins. That love does not mean burying oneself along with the dead. And that humanity sometimes consists of a sentence that is factually false and yet contains more truth than the entire cold administration of horror.

View all topics