In the first chapter of Slaughterhouse-Five, the narrator goes to meet an old war friend, Bernard V. O’Hare, who served with him in World War II and was also witness to the bombing of Dresden. The narrator, having attempted to write a novel based on his experiences during that time for many years, was hoping that, between the two of them, they could come up with some good war stories to incorporate into his novel. After many failed attempts to find something of substance upon which to base his novel, both men failed, for “there is nothing intelligent to say about a massacre” (19). Instead, the most important thing anyone came up with that evening was one who hadn’t even served in the war. Mary O’Hare, Bernard’s wife, was opposed to war, “it was war that made her so angry”, and feared that, through the narrator’s story, he would make war “look just wonderful, so we’ll have a lot more of them” (15, 14). Upon hearing Mary’s outburst, the narrator promised her “there wouldn’t be a part for Frank Sinatra or John Wayne” in his telling of his experiences during war (15). Instead, the narrator pledged that he would title his novel “The Children’s Crusade”, which Slaughterhouse-Five is subtitled, and dedicated the novel to her.
While Slaughterhouse-Five may not have any characters Sinatra or Wayne would be suited to play, it does contain many characters that hold pro-war views. In many ways, the narrator’s honest portrayal of characters who view war in a positive manner or who attempt to justify the bombing of Dresden works against them. The narrator, for the most part, doesn’t attempt to rebuke or criticize these views, but instead represents them in all their unflinching honesty. By highlighting the inhumanity and cruelty of these char...
... middle of paper ...
...more sympathetic than Eaker to those who lost their lives in the Dresden bombing. Saundy believed “that the bombing of Dresden was a great tragedy none can deny”, and that it wasn’t necessary to the Allies efforts to win the War (187). However, he does defend those who directed the bombing, stating they “were neither wicked nor cruel”, but instead forced into making a tough decision in a decisive time in the War (187). Saundy presents a much more humane view of the bombing of Dresden than Eaker. Saundy doesn’t attempt to justify or condemn the bombing; he instead portrays it as one of the many horrors of war that can only be viewed in hindsight as such.
These official assessments offer the observation that “military men responsible for such slaughters act not out of malignity but from muddled values which prevent them from seeing simpler moral truths” (Reed, 54).
Throughout history, war has been the catalyst that has compelled otherwise-ordinary people to discard, at least for its duration, their longstanding beliefs about the immorality of killing their fellow human beings. In sum, during periods of war, people’s views about killing others are fundamentally transformed from abhorrence to glorification due in large part to the decisions that are made by their political leaders. In this regard, McMahan points out that, “As soon as conditions arise to which the word ‘war’ can be applied, our scruples vanish and killing people no longer seems a horrifying crime but becomes instead a glorious achievement” (vii). Therefore, McMahan argues that the transformation of mainstream views about the morality of killing during times of war are misguided and flawed since they have been based on the traditional view that different moral principles somehow apply in these circumstances. This traditional view about a just war presupposes the morality of the decision to go to war on the part of political leaders in the first place and the need to suspend traditional views about the morality of killing based on this
...it may help us arrive at an understanding of the war situation through the eyes of what were those of an innocent child. It is almost unique in the sense that this was perhaps the first time that a child soldier has been able to directly give literary voice to one of the most distressing phenomena of the late 20th century: the rise of the child-killer. While the book does give a glimpse of the war situation, the story should be taken with a grain of salt.
... that turn ideological dispositions of hate into the physical violence inflicted on those that are supposedly representative for that loss. Not the leaders who are responsible for the conflict and involvement of belligerent sides, but simply representatives of the race or the nation participating in this conflict and “presumably responsible” in the death of the soldier.
Kurt Vonnegut Jr., a World War II veteran and author of the literary masterpiece Slaughterhouse-Five, was one of the many there to witness the destruction of the city of Dresden located in Germany, and one of the few to survive to tell the gruesome details. Most of his writing was used to encourage those with anti-war mindsets to take a stand, and to inform everyone else of the damage that is done when a nation goes to war. He uses his books to remind people that war is gruesome, gory, and violent, and the glamorous aspect of it is simply a disturbed part of one’s imagination that truly does not exist. He reminds people of the visceral hatred that comes with the package of war; of how Germans used the fat of dead Jews to make soap and candles and how there was a scarce food supply for prisoners during the second World War, or possibly any war for that matter. The fire-bombing of Dresden lead to the unnecessary deaths of over 60,000 civilians and prisoners of war (POW’s). Homes, lives, and much more were destroyed and the damage was almost unfathomable. The POW’s that survived the disaster were ordered to stay behind and remove the dead bodies. Because there were so many of them and the stench was so putrid, most of the bodies were cremated by the soldiers and left exactly where they lay in a pile of ashes. Such a scene seems painful for Vonnegut to look back on and he demonstrates his distaste for such things as war with his novels, especially Slaughterhouse-Five. Kurt Vonnegut used the story of Slaughterhouse-Five to explain the after effects of war, why a nation should never go to war, and what such violence will ultimately lead to.
These men are transformed into guilt-laden soldiers in less than a day, as they all grapple for a way to come to terms with the pain of losing a comrade. In an isolated situation, removed from the stressors, anxieties, and uncertainties of war, perhaps they may have come to a more rational conclusion as to who is deserving of blame. But tragically, they cannot come to forgive themselves for something for which they are not even guilty. As Norman Bowker so insightfully put it prior to his unfortunate demise, war is “Nobody’s fault, everybody’s” (197).
While Fussell seems angry that the memory of World War Two has become sanitized, he himself has stated “that dir...
Throughout Slaughterhouse-Five, the protagonist Billy Pilgrim represents World War II with a twist. The war have several downfalls such as the damage it enables on those who have been involved within and negative effects on the prisoners and the The negative problems the prisoners face are constantly being face to face with death as if they cannot escape the horrors.
Slaughterhouse Five, written by Kurt Vonnegut is an anti war novel told by the narrator who is a minor character in the story. Slaughterhouse-Five is the story of Billy Pilgrim, a man who has come "unstuck in time. "The bombing of Dresden is what destroyed Billy. Dresden’s destruction shows the destruction of people who fought in the war: the all the people who died. Some people, like the main character, Billy Pilgrim, are not able to function normally like before because of what they saw, because of their experience. Throughout the book, Billy starts hallucinating about his experiences with the Tralfamadorians: he wants to escape the world which was destroyed by war, a war that he does not and cannot understand. Vonnegut uses the technique of repetition.. The main repetition is “so it goes” which is told after anything related to death, he also uses other repetitions throughout the book. The major theme of the story is the Destructiveness of War. Vonnegut uses repetition to reinforce the theme of the story.
.... Some soldiers got the impression to kill everything and others got the impression to not kill women and children (Olson, Maples, CID, p.70).
War has always been an essential ingredient in the development of the human race. As a result of the battles fought in ancient times, up until modern warfare, millions of innocent lives have ended as a result of war crimes committed. In the article, “The My Lai Massacre: A Military Crime of Obedience,” Herbert C. Kelman and V.Lee Hamilton shows examples of moral decisions taken by people involved with war-related murders. This article details one of the worse atrocities committed during the Vietnam War in 1968 by the U.S. military: the My Lai Massacre. Through this incident, the question that really calls for psychological analysis is why so many people are willing to formulate , participate in, and condone policies that call for the mass killings of defenseless civilians such as the atrocities committed during the My Lai massacre. What influences these soldiers by applying different psychological theories that have been developed on human behavior.
Slaughterhouse 5, also know as The Children’s Crusade, has its intent aimed at showing the innocent people that end up having to partake in war. Many scenes and characters in the book encompass this by reflecting the childish nature in each character or how ordinary they appear to be. The main character is the epitome of this theme, with Billy Pilgram being an otherwise bland (other than the fictional aspect of his “time travel” or the reality of his mental disorder), innocent, average American sent out to war. In my opinion, Billy is also a way for the author Kurt Vonnegut to put some of his own personal views and experiences into his book, since the entire first chapter is Vonnegut explaining his inability to write a serious book of his own first hand account of the Dresden Firebombing.
Slaughterhouse-Five is a novel which has been challenged for its graphic descriptions of events which occurred during the later years of World War 2. There are many other reasons which prompted communities to ban the book such as its anti-religious thoughts and sexual content. Although this book is highly graphic and can be offensive toward some religions, it should not be banned because it shows you the inside of a person who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and it also encourages readers to think differently of how life works and gives historical information about a firsthand experience of being a prisoner of war and a survivor of the bombing of Dresden. Although it is true that it uses graphic imagery and at some points ridicules
Jones, Peter G. "The End of the Road: Slaughterhouse-Five, or The Children's Crusade" Modern Critical Interpretations Slaughterhouse-Five Ed. Harold Bloom.
A true war story is never moral. It does not instruct, nor encourage virtue, nor suggest models of proper human behavior, nor restrain ...
In conclusion, Slaughterhouse-Five is an anti-war novel because Vonnegut, the character, says it is in the first chapter, the terrible damage it left on Billy, and how it exposes war's horrifying practices. Knowing these elements, one might wonder why people still have wars. Although these anti-war novels cannot completely stop wars, they are important. The role that such novels play is one of raising awareness of war's actions and wrongdoings. Since the role of the novels is important, authors should continue to write them to keep people informed and educated about a problem of such a huge magnitude.