The most recent reading from the packet, "Embers: Will a Prideful City Finally Confront its Past?" Packer confronts the metanarrative that the bombing of Dresden was largely a unjustifiable, extraneous act of war on the part of the Allies, as Dresden had supposedly no military significance, and challenges the city to acknowledge it's historical significance in the stories of one of the greatest horrors mankind has experienced. In regards to Slaughterhouse-Five, Packer insinuates that Vonnegut contributes to a misguided "moral [equation]" of Dresden and the Holocaust by quoting dubiously acquired statistics and casting the Germans as largely sympathetic characters:
For many readers of Irving and Vonnegut, the bombing of Dresden scrambled to order of perpetrators and victims in the Second World War and came close to establishing a moral equivalence. Vonnegut's narrator goes even further: because "there hadn't been much publicity," he says of the Dresden raid, "not many Americans knew how much worse it had been than Hiroshima."
Of course, I severely doubt Vonnegut intended to make any of these points. But as readers of fiction, it's our job to critique the author's standpoint and to not simply accept his claims because it is 1969 and we love antiwar novels during the Vietnam era, so I'm glad that these sorts of criticisms of the mentality that comes from Slaughterhouse-Five are presented. But I don't think that Slaughterhouse-Five should be read as a commentary on the actual events of World War Two. Vonnegut clearly isn't very concerned with historical reality -- he inserts flying saucers and time travel into his narrative. In fact, the image that sticks with me from Slaughterhouse-Five is not the relatively sparse (for their importance) descriptions of Dresden post-bombing, it's the image of the ragtag American P.O.W.'s standing in front of a group of ill-trained, poorly-equipped, unfit German soldiers. Vonnegut sought to prove a much more basic, human point about the complete lack of glamour in war. Unfortunately for him, the only way he knew how to accomplish such a task was to focus of Dresden, which is a complicated bit of subject matter from the historical perspective.
Of course, we shouldn't give him a pass, but I think the most problematic aspect about the Nazi-originated metanarrative of the bombing of Dresden is that, somehow, Dresden was less deserving of being bombed than any other European city -- that because it was supposedly an art, not war, center, we should have preserved it. Vonnegut steers clear of making any sort of political statements about the merit of the bombing of Dresden. He does call it by its pet name, "The Jewel of the Elbe,"and in his first description of the city, and he does sing it's beauty. But that's not because of Dresden, it's because he's been on the front or in and internment camp for an undisclosed amount of time, and even Vonnegut's awe is explained away with "the other other city I'd seen was Indianapolis, Indiana." So, Vonnegut takes the focus away from the specifics of Dresden as a victim of war and chooses to zoom in on an individual experience of the war in order to make a larger point about the horror of war. And that spares his from some of Packer's criticism.
I don't know. I feel as though I am arguing with everyone about this and this point is more historical than that relating to the novel. I don't know how it would change your view of the novel, anyone's view of the novel, or my own to be quite honest, but I'll argue this point just to argue I guess. I understand why everyone thinks why Dresden is not any different from any other city in Germany or in World War II. There are two main points that I would like to argue. The first is the idea of not involving citizens not involved in the war. This idea went back to antiquity. To this day, the idea of killing civilians is heinous and frowned upon. The second point is that none of the reasons why other cities were bombed are applicable to Dresden. Obviously, as humans gain control of weapons that can cause massive destruction, these morals are being thrown out the window. I feel as though I am well enough read to back these points up, but I think that the narrative that Vonnegut creates is not problematic and in fact forces us to look at ourselves and the moral wrongs we have done instead of the morals wrongs that others have done during the war.
ReplyDeleteAnd as a particularly heinous example of targeting civilians (whatever the toll ends up being), Dresden is an apt setting for Vonnegut to recast the history of World War II in a way that speaks to the contemporary controversy of Vietnam, in which the US was bombing civilian targets in large numbers. A big part of the novel's aim, I think, is to compel readers to see more similarities between WWII and Vietnam than the usual narrative of WWII allows.
DeleteAnd as a particularly heinous example of targeting civilians (whatever the toll ends up being), Dresden is an apt setting for Vonnegut to recast the history of World War II in a way that speaks to the contemporary controversy of Vietnam, in which the US was bombing civilian targets in large numbers. A big part of the novel's aim, I think, is to compel readers to see more similarities between WWII and Vietnam than the usual narrative of WWII allows.
DeleteAlthough Vonnegut seems to be writing an anti-war novel and he tells us that he is focusing on Dresden, I think your point about the novel being more focused on showing the unglamorous nature of war is more relevant. There will be two sides to any argument and the same is true about the morality of the bombing of Dresden. I think that Vonnegut is using Dresden to show the ambiguous nature of war rather than making any major points about the efficacy of the decision.
ReplyDeleteI liked what Pranav said above me. Vonnegut is using the events of Dresden to show the ambiguous nature of war. He does it with german (notice german, not nazi) guards who are pretty much the same as the the POWs they are guarding, or the city whose only purpose is to provide beauty and solace for its inhabitants being mercilessly annihilated. Nothing about the war is glorious and Vonnegut is trying to portray this in as little of a skewed perspective as he can, by setting in the mind of a man who has no idea what is happening.
ReplyDelete